0% found this document useful (0 votes)
401 views8 pages

3aepublic of Tbe S, Upreme !court: !fflanila

G.R. No. 200265. December 2, 2013 Laura F. Paraguya Vs. Sps. Alma Escurel-Crucillo and Emeterio Crucillo and the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
401 views8 pages

3aepublic of Tbe S, Upreme !court: !fflanila

G.R. No. 200265. December 2, 2013 Laura F. Paraguya Vs. Sps. Alma Escurel-Crucillo and Emeterio Crucillo and the Register of Deeds of Sorsogon
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

3aepublic of tbe

S,upreme <!Court
;!fflanila
SECOND DIVISION
LAURA E. PARAGUYA,
Petitioner,
G.R. No. 200265
- versus -
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
SPOUSES ALMA ESCUREL-
CRUCILLO and EMETERIO
CRUCILLO, * and the REGISTER
DEL CASTILLO,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
OF DEEDS OF SORSOGON, Promulgated:
DEC 0 2 2013
Respondents. l" a -tt
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
RESOLUTION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari
1
are the Decision
2
dated June 27, 2011 and Resolution
3
dated January 9, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 94764 reversing the Decision
4
dated
April 22, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Gubat, Sorsogon, Branch 54
(RTC) in Civil Case No. 1583 which ordered respondents-spouses Alma
Escurel-Crucillo (Escurel) and Emeterio Crucillo (Sps. Crucillo) to surrender
ownership and possession of certain parcels of land located at Maragadao,
Villareal, Gubat, Sorsogon (subject properties) in favor of petitioner J.,aura
E. Paraguya (Paraguya ), and for respondent Register of Deeds of Sorsogon
2
4
Both deceased. Substituted by their heirs, namely, Ella E. Crucillo, Emelina Crucillo-Resurreccion,
Emily Crucillo-Fajardo, Amel E. Crucillo, Elaine E. Crucillo and Alex E. Crucillo; Rollo, p. 14.
Id. at 10-46.
Id. at 49-61. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Associate Justices Ricardo R.
Rosario and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
Id. at 97-98.
Id. at 62-70. Penned by Judge Fred G. Jimena.
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 200265
(RD) to cancel Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-17729
5
covering
the foregoing properties.
The Facts
On December 19, 1990, Paraguya filed before the RTC a Complaint
6
against Sps. Crucillo and the RD for the annulmt: nt of OCT No. P-17729 and
other related deeds, with prayer for receivership and damages, alleging that
Escurel obtained the aforesaid title through fraud and deceit. Paraguya
claimed that she is the lawful heir to the subject properties left by her
paternal grandfather, the late Ildefonso Estabillo
7
(Estabillo), while Escurel
was merely their administrator and hence, had no right over the same.
8
On January 18, 1991, the RD filed its answer and denied any
involvement in the aforesaid fraud, maintaining that its issuance of OCT No.
P-17729 was his ministerial duty.
9
Thereafter, or on February 7, 1991, Sps. Crucillo filed their answer
with motion to dismiss, averring that Paraguya's complaint had already been
barred by laches and/or prescription.
10
They further alleged, among others,
that Escurel, through her father, the late Angel Escurel, applied for a free
patent over the subject properties, resulting in the issuance of Free Patent
No. V-3 005844 under OCT No. P-17729 in her 1ame.
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following: (a) the
identity of the subject properties which are covered by OCT No. P-17729 in
the name of Escurel; (b) the fact that the subject properties were originally
owned by Estabillo, the common ancestor of Paraguya and Escurel, being
the former's grandfather and the latter's great-grandfather; and (c) the fact
that Sps. Crucillo are in actual possession of the subject properties.
11
During trial, Paraguya testified as to how she came about owning the
subject properties, presenting a document entitled Recognition of Ownership
and Possession dated December 1, 1972 executed by her siblings, as well as
a titulo posesorio issued sometime in 1893 or 1895 in the name of Estabillo.
A representative of the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office (CENRO), by the name of Ramon Escanilla, also testified in
Paraguya's favor, stating that aside from an affidavit dated December 17,
1976
12
executed by Escurel's brother, Adonis Escurel (Adonis), there were
6
7
9
Records, p. 6.
Id. at 1-5.
"Estavillo" in some parts of the records.
Rollo, p. 50.
Id.
10
Id. at 50-51.
11
Id. at 65.
12
See records, p. 199.
Resolution 3
G.R. No. 200265
no other documents of ownership presented before the Bureau of Lands in
support of Escurel' s application for title.
13
For their part, Sps. Crucillo presented several witnesses who testified
that Escurel had been in possession of the subject properties in the concept
of an owner as early as 1957. Escurel then admitted that her brother, Adonis,
executed an affidavit dated December 17, 1976 in her favor. She likewise
admitted that she executed an affidavit, entitled Ratification of Ownership
(affidavit of adjudication), on the same date, in support of the free patent
application with the Bureau ofLands.
14
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision
15
dated April 22, 2009, the RTC granted Paraguya's
complaint, ordering the annulment of OCT No. P-17729. Accordingly, it
directed the RD to cancel the said title and Sps. Escurillo to surrender
ownership and possession of the subject properties to Paraguya.
It found that there was a discrepancy in the area of the subject
properties applied for registration, as Adonis's affidavit - which was made
as the basis of Escurel's affidavit of adjudication - stated that the actual area
thereof was only 8,392 square meters (sq. m.) whereas OCT No. P-17729
indicated that the foregoing properties had an area of 30,862 sq. m. In this
regard, the RTC concluded that the requisites for the application for
registration were not complied with. Likewise, it observed that Escurel' s
ownership over the subject properties was not proven, adding that the
affidavit of adjudication made by her and submitted to the CENRO was self-
serving. Based on its findings, it then concluded that there was fraud in
Escurel' s acquisition of the above-mentioned title.
16
On May 15, 2009, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the Heirs
of Sps. Crucillo, who had substituted the latter due to their supervening
death. The said motion was, however, denied on December 16, 2009,
prompting them to elevate the case to the CA.
17
The CA Ruling
In a Decision
18
dated June 27, 2011, the CA reversed the RTC's ruling
and ordered the dismissal of Paraguya' s complaint.
13
Rollo, p. 52.
14
Id. at 52-53.
15
Id. at 62-70.
16
Id. at 69-70.
17
Id. at 53.
18
Id. at 40-61.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 200265
Citing Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,
19
otherwise
known as the "Property Registration Decree," it held that OCT No. P-17729
became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of one ( 1) year from
its issuance on August 24, 1979, thus barring Paraguya's complaint.
20
Moreover, it found that the express trust relationship between Escurel and
Estabillo was not sufficiently established. Finally, it pointed out that
Paraguya was not a real-party-interest since she has not proven her title over
the subject properties, stating that the titulo posesorio she held could no
longer be used as evidence of ownership.
Aggrieved, Paraguya moved for reconsideration
21
which was,
however, denied on January 9, 2012.
22
Hence, this petition.
Issue Before the Court
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly
dismissed Paraguya' s complaint for annulment of title.
The Court's Ruling
The petition has no merit.
It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is not
conclusive proof of ownership. Verily, a party may seek its annulment on
the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. However, such action must be
seasonably filed, else the same would be barred.
23
In this relation, Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to
contest a decree of registration shall be one ( 1) year from the date of its entry
and that, after the lapse of the said period, the Torrens certificate of title
issued thereon becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible, viz.:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by
reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely
affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the
government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
19
"AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES."
20
Rollo, pp. 55-56.
21
Id.at71-82.
22
Id. at 97-98.
23
"It may be argued that the certificate of title is not conclusive of ownership when the issue of fraud and
misrepresentation in obtaining it is raised. However, this issue must be raised seasonably." (Heirs of
the Late Fernando S. Falcasantos v. Tan, G.R. No. 172680, August 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 411, 414;
citations omitted)
I
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 200265
actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but
in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein,
whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser
for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed
to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued shall become
incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in
any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the
applicant or any other persons responsible for the fraud. (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)
In view of the foregoing, the Court is impelled to sustain the CA' s
dismissal of Paraguya's complaint for annulment of OCT No. P-17729
24
since it was filed only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven (11)
years from the title's date of entry on August 24, 1979.
25
Based on Section
32 of PD 1529, said title had become incontrovertible and indefeasible after
the lapse of one (1) year from the date of its entry, thus barring Paraguya's
action for annulment of title.
The Court likewise takes note that Paraguya's complaint is likewise in
the nature of an action for rcconveyance because it also prayed for the trial
court to order Sps. Crucillo to "surrender ownership and possession of the
properties in question to [Paraguya], vacating them altogether x x x."
26
Despite this, Paraguya's complaint remains dismissible on the same ground
because the prescriptive period for actions for reconveyance is ten (10) years
reckoned from the date of issuance of the certificate of title, except when the
owner is in possession of the property, in which case the action for
reconveyance becomes imprescriptible.
27
Such exception is, however,
inapplicable in this case because as stipulated by the parties herein, it is Sps.
Crucillo, and not Paraguya, who are in possession of the land covered by
OCT No. P-1 7729.
As a final point, it is well to note that even if the barring effect of
Section 32 and the above-stated prescriptive period for reconveyance are
discounted, Paraguya's complaint for annulment of title should be dismissed
altogether since she merely relied on the titulo posesorio issued in favor of
Estabillo sometime in 1893 or 1 895. Based on Section 1 of PD 892, entitled
"Discontinuance of the Spanish Mortgage System of Registration and of the
Use of Spanish Titles as Evidence in Land Registration Proceedings,"
24
See records, pp. 1-5.
25
See OCT No. P-17729, id. at 6.
26
Id. at 4.
27
See Orduna v. Fuentebel/a, G.R. No. 176841, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 146, 162, citing Heirs of
Salvador Hermosilla v. Spouses Remoquillo, 542 Phil. 390, 396 (2007).
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 200265
Spanish titles can no longer be used as evidence of ownership after six (6)
months from the effectivity of the law, or starting August 16, 1976,
28
viz.:
Section 1. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage
Law is discontinued, and all lands recorded under said system which are
not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands.
All holders of Spanish titles or grants should apply for registration
of their lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as the Land
Registration Act, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this
decree. Thereafter, Spanish titles cannot be used as evidence of land
ownership in any registration proceedings under the Torrens system.
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xx xx
Hence, since Paraguya only presented the titulo posesorio during the
pendency of the instant case, or during the 1990's onwards, the CA was
correct in not giving any credence to it at all.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeal's Decision dated June 27, 2011 and Resolution dated January 9,
2012 in CA-G.R. CV. No. 94764 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ESTELA
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
a [) -


MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
28
PD 892 was approved on February 16, 1976 and, under Section 3 thereof, took effect immediately.
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 200265
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CAR
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy