Sps. Luisito Pontigon
and Leodegaria Sanchez-Pontigon vs. Heirs of Meliton Sanchez, et al.
G.R. No. 221513.
December 5, 2016
Facts
Meliton Sanchez Meliton
had been the owner of a 24-hectare parcel of land situated in Gutad,
Floridablanca, Pampanga. Said property was duly-registered in his
name under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 207 issued on
October 15, 1938.
On August 11, 1948,
Meliton died intestate, leaving the subject property to his surviving
heirs, his three children, namely: Apolonio, Flaviana, and Juan, all
surnamed Sanchez. Petitioner Leodegaria Sanchez-Pontigon (Leodegaria)
is the daughter of Juan and petitioner Luisito Pontigon (Luisi to) is
the husband of Leodegaria. The respondents herein, who are all
represented by Teresita S. Manalansan (Teresita), are Meliton's
grandchildren with Flaviana.
On September 17, 2000,
the respondents filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Title
and Real Estate Mortgage with Damages against petitioners, docketed
as Civil Case No. G-06-3792 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 49 of Guagua, Pampanga.6 Respondents posited that the property
in issue had never been partitioned among the heirs of Meliton, but
when respondents verified with the Register of Deeds of Pampanga (RD)
the status of the parcels of land sometime in August 2000, they
discovered that OCT No. 207 was nowhere to be found -what was only
with the RD's custody was the owner's copy of OCT No. 207, free of
any annotation of cancellation or description of any document that
could have justified the transfer of the property covered. Despite
this fact, petitioners, even without any document of conveyance, were
able to transfer the title of the subject lot to their names,
resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
162403-R on May 21, 1980 covering the same parcel of land. Hence,
respondents, argued that the transfer of title to petitioners was
fraudulent and invalid, and that petitioners merely held title over
the subject property in trust for Meliton's heirs.
In their Answer,
petitioners denied the material allegations in the Complaint. They
countered that the conveyance in their favor is evidenced by an
Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate of Meliton Sanchez and Casimira
Baluyut with Absolute Sale (Extrajudicial Settlement) that was
prepared and notarized by Atty. Emiliano Malit on November 10, 1979.
Petitioners also raised
the defense that twenty (20) years had already passed from the
issuance of TCT No. 162403-R on May 21, 1980 before respondents
lodged their Complaint. Petitioners would file on October 10, 2002 a
motion to dismiss reiterating the defense that respondents' action is
already barred by prescription.
Issues:
- Whether respondents' cause of action is barred by prescription.
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that TCT No. 162403-R is a nullity because of the irregularities that attended its issuance.
Rulings
Respondents'
action is already
barred
by prescription
The
May 28, 2003 Order of the RTC denying petitioners' motion to dismiss
on the ground of prescription cannot be sustained. To recall, the RTC
held that as co-owners of the subject property, a trust relation was
established between the parties when petitioners fraudulently
obtained title over the same. An action anchored on this relation of
trust is imprescriptible, or so the RTC ruled.
We
find this ruling of the RTC not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
Under the Torrens System as enshrined in P.D. No. 1529, the decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued become
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one ( 1) year from the date
of entry of the decree of registration, without prejudice to an
action for damages against the applicant or any person responsible
for the fraud. However, actions for reconveyance based on implied
trusts may be allowed beyond the one-year period.
Thus,
an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years, the point of
reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of
the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
By
way of additional exception, the Court, in a catena of cases, has
permitted the filing of an action for reconveyance despite the lapse
of more than ten (10) years from the issuance of title. The common
denominator of these cases is that the plaintiffs therein were in
actual possession of the disputed land, converting the action from
reconveyance of property into one for quieting of title.
Imprescriptibility is accorded to cases for quieting of title since
the plaintiff has the right to wait until his possession is disturbed
or his title is questioned before initiating an action to vindicate
his right.
A
perusal of respondents' Complaint, though, reveals that the
allegations contained therein do not include possession of the
contested property as an ultimate fact. As such, the present case
could only be one for reconveyance of property, not for quieting of
title. Accordingly, respondents should have commenced the action
within ten (10) years reckoned from May 21, 1980, the date of
issuance of TCT No. 162403-R, instead of on September 17, 2000 or
more than twenty (20) years thereafter.
Irregularities
in the issuance of TCT
No.
162403-R would not necessarily invali-
date
the same
Proceeding
now to the issue on whether or not the nullification of TCT No.
162403-R is-warranted, it must be borne in mind that the assailed
document of title, as a government issuance, enjoys the presumption
of regularity. 68 It was then incumbent upon the respondents to
prove, by preponderant evidence, that the issuance of TCT No.
162403-R on May 21, 1980 was attended by fraud as they claim.
Respondents
endeavored to overcome the burden of evidence in proving their
allegation of fraud by presenting as witness Myrna Guinto, an
employee of the RD of Pampanga, who testified that the original copy
of OCT No. 207, the parent title of TCT No. 162403-R, is not in their
custody as it is missing in their vault, and that the owner's
duplicate certificate in its stead does not bear any annotation of
cancelation or encumbrance.
We
are inclined, however, to give more credence to the explanation given
by the Registrar of Deeds, Loma Salangsang-Dee, that the presence of
the owner's duplicate certificate in their vault signifies that there
was most likely a transaction registered with the office concerning
the same. Indeed, there could not be any other plausible reason
except that it was as a result of the transaction that owner's
duplicate certificate was surrendered to the RD.
Respondents,
in the instant case, miserably failed to prove that petitioners were
parties to the perceived fraud. Basic are the tenets that he who
alleges must prove, and that mere allegation is not evidence and is
not equivalent to proof. Here, the allegations relating to
petitioners' participation to the fraud were nothing more than
general averments that were never fleshed out to more specific
fraudulent acts, let alone substantiated by the evidence on record.
Succinctly,
we conclude from the foregoing disquisitions that: respondents'
action has already prescribed and absent proof of complicity in the
alleged fraud that attended the issuance of TCT No. 162403-R,
petitioners' rights under the said document of title cannot be
impaired.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
The Entry of Judgment September 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 100188 is
hereby LIFTED.
The March 26, 2015 Decision and September 14, 2015 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100188, as well as the Decision
dated June 28, 2012 and the Order dated December 14, 2012 in Civil
Case No. G-06-3792 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49 of
Guagua, Pampanga, are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE.
Let a new judgment be issued:
- Upholding the validity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 162403-R registered in the name of petitioners Luisito and Leodegaria Pontigon; and
- Dismissing the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Title and Real Estate Mortgage for lack of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment