December 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > December 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 176807 : December 09, 2009] RESTITUTO RAMOS V. FELIPE RAMOS:
[G.R. No. 176807 : December 09, 2009]
RESTITUTO RAMOS V. FELIPE RAMOS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 December 2009:
G.R. No. 176807 (Restituto Ramos v. Felipe Ramos).-
This is a-case for annulment of title and reconveyance of property which was wrongfully registered in the name of another person.
The Facts and the Case
On October 31, 1995 respondent Felipe Ramos (Felipe) filed a complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance of property with damages against his brother, petitioner Restituto Ramos (Restituto), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City.
Respondent Felipe alleged[1] that on January 15, 1974 petitioner Restituto sold a 141-square meter lot in Alubijid, Misamis Oriental to a certain Felixberto Gutierrez (Felixberto). In turn, 20 years later on August 22, 1994 Felixberto sold the Alubijid lot to Felipe. Felipe discovered, however, that when Restituto caused the titling of his properties in Alubijid, he fraudulently included the lot that he already sold to Felixberto. The Office of the Register of 'Deeds of Misamis Oriental issue.d to Restituto Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 0-661 that covered the lot in question.
Petitioner Restituto countered,[2] on the other hand, that the 1974 deed of absolute sale that he executed in Felixberto's favor was simulated. Restituto merely accommodated Felixberto to help him secure a bank loan, using the property as collateral. Although, the loan application did not push through, Restituto did not bother to get back the document because he regarded Felixberto a close friend. When their relationship soured, Felixberto used the simulated deed of sale to convey the property to Restituto's brother, respondent Felipe.
At the trial, respondent Felipe presented Felixberto who testified about petitioner Restituto's sale to him in 1974 of the subject Alubijid lot and the house built on it[3] under a notarized deed of absolute sale dated January 15, 1974.[4] After the government demolished the house in a road widening project, Felixberto built a small motor vehicle repair shop on it [5] and allowed Patricio Fabre to set up his a la carte business on the property for free.[6] Never did Restitute claim ownership of the property or seek to oust Fabre or him from it from 1974 when Felixberto bought it. [7] In 1994, Felixberto sold the property to Felipe and moved out of it.[8]
Alejandro Akut also testified for respondent Felipe. He knew petitioner Restituto because they were distant relatives and neighbors.[9] He and Felixberto were also cousins and neighbors.[10] Felixberto began residing on the disputed lot starting in 1974. Felixberto moved out in 1994 after selling the lot to Felipe.[11]
Respondent Felipe affirmed Felixberto's sale of the subject lot to him on August 22, 1994.[12] When he told petitioner Restituto about it, the latter got angry, saying that he should have been informed of it beforehand because he had already acquired title over the lot.[13]
In his defense, petitioner Restituto testified that in 1971 he acquired the Alubijid lot from respondent Felipe for P10,O00.00.[14] Felipe had earlier offered the property to others and approached his brother Restituto last. The latter bought the property even for a steep price because it was an inheritance from their father.[15] Restituto never sold the land to Felixberto; he merely accommodated the latter's request for a deed of sale that Felixberto needed for his bank loan application.[16]
On April 1, 1998 the RTC rendered judgment, dismissing respondent Felipe's complaint.[17] It ruled that when petitioner Restituto succeeded in titling the lot in his name on April 27, 1977, it was Felixberto who owned the property. Consequently, when Felipe bought it from Felixberto on August 22, 1994, Felipe could not be the kind of owner that Section 53 of Presidential Decree 1529 contemplated as having the right to file an action for recovery of property fraudulently titled by other persons.
Further, said the RTC, even assuming that respondent Felipe had the right to claim ownership of the lot, still reconveyance was no longer possible because he filed his action more than IS years after the registration court issued OCT 0-661 to petitioner Restituto. The prescriptive period for reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.[18]
On appeal by respondent Felipe,[19] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment, reversing the RTC decision.[20] The CA ruled that the RTC misapplied the Caro case [21] when it ruled that the 10-year prescriptive period for reconveyance of fraudulently registered property, reckoned from the date of issuance of the certificate of title, barred Felipe's action. The CA reasoned out that after petitioner Restituto fraudulently deprived Felixberto of title to the property, Restituto became, by force of law, the implied trustee of the property for Felixberto's benefit.[22] And when Felixberto sold the same to Felipe in 1994, the latter was subrogated to Felixberto's rights, including his actual possession of the lot. Felipe's 1995 suit is an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust. It does not prescribe in 10 years from date of issuance of decree of registration when the plaintiff has been in actual possession of the land.[23]
Questions Presented
The petition presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not respondent Felipe has a right of action to recover the property from petitioner Restituto, given that the latter acquired registered title over it long before Felixberto sold the same to Felipe; and
2. In the affirmative, whether or not prescription bars Felipe's action for reconveyance of property against Restituto.
The Court's Ruling
One. The Court finds no compelling reason to review the CA's finding that petitioner Restituto sold the subject lot to Felixberto. This finding is supported by a 1974 notarized deed of absolute sale that Restituto executed in Felixberto's favor. Respondent Felipe, in turn, acquired the property from Felixberto in 1994, also under a notarized deed of sale.
The legal effect of notarized deeds of sale cannot be so easily overlooked. Notarization transforms a written act into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of the document's due execution and authenticity.[24] Notarized deeds of sale enjoy a presumption of regularity that can be rebutted only by clear, strong, and convincing evidence.[25] Petitioner Restituto's bare claim that the 1974 notarized deed that he executed in Felixberto's favor was sham and simulated cannot overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to it.
Since petitioner Restituto sold the subject lot to Felixberto in 1974, he had no right to have it included in the decree of registration that he caused to be issued to him in 1976 or in OCT 0-661 that the Office of the Register of Deeds issued in his name in 1977. The CA correctly invoked in this case the rule that, when a person wrongfully registers a property in his name, he becomes by force of law an implied trustee of such property for the benefit of its real owner.[26] Consequently, Felixberto or petitioner Felipe, his successor-in-interest, can avail himself of the action for reconveyance
against Restituto covering the land.[27]
Two. But does prescription bar respondent Felipe's action against petitioner Restituto for reconveyance of the property?
In Waga v. Sacabin,[28] the Court had occasion to rule that, although the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of registered property is 10 years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, such period does not apply when the plaintiff has been in possession of the land he wants to be reconveyed to him. In the latter case, the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. The reason is that one in actual possession of the land may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.
Here, Felixberto was in possession of the lot from 1974, having bought it from petitioner Restituto. He was in possession when Restituto caused it to be titled in his name in 1977 and remained in undisturbed possession until 1994 when he sold the lot to respondent Felipe. Having wrongfully registered the title to the property in his name, Restituto held such title in trust for Felixberto who remained in possession. When Felipe bought the land from Felixberto in 1994, the latter's actual past possession was tacked to his own.[29] As soon as Felipe learned m 1995 that Restituto had secured a title on the property, Felipe immediately filed the present action. Prescription, therefore, has not barred his action.
This decision does not undermine the Torrens system of land registration nor defeat the indefeasibility of OCT 0-661 because it does not review the decree or re-open the registration proceedings. It merely enforces a trust. An action of reconveyance of property respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible, and merely seeks the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name to its rightful owner.[30]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' decision dated October 17, 2006 in CA-G.R. CY 60279.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales (designated additional member per S.O. No. 807 in lieu of Brion, J., on leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 9th day of December, 2009.
G.R. No. 176807 (Restituto Ramos v. Felipe Ramos).-
This is a-case for annulment of title and reconveyance of property which was wrongfully registered in the name of another person.
The Facts and the Case
On October 31, 1995 respondent Felipe Ramos (Felipe) filed a complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance of property with damages against his brother, petitioner Restituto Ramos (Restituto), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City.
Respondent Felipe alleged[1] that on January 15, 1974 petitioner Restituto sold a 141-square meter lot in Alubijid, Misamis Oriental to a certain Felixberto Gutierrez (Felixberto). In turn, 20 years later on August 22, 1994 Felixberto sold the Alubijid lot to Felipe. Felipe discovered, however, that when Restituto caused the titling of his properties in Alubijid, he fraudulently included the lot that he already sold to Felixberto. The Office of the Register of 'Deeds of Misamis Oriental issue.d to Restituto Original Certificate of Title (OCT) 0-661 that covered the lot in question.
Petitioner Restituto countered,[2] on the other hand, that the 1974 deed of absolute sale that he executed in Felixberto's favor was simulated. Restituto merely accommodated Felixberto to help him secure a bank loan, using the property as collateral. Although, the loan application did not push through, Restituto did not bother to get back the document because he regarded Felixberto a close friend. When their relationship soured, Felixberto used the simulated deed of sale to convey the property to Restituto's brother, respondent Felipe.
At the trial, respondent Felipe presented Felixberto who testified about petitioner Restituto's sale to him in 1974 of the subject Alubijid lot and the house built on it[3] under a notarized deed of absolute sale dated January 15, 1974.[4] After the government demolished the house in a road widening project, Felixberto built a small motor vehicle repair shop on it [5] and allowed Patricio Fabre to set up his a la carte business on the property for free.[6] Never did Restitute claim ownership of the property or seek to oust Fabre or him from it from 1974 when Felixberto bought it. [7] In 1994, Felixberto sold the property to Felipe and moved out of it.[8]
Alejandro Akut also testified for respondent Felipe. He knew petitioner Restituto because they were distant relatives and neighbors.[9] He and Felixberto were also cousins and neighbors.[10] Felixberto began residing on the disputed lot starting in 1974. Felixberto moved out in 1994 after selling the lot to Felipe.[11]
Respondent Felipe affirmed Felixberto's sale of the subject lot to him on August 22, 1994.[12] When he told petitioner Restituto about it, the latter got angry, saying that he should have been informed of it beforehand because he had already acquired title over the lot.[13]
In his defense, petitioner Restituto testified that in 1971 he acquired the Alubijid lot from respondent Felipe for P10,O00.00.[14] Felipe had earlier offered the property to others and approached his brother Restituto last. The latter bought the property even for a steep price because it was an inheritance from their father.[15] Restituto never sold the land to Felixberto; he merely accommodated the latter's request for a deed of sale that Felixberto needed for his bank loan application.[16]
On April 1, 1998 the RTC rendered judgment, dismissing respondent Felipe's complaint.[17] It ruled that when petitioner Restituto succeeded in titling the lot in his name on April 27, 1977, it was Felixberto who owned the property. Consequently, when Felipe bought it from Felixberto on August 22, 1994, Felipe could not be the kind of owner that Section 53 of Presidential Decree 1529 contemplated as having the right to file an action for recovery of property fraudulently titled by other persons.
Further, said the RTC, even assuming that respondent Felipe had the right to claim ownership of the lot, still reconveyance was no longer possible because he filed his action more than IS years after the registration court issued OCT 0-661 to petitioner Restituto. The prescriptive period for reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.[18]
On appeal by respondent Felipe,[19] the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered judgment, reversing the RTC decision.[20] The CA ruled that the RTC misapplied the Caro case [21] when it ruled that the 10-year prescriptive period for reconveyance of fraudulently registered property, reckoned from the date of issuance of the certificate of title, barred Felipe's action. The CA reasoned out that after petitioner Restituto fraudulently deprived Felixberto of title to the property, Restituto became, by force of law, the implied trustee of the property for Felixberto's benefit.[22] And when Felixberto sold the same to Felipe in 1994, the latter was subrogated to Felixberto's rights, including his actual possession of the lot. Felipe's 1995 suit is an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust. It does not prescribe in 10 years from date of issuance of decree of registration when the plaintiff has been in actual possession of the land.[23]
Questions Presented
The petition presents the following questions:
1. Whether or not respondent Felipe has a right of action to recover the property from petitioner Restituto, given that the latter acquired registered title over it long before Felixberto sold the same to Felipe; and
2. In the affirmative, whether or not prescription bars Felipe's action for reconveyance of property against Restituto.
The Court's Ruling
One. The Court finds no compelling reason to review the CA's finding that petitioner Restituto sold the subject lot to Felixberto. This finding is supported by a 1974 notarized deed of absolute sale that Restituto executed in Felixberto's favor. Respondent Felipe, in turn, acquired the property from Felixberto in 1994, also under a notarized deed of sale.
The legal effect of notarized deeds of sale cannot be so easily overlooked. Notarization transforms a written act into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of the document's due execution and authenticity.[24] Notarized deeds of sale enjoy a presumption of regularity that can be rebutted only by clear, strong, and convincing evidence.[25] Petitioner Restituto's bare claim that the 1974 notarized deed that he executed in Felixberto's favor was sham and simulated cannot overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to it.
Since petitioner Restituto sold the subject lot to Felixberto in 1974, he had no right to have it included in the decree of registration that he caused to be issued to him in 1976 or in OCT 0-661 that the Office of the Register of Deeds issued in his name in 1977. The CA correctly invoked in this case the rule that, when a person wrongfully registers a property in his name, he becomes by force of law an implied trustee of such property for the benefit of its real owner.[26] Consequently, Felixberto or petitioner Felipe, his successor-in-interest, can avail himself of the action for reconveyance
against Restituto covering the land.[27]
Two. But does prescription bar respondent Felipe's action against petitioner Restituto for reconveyance of the property?
In Waga v. Sacabin,[28] the Court had occasion to rule that, although the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of registered property is 10 years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, such period does not apply when the plaintiff has been in possession of the land he wants to be reconveyed to him. In the latter case, the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. The reason is that one in actual possession of the land may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.
Here, Felixberto was in possession of the lot from 1974, having bought it from petitioner Restituto. He was in possession when Restituto caused it to be titled in his name in 1977 and remained in undisturbed possession until 1994 when he sold the lot to respondent Felipe. Having wrongfully registered the title to the property in his name, Restituto held such title in trust for Felixberto who remained in possession. When Felipe bought the land from Felixberto in 1994, the latter's actual past possession was tacked to his own.[29] As soon as Felipe learned m 1995 that Restituto had secured a title on the property, Felipe immediately filed the present action. Prescription, therefore, has not barred his action.
This decision does not undermine the Torrens system of land registration nor defeat the indefeasibility of OCT 0-661 because it does not review the decree or re-open the registration proceedings. It merely enforces a trust. An action of reconveyance of property respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible, and merely seeks the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name to its rightful owner.[30]
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Court of Appeals' decision dated October 17, 2006 in CA-G.R. CY 60279.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales (designated additional member per S.O. No. 807 in lieu of Brion, J., on leave), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 9th day of December, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Records, pp. 2-6.
[2] Id. at 21-25.
[3] TSN, February 6,1997, p. 10.
[4] Id. at 5.
[5] Id. at 9.
[6] Id. at 11.
[7] Id. at 10.
[8] Id. at 12.
[9] TSN, April 16, 1997, p. 4.
[10] Id. at 5-6.
[11] Id. at 7.
[12] TSN, April 29,1997, p. 11.
[13] Id. at 15.
[14] TSN, July 17, 1997, pp. 6-7.
[15] Id. at 10-11.
[16] Id. at 11-13, 15.
[17] Records, pp. 255-257.
[18] Caro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76148, December 20,1989, 180 SCRA 401, 407.
[19] Records, p. 268.
[20] CA rollo, pp. 37-54.
[21] Supra note 18.
[22] Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1456.
[23] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 387 Phil. 283, 299 (2000).
[24] Calma v. Santos, G.R. No. 161027, June 22, 2009.
[25] Id,
[26] Art. 1456-If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
[27] Esconde v. Barlongay, 236 Phil. 644, 653 (1987).
[28] G.R. No. 159131, July 21, 2009.
[29] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra note 23, at 299-300.
[30] Waga v. Sacabin, supra note 28; Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121,December 12, 2007, 540 SCRA 1, 13.
