PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
HEIRS OF CLEMENTE
ERMAC, NAMELY: IRENEA E. SENO,
LIBRADA E. MALINAO,
INES E. MIÑOZA, SOLEDAD E.
CENIZA, RODULFO
ERMAC AND AMELITA E. BASUBAS,
Petitioners,
G.R.
No.
149679
May 30, 2003
-versus-
HEIRS OF VICENTE
ERMAC, NAMELY: BENJAMIN, VIRGINIA,
PRECIOSA, DANILO,
AS HEIRS OF URBANO ADOLFO;
BERNARDINO, CLIMACO,
CESAR, ELSA, FLORAME AND FE,
ALL SURNAMED ERMAC,
AS HEIRS OF CLIMACO ERMAC,
ESTELITA ERMAC,
ESTANISLAO DIONSON, VICENTE DIONSON,
EUFEMIA LIGARAY,
EMIGDIO BUSTILLO AND LIZA PARAJELE,
LUISA DEL CASTILLO,[*]
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Ownership should not be
confused with a Certificate of Title. Registering land under the
torrens system does not create or vest title, because registration is
not
a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely
an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described
therein. The Case
Before us is a petition
for review[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the February
16, 2001 decision[1]
and the August 6, 2001 resolution[3]
of the Court of Appeals[4]
(CA) in CA-GR CV No. 59564. The dispositive part of the decision
reads:chanrobles virtual law library
"WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the
assailed
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City is hereby
AFFIRMED."[5]chanrobles virtual law library
The assailed Resolution
denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts
The factual antecedents
of the case are summarized by the CA as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
"In their
Complaint,
[respondents] claim that they are the owners of the various parcels of
real property that form part of Lot No. 666, (plan II-5121 Amd.2)
situated
in Mandaue City, Cebu, which lot allegedly belonged originally to
Claudio
Ermac. Upon the latter’s death, the said Lot No. 666 was
inherited
and partitioned by his children, namely, Esteban, Pedro and
Balbina.
Siblings Pedro and Balbina requested their brother Esteban to have
their
title over the property registered. Esteban, however, was unable
to do so, and the task of registration fell to his son, Clemente.
Clemente applied for registration of the title, but did so in his own
name,
and did not include his father’s brother and sister, nor his
cousins.
Despite having registered the lot in his name, Clemente did not disturb
or claim ownership over those portions occupied by his uncle, aunt and
cousins even up to the time of his death. Among the occupants of
Lot No. 666 are the [respondents] in this case.
[Respondents]-heirs
of Vicente Ermac claim ownership over the portions of Lot No. 666 now
occupied
by them by right of succession as direct descendants of the original
owner,
Claudio Ermac. [Respondents] Luisa Del Castillo and Estaneslao
Dionson
allegedly derived their title by purchase from the children of Claudio
Ermac. [Respondent] Vicente Dionson, on the other hand, bought
his
land from the heirs of Pedro Ermac, while [Respondents] Emigdio
Bustillo
and Liza Parajele derived their ownership from the Heirs of Balbina
Ermac-Dabon.
[respondents’] ownership and possession had been peaceful and
undisturbed,
until recently when the [petitioners]-heirs of Clemente Ermac filed an
action for ejectment against them. The filing of the said
ejectment
caused a cloud of doubt upon the [respondents’] ownership over their
respective
parcels of land, prompting them to file this action for quieting of
title.chanrobles virtual law library
"Petitioners, on
the
other hand, denied the material allegations of the [respondents], and
claimed
that the [respondents] have no cause of action against them. It
is
essentially claimed that it was Clemente Ermac and not his grandfather
Claudio Ermac who is the original claimant of dominion over Lot No.
666.
During his lifetime, Clemente Ermac was in actual, peaceful, adverse
and
continuous possession in the concept of an owner of the entire Lot No.
666. With the help of his children, he cultivated the said lot,
and
planted corn, peanuts, cassava and fruit products. Clemente also
effected the registration of the subject lot in his name. Upon
Clemente’s
death, [petitioners] inherited Lot No. 666, and they constructed their
residential houses thereon. [Petitioners] claim that
[respondents’]
recent occupation of some portions of Lot No. 666 was only tolerated by
Clemente Ermac and the [petitioners]. [Petitioners] in fact had
never
surrendered ownership or possession of the property to the
[respondents].
[Petitoners] also set up the defense of prescription and laches.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
"After trial, the
lower
court rendered its decision, finding that the original owner of the lot
in question was Claudio Ermac, and therefore, the property was
inherited
upon his death by his children Esteban, Balbina and Pedro. All
the
heirs of Claudio Ermac, therefore, should share in the ownership over
Lot
No. 666, by right of succession. The ruling [was] supported by
the
admissions of Irene[a] Seno, witness for the [petitioners] and daughter
of Clemente Ermac, establishing facts which show that [petitioners] and
their predecessor Clemente did not own the entire property, but that
the
other heirs of Claudio Ermac are entitled to two-thirds (2/3) of the
lot.
Since the entire lot is now registered in the name of Clemente Ermac,
the
shares belonging to the other heirs of Claudio Ermac, some of which
have
already been purchased by some of the [respondents], are being held in
trust by the [petitioners] in favor of their actual occupants."[6]chanrobles virtual law library Ruling of
the
Court of Appeals
The CA held that the
factual finding of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)[7]
should not be disturbed on appeal. The latter found that Lot No.
666 was originally owned by Claudio Ermac and, after his death, was
inherited
by his children -- Esteban, Balbina and Pedro. It ruled that
respondents
were able to prove consistently and corroboratively that they -- as
well
as their predecessors-in-interests -- had been in open, continuous and
undisturbed possession and occupation thereof in the concept of owners.cralaw:red
According to the appellate
court, "the fact that [petitioners] have in their possession
certificates
of title which apparently bear out that it was Clemente Ermac alone who
claimed the entire property described therein has no discrediting
effect
upon plaintiffs’ claim, it appearing that such titles were acquired in
derogation of the existing valid and adverse interests of the
plaintiffs
whose title by succession were effectively disregarded."[8]chanrobles virtual law library
Hence, this Petition.[9]
The Issues
In their memorandum,[10]
petitioners raise the following issues for our consideration:chanrobles virtual law library
"I. The
validity
of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 5, 1996 issued by
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, directing the Municipal Trial
Court
in Cities, Branch 2, to cease and desist from conducting further
proceedings
in Civil Case No. 2401;
"II. Whether
or
not O.C.T. No. RO-752 issued in the names of [Spouses] Clemente Ermac
[and]
Anunciacion Suyco is indefeasible and incontrovertible under the
Torrens
System[;]
"III. Whether
or not the alleged tax declarations and tax receipts are sufficient to
defeat the title over the property in the names of petitioner’s
predecessors-in-interest
[Spouses] Clemente Ermac and Anunciacion Suyco;
"[IV]. Whether
or not laches ha[s] set in on the claims by the respondents on portions
of Lot No. 666[.]"[11]
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition is unmeritorious.cralaw:red
First Issue:
Preliminary Injunction
Petitioners assail the
validity of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the RTC to
restrain
the ejectment proceedings they had filed earlier.cralaw:red
This question is not
only late, but also moot. If petitioners truly believed that the
issuance of the Writ was tainted with grave abuse of discretion, they
should
have challenged it by a special civil action for certiorari within the
reglementary period. Any ruling by the Court at this point would
be moot and academic, as the resolution of the issue would not involve
the merits of the case, which this appeal -- as it is now -- touches
upon.chanrobles virtual law library
Second Issue:
Indefeasibility and Incontrovertibility of Title
Petitioners posit that
pursuant to Section 32 of PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree),
the
certificate of title issued in favor of their predecessor-in-interest,
Clemente Ermac, became incontrovertible after the lapse of one year
from
its issuance. Hence, it can no longer be challengedence, it can
no
longer be challenged.cralaw:red
We clarify. While
it is true that Section 32[12]
of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration becomes
incontrovertible
after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved party of a
remedy[13]
in law.[14]
The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired, if it is
utilized
to perpetuate fraud against the real owners.[15]
Furthermore, ownership
is not the same as a certificate of title. Registering a piece of
land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because
registration
is not a mode of acquiring ownership.[16]
A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over
the particular property described therein.[17]
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.[18]
Third Issue:
Ownership of the Disputed Lot
Petitioners claim that
the CA erred in relying on the hearsay and unsubstantiated testimony of
respondents, as well as on tax declarations and realty tax receipts, in
order to support its ruling that the land was owned by Claudio Ermac.chanrobles virtual law library
We are not persuaded.
The credence given to the testimony of the witnesses for respondents is
a factual issue already passed upon and resolved by the trial and the
appellate
courts. It is a hornbook doctrine that only questions of law are
entertained in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court.
The trial court’s findings of fact, which the CA affirmed, are
generally
conclusive and binding upon this Court.[19]
Moreover, while tax
declarations and realty tax receipts do not conclusively prove
ownership,
they may constitute strong evidence of ownership when accompanied by
possession
for a period sufficient for prescription.[20]
Considering that respondents have been in possession of the property
for
a long period of time, there is legal basis for their use of tax
declarations
and realty tax receipts as additional evidence to support their claim
of
ownership.cralaw:red
Fourth Issue:
Prescription and Laches
Petitioners assert that
the ownership claimed by respondents is barred by prescription and
laches,
because it took the latter 57 years to bring the present action.
We disagree.cralaw:red
When a party uses fraud
or concealment to obtain a certificate of title to property, a
constructive
trust is created in favor of the defrauded party.[21]
Since Claudio Ermac has already been established in the present case as
the original owner of the land, the registration in the name of
Clemente
Ermac meant that the latter held the land in trust for all the heirs of
the former. Since respondents were in actual possession of the
property,
the action to enforce the trust, and recover the property, and thereby
quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.[22]
Because laches is an
equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
considerations.[23]
It cannot be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud and
injustice.[24]
Its application should not prevent the rightful owners of a property to
recover what has been fraudulently registered in the name of another.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the Petition
is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs
against
petitioners.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, (Chairman), and
Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Corona, JJ., on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[*]
To avoid error, the rather confusing title of this case was copied
verbatim
from the Petition dated August 25, 2001 signed by Atty. Carlos Allan F.
Cardenas.
[1]
Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 6-30.
[2]
Id., pp. 36-46.
[3]
Id., p. 34.
[4]
Eighth Division. Written by Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, concurred
in by Justice Ramon A. Barcelona (Division chairman) and Justice Alicia
L. Santos.
[5]
Assailed Decision, p.10; Rollo, Vol. I, p. 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Id., pp. 2-5 & 37-40.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Written by Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole (now a justice of the CA).
[8]
Assailed Decision, p.10; Rollo, Vol. I, p. 45.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
This case was deemed submitted for decision on July 16, 2002, upon the
Court’s receipt of petitioners’ Memorandum signed by Atty. Bienvenido
N.
Quiñones. Respondents’ Memorandum, signed by Atty. Alex L.
Monteclar of Monteclar Sibi & Trinidad Law Office, was received by
this Court on May 7, 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
The Rollo contains another Memorandum for petitioners, filed with the
Court
on May 14, 2002. It was signed by Atty. Carlos Allan F. Cardenas,
whose services were terminated by petitioners on July 25, 2002 (see
Rollo,
Vol. II, pp.17-18). Both Memoranda for petitioners substantially
raise the same issues.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 8; Rollo, Vol. II, p. 30. Original in
upper case.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
"SEC. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtual law library
"Upon
the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration
and
the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible.
Any
person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue
his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other
persons
responsible for the fraud."chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Since respondents were in possession of the land, the proper remedy in
this case should have been an action for reconveyance. This is in
effect an action to quiet title to property. See Vda. de Cabrera
v. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 19, February 3, 1997; Heirs of Jose
Olviga
v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 330, October 21, 1993.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Heirs of Ramon Durano Sr. v. Uy, 344 SCRA 238, October 24, 2000; Heirs
of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro, 324 SCRA 591, February 3, 2000; Millena v.
Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 126, January 31, 2000; Heirs of Mariano,
Juan,
Tarcela and Josefa Brusas v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 176, August 26,
1999; Javier v. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 498, March 28, 1994.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Bayoca v. Nogales, 340 SCRA 154, September 12, 2000; Baguio v. Republic
of the Philippines, 361 Phil. 374, January 21, 1999; Esquivias v. Court
of Appeals, 339 Phil. 184, May 29, 1997; Monticines v. Court of
Appeals,
152 Phil. 392, September 4, 1973.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Heirs of Teodoro de la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 652, October
21, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 331 SCRA 267,
April 28, 2000; Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 312 SCRA 180, August 10,
1999;
Spouses Rosario v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 729, July 19, 1999;
Republic
of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 319, January 21,
1999;
Strait Times Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217, August 28, 1998.
[18]
Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 556, July 15, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Flores v. Uy, 368 SCRA 347, October 26, 2001; Santos v. Reyes, 368 SCRA
261, October 25, 2001; Urbanes Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 537,
March
28, 2001; American Express International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 367
Phil. 333, June 8, 1999; Guerrero v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 670,
January
30, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Abejaron v. Nabasa, 411 Phil. 552, June 20, 2001; Santiago v. Court of
Appeals, 334 SCRA 454, June 28, 2000; Serna v. Court of Appeals, 368
Phil.
1, June 18, 1999; Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, 367 Phil. 597,
June 17, 1999; Lazatin v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 129, July 3, 1992;
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA 532, August
31,1984.
[21]
Juan v. Zuñiga, 114 Phil. 1163, April 28, 1962.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 315 SCRA 626, September 30, 1999; Vda. de
Cabrera
v. Court of Appeals, supra; Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals,
supra;
Heirs of Segundo Uberas v. Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental,
Branch II, 86 SCRA 144, October 30, 1978; Faja v. Court of Appeals, 75
SCRA 441, February 28, 1977;Vda. de Jacinto v. Vda. de Jacinto, 115
Phil.
361, May 31, 1962; Juan v. Zuñiga, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Agra v. Philippine National Bank, 368 Phil. 829, June 21, 1999; De Vera
v. Court of Appeals, 365 Phil. 170, April 14, 1999; Sotto v. Teves, 86
SCRA 154, October 31, 1978.
[24]
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, supra; De Vera v. Court of Appeals, supra;
Jimenez
v. Fernandez, 184 SCRA 190, April 6, 1990.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|