This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The respondents alleged that: in 1960, spouses Francisco and Flora Tayco (spouses Tayco) purchased Lot No. 299 from Amelita Ibot (Amelita) for a consideration of P1,200.00 which was set forth in a Deed of Sale that was prepared by an attorney's clerk named Fe Clamor; Francisco commenced his Sales Application of Lot No. 299 with the Bureau of Lands (Bureau) but it was discontinued due to his sickness; Francisco lost the documents necessary for his sales application including the Deed of Sale;[9] their open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since 1964 and the introduction of improvements on Lot No. 299 entitles them to its reconveyance as owners; and fraud attended the issuance of the petitioner's OCT in 1998.[10] | |||||
|
2015-04-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[22] The CA ratiocinated that respondents' open, continuous, adverse and uninterrupted possession of Lot No. 299 for more than 30 years reckoned from 1964 remains uncontroverted while the Torrens title of the petitioner was noticeably obtained only in 1997. Also, the long inaction or passivity of the petitioner or Amelita in asserting rights over Lot No. 299 despite knowledge of the improvements introduced by the respondents precludes the petitioner from recovering the same.[23] The CA further stressed that land registration laws cannot give a person any better title than what he actually has.[24] The mere "[registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title [to the registrant], because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership."[25] Thus, notwithstanding "the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner may still be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owners."[26] Consequently, the decision of the RTC was reversed and set aside, and Lot No. 299 was ordered reconveyed to the respondents. | |||||