Heirs of Waga v. Sacabin

Facts:

Toribio Waga filed a Free Patent Application for a lot with an area of 4,960sqm. In 1965, it was surveyed by a Cadastral Land Surveyor and in 1968, the Free Patent and the Orginal Certificate of Title were issued under the name of the Heirs of Toribio Waga. It was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Misamis Oriental in 1974. In 1991, Sacabin filed a protest before DENR and alleged that a portion of his land was erroneously included in the petitioners’ lot.

Regional Executive Director of DENR Region X, issued a decision recommending that an action be taken by the Director of Lands for the annulment of the Free Patent issued to petitioners, segregating from petitioners’ lot the 790 sqm. portion belonging to respondent.

When the Director of Lands failed to act on the recommendation, respondent filed in 1998 a complaint against petitioners for Amendment of Original Certificate of Title, Ejectment, and Damages. The Special Investigator found seven fifty-year old coconut trees planted in a straight line and forming a common natural boundary between the lots of the parties. Since 1940, respondent and his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of their lot including the disputed 790 sqm portion, for more than 30 years in peaceful, open, continuous and adverse manner and in the concept of owner. The subject land has become private property of respondent by operation of law.

RTC ruled in favor of Sacabin which was affirmed by the CA, hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint for amendment of the petitioners’ land, which seeks the reconveyance of the disputed property, has already prescribed.

Held:

No.

Respondents Possession of Land Since 1940 is Uncontroverted.

The DENR and the trial courts finding that respondent and his predecessors-in- interest have been in possession of their lot, including the disputed 790 sqm. portion, in an open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse manner since 1940 is uncontroverted. To defeat the claim of respondent, petitioners relied primarily on their certificate of title which includes the disputed 790 sqm. portion. The Geodetic Engineer also found that the portion of land rightfully belongs to the respondent. Taking into consideration the seven fifty-year old coconut trees planted in a straight line which form a common natural boundary between the lots of the parties, the sketch plan clearly shows that the disputed 790 sqm. portion is within the side of respondent’s property. It was also affirmed by another DENR employee who assisted in the ocular inspection of properties.

Prescriptive Period Not Applicable.

It was only in 1991 when the respondent learned that a portion of his property was inadvertently included in the petitioners’ certificate of title. In 1998, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for Amendment of Original Certificate of Title, Ejectment, and Damages. The action primarily seeks the reconveyance of the disputed 790 sqm. portion of land by amending petitioners’ lot.

An action for reconveyance of property respects the decree of registration as incontrovertible and merely seeks the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in anothers name to its rightful owner or to one who claims to have a better right.

An action for reconveyance of property based on an implied or constructive trust is the proper remedy of an aggrieved party whose property had been erroneously registered in anothers name. The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of registered property is ten years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. However, the ten-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance is not applicable where the complainant is in possession of the land to be reconveyed and the registered owner was never in possession of the disputed property. In such a case, the action for reconveyance filed by the complainant who is in possession of the disputed property would be in the nature of an action to quiet title which is imprescriptible.

In the similar case of Caragay-Layno v. CA,

Prescription cannot be invoked against JULIANA for the reason that as lawful possessor and owner of the Disputed Portion, her cause of action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the property, falls within settled jurisprudence that an action to quiet title to property in ones possession is imprescriptible. Her undisturbed possession over a period of fifty-two (52) years gave her a continuing right to seek the aid of a Court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and the effect on her own title.

The Court affirmed the decision of the CA.