THIRD DIVISION
|
EUGENIO
ENCINARES, Petitioner, - versus - DOMINGA
ACHERO, Respondent. |
G.R. No.
161419 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J.,* CHICO-NAZARIO,**
Acting Chairperson, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: August
25, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2]
dated April 28, 2003 which reversed and set aside the Decision[3]
dated January 20, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
Branch 52.
The Facts
On July 13,
1989, petitioner Eugenio Encinares (petitioner) filed a Complaint[4]
for Quieting of Title and Reconveyance against respondent Dominga Achero[5]
(respondent). Petitioner alleged that he bought several parcels of land from
Roger U. Lim as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Properties[6]
dated April 9, 1980. Among these was the
subject property, a parcel of land dedicated to abaca production, containing 16,826 square meters, known as Lot No.
1623, and situated in Sitio Maricot, Barangay
Buraburan, Juban, Sorsogon (subject property).
He, however, discovered that, sometime in June 1987, respondent was able
to register the said property and cause it to be titled under the Free Patent
System.
Petitioner asseverated that he is the
owner and actual possessor of the subject property which is covered by Tax
Declaration No. 07132. He claimed that,
for more than thirty (30) years, he had been in actual, continuous, adverse,
and open possession in the concept of an owner of the subject property, tacking
the possession of his predecessors-in-interest. However, sometime in June 1987,
the respondent, by means of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and machination,
caused one-half portion of the subject property to be titled in her name under
the Free Patent System. Petitioner
alleged that, despite the fact that respondent’s application has no legal basis
as she is not the owner and actual possessor of the subject property, a free
patent was issued in her favor and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
P-23505, covering an area of 23,271 square meters, was issued in her name. Thus, petitioner postulated that, with the
inclusion of one-half portion of his property, the issuance of said title casts
doubt on his ownership over the same.
Moreover, petitioner demanded that respondent execute in his favor a
deed of reconveyance involving the portion of his land, which is now covered by
respondent’s title, but the latter refused, compelling him to file this case.
Petitioner, therefore, prayed that he be declared the owner and actual
possessor of the subject property and that respondent be ordered to execute a
deed of reconveyance in his favor.
In her Answer[7]
dated September 7, 1989, respondent denied petitioner's material allegations
and, by way of affirmative defense, averred that the complaint constituted an
indirect and collateral attack on her title, which is not allowed, and rendered
the complaint defective, thereby requiring its dismissal. Respondent alleged that
OCT No. P-23505 was issued under her name and the property covered by the OCT
is exclusively hers and does not include petitioner's property.
Upon joint motion of the parties, the
RTC issued an Order[8]
dated March 9, 1990, directing a duly authorized representative/surveyor of the
Bureau of Lands to conduct a relocation survey on the two (2) parcels of land
involved in the case, namely: Lot No.
1623 and the lot covered by OCT No. P-23505.
Subsequently, Engineer Eduardo P.
Sabater submitted his Commissioner’s Report[9]
(Report) on August 3, 1993. The Report
stated that the limits of the common boundaries of the parties were defined by
large trees and stones marked by “X.”
The Report also stated that the actual area as claimed by petitioner
contained 19,290 square meters, while that of respondent contained 3,981 square
meters.
On September 21, 1994, petitioner filed
a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint,[10]
alleging that there were some mistaken and inadequate allegations in the
original complaint, and that the amendments to be made would not substantially
change the cause of action in the complaint. Because no objection was
interposed by respondent’s counsel, the Motion was granted by the RTC in an
Order[11]
dated October 18, 1994.
On October 20, 1994, petitioner filed
the Amended Complaint,[12]
inserting the word “ENTIRE” in paragraph four (4) thereof. Thus, petitioner
averred that respondent, through fraud, caused the ENTIRE area of the
above-described land to be titled under the Free Patent System. For her part,
respondent manifested that she would no longer file an answer to the Amended
Complaint. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. In January 1996, respondent passed away.[13]
Respondent was duly substituted by her son, Vicente Achero (Vicente).[14]
The RTC's
Ruling
On January 20, 2000, the RTC rendered a
Decision in favor of petitioner, declaring him as the absolute owner of
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, to wit:
1. Declaring plaintiff Eugenio Encinares
the absolute owner of
2. Declaring OCT No. P-23505 covering Lot 1623 with an area of 19,290 sq. m. in the name of the defendant Dominga Achero as null and void[;]
3. Ordering the defendant Dominga Achero and/or Vicente Achero to reconvey that portion found in the Relocation Survey Report marked as Exh. “R” and denominated as Lot 1623-B as surveyed for Eugenio Encinares and Dominga Achero[;]
4. Ordering the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon to make an annotation on the Certificate of Title No. P-23505 covering the land in question as the same was fraudulently procured[;]
5. Dismissing the counterclaim of the defendants[;]
[6.] Ordering the defendant to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[16]
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the
CA.[17]
The CA's
Ruling
On April 28, 2003, the CA reversed and
set aside the RTC's ruling, upheld the validity of OCT No. P-23505, and
dismissed the complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance filed by
petitioner. The CA held that the RTC erred in declaring OCT No. P-23505 as null
and void because in an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is
respected as incontrovertible. Moreover, the CA held that petitioner failed to
prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the subject property and
the fact of fraud. Petitioner's evidence, consisting of tax declarations and
deeds of sale, acknowledged that the subject property had not been registered.
Likewise, the CA noted that petitioner's evidence showed that the possession of
his predecessors-in-interest started only sometime in 1951; thus, petitioner
could be presumed to have acquired a title pursuant to Section 48(b)[18]
of Commonwealth Act 141 (The Public Land Act) as amended by P.D. No. 1073. The
CA opined that it was erroneous for the RTC to award 19,290 square meters to petitioner
when the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Properties, from which he allegedly
derived his rights, stated that the lot sold to him consisted only of 16,826
square meters. Lastly, the CA found no irregularity in the issuance of the Free
Patent and OCT No. P-23505.
Undaunted, petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration,[19]
which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution[20]
dated December 19, 2003. Hence this Petition, raising the following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.
II.
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK THE RECONVEYANCE OF THE
Petitioner claims that the subject
property was sold by Simeon Achero (Simeon),[22]
eldest son of Eustaqio Achero[23]
(Eustaqio), to Cecilia Grajo who, in turn, sold the same to Cipriano Bardilo.[24]
Subsequently, Cipriano Bardilo sold the
subject property to Pedro Guevarra,[25]
who then sold the same to Roger Lim,[26]
from whom petitioner bought the subject property in 1980. Petitioner asserts
that he has been in actual, continuous, adverse, and open possession in the
concept of an owner thereof for more than thirty (30) years when tacked with
the length of possession of his predecessors-in-interest; and that he has
introduced some improvements on the subject property and has been enjoying its produce.
Petitioner argues that contrary to the CA's findings, he was able to prove by
preponderance of evidence that he is the true and actual owner of the subject
property; that he has equitable title thereto; and that there was fraud in the
acquisition of the Free Patent. Petitioner also argues that, as pointed out by
the RTC, the tax declarations[27]
of petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest show that, in fact, petitioner,
as well as his predecessors-in-interest, has been in actual possession of the
subject property since 1951 or even prior thereto; that the factual findings of
the RTC in this case should not have been disturbed by the CA, as the former's
findings were clearly based on evidence; and that the law protects only holders
of title in good faith and does not permit its provisions to be used as a
shield for the commission of fraud or for one’s enrichment at the expense of another.[28]
On the other hand, respondent avers
that the subject property had been originally claimed, occupied and cultivated
since 1928 by Eustaqio, father of Simeon and father-in-law of respondent.
Before Eustaqio died in 1942, he gave the subject property to respondent, as
evidenced by the Joint Affidavit[29]
of Dalmacio Venus and Elias Aurelio. Respondent continued the possession,
occupation and cultivation of the subject property in the concept of an owner up to the present.
On October 1, 1986, respondent executed a Deed of Ratification and Confirmation
of Ownership.[30]
Documents were submitted to the Bureau of Lands, which conducted an ocular
inspection and relocation survey and issued a Final Investigation Report.[31]
Finding respondent's application for a Free Patent to be proper in form and
substance, and in accordance with law, the same was granted per Order: Approval
of Applications and Issuance of Patent.[32]
Subsequently, OCT No. P-23505, covering the subject property with a total area
of 23,271 square meters, was issued in favor of respondent. Respondent
manifested that she was unlettered, and that her only preoccupation was working
on the land like other ordinary tillers. As such, in the absence of evidence,
petitioner could not validly claim that respondent employed fraud in the
application and issuance of a Free Patent, in the same way that no fraud
attended the issuance of OCT No. P-23505. Respondent relied on the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official functions of the personnel of the
Bureau of Lands.[33]
Simply put, the main issue is who,
between petitioner and respondent, has a better right over the subject
property.
Our Ruling
The instant Petition is bereft of merit.
While factual issues are not within the
province of this Court, as it is not a trier of facts and is not required to
examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence de novo, this Court has the authority to review and, in proper
cases, reverse the factual findings of lower courts when the findings of fact
of the trial court are in conflict with those of the appellate court.[34] In
this light, our review of the records of this case is justified.
In essence, petitioner seeks relief
before this Court, on the contention that the registered Free Patent from which
respondent derived her title had been issued through fraud.
We reject petitioner's contention.
A Free Patent may be issued where the
applicant is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; is not the owner of
more than twelve (12) hectares of land; has continuously occupied and
cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract
or tracts of agricultural public land subject to disposition, for at least 30
years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940; and has paid the real
taxes thereon while the same has not been occupied by any other person.[35]
Once a patent is registered and the
corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered thereby ceases
to be part of public domain, becomes private property, and the Torrens Title
issued pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one
year from the date of such issuance. However, a title emanating from a free
patent which was secured through fraud does not become indefeasible, precisely
because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect
whatsoever.[36]
On this point, our ruling in Republic v. Guerrero,[37]
is instructive:
Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons.
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein. The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant.
The distinctions assume significance because only actual and extrinsic fraud had been accepted and is contemplated by the law as a ground to review or reopen a decree of registration. Thus, relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the fraud consists in a deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact they are; or in willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims; or in deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice; or in inducing him not to oppose an application; or in misrepresenting about the identity of the lot to the true owner by the applicant causing the former to withdraw his application. In all these examples, the overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court or from presenting his case. The fraud, therefore, is one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the court.
We have repeatedly held that relief
on the ground of fraud will not be granted where the alleged fraud goes into
the merits of the case, is intrinsic and not collateral, and has been
controverted and decided. Thus, we have underscored the denial of relief where
it appears that the fraud consisted in the presentation at the trial of a
supposed forged document, or a false and perjured testimony, or in basing the
judgment on a fraudulent compromise agreement, or in the alleged fraudulent
acts or omissions of the counsel which prevented the petitioner from properly
presenting the case.[38]
No actual and extrinsic fraud existed
in this case; at least, no convincing proof of such fraud was adduced. Other
than his bare allegations, petitioner failed to prove that there was fraud in
the application, processing and grant of the Free Patent, as well as in the
issuance of OCT No. P-23505. Neither was it proven that respondent actually
took part in the alleged fraud. We agree with the judicious findings of the CA,
to wit:
It must be mentioned though that
the records of the case do not show that there has been any irregularity in the
issuance of the Free Patent or the OCT for that matter, as, despite the posting
of the notice of appellant’s application for Free Patent, the appellee filed
his opposition/protest (Exhibit “O,”
Record[s], p. 31) thereto only after the same had already been issued in favor
the appellant. The fact that appellee is
in possession of several tax declarations and deeds of sale over the property,
the earliest of which was in the year 1951, does not in any way refute
appellant’s allegation in her application that she inherited the property and
that her predecessor-in-interest possessed the property even before the
Japanese occupation. Moreover, the
evidence also show that the Bureau of Lands conducted an investigation (Investigation Report, Exhibit “9,”
Record[s], p. 195) of the application and found that the appellant was entitled
to the parcel of land she was applying for.[39]
Petitioner's heavy reliance on the tax declarations
in his name and in the names of his predecessors-in-interest is unavailing. We
hold that while it is true that tax declarations and tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of
an owner, the same must be accompanied by possession for a period sufficient
for acquisitive prescription to set in. By themselves, tax declarations and tax
receipts do not conclusively prove ownership.[40]
It was established that respondent was
clearly in possession of the subject property.[41]
Thus, notwithstanding the existence of the tax declarations issued in favor of
petitioner, it was not refuted that respondent and her successors were and are
still in actual possession and cultivation of the subject property, and, in fact,
the respondent also declared in her name the subject property for taxation
purposes. These circumstances further boost respondent's claim that, from the
start, she believed that the subject property was exclusively hers.
We reiterate our recent ruling in Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation v. AFP
Retirement and Separation Benefits System,[42]
to wit:
The Torrens system is
not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system of registration
of titles to lands, x x x justice and equity demand that the titleholder should
not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the
State's agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of
manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the
The general rule that
the direct result of a previous void contract cannot be valid[, is inapplicable]
in this case as it will directly contravene the
All told, we find no reversible error
which will justify our having to disturb, much less, reverse the assailed CA
Decision.
WHEREFORE,
the instant Petition is DENIED and
the assailed Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice Acting
Chairperson |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and
the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 679 dated August 3, 2009.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 678 dated August 3, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-25.
[2] Particularly
docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 67371, penned by Associate Justice Mercedes
Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (now Presiding
Justice) and Rosmari D. Carandang, concurring; rollo, pp. 78-90.
[3] Rollo, pp. 55-60.
[4] Records, pp. 1-2.
[5] Also referred to as Dominga Hachero in other pleadings and documents.
[6] Records, pp. 17-18.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] TSN, July 29, 1998, p. 11.
[14] Also referred to as “Vicente Hachero” in other pleadings and documents.
[15]
SECTION 32. Review of decree of
registration; Innocent purchaser for value. — The decree of registration
shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability
of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court
for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including
the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from
and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case
shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for
value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be
prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon
the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved
by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud.
[16] Rollo, p. 60.
[17] Records, p. 212.
[18] (b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945, or earlier, immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title, except when prevented by wars or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. (Emphasis supplied.)
[19] CA rollo, pp. 111-115.
[20]
[21] Rollo, p. 18.
[22] Also referred to as “Simeon Hachero” in other pleadings and documents.
[23] Also referred to as “Eustaquio Hachero,” “Eustaqui Achero” or “Eustaqui Hachero” in other pleadings and documents.
[24] Records, p. 21.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28] Rollo, pp. 118-129.
[29] Records, p. 190.
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33] Rollo, pp. 131-140.
[34] Tan v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 134, 141-142 (2001).
[35] Republic v. Court of Appeals, 406 Phil. 597, 606 (2001).
[36] Heirs of Carlos Alcaraz v. Republic, G.R. No. 131667, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 280, 291. (Citations omitted.)
[37] G.R.
No. 133168, March 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 424.
[38]
[39] Supra note 2, at 89.
[40] Espino v. Vicente, G.R. No. 168396, June 22, 2006, 492 SCRA 330, 341, citing Heirs of Clemente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac, 403 SCRA 291, 299 (2003).
[41] TSN, November 24, 1998, p. 25; TSN, July 29, 1998, p. 4; TSN, May 20, 1998, p. 3; TSN, June 25, 1997, pp. 4-5.
[42] G.R. No. 177181, July 7, 2009. (Citations omitted.)