Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
|
MANUEL P. NEY and ROMULO P. NEY, Petitioners, - versus - SPOUSES CELSO P. QUIJANO
and MINA N. QUIJANO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 178609
Present: CARPIO,
Chairperson NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: August 4,
2010 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
On
appeal is the June 29, 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. CV. 86047, setting aside the August
25, 2005 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 45.
Petitioners Manuel P. Ney and Romulo
P. Ney (petitioners) are the registered owners of a residential lot located at
1648 Main Street, Paco Manila, with an area of 120 square meters more or less,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 122489.[3] A three (3) door apartment was constructed on
the subject lot – one for Manuel, the other for Romulo; and the last one for
their sister Mina N. Quijano and her husband Celso Quijano (respondents).
On October 8, 1999, respondents filed
with the RTC of Manila a suit for reconveyance, partition and damages against
petitioners. They averred that they are
co-owners of the subject property having paid part of its purchase price; that Celso’s
name was inadvertently omitted as one of the buyers in the execution of the
deed of sale. Consequently, TCT No. 122489
covering the subject property was issued only in the names of Manuel and
Romulo. To obtain a separate certificate of title, they requested from
petitioners the segregation of the portion allotted to them, but the latter refused. They later discovered that the entire
property was mortgaged with Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, prompting
them to execute and register their adverse claim with the Register of Deeds;
and to file the instant complaint.[4]
Petitioners, in their answer,[5] denied
respondents’ allegation of co-ownership.
They averred that Celso Quijano was not a vendee of the subject lot;
thus, his name did not appear on the title.
They asserted that respondents cannot validly maintain an action against
them because the latter possessed the property by mere tolerance; and even
assuming that respondents had a valid cause of action, the same had already
been barred by prescription and/or laches.
Petitioners, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision[6] dismissing the complaint. It rejected respondents’ claim of
co-ownership, and declared their documentary and testimonial evidence
unreliable. The RTC sustained
petitioners’ assertion that respondents possessed part of the property through
mere tolerance; and that their cause of action, if any,
already prescribed. The RTC thus ruled that respondents can no longer demand the
segregation or reconveyance of the claimed portion of the property. Finally, the RTC granted petitioners’
counterclaim and ordered the reimbursement of the expenses they incurred in
defending the case.
The dispositive portion of the RTC
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [respondents’] Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
On the other hand, finding merit in the [petitioners’] Counterclaim, the [respondents] are hereby ordered to pay the [petitioners]:
a)
The reduced amount of P50,000.00 for attorney’s
fees; and
b) The costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
From the aforesaid Decision, respondents
went to the CA. They faulted the RTC for
dismissing their complaint and insisted that they are co-owners of the subject
lot; and that their share was erroneously included in petitioners’ title. Respondents also took exception to the trial
court’s declaration that their action was already barred by prescription and
laches. Citing Heirs of Jose Olviga v.
Court of Appeals, respondents asserted that their right to institute an
action for reconveyance is imprescriptible because they are in possession of the
claimed portion of the property.[8]
On June 29, 2007, the CA rendered the
now challenged Decision,[9]
reversing the RTC. The CA found
sufficient evidence to support respondents’ claim that they are indeed
co-owners of the property; and were excluded by petitioners in the deed of sale
and certificate of title. The CA considered
respondents’ complaint as one for quieting of title which is imprescriptible;
and granted to respondents the reliefs that they prayed for.
The CA disposed, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The appealed Decision dated August 25, 2005
of the Regional Trial Court Branch 45,
Accordingly, [petitioners] are hereby ordered:
1) to partition the subject lot into three (3) equal portions of forty square meters (40 sq.m.) each, specifically allotting to [respondents] the portion where their house stands;
2) to reconvey to [respondents] the clean title to their portion of the subject lot;
3) to surrender the owner’s copy of TCT No. 122489 to the Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation of [respondents’] share thereon; and
4) to pay [respondents] attorney’s fees and the
costs of suit in the reasonable amount of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Undaunted, petitioners took the present recourse. They ascribe reversible error to the CA for treating
respondents’ action as one for quieting of title. They claim that nowhere in the complaint does
it state that respondents seek to quiet their title to the property. All that respondents averred and prayed for
in their complaint was for petitioners to surrender their certificate of title,
and for the partition of the subject property. Petitioners assert that the CA ruled on an issue
not raised in the pleadings; and substituted the respondents’ action with an
entirely new action for quieting of title.
The argument is specious.
The allegations in respondents’ complaint
read in part:
2) That [respondents] are co-owners of one-third (1/3) portion pro indiviso of the residential lot where their residential house was constructed known as 1648 Main Street, Paco, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122489; x x x
3) That
in their agreement with the lot owner, the name of the [respondent] Celso P.
Quijano appears as one (1) of the Second Party [sic] who purchased the lot at
the purchase price of P50,000.00 with P40,000.00 as down payment
and the balance of P10,000.00 shall be paid on or before July 14, 1976,
wherein the [respondent] Celso P. Quijano have (sic) paid the sum of P5,000.00
on the same due date of July 14, 1976;
4) That
when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by the Vendor, the name of the [respondent]
Celso P. Quijano, marr[ie]d to Mina Ney Quijano was omitted and the purchase
price appeared to be only P20,000.00 and not P50,000.00 as
appearing in their Agreement, thus when the Absolute Deed of Sale was presented
to the Register of Deeds of Manila, only the names of Manuel P. Ney and Romulo
P. Ney appeared as the registered owners in the above-mentioned Transfer
Certificate of Title No.122489;
5) That
Celso Quijano, however, was able to secure a Certification from the Vend[o]r
Luz J. Lim the true and correct selling price agreed upon is P50,000.00
and the Vendees were Manuel P. Ney, Romulo P. Ney and [respondent] Celso
Quijano and that the amount of P20,000.00 put in the Deed of Sale was at
the instance of the Vendor with the consent of the Vendees;
6) That sometime in March 1991, [respondents] requested from the [petitioners] to segregate their Title to the one-third (1/3) portion of the lot [sic] where their house was constructed with an area of about forty (40) square meters more or less and [petitioners] agreed and executed a Deed of Reconveyance, but when [respondent] Celso P. Quijano presented the document to the Register of Deeds of Manila it [sic] was rejected because he can not present the Owner’s copy;
x x x x
8) That from the records of the Register of Deeds of Manila, [respondent] Celso P. Quijano discovered that the whole property was mortgaged with [sic] the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, thus [respondents] were constrained to execute and register their adverse claim that they are co-owners of one-third (1/3) portion of the lot and their residential house therein;
9) That after the registration of the [respondent’s] adverse claim, the Register of Deeds through Expedito A. Javier notified the [petitioners] to surrender the Owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122489 in order that a Memorandum be made thereon for the Notice of Adverse Claim, but the request of the Register of Deeds was not honored by the [petitioners];
x x x x
12) That
by reason of the[petitioners’] refusal to surrender the Owner’s copy of the
Title to the Register of Deeds of Manila for partition and reconveyance, [respondents]
were constrained to engage the services of counsel to protect their interest at
an agreed amount of P50,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees.
These allegations make out a case for
reconveyance. That reconveyance was one
of the reliefs sought was made abundantly clear by respondents in their prayer,
viz.:
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing judgment be rendered in favor of the [respondents] and against the [petitioners] ordering the latter as follows:
a) To surrender the Owner’s copy of TCT No. 122489 to the Court or if refused that an Order be issued ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue to the [respondents] their co-owner’s copy if [sic] the Title;
b) Ordering the partition of the lot into equal shares of forty (40) square meters more or less and the lot where the [respondents’] residential house is constructed known as 1648 Main Street, Paco Manila be awarded and be reconveyed to the [respondents] as their share;
c) Ordering the [petitioners] to settle their obligations to [sic] the mortgagee bank, if any, and to reconvey to the [respondents] clean Title over their property.
d) Ordering
[petitioners] jointly and severally to pay [respondents] moral damages in the
amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 and the sum of P50,000.00
as and for attorney’s fees and costs.
[Respondents] further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises.
Undoubtedly, respondents did not only
seek the partition of the property and the delivery of the title, but also the
reconveyance of their share which was inadvertently included in petitioners’
TCT.
An action for reconveyance is one that seeks
to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and
legal owner.[11] Indeed, reconveyance is an action distinct
from an action for quieting of title, which is filed whenever there is a cloud
on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to said title for purposes of removing such cloud or to
quiet title. [12] However, we find nothing erroneous in the CA’s
ruling treating respondents’ action for reconveyance as an action to quiet
title.
In Mendizabel v. Apao,[13] we
treated a similar action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title,
explaining, thus:
The Court has ruled that the 10-year prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property. If a person claiming to be its 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. The reason is that the one who is in actual possession of the land claiming to be its owner may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. 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.
The ruling was reiterated in Lasquite v. Victory Hills, Inc.,[14] viz.:
An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust
prescribes in 10 years. The reference point of the 10-year prescriptive period
is the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. The
prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the
property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However,
if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession
of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the
property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance,
if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title,
an action that is imprescriptible.
Indubitably, the characterization by
the CA of respondents’ action as in the nature of an action for quieting of
title cannot be considered a reversible error.
Petitioners next fault the CA for sustaining
respondents’ claim of co-ownership. They
denied that Celso Quijano is a co-owner of the property. Unfortunately for
petitioners, the records speak otherwise.
The Deed of Reconveyance[15] executed
by Manuel and Romulo explicitly states that:
[W]e acknowledge and recognized the rights, interests and participation of Celso P. Quijano, Filipino, of legal age, married to Mina P. Ney and resident of 1648 Main Street, Paco, Manila, as a co-owner of the one-third (1/3) portion of the said lot wherein his residential house is now constructed at the above-stated address, having paid the corresponding amount over the said 1/3 portion of the property for the acquisition costs but whose name does not appear in the Deed of Sale executed in our favor, thus resulting in the non-conclusion (sic) of his name in the above-stated Transfer Certificate of Title when issued as a co-owner.
NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises WE, MANUEL P. NEY
and ROMULO P. NEY, do hereby transfer and convey unto said Spouses Celso P.
Quijano and MINA P. NEY their one-third (1/3) portion share of the
aforedescribed (sic) parcel of land where their residential house is now
situated at their above-given address with an area of forty (40) square meters
more or less by virtue of this Deed of Reconveyance.
Petitioners never denied the due
execution of the Deed of Reconveyance. In fact they admitted that the signatures
appearing therein are theirs.[16] The CA cannot, therefore, be faulted for
declaring respondents as co-owners of the subject property because it merely
confirmed and enforced the Deed of Reconveyance
voluntarily executed by petitioners in favor of respondents.
As aptly pronounced by the CA:
[T]he Deed of Reconveyance, duly signed by [petitioners] themselves, put to rest the focal issue between the parties. There is no denying that it outweighs the evidence relied upon by [petitioners] despite the fact that they have the transfer certificate of title over the entire subject lot. It is settled that it is not the certificate of title that vests ownership. It merely evidences such title. x x x[17]
In a number of cases, the Court has
ordered reconveyance of property to the true owner or to one with a better
right, where the property had been erroneously or fraudulently titled in
another person's name. After all, the
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 86047 is AFFIRMED. Cost against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
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.
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second 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.
RENATO C.
CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice
Magdangal M. De
[2] Records, pp. 319-326.
[3] Exhibit “C,” Folder of Exhibits.
[4] Records, pp. 1-5.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] See Brief for the Plaintiffs-Appellants, CA rollo, pp. 29-50.
[9] Supra note 1.
[10]
[11] Sps. Alfredo v Sps. Borras, 452 Phil. 178, 183 (2003).
[12] Article 476. Civil Code.
[13] G.R. No. 143185, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 587, 609.
[14] G.R. No. 175375. June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 616, 631-632.
[15] Exhibit “D,” Folder of Exhibits.
[16] TSN, February 4, 2003, pp. 4-5
[17] Rollo, p. 29.
[18] Mendezabel v. Apao, supra note 13, at 607.