Lawyerly

GR No. 161360

2011-10-19

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY CARMEN M. TIONGCO v. JOSE B. TIONGCO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay[33] the Court held that there was no doubt about the fact that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten (10) years. This rule assumes, however, that there is an actual need to initiate that action, for when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession, the statute of limitation would yet be irrelevant. An action for reconveyance, if nonetheless brought, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, or its equivalent, an action that is imprescriptible. In that case, the Court reiterated the ruling in Faja v. Court of Appeals[34] which we quote: x x x There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. No better situation can be conceived at the moment for Us to apply this rule on equity than that of herein petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was in possession of the litigated property for no less than 30 years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that the land she had been occupying and cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third person. We hold that in such a situation the right to quiet title to the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering it, accrued only from the time the one in possession was made aware of a claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of prescription commences to run against such possessor.

GR No. 153820

2009-10-16

DELFIN TAN v. ERLINDA C. BENOLIRAO

BRION, J.

Indeed, in David v. Malay,[17] although the title of the property had already been registered in the name of the third party buyers, we cancelled the sale and ordered the reconveyance of the property to the estate of the deceased for proper disposal among his rightful heirs.

GR No. 180357

2009-08-04

PIONEER INSURANCE v. HEIRS OF VICENTE CORONADO

NACHURA, J.

Initially, we confront the issue of whether the action has prescribed, considering that several years have already passed since TCT No. N-19781 was issued, and petitioner's title has already become indefeasible and incontrovertible. The contention apparently lacks merit. The records reveal that the respondents have been in possession of the subject property since 1938. Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[19]

GR NO. 168222

2006-04-18

SPS. TEODULO RUMARATE v. HILARIO HERNANDEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

On the issue of prescription, the settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is imprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the person seeking relief is in possession of the disputed property. A person in actual possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, and that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.[40] Considering that petitioners herein continuously possessed Lot No. 379 since 1929 up to the present, their right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over their title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations.

GR No. 123924

2003-12-11

FRANCO v. CA

TINGA, J.

Now, the issue viewed from the perspective of the Torrens system of registration. Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens title becomes indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. The decree is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process.[39] OCT No. P-436, covering the subject property in its entirety, was registered as early as 9 July 1954 in the name of Quintin. A Torrens title is the best evidence of ownership of registered land. [40] Whatever claim of ownership Miguel had raised should have been weighed against Quintin's title. Unfortunately, the Dipolog RTC, Branch 1 apparently ignored this fundamental principle when on 6 January 1973 it issued the Order directing the registration of half of the subject property in the name of Miguel.

GR No. 144225

2003-06-17

SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS

CARPIO, J.

The Amended Complaint filed by Armando and Adelia with the trial court is captioned as one for Specific Performance. In reality, the ultimate relief sought by Armando and Adelia is the reconveyance to them of the Subject Land. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner.[37] The body of the pleading or complaint determines the nature of an action, not its title or heading.[38] Thus, the present action should be treated as one for reconveyance.[39]

GR No. 151440

2003-06-17

HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

A certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent covering a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141 is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding. Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Such decree of registration is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process. There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law or the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now Presidential Decree 1529, fixing a similar one-year period within which a public land patent can be considered open to review on the ground of actual fraud (such as that provided for in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, and now Section 32 of Presidential Decree 1529), and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, this Court has repeatedly applied Section 32 of Presidential Decree 1529 to a patent issued by the Director of Lands, approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines. The date of the issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary cases. Just as the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. [36]

GR No. 147468

2003-04-09

SPS. EDUARDO ARENAS DOMINGO AND JOSEFINA CHAVEZ DOMINGO v. LILIA MONTINOLA ROCES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In David v. Malay,[25] it was held that the buyer of real property the title of which contain an annotation pursuant to Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court cannot be considered innocent purchasers for value. In the same vein, the annotation at the back of TCT No. 7299 in this case referring to Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court was sufficient notice to petitioners of the limitation on Montinola's right to dispose of the property. The presence of an irregularity which excites or arouses suspicion should prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face thereof.[26] Purchasers of registered land are bound by the annotations found at the back of the certificate of title.[27]

GR No. 108228

2001-02-01

SPS. MANUEL AND SALVACION DEL CAMPO v. CA

QUISUMBING, J.

Although Regalado's certificate of title became indefeasible after the lapse of one year from the date of the decree of registration, the attendance of fraud in its issuance created an implied trust in favor of petitioners and gave them the right to seek reconveyance of the parcel wrongfully obtained by the former. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten years. But when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession, the said action is imprescriptible, it being in the nature of a suit for quieting of title.[19] Having established by clear and convincing evidence that they are the legal owners of the litigated portion included in TCT No. 14566, it is only proper that reconveyance of the property be ordered in favor of petitioners. The alleged incontrovertibility of Regalado's title cannot be successfully invoked by respondents because certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield for the commission of fraud.[20]

GR No. 133345

2000-03-09

JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. CA

DE LEON, JR., J.

First. Petitioners are proper parties to bring an action for quieting of title. Persons having legal as well as equitable title to or interest in a real property may bring such action and "title" here does not necessarily denote a certificate of title issued in favor of the person filing the suit.[17] Moreover, if the plaintiff in an action for quieting of title is in possession of the property being litigated, such action is imprescriptible.[18] One who is in actual possession of a land, claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right because his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim and its effects on his title.[19]Manik-s

	GR No. 161360 2011-10-19	ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY CARMEN M. TIONGCO v. JOSE B. TIONGCO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay[33] the Court held that there was no doubt about the fact that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten (10) years. This rule assumes, however, that there is an actual need to initiate that action, for when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession, the statute of limitation would yet be irrelevant. An action for reconveyance, if nonetheless brought, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, or its equivalent, an action that is imprescriptible. In that case, the Court reiterated the ruling in Faja v. Court of Appeals[34] which we quote: x x x There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. No better situation can be conceived at the moment for Us to apply this rule on equity than that of herein petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was in possession of the litigated property for no less than 30 years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that the land she had been occupying and cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third person. We hold that in such a situation the right to quiet title to the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering it, accrued only from the time the one in possession was made aware of a claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of prescription commences to run against such possessor.
	GR No. 153820 2009-10-16	DELFIN TAN v. ERLINDA C. BENOLIRAO BRION, J.
Indeed, in David v. Malay,[17] although the title of the property had already been registered in the name of the third party buyers, we cancelled the sale and ordered the reconveyance of the property to the estate of the deceased for proper disposal among his rightful heirs.
	GR No. 180357 2009-08-04	PIONEER INSURANCE v. HEIRS OF VICENTE CORONADO NACHURA, J.
Initially, we confront the issue of whether the action has prescribed, considering that several years have already passed since TCT No. N-19781 was issued, and petitioner's title has already become indefeasible and incontrovertible. The contention apparently lacks merit. The records reveal that the respondents have been in possession of the subject property since 1938. Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.[19]
	GR NO. 168222 2006-04-18	SPS. TEODULO RUMARATE v. HILARIO HERNANDEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the issue of prescription, the settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is imprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the person seeking relief is in possession of the disputed property. A person in actual possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, and that his undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.[40] Considering that petitioners herein continuously possessed Lot No. 379 since 1929 up to the present, their right to institute a suit to clear the cloud over their title cannot be barred by the statute of limitations.
	GR No. 123924 2003-12-11	FRANCO v. CA TINGA, J.
Now, the issue viewed from the perspective of the Torrens system of registration. Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens title becomes indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. The decree is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process.[39] OCT No. P-436, covering the subject property in its entirety, was registered as early as 9 July 1954 in the name of Quintin. A Torrens title is the best evidence of ownership of registered land. [40] Whatever claim of ownership Miguel had raised should have been weighed against Quintin's title. Unfortunately, the Dipolog RTC, Branch 1 apparently ignored this fundamental principle when on 6 January 1973 it issued the Order directing the registration of half of the subject property in the name of Miguel.
	GR No. 144225 2003-06-17	SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS CARPIO, J.
The Amended Complaint filed by Armando and Adelia with the trial court is captioned as one for Specific Performance. In reality, the ultimate relief sought by Armando and Adelia is the reconveyance to them of the Subject Land. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner.[37] The body of the pleading or complaint determines the nature of an action, not its title or heading.[38] Thus, the present action should be treated as one for reconveyance.[39]
	GR No. 151440 2003-06-17	HEIRS OF SIMPLICIO SANTIAGO v. HEIRS OF MARIANO E. SANTIAGO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
A certificate of title issued under an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent covering a disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141 is as indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding. Under the Land Registration Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes indefeasible after the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Such decree of registration is incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or participated in, the in rem registration process. There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law or the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now Presidential Decree 1529, fixing a similar one-year period within which a public land patent can be considered open to review on the ground of actual fraud (such as that provided for in Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, and now Section 32 of Presidential Decree 1529), and clothing a public land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, this Court has repeatedly applied Section 32 of Presidential Decree 1529 to a patent issued by the Director of Lands, approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines. The date of the issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary cases. Just as the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. [36]
	GR No. 147468 2003-04-09	SPS. EDUARDO ARENAS DOMINGO AND JOSEFINA CHAVEZ DOMINGO v. LILIA MONTINOLA ROCES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In David v. Malay,[25] it was held that the buyer of real property the title of which contain an annotation pursuant to Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court cannot be considered innocent purchasers for value. In the same vein, the annotation at the back of TCT No. 7299 in this case referring to Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court was sufficient notice to petitioners of the limitation on Montinola's right to dispose of the property. The presence of an irregularity which excites or arouses suspicion should prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face thereof.[26] Purchasers of registered land are bound by the annotations found at the back of the certificate of title.[27]
	GR No. 108228 2001-02-01	SPS. MANUEL AND SALVACION DEL CAMPO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
Although Regalado's certificate of title became indefeasible after the lapse of one year from the date of the decree of registration, the attendance of fraud in its issuance created an implied trust in favor of petitioners and gave them the right to seek reconveyance of the parcel wrongfully obtained by the former. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten years. But when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession, the said action is imprescriptible, it being in the nature of a suit for quieting of title.[19] Having established by clear and convincing evidence that they are the legal owners of the litigated portion included in TCT No. 14566, it is only proper that reconveyance of the property be ordered in favor of petitioners. The alleged incontrovertibility of Regalado's title cannot be successfully invoked by respondents because certificates of title merely confirm or record title already existing and cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield for the commission of fraud.[20]
	GR No. 133345 2000-03-09	JOSEFA CH. MAESTRADO v. CA DE LEON, JR., J.
First. Petitioners are proper parties to bring an action for quieting of title. Persons having legal as well as equitable title to or interest in a real property may bring such action and "title" here does not necessarily denote a certificate of title issued in favor of the person filing the suit.[17] Moreover, if the plaintiff in an action for quieting of title is in possession of the property being litigated, such action is imprescriptible.[18] One who is in actual possession of a land, claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right because his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to ascertain the nature of the adverse claim and its effects on his title.[19]Manik-s

ERNESTO DAVID v. CRISTITO MALAY