[G.R.
No. 138714. January 16, 2002]
SPS.
KARGANILLA vs. SPS. LACUATA, et al.
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated 16
JAN 2002.
G.R. No. 138714 (Spouses
Ricardo and Gloria Karganilla vs. Spouses Pablito and Cecilia Lacuata, La Union
Supreme Realty Development Corporation represented by Cesar Go Shia, Spouses
Froilan and Corazon Peñaflor, Ruben Paule and Macaspac Builders.)
On February 29, 1996, herein petitioners filed an action for reconveyance
and/or damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
against herein respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5044 by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 27. On June 27,
1996, the RTC issued an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction on
the ground that the assessed value of the land involved was not more than
P20,000.00, hence, jurisdiction lies with the municipal trial courts.[1]
On July 1, 1996, herein petitioners filed an identical action with the
Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 1, docketed as Civil
Case No. 3071. On November 29, 1996, the case was dismissed on the ground that
the action had already prescribed. The RTC ratiocinated that:
As to the issue of prescription of action, it appears that OCT No. 0-23 89 was issued to the defendants Lacuata on October 20, 1989 while the instant case was filed on July 1, 1996. Assuming arguendo that there was fraud on the part of defendants Lacuata in including a portion of the plaintiffs’ land in their OCT No. 0-23 89, their act constitute fraud which prescribe in four (4) years from the discovery of said fraud. Plaintiffs claims that they discovered the fraud only this year (1996) when defendants were trying to extend the land they purchased. In effect, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that their cause of action based on fraud against the defendants has not yet prescribed.
In the
case of Yu vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 594, it was held that a cause of
action resting on fraud, prescribes in four (4) years, counted from the date of
issuance of the title which serves as a constructive notice to the whole world.
(Gation vs. Gaffud, 27 SCRA 706, 712).
A land
registration case is a proceeding in rem, and, accordingly, the decision
therein rendered is binding upon the whole world - (Garcia vs. Bello, L-21355,
April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 76).
Furthermore,
the land has already been transferred to the defendants Peñaflors who are
buyers in good faith and for value.
The
possessor with a Torrens title who is not aware of any flaw in his title which
invalidates it is considered a possessor in good faith and his possession does
not lose this character except in the case and from the moment his torrens
title is declared null and void by final judgment of the Courts (Dizon vs.
Rodriguez, L-20300-01 and Republic vs. Court of Appeals, L-20355-56, April 30,
1965 13 SCRA 704).[2]
Petitioners appealed the above order to the Regional Trial Court of San
Fernando, La Union, Branch 29. On November 10, 1998, the trial court dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the MTC’s decision in toto.
Thereafter, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via
petition for review. On February 4, 1999, the appellate court denied the
petition due course and ordered it dismissed on the following grounds,
viz: (a) failure to pay docket fees on time (docket fees were paid
almost two (2) months after the expiration of the reglementary period to
appeal); (b) failure to attach a certified true copy of the decision of the
MTC; and (c) failure to attach registry receipts as required by Section 13,
Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for reconsideration of
the said resolution was likewise denied for lack of merit on April 23, 1999.
Hence, the instant petition for review.
On July 5, 1999, the Court issued a resolution
denying the petition for petitioners’ failure to give an explanation why
service was not done personally as required by Section 11, Rule 13 in relation
to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5, Rule
56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
On November 24, 1999, the motion for reconsideration of said resolution
was granted and the instant petition was reinstated in the interest of justice.
The petition is not meritorious.
Petitioners alleged in their complaint for reconveyance that they are
the owners of a parcel of land which they purchased in 1980; that sometime in
1989, without their knowledge and consent, respondent spouses Lacuata were able
to obtain title over a lot adjoining that of the petitioners including a
portion of the lot owned by the petitioners; that the respondent spouses
Lacuata sold the subject parcel of land to La Union Supreme Realty Development
Corporation; and that La Union Supreme Realty Development Corporation
subsequently sold the same parcel of land to the spouses Froilan and Corazon
Peñaflor.
It is a basic principle in land registration that the certificate of
title serves as an evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to
the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The purpose of
the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land and stop
forever any question as to its legality. This does not mean, however, that the
landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another’s name is without remedy in law. Under Section 32 of the Property
Registration Decree (formerly the Land Registration Act), the decree of
registration cannot be reviewed after the lapse of one year from entry of the
decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an
interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced after the lapse of the one-year
period. The landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another’s name may file an action for reconveyance within four
(4) years from the discovery of the fraud and ten (10) years from the issuance
of the title since such issuance operates as constructive notice.[3] However, it is a condition sine qua non
for an action for reconveyance to prosper that the property should not have
passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.[4] Here, the property has been transferred to
an innocent purchaser for value without knowledge of the alleged fraud
committed by their predecessors-in-interest. Hence, even going into the merits
of the petition, the same must fail.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.)
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court