Bustarga v. Navo II
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Feliciano Navo II purchased five adjoining parcels of land totaling 50,000 square meters between 1948 and 1949, which became Lot 2636 of the Bula cadastre. Navo has been in continuous possession of these lands. Navo and the Bustargas (Escolastico and Fortunata) are first cousins. On February 4, 1955, the Heirs of Feliciana Navo, represented by Escolastico Bustarga, applied for a free patent for Lot 2636. Based on the false premise that these heirs were in actual possession, a free patent and Torrens title (OCT No. 2245) were issued to them on May 12, 1955. Subsequently, on February 17, 1956, Escolastico and Fortunata obtained TCT No. 1570 for Lot 2636 and an adjacent lot, Lot 1404, through an extra-judicial partition. Navo was unaware of these proceedings. The Court of Appeals found that the patent was obtained under false pretenses as the Bustargas were never in possession of Lot 2636. Procedural History: Navo filed an action for reconveyance against the Bustargas on July 7, 1966, more than ten years after the issuance of the patent and title for Lot 2636. During pre-trial, the parties agreed that if a commissioned geodetic engineer found that TCT No. 1570 included land other than Lot 1404 (the subject of a prewar case), that additional land should be reconveyed to Navo upon payment of a reasonable amount. The commissioned engineer reported that TCT No. 1570 included Lot 1404 and Lot 2636, which Navo had purchased and occupied. The trial court ordered the Bustargas to reconvey Lot 2636 to Navo upon payment of P500. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Petition: The Bustargas filed a petition for review, questioning the propriety of the reconveyance despite the lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of the patent and title.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for reconveyance is barred by prescription despite the lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of the free patent and Torrens title; the patentees' agreement to reconvey if Lot 2636 was not adjudicated to them in the prewar case; and the patentees' deceitful conduct in processing the free patent application. Whether reconveyance is proper given that the patentees were never in possession of the land and the same has been possessed by another in concept of owner.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of Appeals ordering the reconveyance of Lot 2636 to Feliciano Navo II is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription, the agreement to reconvey, and deceitful conduct: The Court held that reconveyance is proper notwithstanding the action being filed after the lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of the patent and title. The Bustargas' agreement during the pre-trial to reconvey the land if Lot 2636 was found not to have been adjudicated to them in the prewar case was considered tantamount to a waiver of the defense of prescription. The Court emphasized that Escolastico Bustarga misled the Bureau of Lands through deceit, misrepresentation, and clandestine machinations in processing the free patent application, which led to the fraudulent issuance of the patent and title. This deceitful conduct further negates the applicability of the prescriptive period as a bar to the action for reconveyance. The Court cited Vital vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 955, which established that while a Torrens title issued upon a free patent may generally not be cancelled after ten years due to prescription, this bar does not apply if the registered owner knew that the land belonged to another who, along with predecessors, was never in possession. On the issue of propriety of reconveyance given lack of possession by patentees: The Court found the reconveyance just and proper to rectify the anomaly where the patentees held a Torrens title for land they and their predecessors never possessed, while Navo, who possessed the land in concept of owner, was deprived of it. In such cases, the true owner may bring an action for reconveyance in equity jurisdiction without necessarily ordering the cancellation of the title.
Main Doctrine
A reconveyance of land is proper even if the action is filed after ten years from the issuance of a free patent and Torrens title, if the patentees were never in possession and the land has been possessed by another in concept of owner, especially when the patentees agreed to reconveyance during pre-trial, which constitutes a waiver of the defense of prescription.