Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 181878 : March 15, 2010] MARCELO P. BRIONES V. SPOUSES GLENN ORLEANS AND AIDA ORLEANS; PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VICTORIAS BRANCH, VICTORIAS, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL; AND PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated  15 March 2010:

G.R. No. 181878 (Marcelo P. Briones v. Spouses Glenn Orleans and Aida Orleans; Philippine National Bank, Victorias Branch, Victorias, Negros Occidental;  and Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental). � Assailed in this petition for review is the Decision^[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 19, 2008, which dismissed the action for reconveyance filed by petitioner, Marcelo Briones, and granted the counterclaim of respondents, Glenn and Aida Orleans, to obtain possession of the subject property.

The case stems from the following factual antecedents:

In 1968, two parcels of land were mortgaged with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure the payment of petitioner's loan. These properties were Lot No. 1552 (subject property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-37655 in petitioner's name; and Lot No. 1553, registered in the name; of petitioner's niece, Aida Orleans, herein respondent. The subject property has an area of 137,017 square meters and is located in Barangay Lopez Jaena, Sagay City, Negros Occidental.^[2]

When petitioner failed to pay the loan, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage. The properties were sold at public auction on October 8, 1971, with PNB as the highest bidder. The Certificate of Sale was registered on December 7, 1971. When no redemption was effected within the one-year redemption period, PNB consolidated its title over the two properties on December 20, 1972.^[3]  Subsequently, the two certificates. of title were cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos. T-69218^[4] and T-69219^[5] were issued in the name of PNB on January 5, 1973.

On November 10, 1982, PNB executed a Deed of Sale in favor of respondents.^[6] Subsequently, on November 22, 1982, PNB's certificates of title over the properties were cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT Nos. T- 124258^[7] and T-124259^[8] were issued in respondent's name.

On April 13, 1998, petitioner Briones filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) an action for reconveyance of real estate with damages against respondent, together with her spouse, Glenn Orleans; Philippine National Bank, Victorias Branch, Victorias, Negros Occidental; and the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental.

According to petitioner, he executed a simulated junior mortgage over the subject property in 1970 in favor of Cresenciano Briones, his brother, and respondent's father; said mortgage was annotated at the back of TCT No. T-37655. Cresenciano, as a junior mortgagee, allegedly redeemed the two lots on October 8, 1972 by paying the redemption price, with the use of petitioner's money, to the Office of the Sheriff, through Atty. Bonaparte E. Tarrazona and Atty. Manuel B. Valdezco. Atty. Tarrazona allegedly gave the receipt evidencing payment of the redemption price to Cresenciano, who however died in 1978. Petitioner alleged that he did not know that PNB had consolidated its title over the two properties, and that he discovered that his title had been cancelled only in November 1990. Petitioner contended that PNB's consolidation of its title was made in bad faith, hence, void. He claimed that he had been in actual physical possession of the property and no one had ever attempted to oust him therefrom.^[9]

In answer, respondents averred that petitioner failed to redeem the two properties within the redemption period and that they purchased the same from PNB after the latter obtained absolute ownership of the properties. They asserted that, after they acquired the properties, they demanded that petitioner vacate the premises; but the latter kept on ignoring their demand. By way of counterclaim, respondents prayed that petitioner be ordered to vacate the subject property and to pay rent from 1982.

For its part, respondent PNB likewise insisted that the properties were never redeemed. It averred that the allegation that petitioner paid the redemption price to the Sheriff, through Attys. Tarrazona and Valdezco, was a mere conjecture and unbelievable. PNB said that it could not fathom why petitioner had to use his brother, as a junior mortgagee, in redeeming the property, when he himself was the mortgagor; why the redemption money was paid to the Office of the Sheriff, through the two lawyers, when petitioner is a lawyer himself; and why the receipt was delivered to Cresenciano and petitioner did not request the delivery of the receipt to him. PNB also pointed out that, to effect a valid redemption, payment should have been made directly to it and not to the Sheriff. PNB cited as unbelievable the fact that petitioner did not, request the surrender of the owner's duplicate of title and the cancellation of the annotation on the title of the Certificate of Sale in favor of PNB. Finally, PNB asserted that the action was already barred by prescription.^[10]

On November 30, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants Spouses Glenn and Aida Orleans in their counterclaim and against the plaintiff while the Complaint dated April 63 1998 is hereby ordered DISMISSED on the ground of ESTOPPEL BY LACHES and PRESCRIPTION.

The Counterclaim of defendant Philippine National Bank, Victorias Branch is hereby ordered DISMISSED, while the Counterclaim of defendant Spouses Glenn Orleans and Aida. Orleans is hereby GRANTED and the plaintiff is hereby ordered as follows:

1. To vacate Lot No. 1552 Sagay Cadastre, covered by TCT No. T-124258 and to peacefully turn over the possession of the one half (1/2) portion thereof to defendant Spouses Glenn Orleans and Aida Orleans;
   
   
2. To pay the amount of P3,000.00 per hectare, per crop year by way of reasonable rentals starting from October 8, 1999 until the possession of the one half (1/2) portion of the property covered by TCT No. T-124258 is peacefully turned over to defendant Spouses Orleans; and
   
   
3. To pay the cost of the suit.

SO ORDERED.^[11]

In a Decision dated February 19, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision.^[12] Hence, this petition.

We find no reversible error in the assailed Decision. While we do not agree that the action for reconveyance is barred by prescription, we nonetheless sustain the dismissal of the complaint due to petitioner's failure to prove that he has redeemed the property from PNB.

If the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.  The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land, claiming to be the owner thereof, may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession provides him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be 'claimed only by the one who is in possession.^[14]

In any case, we fully agree with the CA that petitioner failed to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that he redeemed the property from PNB. He was not able to present a certificate of redemption or, at the least, a receipt of payment of the redemption price. On the contrary, evidence on record indicates that no redemption was made. The owner's duplicate certificate of title remains in PNB's possession and the annotation of the certificate of sale in its favor, found at the back of the said title, was not cancelled. Accordingly, PNB was able to consolidate its title after the lapse of the redemption period.

Petitioner explains that he redeemed the property through Cresenciano, who kept possession of the receipt, and that he did not know that PNB was able to consolidate its title over the subject property. The explanation is indeed incredible. If petitioner had truly redeemed the property, he should have taken steps to have the annotation of PNB's certificate of sale cancelled and to recover his duplicate certificate of title. Instead, he let 27 years lapse �from the time of the alleged redemption�before he took action. As a lawyer who is expected to have full knowledge of the law, petitioner ought to have exercised more prudence in dealing with his property. For this reason, petitioner must bear the consequence of his laxity.

Considering the foregoing discussion, we find no need to tackle the other issues raised by petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Renato C. Corona, Chairperson, Hon. Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Hon. Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Hon. Diosdado M. Peralta and Hon. Jose C. Mendoza, Members, Third Division, this 15^th day of March 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla and Franchito N. Diamante, concurring; rollo, pp. 49-56.

^[2] Rollo, p. 57.

^[3] Id. at 98.

^[4] Id. at 77.

^[5] Id. at 78.

^[6] Id. at 80-82.

^[7] Id. at 83.

^[8] Id. at 84.

^[9] Id. at 58.

^[10] Id. at 64-66.

^[11] Id. at 102-103.

^[12] Supra note 1, at 55.

^[13] Ali�o v. Heirs of Angelica A. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 159550, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 139, 152.

^[14] Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin v. Caoleng, Sr., G.R. No. 157567, August 10, 2007, 529 SCRA 747, 757.