THIRD DIVISION
|
PIONEER
INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - HEIRS
OF VICENTE CORONADO, MAURA CORONADO, SIMEON Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 180357
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CARPIO,* CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4,
2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Decision[1]
dated June 27, 2007 and Resolution dated October 17, 2007. The petition stems
from a complaint seeking the annulment of petitioner’s certificate of title,
which was dismissed for lack of cause of action on the ground that the said
title covered a parcel of land different from the one being claimed by the plaintiffs
(herein respondents). But petitioner, dissatisfied by the pronouncement of the
trial court, filed this petition for review, praying that the complaint be
dismissed simply for utter lack of merit, and the Court declare its property to
be “located in the exact place described in its certificate of title.”
The facts of the case
Respondents Vicente, Maura, Simeon
and Julian, all surnamed P500,000.00
loan from petitioner; and (vii) for failure of Bocobo to pay the loan, the
mortgage was foreclosed and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 19781 was
issued in the name of petitioner. Respondents prayed, among others, that TCT
No. 19781 be declared null and void and the subject property be reconveyed to
them.[2]
In its Answer, petitioner averred that
(i) in 1977, it issued a performance bond in favor of Gaudencio T. Bocobo which
was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Free
Patent No. 291532 with an area of 171,419 square meters located in Antipolo,
Rizal; (ii) before petitioner conformed to the real estate mortgage, it
verified and examined Bocobo’s title, which it found to be free from any
suspicion; (iii) when Bocobo failed to pay his obligations, petitioner
foreclosed the mortgage on the property and TCT No. 19781 was issued in its
favor; and (iv) from 1977 up to the time of petitioner’s receipt of the summons
in the present complaint, no other person had claimed interest over the
property.[3]
On November 20, 1996, the trial court
directed respondents’ counsel to submit a copy of the report of the relocation
survey, which the parties agreed to be conducted on the subject property.[4]
Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Investigation Survey,[5]
praying that the court issue an order directing the Lands Management Bureau
(LMB) to conduct the required investigation survey. Consequently, the trial
court issued an Order[6]
dated March 25, 1997 directing the LMB to conduct a survey of the subject
property and submit a report indicating the boundaries and the exact location
of the property.
Engr. Romulo G. Unciano, Chief of
Party, Antipolo Cadastre, was tasked to conduct the survey. He used the
following as references:
1.
(LRC)
Psd-221879 (TCT No. 478244) equivalent to
2.
3.
Land
Registration Decree No. 133611 covering Lot 1 & Lot 2, Psu-159755 in the
name of Maximino Serranillo;
4.
Psu-153144
– Gaudencio T. Bocobo;
5.
Psu-153145
– Marcos Olan;
6.
Psu-153146
– Rodolfo Bautista;
7.
(LRC)
Psd-257194 (OCT No. 852); and
8.
TCT No.
N-19781 registered in the name of Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.[7]
The subject property being claimed by
the respondents is that referred to as Lot 2 in Plan Psu-159753, while
On the other hand, Plan Psu-153144, in
the name of Gaudencio T. Bocobo, covers the property as described in petitioner’s
title, TCT No. N-19781. Plans Psu-153145 and Psu-153146 are survey plans
covering the alleged adjoining properties in the names of Marcos Olan and
Rodolfo Bautista, respectively.[9]
In a Report on Relocation and
Verification Survey[10] (hereinafter
referred to as the Unciano Report) dated August 6, 1997, Engr. Unciano concluded
that the property, described in Psu-153144 and TCT No. N-19781, is situated in
Sitio Pinagbarilan, Barrio (Bo.) Malanday,
After Engr. Unciano answered some
clarificatory questions about the report, the parties agreed to constitute a
commission of three geodetic engineers to conduct another ground verification
of the property. Accordingly, the trial court issued an Order dated September
17, 1997, directing that such a commission be constituted to conduct a final
ground verification survey, and appointing as its Chairman, Engr. Robert
Pangyarihan, who was Chief of the Survey Division, Land Management Section, Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.[11] The
trial court likewise appointed Engr. Ponciano M. Miranda, representing
respondents, and Engr. Rosario B. Mercado, representing the petitioner, as the
other two geodetic engineers to comprise the commission.
In addition to the references used by
Engr. Unciano, the commission used the following materials:
1.
Joint
Affidavit of Rodolfo Bautista and Marcos Olan, claimants of Psu-153146 and
Psu-153145, respectively;
2.
Plan
F-53733 in the name of Julio Gatlabayan;
3.
4.
Municipal
Index Map of
5.
Certification
of location of Sapang Buaya by Brgy. Captain Simeon San Jose.[12]
In a Report on Verification Survey[13]
(hereinafter referred to as the Pangyarihan Report) dated November 28, 1997
signed by Engr. Pangyarihan and Engr. Miranda, it likewise concluded that the
property described in the petitioner’s title is not located in the place where
the subject property is located.
Engr.
On January 29, 2002, the RTC adopted
the findings of the majority of the commission and rendered the following
judgment:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered recognizing Julian Coronado, Vicente Coronado, Simeon Coronado and Maura Coronado to be the legal heirs of Doroteo Garcia and confirming their ownership of the parcel of land covered by PSU 159753 and Tax Declaration marked as Exhibit “S” containing an area of 11.65 hectares.
On
the other hand, the Court finds no necessity to declare null and void TCT No.
N-19781 registered in the name of the defendant but the court makes a finding
and so holds that the parcel of land described therein is not the same parcel
of land claimed and owned by the
SO ORDERED.[15]
On June 27, 2007, the CA affirmed the
RTC Decision.[16] The CA likewise
denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the
Resolution dated October 17, 2007.[17]
The issues raised in the petition
Petitioner raises the following issues:
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION.
5.1
The lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing
respondents’ complaint and disregarding the indefeasibility of [petitioner]’s
5.2
The lower court gravely erred in ruling that the [petitioner’s] property is not
located in
5.3 The lower court erred in not ruling that respondents’ claim was barred by prescription and laches.
5.4 The lower court erred in not awarding damages and attorney’s fees to [petitioner], despite the clear absence of a cause of action against [petitioner].[18]
The Court’s ruling
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]
On the merits, petitioner argues that
the trial court and the CA disregarded the indefeasibility of TCT No. N-19781
when it declared that the property covered by such title is situated in another
place, and not where the subject property is located. Petitioner maintains that
such pronouncement materially impaired the technical description of the
property covered by its title, in clear derogation of the indefeasibility of
the certificate of title. According to the petitioner, the technical
description in the certificate of title and the statement therein that the
location of the property is in the “
Factual findings are accorded not
only great respect but also finality and are deemed binding upon the Court so
long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[20]
Sadly, this is not true in this case. We find that the conclusion of the trial
court, as affirmed by the CA, that the property described in TCT No. N-19781 is
not located in the place where the subject property is located lacks adequate
basis.
Both the trial and appellate courts
based their conclusions on the verification surveys finding that the property
covered by the said title is located in another place. We note, however, that
the surveys were conducted on the subject property only. Other than an ocular
inspection, no survey was ever conducted on the area where the property covered
by TCT No. N-19781 is allegedly located. Neither was there any effort to plot the
tie lines indicated in its technical description. Consequently, the exact
location of the property covered by the said certificate of title has not been
established.
The verification reports show that the
geodetic engineers, except for Engr. Mercado, concluded that the technical
description in TCT No. N-19781 could not be plotted on the area where the subject
property is located, on the ground that no reference points or corner monuments
had been recovered from the purported adjoining properties. However, the fact
that the property cannot be plotted on a certain area based on the technical
description indicated in the certificate of title does not foreclose the
possibility that there is simply an error in the technical description, or that
it is only deficient. Unless the exact location of the property described in
the certificate of title is determined, we cannot safely and definitively conclude
that it is not located at a certain place.
Indubitably, a certificate of title
serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The real purpose of
the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title
to land and put stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title.[21]
It is true that both trial and
appellate courts actually maintained the indefeasibility of the certificate of
title and desisted from annulling or modifying the same. But by declaring that
the property is not located in
For these reasons, we remand the case
to the trial court for the determination of the exact location of the
petitioner’s property
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated June 27, 2007 and Resolution
dated October 17, 2007 are SET ASIDE.
The case is REMANDED to the Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest 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.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
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 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 vice Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Raffle dated August 3, 2009.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz (retired) and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring; rollo, pp. 48-63.
[2] Rollo, pp. 72-75.
[3] Records, pp. 25-27.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Records, p. 91.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Rollo, p. 141.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] David v. Malay, 376 Phil. 825, 837 (1999).
[20] Skippers United Pacific, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 148893, July 12, 2006, 494 SCRA 661, 667.
[21] Heirs of Brusas v. Court of Appeals, 372 Phil. 47, 54 (1999).
[22] G.R. No. 111179, July 4, 1994, 233 SCRA 626.