HEIRS OF MARCELA SALONGA BITUIN, PETITIONERS, VS. TEOFILO CAOLENG, SR., GONZALO CAOLENG, JUANA CAOLENG, ANGELA CAOLENG, JOSE GOZUM, ROSITA GOZUM, EUFROCINA GOZUM, LOURDES GOZUM,…

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin versus Caoleng

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin against Teofilo Caoleng, Senior, and the other Caoleng and Gozum relatives. The petitioners sued to quiet title, to recover ownership and possession, and to reconvey portions of three cadastral lots in Guagua, Pampanga, which they say were fraudulently registered in the name of one ancestor alone when the land really descended from two. The case matters because it tests two rules that examiners love: the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance, and its settled exception in favor of a true owner who is in actual possession. It also shows how the indefeasibility of a Torrens title, even one born of a free patent, bends before fraud.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance, ownership, recovery of possession, and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 49. They later amended the complaint to include another lot. The trial court ruled for the petitioners, declaring them owners of nine hundred forty-one square meters of the first lot, ordering segregation and reconveyance, and awarding attorney's fees. The respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court, holding that the free patent and the certificate of title made the respondents the registered owners, that the action for reconveyance had prescribed, and that fraud was not proven. It dismissed the case. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Two parcels of land in Betis, Guagua, Pampanga were originally owned by siblings Juan Romero and Epifania Romero, the common ancestors of both sides. Juan Romero and his wife Maria Pecson had a daughter, Jacoba Romero, who married Antonio Salonga and bore Marcela Salonga, the petitioners' predecessor. Epifania Romero and her husband Jose Caoleng had an only child, Agustin Caoleng, who married Maria David and had seven children, the respondents. Marcela married German Bituin, had ten children, and died intestate in July 1986.

In February 1976, free patents were issued and certificates of title were registered in the name of Agustin Caoleng alone over the lots, although the land had descended from both Juan and Epifania. In November 1983, the relatives executed an extra-judicial settlement with sale, under which a portion was adjudicated to Marcela Salonga. When Marcela died, the petitioners discovered the title and the settlement, fenced the portion allotted to her, and later found that the other lot had likewise been titled in the name of Agustin's heirs alone. In October 1989, they sued.

At trial, the respondents' own witness Gonzalo Caoleng, then eighty-one years old, testified against his own interest that Marcela had occupied the bigger portion of the first lot, and the respondents' sole witness confirmed that the petitioners had fenced three sides of the property. The respondents did not rebut the petitioners' possession.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in applying the law on prescription to bar the petitioners' action for reconveyance.
• Whether or not the petitioners, being in actual possession of the land, may seek reconveyance without regard to the ten-year prescriptive period.
• Whether or not the petitioners proved their right to the one-half share they claimed over all the lots.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies the settled rule on reconveyance and the doctrine on indefeasibility of title, which it states as follows:

In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is highly regarded as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or its title, which has been erroneously or wrongfully registered in another person's name to its rightful or legal owner, or to one who has a better right.

This frames the remedy: the title is not attacked directly, but the registered owner is compelled to transfer what was wrongfully registered.

The Court also restates the exception on possession:

If the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.

This is the rule that defeats the appellate court's ruling on prescription.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that while an action for reconveyance ordinarily prescribes in ten years from the registration of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title, that period does not run against a true owner who is in actual possession. The Court quoted its own doctrine that one in actual possession claiming ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed before vindicating his right, because his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity. Since the respondents' own witnesses admitted the petitioners' possession, prescription did not bar the action.

On the second issue, the Court held that a certificate of title is not conclusive of genuine ownership. It ruled that the indefeasibility of title cannot be used to perpetrate fraud against the legal owner, and that registration proceedings cannot shield fraud, lest the Court put a premium on land-grabbing. Citing its ruling in Vital versus Anore, the Court held that where the patentee knew the land belonged to another who had long possessed it, the true owner may bring an action to have ownership judicially settled and to compel reconveyance.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioners proved their right only to one thousand twenty-one square meters of the first lot, the area they had long possessed and which the respondents' witness conceded. They failed to show credible evidence entitling them to half of the other lots, so that claim was denied.

Doctrine

An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years from the registration of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title. But when the person claiming ownership is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect quiets title, does not prescribe. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title, even one issued under a free patent, cannot be used as a shield for fraud, and the true owner may compel the registered owner to reconvey the land. These rules tie directly to the quoted passages: the decree of registration is incontrovertible, yet the remedy of reconveyance reaches the wrongful holder, and possession suspends the running of prescription.

Disposition

The petition was partially granted: the Court affirmed the petitioners' ownership of one thousand twenty-one square meters of the first lot, ordered the respondents to reconvey it, and directed the Register of Deeds to cancel the existing certificate and issue separate titles to the petitioners and the respondents as co-owners, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe when the true owner is in actual possession, and a Torrens title cannot shield fraud. Examiners use this case to test the prescriptive period for reconveyance, its possession exception, and the limits of indefeasibility of a free patent title.