FIRST DIVISION
|
TEOFISTO OŅO, PRECY O. Petitioners, - versus
-
VICENTE
N. LIM, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 154270 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: March 9, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The subject of controversy is Lot No.
943 of the Balamban Cadastre in Cebu City, covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. RO-9969-(O-20449), over which the contending parties in this
action for quieting of title, initiated by respondent Vicente N. Lim (Lim) in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City, assert exclusive ownership, to the exclusion of the other. In
its decision dated
On appeal (CA-GR CV No. 57823), the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC on
Hence, this appeal via petition
for review on certiorari.
Antecedents
On
Zosimo Oņo
and petitioner Teofisto Oņo (Oņos) opposed Lims petition, contending that they
had the certificate of title in their possession as the successors-in-interest
of Spouses Oņo.
On account
of the Oņos opposition, and upon order of the RTC, Lim converted the petition
for reconstitution into a complaint for quieting of title,[6]
averring additionally that he and his predecessor-in-interest had been in
actual possession of the property since 1937, cultivating and developing it,
enjoying its fruits, and paying the taxes corresponding to it. He prayed, inter alia, that the Oņos
be ordered to surrender the reconstituted owners duplicate copy of OCT No.
RO-9969-(O-20449), and that said OCT be cancelled and a new certificate of
title be issued in the name of Luisa in lieu of said OCT.
In their answer,[7]
the Oņos claimed that their predecessors-in-interest, Spouses Oņo, never sold Lot No. 943 to Luisa;
and that the confirmation of sale purportedly executed by Antonio was
fabricated, his signature thereon not being authentic.
RTC Ruling
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered quieting
plaintiff's title to Lot No. 943 of the Balamban (
(1)
To register the aforestated
(2) To cancel the original certificate of title covering the said Lot No. 943 of the Balamban, Cebu Cadastre; and,
(3) To issue in the name of Luisa Narvios-Lim, a new duplicate certificate of title No. RO-9969 (O-20449) of the Register of Deeds of Cebu, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate of title, and shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original certificate, and shall be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree, pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 109, Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Without special pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The
RTC found that the Lims had been in peaceful possession of the land since 1937;
that their possession had never been disturbed by the Oņos, except on two
occasions in 1993 when the Oņos seized the harvested copra from the Lims
caretaker; that the Lims had since declared the lot in their name for taxation
purposes, and had paid the taxes corresponding to the lot; that the signature
of Antonio on the confirmation of sale was genuine, thereby giving more weight to the testimony of the
notary public who had notarized the document and affirmatively testified that
Antonio and Luisa had both appeared before him to acknowledge the instrument as
true than to the testimony of the expert witness who attested that Antonios
signature was a forgery.
CA Ruling
On
appeal, the Oņos maintained that the confirmation of sale was spurious;
that the property, being a titled one, could not be acquired by the Lims
through prescription; that their (the Oņos) action to claim the property could
not be barred by laches; and that the action instituted by the Lims constituted
a collateral attack against their registered title.
The
CA affirmed the RTC, however, and found that Spouses Oņo had sold Lot No. 943
to Luisa; and that such sale had been confirmed by their son Antonio. The CA ruled that the action for quieting of
title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and that the Lims
undisturbed possession had given them a continuing right to seek the aid of the
courts to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on their own title.
Nonetheless, the CA corrected the
RTC, by ordering that the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu City issue a
new duplicate certificate of title in the name of Luisa, considering that the
owners duplicate was still intact in the possession of the Oņos.
The decree of the CA decision was as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, the dispositive portion of the decision appealed from is CORRECTED as follows:
(1) Within five (5) days from finality of the decision, defendants-appellants are directed to present the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969 (O-20449) to the Register of Deeds who shall thereupon register the Confirmation of Sale of Lot No. 943, Balamban Cadastre, Cebu, executed on April 23, 1961 by Antonio Oņo in favor of Luisa Narvios-Lim, and issue a new transfer certificate of title to and in the name of the latter upon cancellation of the outstanding original and owner's duplicate certificate of title.
(2) In the event defendants-appellants neglect or refuse to present the owner's copy of the title to the Register of Deeds as herein directed, the said title, by force of this decision, shall be deemed annulled, and the Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of such fact in the record and in the new transfer certificate of title to be issued to Luisa Narvios-Lim.
(3) Defendants-appellants shall pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The
CA denied the Oņos motion for
reconsideration[11]
on
Hence,
this appeal.
Issues
The
petitioners raise the following issues:
1.
Whether or not
the validity of the OCT could be collaterally attacked through an ordinary
civil action to quiet title;
2.
Whether or not
the ownership over registered land could be lost by prescription, laches, or
adverse possession;
3.
Whether or not
there was a deed of sale executed by Spouses Oņo in favor of Luisa and whether
or not said deed was lost during World War II;
4.
Whether or not
the confirmation of sale executed by
Antonio in favor of Luisa existed; and
5.
Whether or not
the signature purportedly of Antonio in that confirmation of sale was
genuine.
Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
A.
Action for cancellation
of title
is not an
attack on the title
The petitioners
contend that this action for quieting of title should be disallowed because it constituted a collateral attack
on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), citing Section
48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, viz:
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
The petitioners
contention is not well taken.
An action or
proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the
title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was
decreed.[13] The
attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or
enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral
when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is
nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[14]
Quieting of title
is a common law remedy
for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.[15]
Whenever there is a cloud on title
to real property or any interest in real property by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is apparently valid or
effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such
cloud or to quiet the title.[16] In such action, the
competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant
and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and
to make the claimant, who has no rights to said immovable, respect and not
disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever
has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and
he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the improvements he may desire, as well
as use, and even abuse the property as he deems fit.[17]
Lims complaint pertinently alleged:
18. If
indeed, the genuine original of the Owner's Duplicate of the Reconstituted
Original Certificate of Title No. RO-9699 (O-20449) for
xxx
18.2.
Therefore, the Original of Owners Duplicate Certificate (which Respondents
[Defendants Oņos] claim in their Opposition is in their possession) must be
surrendered to VNL upon order of this Court, after the Court shall have
determined VNL's mother's acquisition of the attributes of ownership over said
Lot 943, in this action, in accordance with Section 107, P.D. 1529, Property
Registration Decree xxx
xxx
[t]hat OCT 20449 be cancelled
and new title for Lot 943 be issued directly in favor of LUISA NARVIOS, to
complete her title to said Lot;[18]
The averments readily show that the action was neither a direct nor a
collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), for Lim was asserting only that
the existing title registered in the name of the petitioners predecessors had
become inoperative due to the conveyance in favor of Lims mother, and
resultantly should be cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the
validity of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449),
or challenge the judgment by which the title of the lot involved had been
decreed. In other words, the action sought the removal of a cloud from Lims
title, and the confirmation of Lims ownership over the disputed property as
the successor-in-interest of Luisa.
B.
Prescription was not relevant
The petitioners assert that the lot, being
titled in the name of their predecessors-in-interest, could not be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.
The assertion is unwarranted.
Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership
and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions
laid down by law.[19]
However, prescription was not relevant to the determination of the dispute
herein, considering that Lim did not base his right of ownership on an adverse
possession over a certain period. He insisted herein, instead, that title to
the land had been voluntarily transferred by the registered owners themselves to
Luisa, his predecessor-in-interest.
Lim showed that his mother had derived
a just title to the property by virtue of sale; that from the time Luisa had acquired
the property in 1937, she had taken over its possession in the concept of an
owner, and had performed her obligation by paying real property taxes on the
property, as evidenced by tax declarations issued in her name;[20]
and that in view of the delivery of the property, coupled with Luisas actual occupation
of it, all that remained to be done was the issuance of a new transfer
certificate of title in her name.
C.
Forgery, being a question
of fact,
could not be dealt with now
The
petitioners submit that Lims evidence did not preponderantly show that the ownership
of the lot had been transferred to Luisa; and that both the trial and the
appellate courts disregarded their showing that Antonios signature on the confirmation of
sale was a forgery.
Clearly,
the petitioners hereby seek a review of the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence
presented by the parties.
The
Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence,
because the Court is not a trier of facts.[21]
Although this rule admits of certain exceptions, viz: (1) when the
conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
conjecture; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there
is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals,
in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case,
and the findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidence on which they
are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well in the
petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and,
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court
of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
and are contradicted by the evidence on record,[22]
it does not appear now that any of the exceptions is present herein. We thus
apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the appeal for that reason.
It is emphasized, too, that the CA upheld
the conclusion arrived at by the RTC that the signature of Antonio had not been
simulated or forged. The CA ruled that
the testimony of the notary public who had notarized the confirmation of sale to the effect that Antonio and Luisa had
appeared before him prevailed over that of the petitioners expert witness. The
concurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Antonios signature now
binds the Court.[23]
In civil cases, the
party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of
evidence. Preponderance of evidence
is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, and
is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that means, in the last
analysis, probability of the truth.[24]
It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than
that which is offered in opposition thereto.
Lim successfully discharged his burden of proof as the plaintiff. He established by preponderant evidence that he had a superior right and title to the property. In contrast, the petitioners did not present any proof of their better title other than their copy of the reconstituted certificate of title. Such proof was not enough, because the registration of a piece of land under the Torrens system did not create or vest title, such registration not being a mode of acquiring ownership. The petitioners need to be reminded that a certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[25]
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied, and the decision
dated
The
petitioners are ordered to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, 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 Courts Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Original Records, pp. 175-182.
[2] CA Rollo, pp. 71-84. Penned by Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Justice Sergio L. Pestaņo concurring.
[3]
[4] Original Records, p.176.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Supra, Note at 1.
[9] Original Records, pp. 181-182.
[10] CA Rollo, pp. 83-84.
[11]
[12] Supra, Note at 3.
[13] Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152627, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 99, 107-108, citing Malilin, Jr. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 628, 640.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Rev. Ed., p. 295.
[16] Article 476, Civil Code.
[17] Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137, 146-147.
[18] Original Records, pp. 8-10.
[19] Calicdan v. Cendaņa, G.R. No. 155080,
[20] Original Records, pp. 114-131.
[21] Twin Towers Condominium Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123552,
[22] Mamsar Enterprises Agro-Industrial
Corporation v. Varley Trading, Inc., G.R. No. 142729,
[23] Naguiat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118375, October 3, 2003, 412 SCRA 591, 595-596.
[24] Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc.,
G.R. No. 162704,
[25] Heirs of Clement Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac, G.R. No. 149679, May 30, 2003, 403 SCRA 291, 298.