|
SIXTO
ANTONIO, Petitioner, - versus - SPS.
SOFRONIO |
G.R. No. 149238 Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio
Morales, Tinga,
and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: November 22, 2007 |
|
Respondents. |
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This is an
appeal from the Decision[1] dated July 31,
2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58246, affirming, with
modification, the Decision[2] dated October 7,
1997 of Branch 72, Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Antipolo,
Rizal in Civil Case No. 1261-A. The RTC had dismissed the complaint for
Reconveyance, Annulment of Title and Damages filed by petitioner Sixto Antonio
against respondents.
The antecedent facts, culled from the records, are as
follows:
On
In his complaint,[3] Antonio
alleged that he is the absolute owner of a 13,159-square meter parcel of land
denominated as Lot No. 11703, CAD 688-D, Cainta-Taytay Cadastre, situated in Barangay San Juan, Cainta, Rizal. He averred that, as evidenced by certificates
of payment of realty taxes for the years 1918 and 1919, the property was
previously owned by his father and that in 1984, he filed before Branch 71,
RTC, Antipolo, Rizal, an
application for the registration of two parcels of land, one of which was Lot No.
11703, CAD 688-D, situated in Barangay San
Juan, Cainta, Rizal.
His application was docketed as Land Registration Case No. 142-A (LRC No.
142-A).
Although the RTC, Branch 71, declared him the true and
absolute owner in fee simple of the two parcels of land he applied for, it set
aside its decision with respect to Lot No. 11703, CAD 688-D in an Order dated
Antonio said that after investigation, he discovered
that Lot No. 11703, CAD 688-D was already titled in the name of respondents. He then filed the complaint for Reconveyance,
Annulment of Title and Damages against respondents, averring that respondents
committed fraud in their application for titling because they made it appear in
their application for registration that the subject property was located in
Pinagbuhatan,
In their Answer[4] dated
The RTC of Antipolo,
Rizal, Branch 72, in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING
the instant complaint, and orders plaintiff as follows:
1. To pay defendants Sofronio Santos, Aurora Santos, Sps. Luis Liberato
and Angelina Santos, the amount of P100,000.00 each, by way of moral damages;
2. To pay defendants the amount of P60,000.00, by way of attorney’s
fees, and costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[5]
The Court of Appeals in a Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
with modification deleting [or] setting aside the award for moral damages and
attorney’s fees, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with costs
against the plaintiff-appellant.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Hence, the instant petition, raising the following issues:
I.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DECISION IN
LAND REGISTRATION CASE NO. 142-A, LRC RECORD NO. 58707,
II.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN TREATING PETITIONER’S ACTION FOR
RECONVEYANCE AS ONE FOR TITLING OF A PARCEL OF LAND.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT
RESPONDENTS HAVE FRAUDULENTLY REGISTERED AND TITLED SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THEIR
NAMES.
IV.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENTS’ MOTHER
ACQUIRED SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM HER FATHER, GAVINO
V.
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE
COURT A QUO DISMISSING PETITIONER’S ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE.[7]
Simply put, the issues raised are: (1) Did the Court of
Appeals err in not holding that the decision in LRC No. 142-A was sufficient
basis of petitioner’s claim of ownership over the subject property? (2)
Did the Court of Appeals and RTC erroneously treat petitioner’s action
for reconveyance as one for titling of a parcel of land? (3)
Did respondents fraudulently title the subject property in their
names? (4) Did the Court of Appeals err in finding that
respondents’ mother acquired the subject property from her father, Gavino
Santos, who purchased it from Ladislao Rivera?
and (5) Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the decision of the
RTC dismissing petitioner’s action for reconveyance?
Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in
not holding that the decision in LRC No. 142-A is sufficient basis for his
claim of ownership over the property; in treating his action for reconveyance
as one for titling; in not holding that respondents had fraudulently registered
the property in their names; and in holding that respondents’ mother had acquired
the subject property from her father, Gavino Santos, who allegedly bought the
property from Ladislao Rivera.
Respondents, on the other hand,
in their Comments,[8] contend
that they have proved they have a better title to the property. They argue that petitioner’s attempt to
register Lot No. 11703, CAD 688-D in his name is tainted with fraud, and that petitioner
had failed to adduce any evidence of fraud on their part. They assert that their documentary and
testimonial evidence which were unrebutted by petitioner show original
ownership of the land by Ladislao Rivera from whom their grandfather bought the
property.
After serious consideration, we find
that petitioner’s arguments lack merit.
On the first issue, petitioner
argues that in LRC No. 142-A, the RTC of Antipolo,
Branch 71, rendered a Decision on
But we agree with respondents
that petitioner cannot rely on the decision in LRC No. 142-A. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, even
if a title had been issued to petitioner based on said decision, his title would
be of a later date than the title of respondents, hence inefficacious and
ineffective. This Court has ruled that,
when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the
same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of
successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the
same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as
against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.[9]
On the second issue, petitioner contends that it is
very apparent the RTC and Court of Appeals had the notion that his case a
quo was not an action for reconveyance, but
rather an application for registration of land where the applicant and
oppositor had to prove their respective registrable titles. This, he adds, could be gleaned from the RTC’s
findings that “the claim of plaintiff on the basis of said documents cannot
prevail over the adverse, public, open, peaceful and continuous possession by
the defendants over the subject property,” and that “it was indubitably shown
that the defendants have occupied said property since time immemorial while
plaintiff has never at anytime taken possession of said property.”
We find petitioner’s contentions
unconvincing. For an action for
reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, this Court has held that the party
seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to
the property and the fact of fraud.[10] The RTC, in making the abovementioned
findings, was not treating petitioner’s action for reconveyance as one for
titling of property. But it was weighing
whether petitioner has, by clear and convincing evidence, proven his title to
the property. Moreover, the RTC, in its
decision, discussed the merits of petitioner’s ground for his action for
reconveyance, i.e. whether or not respondents committed fraud in titling
the subject property in their names. The RTC held that as shown by public
records in the custody of the RTC,
On the third and fourth issues, we find them to be
factual issues, hence beyond our jurisdiction to resolve. In a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, this
Court’s power of review is limited to questions of law only.[11]
Note, however, should be taken of the established
doctrine that an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four
years from the discovery of the fraud. Such
discovery is deemed to have taken place upon the issuance of the certificate of
title over the property. Registration of
real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons, thus, the
four-year period shall be counted therefrom.[12] It appears that OCT No. 108 was issued to
respondents by the Register of Deeds for Metro Manila on
Based on the foregoing considerations, we find that
the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the decision of the RTC
dismissing petitioner’s action for reconveyance.
Finally, concerning the deletion of moral damages and
attorney’s fees, we agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that here an
award of moral damages is not warranted since the record is bereft of any proof
that Antonio acted maliciously or in bad faith in filing the action.[13] Neither should
attorney’s fees be awarded. The accepted
rule is that the reason for the award of attorney’s fees must be stated in the
text of the trial court’s decision; otherwise, if it is stated only in the
dispositive portion of the decision, the same must be disallowed.[14] In this case, we find that the trial court’s
decision failed to show the reason for the award of attorney’s fees, hence it was properly deleted by the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for
lack of merit. The assailed Decision
dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA 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 Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
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 Resolution 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 |
[1] Rollo, pp. 32-45. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz and Josefina Guevara-Salonga concurring.
[2] Records, Vol. I, pp. 616-635. Penned by Judge Rogelio L. Angeles.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 45.
[7]
[8]
[9] Chan v. Court of Appeals (Special
Seventh Division), G.R. No. 118516,
[10] Barrera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
123935,
[11] Guanga v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 150187, March 17, 2006, 485 SCRA 80, 88-89.
[12] Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Fernandez,
G.R. No. 138971,
[13] Francel
Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117051, January 22, 1996,
252 SCRA 127, 134.
[14] Agustin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
84751,