ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136376. January 27, 1999]

EMMA R. MILLADO, et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 27, 1999.

G.R. No. 136376 (Emma R. Millado, Nora R. Errie and Rodolfo Ramos, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Third Div., and Jesus Medina and Teresita Medina.)

Petitioner assail the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the regional trial court, thus granting the enforcement and revival of the decision of the Fourth Civil Cases Division of the then Intermediate Appellate Court in the case docketed as AC-G.R. -CV No. 62059, and declaring the transfer certificate of title over La Carlota Cadastre in the name of petitioners Emma R. Millado, Nora R. Errie, and Rodolfo null and void.

The present controversy sprung from an earlier case for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land filed by herein petitioners against private respondent wherein the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, decided, to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court is of the considered view that plaintiffs are owners pro-indiviso of one-half (1/2) portion of the western side of lot 196, La Carlota Cadastre while defendants Teresita, Teodora and Jesus, all surnamed Medina are the owners, also pro-indiviso of the other half, eastern portion thereon; for which they may obtain separate certificates of title upon presentation of the corresponding subdivision plan duly approved in accordance with the law and after the original certificates of title covering the lot shall have been reconstituted in a separate proceeding to be instituted pursuant to Republic Act No. 26, and consequently defendants are entitled to possession of the aforesaid half portion of the property.

Plaintiffs' complaint and defendants' counterclaim, are ordered dismissed with costs against plaintiffs.

While the above decision became final and executory and more than 5 years have elapsed since the entry of judgment on May 23, 1986 the same has yet to be enforced or executed.

Private respondent later discovered that petitioners applied for and were able to obtain reconstitution of the original certificate of title of the land in dispute. Further, petitioners in a declaration of heirship and extrajudicial partition of the subject land, were able to register the same in their names to the exclusion of private respondents.

Thus, private respondents filed an action for revival of judgment and the cancellation of titles issued in the names of petitioners, and reconveyance. The regional trial court decided in favor of private respondents, and thereafter, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Thus, the instant petition which we find unavailing.

As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, there is no dispute in the case at bar that private respondents have been legally declared by final judgment as owners of one-half of the land in dispute. The entry of judgment was issued on May 23, 1986 but despite the finality of the judgment against them, petitioners still had the temerity of fraudulently obtain titles over the property in their names, thereby making a mockery of the clear and final ruling of the Court of Appeals in the case docketed AC G.R. CV No. 62059 which is a clear breach of trust and fraud against private respondents who should only be rightfully entitled to reconveyance.

Petitioners, therefore erroneously rely on their baseless assertion that the titles acquired over the disputed property owned by private respondents are final and incontrovertible just because petitioners petitioned for the reconstitution of the titles and obtained a transfer certificate in their names. The basic rule is that after the lapse of one year a decree of registration is no longer open to review or attack although its issuance was attended with actual fraud. This does not mean, however, that the aggrieved party is without a remedy at law. After one year from the date of the decree, the sole remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, not to set aside the decree, but, respecting it as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice an action for reconveyance [Director of Land v. Register of Deeds of Rizal, 92 Phil. 826].

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE