THIRD DIVISION
|
MODESTA LUNA, Petitioner, - versus - JULIANA P. LUNA, CORNELIO,
MILAGROS, RENATO, FLORDELITA, AURORA, ANDRITO and GEORGE all surnamed
GARCILLA, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 177624
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July 13, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Petitioner
assails in this Rule 45 petition the January 29, 2007 Decision[1] and
the April 20, 2007 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90749. The appellate court, in the
assailed decision, dismissed petitioner’s complaint on the ground of
prescription, and, in the challenged resolution, denied her motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.
The
antecedent facts and proceedings follow.
Petitioner
Modesta A. Luna filed with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan,
on March 9, 1999, a Complaint[3] docketed
as Civil Case No. 767 for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel
of land situated in the municipality. On May 11, 1999, petitioner amended her complaint
to include, among others, additional defendants and to incorporate added
allegations.
In the Amended Complaint,[4]
petitioner related that she and respondent Juliana P. Luna were the daughters
of the late Pedro Luna, the alleged owner of a 1-ha. property, a portion of
which is the subject of this case. On June 20, 1950, Pedro donated 2,268 sq m of
the said land to petitioner. When Pedro died in 1957, petitioner declared the
land for taxation purposes in her name and paid the real estate taxes thereon. She
nevertheless allowed respondent to cultivate the land, harvest fruits, and use
the proceeds of the harvest to pay for the debts left by their father. Subsequently,
petitioner discovered that respondent applied for, and was issued in 1976, a
free patent over 3,431 sq m of the land, which included 1,100 sq m of the
portion donated to her. The land was later subdivided in 1994 and titles transferred
in the names of their other siblings.[5]
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-53813 included 211 sq m of the
donated land, and TCT No. T-53814 covered 889 sq m thereof. Petitioner thus
prayed that the first TCT be declared as null and void insofar as the 211 sq m
portion was concerned, and the second TCT be voided in its entirety. She
further pleaded that all persons occupying the said donated land be ordered to
vacate the premises and pay damages.
On October 6, 2003, the MTC rendered
its Decision[6] granting
the complaint. It ruled, among others, that the subject property was a private
land donated by the parties’ father to the petitioner; therefore, respondent’s
free patent was null and void, for it covered property of private ownership.
The MTC consequently disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as follows:
1.
Declaring
TCT No. 53814 (sic) null and void in so far as 211 sq.m. thereof while TCT
53814 is hereby declared null and void in its entirety.
2.
Ordering
the defendant and all persons claiming under them to vacate the 1,100 sq.m. of
land donated by Pedro Luna to plaintiff Modesta Luna and to pay P10,000.00 a
year for the reasonable compensation from their continued stay thereat to
plaintiff in proportion to the area they respectively withhold from the
plaintiff.
3.
Defendants
jointly and severally is (sic) ordered to pay plaintiff the amount of
P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
4.
To pay
the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of
Relentless despite the adverse
rulings of both trial courts, respondents elevated the case to the CA. In the
assailed January 29, 2007 Decision,[9]
the appellate court set aside the ruling of the RTC and dismissed the complaint
upon a finding that the action had prescribed. The CA said that petitioner
failed to question, on the ground of actual fraud, the decision or order
granting the application for free patent within one year from the issuance
thereof. Petitioner likewise failed to institute an action for reconveyance,
based on implied or constructive trust, within 10 years from the issuance of
the certificates of title. Thus, petitioner’s complaint was time-barred.
Importantly, the CA found that the
subject property was not private land. The records revealed that the parties claimed
to be beneficiaries/donees of their deceased parents, and that petitioner had
no title to the property independent of her deceased fathers’ alleged right. It
was also shown that petitioner even applied for a free patent on the adjoining
lot. The CA thus ruled that the property was, at inception, public land, and no
proof was introduced that it had already been withdrawn from the public domain
prior to the award of the free patent to respondent.
On the issue of jurisdiction, the CA
ruled that the MTC had jurisdiction, the suit being one for recovery of
ownership and possession and the assessed value of the property being within
the jurisdictional competence of the MTC. The prayer for the consequent
annulment of the issued titles was merely incidental to the main action for
recovery of ownership and possession.
The appellate court disposed of the
case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed
Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated June 07, 2005 is hereby SET ASIDE
and a new one is entered DISMISSING Modesta’s “Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession” on the ground
of prescription.
SO ORDERED.[10]
In the further challenged April 20,
2007 Resolution,[11] as
earlier stated, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Displeased, petitioner filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari
on the following grounds:
I.
The Court of Appeals erred in considering the
issue of prescription, despite the fact that it was not assigned as an error in
the Petition for Review of respondents.
II.
The Court of Appeals erroneously held that it
has the discretion to dismiss an action on ground of prescription, even without
the said defense being raised in the pleadings.
III.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
petitioner’s action prescribed after ten (10) years.
IV.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
the free patent issued in favor of respondent Luna is a valid title.
V.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that
prescription cannot be waived.
Petitioner argues in the main that
the appellate court should not have dismissed the complaint on the ground of
prescription, considering that the issue was never raised in any of
respondents’ pleadings. She maintains that the CA, being an appellate court,
has the jurisdiction merely to review the correctness of the trial court’s
ruling; it does not have the power to dismiss an action on the ground of
prescription even when the parties’ pleadings and the other facts on record
show that the action is time-barred. Petitioner moreover asserts that the
prescriptive period in this case is 30 years and not 10 as erroneously ruled by
the CA.
We deny the petition. We find no
reversible error in the assailed issuances of the CA.
Entrenched in our jurisprudence is
the rule that the appellate court may motu
proprio dismiss an action for having prescribed, even if the case has been
elevated for review on different grounds, where prescription clearly appears
from the complaint filed with the trial court.[12]
Here, the CA correctly dismissed the
case on the ground of prescription. Let it be noted that the free patent and
the original certificate of title were issued to respondent Juliana, who is in
possession of the subject property found to be a public land, on May 3, 1976.[13]
Petitioner instituted the personal action for reconveyance[14]
only in May 1999 or after 23 years.
We have held in prior cases that the
order or decision granting an application for a free patent can be reviewed
only within one year from its issuance on the ground of actual fraud via a
petition for review in the Regional Trial Court, provided that no innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the property or any interest thereon. However,
an aggrieved party may still file an action for reconveyance based on implied
or constructive trust, but the right of action prescribes in 10 years counted from
the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property,
provided that it has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value.[15] This
10-year prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is
not in possession of the property. If the person claiming to be its owner is in
actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect is
an action to quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.[16]
In the instant case, petitioner’s
action to recover the property and to annul the patent and title issued to the
respondents was filed beyond the prescriptive period. Thus, it ought to be
dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The January 29, 2007 Decision
and the April 20, 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP
No. 90749 are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Magdangal M. de Leon concurring; rollo, pp. 148-161.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] As alleged in the amended complaint, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RP-2318 (P-6715) / Free Patent No. (III-6) 006542 was issued to respondent on May 3, 1976. The land covered by the patent was subdivided into four lots—Nos. 2929-A, 2929-B, 2929-C and 2929-D. OCT No. RP-2318 (P-6715) was then cancelled and TCT Nos. T-53811, T-53812, T-53813 and T-53814 were issued in the names of Pedro P. Luna, Jr., Pastora P. Luna, respondents Cornelio, Milagros, Renato, Flordelita, Aurora, Andrito and George, all surnamed Garcilla; and Juliana P. Luna.
[6] Rollo, pp. 75-87.
[7]
[8]
[9] Supra
note 1.
[10] Rollo, p. 160.
[11] Supra note 2.
[12] Katon v. Palanca, Jr., G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004, 437 SCRA 565, 567; Gicano v. Gegato, No. L-63575, January 20, 1988, 157 SCRA 140, 145-146.
[13] Rollo, p. 50.
[14] An action for reconveyance respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible but seeks the transfer of property, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in other persons’ names, to its rightful and legal owners or to those who claim to have a better right. There is no special ground for an action for reconveyance. It is enough that the aggrieved party has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. (Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007, 540 SCRA 1, 13-14.)
[15] Khemani v. Heirs of Anastacio Trinidad, G.R. No. 147340, December 13, 2007, 540 SCRA 83, 96-97; Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Y. Quijano, G.R. No. 140457, January 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15, 26; Katon v. Palanca, supra note 12, at 579; Millena v. Court of Appeals, 381 Phil. 132, 138 (2000). Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, further, provides that “[t]he 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 judgments, 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 [now, Regional Trial Court] 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 any equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.” [Underscoring supplied.]
[16] Mendizabel v. Apao, G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 587, 609.