CASE DIGEST: Heirs of Bienvenido Tanyag v. Salome

 

HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO AND ARACELI TANYAG, namely: ARTURO TANYAG, AIDA T. JOCSON AND ZENAIDA T. VELOSO, petitioners, vs. SALOME E. GABRIEL, NESTOR R. GABRIEL, LUZ GABRIEL-ARNEDO married to ARTURO ARNEDO, NORA GABRIEL-CALINGO married to FELIX CALINGO, PILAR M. MENDIOLA, MINERVA GABRIEL-NATIVIDAD married to EUSTAQUIO NATIVIDAD, and ERLINDA VELASQUEZ married to HERMINIO VELASQUEZ, respondents.
G.R. No. 175763                |              April 11, 2012

 
FACTS:

Subject of controversy are 2 adjacent parcels of land in Ruhale, Brgy. Calzada, Taguig. The first parcel (“Lot 1”) with an area of 686 square meters was originally declared in the name of Jose Gabriel under Tax Declaration (TD) Nos. 1603 and 6425 issued for the years 1949 and 1966, while the second parcel (“Lot 2”) consisting of 147 square meters was originally declared in the name of Agueda Dinguinbayan under TD Nos. 6418 and 9676 issued for the years 1966 and 1967. For several years, these lands lined with bamboo plants remained undeveloped and uninhabited.

Petitioners claimed that Lot 1 was owned by Benita Gabriel, sister of Jose Gabriel, as part of her inheritance and that she sold the said property to spouses Gabriel Sulit and Cornelia Sanga. Lot 1 allegedly came into the possession of Benita Gabriel’s own daughter, Florencia Gabriel Sulit, when her father-in-law Gabriel Sulit gave it to her as part of inheritance of his son, Eliseo Sulit who was Florencia’s husband. Florencia Sulit sold the same lot to Bienvenido S. Tanyag, father of petitioners. Petitioners then took possession of the property, paid the real estate taxes due on the land and declared the same for tax purposes in the name of Bienvenido’s wife, Arceli v. Tanyag.

As to Lot 2, petitioners averred that it was sold by Agueda Danguinbayan to Arceli Tanyag on October 22, 1968. Thereupon, petitioners took possession of said property and declared the same for tax purposes.  Petitioners claimed to have continuously, publicly, notoriously and adversely occupied both Lots 1 and 2 through their caretaker Juana Quinones; they fenced the premises and introduced improvements on the land.

 Sometime in 1979, Jose Gabriel, father of respondents, secured TD No. 120-014-01013 in his name over Lot 1 indicating therein an increased area of 1,763 square meters. Said tax declaration supposedly cancelled TD No. 6425 over Lot 1.  

On March 20, 2000, petitioners instituted a civil case alleging that respondents never occupied the whole 686 square meters of Lot 1 and fraudulently caused the inclusion of Lot 2 in TD No. 120-014-01013 such that Lot 1 consisting of 686 square meters originally declared in the name of Jose Gabriel was increased to 1,763 square meters. They contended that the issuance of OCT No. 1035 on October 28, 1998 over the subject land in the name of respondents was null and void from the beginning.

On the other hand, respondents asserted that petitioners have no cause of action against them for they have not established their ownership over the subject property covered by a Torrens title in respondents’ name. They further argued that OCT No. 1035 had become unassailable one year after its issuance and petitioners failed to establish that it was irregularly or unlawfully procured.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioners have can assail the ownership of a land covered by a Torrens title.

RULING:

Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Thus, notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the registered owner may still be compelled to reconvey the registered property to its true owners. The rationale for the rule is that reconveyance does not set aside or re-subject to review the findings of fact of the Bureau of Lands. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to the one with a better right.

An action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts. The totality of the evidence on record established that it was petitioners who are in actual possession of the subject property; respondents merely insinuated at occasional visits to the land. However, for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to prosper, the Court held that the party seeking reconveyance must prove by clear and convincing evidence his title to the property and the fact of fraud.