ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
SECOND DIVISION
D E C I S I O N CARPIO, J.: The Case This is a petition for reviewc�fa1c�fac�fal�.w of the 6 May 2005c�fa2c�fac�fal�.w and 3 August 2005c�fa3c�fac�fal�.w Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 00195.In its 6 May 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for reviewfiled by petitioners Melchor and Saturnina Alde (petitioners) for failure to comply with the Rules of Court.In its 3 August 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Facts Sometime in 1957, Adriano Bernal (Adriano), father of respondents Ronald, Olympia, Juanito and Myrna, all surnamed Bernal (respondents), entered upon, occupied and cultivated a parcel of land situated in San Antonio West, Don Carlos, Bukidnon.After a survey in 1992,the property was designated as Cadastral Lot No. 1123, Cad 1119-D, Case 8 with an area of 8.5043 hectares.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In January 1994, Adriano
secured a loan of In September 1994, Adriano
informed petitioners that he could no longer pay the loan obligation and that
he was selling the whole property to petitioners for On 18 October 1994, Original Certificate of Title No. AO-7236c�fa7c�fac�fal�.w (OCT No. AO-7236) in the names of Adriano for an area of 3 hectares, Ronald for an area of 3 hectares, andrespondent Juanito Bernal (Juanito) for an area of 2.5043 hectares was issued.OCT No. AO-7236 originated from Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 00073938 (CLOA No. 00073938) issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657.c�fa8c�fac�fal�.w Then, sometime in April
2002, respondents demanded from petitioners On 13 June 2002, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of parcels of land with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction and damages against petitioners before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Don Carlos-Kitaotao-Dangcagan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon (MCTC).c�fa9c�fac�fal�.wRespondents claimed that Adriano erroneously included their shares of the property in the sale.Juanito claimed that Adriano gave him 2.5043 hectares when he got married in 1978.While Ronald claimed that Adriano gave him 3 hectares when he got married in 1987.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary In their Answer,c�fa10c�fac�fal�.w petitioners declared that they have been in open, notorious and peaceful occupation, possession and cultivation of the property in the concept of an owner since 1994 when they bought the property from Adriano.Petitioners argued that respondents have no legal right over the property and that CLOA No. 00073938 issued in respondents name is void.Petitioners also asked that they be declared the absolute and legal owners of the property.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Ruling of the MCTC In its 19 November 2003 Decision,c�fa11c�fac�fal�.w the MCTC dismissed respondents complaint.According to the MCTC, Adriano was the sole owner of the property and that Adriano sold the whole property to petitioners.The MCTC found no evidence of the transfer of ownership of the property from Adriano to Juanito and Ronald.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Respondents appealed to the Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Branch 9 (RTC).chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Ruling of the RTC In its 9 August 2004 Decision,c�fa12c�fac�fal�.w the RTC declared that, from the start until the sale to petitioners, the property was owned in common by Adriano, Juanito and Ronald.The dispositive portion of the RTCs 9 August 2004 Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Lower Court is hereby modified as follows: 1). Declaring the Kasabutan Sa Palit Sa Yuta dated September 22, 1994, to be valid legally and enforceable and must be adjudged to be owned by the defendants-appellees only in so far as the same refers to the portion previously owned by Adriano Bernal.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 2). Declaring the plaintiffs-appellants as still the true and absolute owners of the respective three (3) hectares and 2.5043 hectares as above stated and must be issued separately [sic] a title therefor.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 3). Ordering the defendants-appellees to return and deliver possession of the properties above mentioned to the plaintiffs-appellants.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 4). Directing the Registry of Deeds to issue separate Certificate[s] of Title to the plaintiffs-appellants Ronald Bernal for 3.0000 hectares and Juanito Bernal for 2.5043 hectares and to the defendants-appellees the remaining portion of three hectares.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary 5). No award of any damages shall be awarded to any of the parties and with costs de officio.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary SO ORDERED.c�fa13c�fac�fal�.w Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.In its 25 October 2004 Order,c�fa14c�fac�fal�.w the RTC denied the motion.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its 6 May 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on technical grounds.The 6 May 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals declared: Upon perusal of the case records, this Court FINDS the following infirmities that warrants the outright dismissal of the instant case, to wit: 1. cralawThe Regional Trial Court was not furnished with a copy of the petition, in violation of Section 1 of Rule 42 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court;cralaw 2. cralawThere was no proper verification, in violation of Section 4 of Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure; and 3. cralawThe nature of the case should only be Petition for Review and not Petition for Review on Certiorari because the latter would fall under Rule 45, an action before the Supreme Court.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Wherefore, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary SO ORDERED.c�fa15c�fac�fal�.w Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.In its 3 August 2005 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Hence, this petition.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Issues Petitioners raise the following issues: I. cralawTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON PURELY TECHNICAL GROUNDS DISREGARDING THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL;cralaw II. cralawTHE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE WHICH COULD HAVE REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT HAD THE PETITION FOR REVIEW BEEN GIVEN DUE COURSE.c�fa16c�fac�fal�.w The Ruling of the Court The petition is meritorious.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Court of Appeals dismissal of petitioners petition on purely technical grounds was unwarranted.We agree with petitioners that the late filing and service of a copy of the petition to the RTC was not a substantial infirmity that should cause the outright dismissal of the petition. Likewise, the verification of a pleading is only a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement.c�fa17c�fac�fal�.wThe purpose of requiring a verification is to secure an assurance that the allegations in the petition are true and correct, not merely speculative.c�fa18c�fac�fal�.wThis requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and non-compliance therewith does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective.c�fa19c�fac�fal�.w The dismissal of appeals on purely technical grounds is frowned upon for it is far more better for the courts to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a review of the case on the merits to attain the ends of justice.c�fa20c�fac�fal�.w Respondents Failed to Prove their Title over the Property As to the merits of the case, petitioners argue that, contrary to the findings of the RTC, respondents failed to present any evidence to show that they owned parts of the property in dispute.Petitioners insist that the claim of Juanito and Ronald that Adriano donated to them their respective shares in the property is not supported by any evidence.Petitioners maintain that Juanito and Ronalds claimsare self-serving and merely fabricated.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary As to the Kasabotan sa Palit sa Yuta, petitioners point out that it was prepared in the local dialect of which Adriano and Ronald were conversant.According to petitioners, Adriano and Ronald cannot just deny knowledge of the said document and claim that they just affixed their signatures without reading the document.Petitioners maintain that Adriano was the sole owner of the property and that he had the right to sell, transfer, convey and dispose of the same.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Petitioners aver that they have been in open, public and peaceful possession, occupation and cultivation of the property in the concept of an owner since the sale of the property by Adriano in 1994.Petitioners pray that they be declared the absolute and legal owners of the property.Petitioners also pray that respondents be ordered to turn over CLOA No.00073938 and OCT No.AO-7236 to them, the real owners of the property.c�fa21c�fac�fal�.w On the other hand, respondents insist that Adriano could not have sold the entire property because he was no longer the owner thereof on 22 September 1994.Respondents maintain that Adriano verbally donated to them their respective shares in the property way back in 1978 and 1987.Respondents explain that Adriano did not know that he was selling the whole property and not just his assigned 3 hectares to petitioners.Ronald also claims that he did not know the contents of the deed of sale when he signed it as a witness.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary We agree with petitioners that respondents failed to present any evidence to show that they owned parts of the property in dispute.First, in the stipulation of facts during the pre-trial conference before the MCTC, respondents admitted that the land was owned by Adriano.While both Juanito and Ronald claimed that Adriano donated to them their respective portions of the property when they got married in 1978 and 1987, respectively, they did not present any deed of donation.As the MCTC stated in its 19 November 2003 Decision, the transfers cannot be by donation because the law requires that for donation to be effective, it must be in a public instrument and in this case there is none.c�fa22c�fac�fal�.w Second, the tax declaration offered by respondents as evidence only mentioned Adriano as the owner of the whole property.c�fa23c�fac�fal�.wWhile tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they constitute proof of claim of ownership.c�fa24c�fac�fal�.wRespondents did not present any credible explanation why the tax declaration was only under the name of Adriano.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Third, contrary to Ronalds claim, the June 1994 deed of mortgagec�fa25c�fac�fal�.w did not clearly show that he was the owner of the property and that petitioners recognized him as such.While Ronalds name appeared in the body of the deed, the designation as owner of the property under his name was crossed-out.It was Adriano who signed the deed of mortgage and the designation as owner of the property appeared under his name.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Fourth, Ronald was present when the deed of sale was executed on 22 September 1994 and he even signed as one of the witnesses.We find it hard to believe that Ronald and Adriano did not understand the contents of the deed when it was written in their local dialect.Moreover, it took respondents more than seven years to question Adrianos sale of the whole property to petitioners.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Lastly, respondents claim ownership of the property based on OCT No. AO-7236.However, a certificate of title is not equivalent to title.c�fa26c�fac�fal�.wIn Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals,c�fa27c�fac�fal�.w we explained: By title, the law refers to ownership which is represented by that document [the Original Certificate of Title or the Transfer Certificate of Title]. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. Besides, the certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. Mere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only be a trustee or that other parties may have acquired interest subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat, registration is not the equivalent of title, but is only the best evidence thereof. Title as a concept of ownership should not be confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although both are interchangeable.c�fa28c�fac�fal�.w(Emphasis supplied) In this case, respondents cannot claim ownership over the disputed portions of the property absent any showing of how they acquired title over the same.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Accordingly, the property must be reconveyed in favor of petitioners, the true and actual owners of the property.An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.c�fa29c�fac�fal�.w However, since petitioners did not make a direct attack on the validity ofOCT No. AO-7236 and had not asked for the cancellation of the original certificate of title as required by Section 48c�fa30c�fac�fal�.w of Presidential Decree No. 1529,c�fa31c�fac�fal�.w this Court cannot cancel OCT No. AO-7236 and order the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of petitioners.Any direct attack on the validity of a Torrens certificate of title must be instituted with the proper Regional Trial Court.c�fa32c�fac�fal�.wThis case originated in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court.Even if we consider petitioners counter-claim as a petition for the cancellation of OCT No. AO-7236 and, thus, a direct attack on the certificate of title, the MCTC still does not have jurisdiction over the cancellation of a Torrens title.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition.We SET ASIDE the 6 May 2005 and 3 August 2005 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 00195.We REINSTATE the 19 November 2003 Decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Don Carlos-Kitaotao-Dangcagan, Don Carlos, Bukidnon.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary SO ORDERED .chanroblesvirtua|awlibary ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLOROBERTO A. ABAD Associate JusticeAssociate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice ATTESTATION 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 Courts Division.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the DivisionChairpersons 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 Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice cralawEndnotes:
|
|