Magalang v. Heretape

 Doctrine: The person who claims a better right of ownership to the property sought to be recovered must prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto.

Facts: Petitioners Spouses Kawasa Magalang and Mona Wahab were the owners of a 10-hectare property located at Salabaca, Ampatuan, Cotabato. On February 4, 1969, Kawasa Magalang and Lucibar Heretape executed a memorandum of agreement authorizing the latter "to occupy, cultivate and produce in a certain portion of TWO AND A HALF (2 1/2) hectares" of the lot for a period of one year and four months. 

In the early 1970s, Kawasa Magalang and his family were forced to evacuate the lot because of the Ilaga-Blackshirt conflict. Spouses Lucibar Heretape and Rosalina Funa, Spouses Nestor Heretape and Rosa Rogador, and Roberto Landero took advantage of the situation and usurped the whole 10-hectare lot. In connivance with these persons, Geodetic Engineer Eusebio Fortinez caused the subdivision of the lot into three parts.

Respondents answered that at the time Lucibar Heretape executed subject memorandum of agreement, Kawasa Magalang misrepresented himself as the lot owner. When Kawasa Magalang later abandoned the lot, a certain Pedro Deansin^** claiming to be the real owner, showed up and demanded that they (respondents) vacate the lot. As proofs of his ownership, Pedro Deansin showed them a Deed of Transfer of Rights.

Nestor Heretape, Lucibar Heretape's son, opted to buy 5 hectares from Pedro Deansin, corresponding to one-half of the lot. After the purchase, Nestor Heretape gave 2.5 hectares to his father Lucibar Heretape. In 1974, Pedro Deansin sold the remaining 5 hectares to Roberto Landero. 

RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. CA reversed and dismissed the petition. MR was denied.

Issue: Are petitioners entitled to reconveyance of the entire Lot 1064 or the three subdivided lots 2238-B, Lot 2238-A, and Lot 1064-A?

Held: No. Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud becomes by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property. If fraud was indeed committed, it gives a complainant the right to seek reconveyance of the property from the registered owner or subsequent buyers.

The party seeking to recover the property must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she is entitled to the property, and that the adverse party has committed fraud in obtaining his or her title. 

Article 434 of the New Civil Code further provides what complainant must prove in order to recover the property:

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.

In other words, the person who claims a better right of ownership to the property sought to be recovered must prove two things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto.

CA did not err in dismissing petitioners' complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or declaration of nullity of acquisition of property.

Dispositive Portion: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated December 30, 2010 and Resolution dated October 6, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 81939 are AFFIRMED.