Facts:
The
Coronados, together with Cruz B. Carbon, filed with RTC, Antipolo, Rizal, a
complaint for Annulment of Title and/or Reconveyance against petitioner,
Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, alleging that:
(i) Doroteo Garcia owned a parcel of land
with an area of 23 hectares, a portion of which is located at Tugtugin,
Barangay de la Paz, Antipolo City, while the other portion is located at
Pinagbarilan, Barangay dela Paz, Antipolo City;
(ii) the entire parcel of land was declared
for taxation purposes in 1906 in the name of Doroteo Garcia under Tax
Declaration No. 16495 (now Tax Declaration No. 03-6799-SJ387);
(iii) Doroteo Garcia had been in
possession of the land since Spanish time and, upon his death, his heirs,
respondents Coronados, maintained possession of the land until the present;
(iv) on December 29, 1970, respondents
Coronados, together with Cruz B. Carbon who was given a portion of the parcel
of land in consideration of legal services he rendered, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Partition of Real Estate partitioning the property among themselves;
(v) respondents later learned that a
portion of the land was registered in the name of a certain Gaudencio T. Bocobo
under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 501 based on Free Patent No.
291532;
(vi) Bocobo mortgaged the land covered by
OCT No. 501 as security for a P500,000.00 loan from petitioner; and
(vii) for failure of Bocobo to pay the
loan, the mortgage was foreclosed and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
19781 was issued in the name of petitioner.
Respondents
prayed, among others, that TCT No. 19781 be declared null and void and the
subject property be reconveyed to them.
In
its Answer, petitioner averred that:
(i) in 1977, it issued a performance bond
in favor of Gaudencio T. Bocobo which was secured by a real estate mortgage
over a parcel of land covered by Free Patent No. 291532 with an area of 171,419
square meters located in Antipolo, Rizal;
(ii) before petitioner conformed to the
real estate mortgage, it verified and examined Bocobos title, which it found to
be free from any suspicion;
(iii) when Bocobo failed to pay his
obligations, petitioner foreclosed the mortgage on the property and TCT No. 19781
was issued in its favor; and
(iv) from 1977 up to the time of
petitioner’s receipt of the summons in the present complaint, no other person
had claimed interest over the property.
In
1996, the trial court directed respondents counsel to submit a copy of the
report of the relocation survey, which the parties agreed to be conducted on
the subject property. Respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Investigation
Survey, praying that the court issue an order directing the Lands Management
Bureau (LMB) to conduct the required investigation survey. Consequently, the
trial court issued an Order dated March 25, 1997 directing the LMB to conduct a
survey of the subject property and submit a report indicating the boundaries
and the exact location of the property.
In
a Report on Verification Survey dated November 28, 1997 signed by Engr.
Pangyarihan and Engr. Miranda, it likewise concluded that the property
described in the petitioner’s title is not located in the place where the
subject property is located.
Engr.
Rosario B. Mercado did not agree with the findings of his colleagues and opted
to submit a separate survey report. Using the tie lines indicated in the title,
he concluded that a portion of the subject property overlapped the property
described in petitioner’s certificate of title.
On
January 29, 2002, the RTC adopted the findings of the majority of the
commission and rendered the following judgment:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
recognizing Julian Coronado, Vicente Coronado, Simeon Coronado and Maura
Coronado to be the legal heirs of Doroteo Garcia and confirming their ownership
of the parcel of land covered by PSU 159753 and Tax Declaration marked as
Exhibit S containing an area of 11.65 hectares.
On the other hand, the Court finds no
necessity to declare null and void TCT No. N-19781 registered in the name of
the defendant but the court makes a finding and so holds that the parcel of
land described therein is not the same parcel of land claimed and owned by the
Coronados.
SO ORDERED.
On
June 27, 2007, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. The CA likewise denied the
petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit in the Resolution
dated October 17, 2007.
Issue:
Whether
or not the CA gravely erred in affirming RTC’s decision.
Held:
The
records reveal that the respondents have been in possession of the subject property
since 1938. Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person claiming to be
the owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not
prescribe.
The
Court find that the conclusion of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that
the property described in TCT No. N-19781 is not located in the place where the
subject property is located lacks adequate basis.
Both
the trial and appellate courts based their conclusions on the verification
surveys finding that the property covered by the said title is located in
another place. It is noted, however, the surveys were conducted on the subject
property only. Other than an ocular inspection, no survey was ever conducted on
the area where the property covered by TCT No. N-19781 is allegedly located.
Neither was there any effort to plot the tie lines indicated in its technical
description. Consequently, the exact location of the property covered by the
said certificate of title has not been established.
However,
the fact that the property cannot be plotted on a certain area based on the
technical description indicated in the certificate of title does not foreclose
the possibility that there is simply an error in the technical description, or
that it is only deficient. Unless the exact location of the property described
in the certificate of title is determined, we cannot safely and definitively
conclude that it is not located at a certain place.
Indubitably,
a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein. The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is
to quiet title to land and put stop forever to any question as to the legality
of the title.
The
court remands the case to the trial court for the determination of the exact
location of the petitioners property.
No comments:
Post a Comment