KAWASA MAGALANG AND MONA WAHAB, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES LUCIBAR HERETAPE AND ROSALINA FUNA, ROBERTO LANDERO, SPOUSES NESTOR HERETAPE AND ROSA ROGADOR, AND ENGR. EUSEBIO F. FORT…

Kawasa Magalang versus Heretape

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Spouses Kawasa Magalang and Mona Wahab against Spouses Lucibar Heretape and Rosalina Funa, Roberto Landero, Spouses Nestor Heretape and Rosa Rogador, and Geodetic Engineer Eusebio Fortinez. The petitioners sued to recover possession and ownership of a ten-hectare parcel of land in Salabaca, Ampatuan, Cotabato, which they say the respondents usurped and then covered with free patent titles obtained through fraud. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole architecture of a reconveyance suit: the burden of clear and convincing evidence, the rule that a plaintiff must stand on the strength of his own title, the conclusiveness of a Torrens certificate, and the weight, or want of weight, of tax declarations and self-serving testimony.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and for declaration of nullity of the acquisition of the property before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat. In a judgment dated October 3, 2003, the trial court ruled for the petitioners. It ordered the respondents to vacate the subdivided lots and surrender possession, declared the deeds of transfer and the three original certificates of title null and void, and directed the Register of Deeds of Sultan Kudarat to cancel those titles and issue new ones in the name of Kawasa Magalang. The trial court gave full credence to the petitioners' testimonial evidence and rejected most of the respondents' documentary evidence as mere photocopies.

The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals on two separate appeals, one by the Heretape spouses and one by Roberto Landero. In a decision dated December 30, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint for failure to establish a cause of action. It held that the petitioners failed to prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence, failed to show that the land was already alienable when they allegedly occupied it, and failed to establish acquisitive prescription. It stressed that the respondents had produced the original certificates of title, which are indefeasible and prove ownership. The Court of Appeals denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated October 6, 2011.

The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, invoking the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.

Facts

Kawasa Magalang claimed that he inherited the ten-hectare Lot 1064 from his grandparents and forefathers, and that he planted coconut, banana, bamboo, and rice on it. On February 4, 1969, he and Lucibar Heretape executed a memorandum of agreement by which Heretape was authorized to occupy, cultivate, and produce on a portion of two and a half hectares for one year and four months, for a consideration of 1,310 pesos. Magalang later said this was a mortgage and that Heretape repeatedly refused his offer to repay.

In the early 1970s, the Ilaga and Blackshirt conflict forced Magalang and his family to evacuate the land. According to the petitioners, the respondents took advantage of the situation and seized the whole ten hectares. Working with the geodetic engineer, they subdivided the lot into Lot 1064-A, Lot 2238-A, and Lot 2238-B, and through allegedly falsified free patent applications and fraudulent land documents obtained titles to the portions.

The respondents told a different story. They said a certain Pedro Deansin appeared claiming to be the true owner, showing a deed of transfer of rights, a Bureau of Lands resolution, and an order of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Nestor Heretape bought five hectares from Deansin and gave two and a half hectares to his father Lucibar; in 1974 Deansin sold the remaining five hectares to Roberto Landero. Each then applied for and was granted a free patent, and original certificates of title were issued in their names. At trial, the records officer of the community environment and natural resources office identified photocopies of the Bureau of Lands records, while the respondents produced the original certificates of title themselves.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court may review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals in a petition for review on certiorari.
• Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to reconveyance of the entire Lot 1064, or of the three subdivided lots, on the ground of fraud.
• Whether or not the petitioners proved their ownership of the land by clear and convincing evidence, so as to overcome the respondents' Torrens titles.
• Whether or not the petitioners acquired the land by acquisitive prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1456 of the New Civil Code supplies the foundation of the reconveyance action:

Article 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

This is the provision that gives a defrauded owner the right to demand reconveyance from the registered owner.

Article 434 of the New Civil Code states what the plaintiff in a recovery action must establish:

Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

This is the provision that placed on the petitioners the burden of proving their own title, not merely attacking the respondents' titles.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court acknowledged the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, and that factual findings of the appellate courts are final and binding when supported by substantial evidence. It noted, however, that an exception applies when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, as in this case, so the Court made its own factual determination.

On the second issue, the Court explained that a complaint for reconveyance admits the registration of title of another party but claims that the registration was erroneous or wrongful. The party seeking recovery must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is entitled to the property and that the adverse party committed fraud in obtaining the title. The Court held that the petitioners offered only self-serving testimonies, and that bare allegations of fraud are not enough.

On the third issue, the Court applied Article 434 and held that the land was sufficiently identified, but that the petitioners failed on the second requisite, their title. Their tax declaration of 1963 and tax receipts from 1963 to 1967 cannot prevail over the respondents' original certificates of title, for a Torrens title is conclusive evidence of ownership, and the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership, including possession. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that a tax declaration of an earlier date cannot defeat an original certificate of title of a later date.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the testimonies of the petitioners' witnesses were mere general statements that did not prove open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession in the required character and period. The claim of prescription therefore failed.

Doctrine

An action for reconveyance under Article 1456 rests on fraud, and fraud in a civil case must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, a quantum greater than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Mere allegations and self-serving testimony will not sustain it. Under Article 434, the plaintiff must identify the property and must rely on the strength of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. A Torrens certificate of title is conclusive evidence of ownership and carries with it the right to possession, and a tax declaration or tax receipt, especially one of earlier date, cannot defeat it. Possession, to ripen into ownership by prescription, must be shown to be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious for the period and in the character the law requires.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition, leaving the Court of Appeals decision that dismissed the complaint in favor of the respondents undisturbed.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a plaintiff in reconveyance must rely on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim, and that fraud must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy between a Torrens title and a tax declaration, and the standard of proof for fraud in a reconveyance suit.