FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 115794. June 10, 1999]
ANASTACIO MANANGAN, petitioner, vs. ANGEL DELOS REYES, GERMAN DELOS REYES, AURELLANA DELOS REYES, JOSEFINA DELOS REYES and INOCENCIO DELOS REYES, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
Can possession by a vendee of an
unregistered real property defeat the torrens title thereon later secured by
the vendor inspite of the sale, where the title was obtained in land
registration proceedings filed thirty eight (38) years ago?
In this appeal via
certiorari, petitioner seeks to reverse the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals holding that an action for
reconveyance or recovery of ownership
of the land fraudulently titled to respondent has prescribed and is barred by
laches.
We affirm.
The facts are as follows:
Respondents were co-owners of
three (3) parcels of land with an area of 13,083 square meters, located in
Mabaliguen, San Narciso, Zambales, covered by OCT No. 7372 of the Register of
Deeds of Zambales[2].
Petitioner, on the other hand, was
a tenant of the respondents and had been sharing the harvest of the land with
respondents’ mother, Macaria Villanueva, during her lifetime.[3]
On December 11, 1932, Macaria
Villanueva sold the parcels of land in question to Victoriano Manangan, petitioner’s
father, in consideration of one thousand pesos (P 1,000.00) as evidenced by a
duly notarized deed of sale signed by Macaria and the respondents except
Inocencio de los Reyes.[4]
In 1934, after cadastral
proceedings were initiated over the land, the registration court decreed
registration under the torrens system of the parcels of land involved in the
names of Macaria Villanueva, Cirilo de los Reyes, and Francisco de los Reyes.
On June 21, 1937, the Register of
Deeds of Zambales, pursuant to the decree of registration, issued Original
Certificate of Title No. 7372 in the names of Macaria Villanueva, Cirilo de los
Reyes, and Francisco de los Reyes, now all deceased. Macaria is survived by three children, namely respondents Angel
de los Reyes, Germana de los Reyes and Aureliana de los Reyes. Francisco is survived by two children,
respondents Josefina and Incocencio de los Reyes. Cirilo died without any issue.[5]
On July 6, 1974, respondents filed
with the Court of First Instance of Zambales, a complaint for recovery of
possession of the aforesaid parcels of land against petitioner claiming the
right of possession of said land.
Petitioner resisted such claim alleging fraud in causing the land to be
registered in respondents’ names despite its sale to petitioner’s father. On March 14, 1975, petitioner filed with the
lower court an amended answer for reconveyance of the lots in question.
On October 19, 1987, the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales, rendered a decision in favor of
respondents declaring that they had a better right over the subject parcels of
land.
The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs-adjudging them to have a better right to own and possess the subject parcels of land-and the defendant (his agents, privies, successors-in-interest, representatives, acting under him are ordered to:
“1) Vacate the subject premises and deliver or restore peacefully the possession of the properties described in the complaint to the plaintiffs;
“2) Pay to the plaintiffs the aggregate amount representing the value of palay (twenty cavans annually) from 1956 up to the time the defendant finally vacates or surrenders the possession of subject parcels at the rate of P25.00 per cavan;
“3) Pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P 2,000.00 for and attorney’s fees.
“Costs against the defendant.
“SO ORDERED.
Manila for Iba, Zambales, October 19, 1987.
“RAMON MABUTAS, JR.
“J u d g e”[6]
In due time, petitioners appealed
to the Court of Appeals.[7]
After due proceedings, on April
19, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision affirming the trial
court’s conclusion and ruling that petitioner’s action had prescribed and was
barred by laches.[8]
Thus, the Court of Appeals said:
“We find the appeal without merit on the sole ground that appellants are guilty of laches and they have lost their right to ask for reconveyance of the property in their favor. Appellants’ Exhibit “1” and “1-D”, a notarized document, shows that Macaria Villanueva, the now deceased mother of appellees, had actually sold the lots in question to the father of herein appellants in 1922. However, Exhibit “A” of appellees shows that the lots in question were registered in the names of said Macaria Villanueva and her children, herein appellees, in 1937 with the register of Deeds of Zambales under O.C.T. No. 7372.
Evidently, the serious mistake, if not fraud, was committed when the original certificate of title was issued in the name of Macaria Villanueva and appellees. xxx The title to said lots in question in the names of Macaria Villanueva and appellees was entered in the Registry Book for the Province of Zambales by the Register of Deeds of Zambales on June 21, 1937 (Exh. “A”) or 38 years before appellants sought reconveyance. Appellants are guilty of laches. It is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens Title over the property (Tala vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., 208 SCRA 266).
Such being the case, appellant’s appeal has no leg to stand on and We find it no longer necessary to discuss each of the assigned errors.
WHEREFORE, for lack of reversible error committed by the trial court, We hereby AFFIRM the herein appealed decision.
No costs.”[9]
Hence, this petition for review on
certiorari.[10]
Petitioner’s right of action to
recover ownership of the land in question has prescribed and is barred by
laches.
In Alvarez vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court,[11] we ruled that the remedy of the landowner whose
property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another’s name is to
bring an action in the ordinary courts of justice for reconveyance. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that an
action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes
in ten (10) years from the issuance of the torrens title over the property,
citing Tale vs. Court of Appeals.[12] We reiterated this ruling in the more recent cases of
Catalina Buan Vda. De Esconde vs. Court of Appeals,[13] Salvatierra vs. Court of Appeals[14] and Ochagabia vs. Court of Appeals.[15]
Petitioner slept on his right for
thirty eight (38) years counted from the time the Original Certificate of Title
was issued on June 21, 1937, until he filed his amended answer to respondents’
complaint on March 14, 1975, asking for reconveyance of the lots in
question. The petitioner’s right to
bring such action was barred by laches as he took no step towards that direction
reasonably after the title to the property was issued under the torrens system.[16] Finally, petitioner cannot invoke Article 1141 of the
Civil Code as this law provides only a period of thirty (30) years to bring
real actions over immovable property.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari
and AFFIRMS the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
20459. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] In CA-G.R CV No. 20459, promulgated on April
19, 1993, Austria-Martinez, J. ponente, De Pano, Jr., and Abad Santos,
Jr., JJ., concurring.
[2] RTC decision, CA Rollo, pp. 27-44.
[3] CA decision,, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[4] Petition, Rollo, p. 7.
[5] Comment, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[6] CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 20459.
[8] CA Decision, supra.
[9] CA decision, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[10] Petition filed on July 11, 1994.
[11] 185
SCRA 8.
[12] 208
SCRA 266, citing Amerol vs. Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396.
[13] 253
SCRA 66 (1996).
[14] 261
SCRA 45.
[15] G.R. No. 125590, March 11, 1999, citing
Medija vs. Patcho, 132 SCRA 540.
[16] Tiburcio vs. PHHC, 106 Phil. 477. [16] In CA-G.R CV No. 20459, promulgated on April
19, 1993, Austria-Martinez, J. ponente, De Pano, Jr., and Abad Santos,
Jr., JJ., concurring.
[16] RTC decision, CA Rollo, pp. 27-44.
[16] CA decision,, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[16] Petition, Rollo, p. 7.
[16] Comment, Rollo, pp. 27-28.
[16] CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[16] Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 20459.
[16] CA Decision, supra.
[16] CA decision, Rollo, pp. 9-13.
[16] Petition filed on July 11, 1994.
[16] 185
SCRA 8.
[16] 208
SCRA 266, citing Amerol vs. Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396.
[16] 253
SCRA 66 (1996).
[16] 261
SCRA 45.
[16] G.R. No. 125590, March 11, 1999, citing
Medija vs. Patcho, 132 SCRA 540.
[16] Tiburcio vs. PHHC, 106 Phil. 477.