ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 138714.January 16, 2002]
SPS. KARGANILLA vs. SPS. LACUATA, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 JAN 2002.
G.R. No. 138714(Spouses Ricardo and Gloria Karganilla vs. Spouses Pablito and Cecilia Lacuata, La Union Supreme Realty Development Corporation represented by Cesar Go Shia, Spouses Froilan and Corazon Pe�aflor, Ruben Paule and Macaspac Builders.)
On February 29, 1996, herein petitioners filed an action for reconveyance and/or damages with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against herein respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5044 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 27. On June 27, 1996, the RTC issued an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the assessed value of the land involved was not more than P20,000.00, hence, jurisdiction lies with the municipal trial courts. [1] cralaw
On July 1, 1996, herein petitioners filed an identical action with the Municipal Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 1, docketed as Civil Case No. 3071. On November 29, 1996, the case was dismissed on the ground that the action had already prescribed. The RTC ratiocinated that:
As to the issue of prescription of action, it appears that OCT No. 0-23 89 was issued to the defendants Lacuata on October 20, 1989 while the instant case was filed on July 1, 1996. Assuming arguendo that there was fraud on the part of defendants Lacuata in including a portion of the plaintiffs' land in their OCT No. 0-23 89, their act constitute fraud which prescribe in four (4) years from the discovery of said fraud. Plaintiffs claims that they discovered the fraud only this year (1996) when defendants were trying to extend the land they purchased. In effect, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that their cause of action based on fraud against the defendants has not yet prescribed.
In the case of Yu vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 594, it was held that a cause of action resting on fraud, prescribes in four (4) years, counted from the date of issuance of the title which serves as a constructive notice to the whole world. (Gation vs. Gaffud, 27 SCRA 706, 712).
A land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and, accordingly, the decision therein rendered is binding upon the whole world - (Garcia vs. Bello, L-21355, April 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 76).
Furthermore, the land has already been transferred to the defendants Pe�aflors who are buyers in good faith and for value.
The possessor with a Torrens title who is not aware of any flaw in his title which invalidates it is considered a possessor in good faith and his possession does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment his torrens title is declared null and void by final judgment of the Courts (Dizon vs. Rodriguez, L-20300-01 and Republic vs. Court of Appeals, L-20355-56, April 30, 1965 13 SCRA 704). [2] cralaw
Petitioners appealed the above order to the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 29. On November 10, 1998, the trial court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the MTC's decision in toto.
Thereafter, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via petition for review. On February 4, 1999, the appellate court denied the petition due course and ordered it dismissed on the following grounds, viz:(a)������ failure to pay docket fees on time (docket fees were paid almost two (2) months after the expiration of the reglementary period to appeal); (b) failure to attach a certified true copy of the decision of the MTC; and (c) failure to attach registry receipts as required by Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for reconsideration of the said resolution was likewise denied for lack of merit on April 23, 1999.
Hence, the instant petition for review.
On July 5 , 1999, the Court issued a resolution denying the petition for petitioners' failure to give an explanation why service was not done personally as required by Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section 5, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
On November 24, 1999, the motion for reconsideration of said resolution was granted and the instant petition was reinstated in the interest of justice.
The petition is not meritorious.
Petitioners alleged in their complaint for reconveyance that they are the owners of a parcel of land which they purchased in 1980; that sometime in 1989, without their knowledge and consent, respondent spouses Lacuata were able to obtain title over a lot adjoining that of the petitioners including a portion of the lot owned by the petitioners; that the respondent spouses Lacuata sold the subject parcel of land to La Union Supreme Realty Development Corporation; and that La Union Supreme Realty Development Corporation subsequently sold the same parcel of land to the spouses Froilan and Corazon Pe�aflor.
It is a basic principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as an evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet title to land and stop forever any question as to its legality. This does not mean, however, that the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is without remedy in law. Under Section 32 of the Property Registration Decree (formerly the Land Registration Act), the decree of registration cannot be reviewed after the lapse of one year from entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced after the lapse of the one-year period. The landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name may file an action for reconveyance within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud and ten (10) years from the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as constructive notice. [3] cralaw However, it is a condition sine qua non for an action for reconveyance to prosper that the property should not have passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. [4] cralaw Here, the property has been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value without knowledge of the alleged fraud committed by their predecessors-in-interest. Hence, even going into the merits of the petition, the same must fail.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 22.
[2] cralaw Id., at 30; Reproduced verbatim.
[3] cralaw Viloria v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 529 (1999).
[4] cralaw Lucena v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 47 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
