Almarza v. Arguelles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cresencia Almarza and her late husband purchased a 7,300 square meter portion of Lot No. 5815 in 1929 from Romualdo Grana, the original owner. They took possession, cultivated the land, declared it for taxation, and paid taxes thereon. The sale document was lost during the war. Laura Pancrudo, mother of private respondents Asuncion and Gilda Arguelles, executed an affidavit acknowledging the sale. A new tax declaration (No. 456) was issued for this portion as Lot No. 5815-B in the name of Leon Almarza, with an annotation of the affidavit. The remaining portion of Lot No. 5815 was declared as Lot No. 5815-A under Romualdo Grana. Procedural History: During Cadastral Case No. 78, Josefa Malote, mother of private respondents Gil and Balbina Pancrudo, filed an answer claiming Lot No. 5815 based on Tax Declaration No. 3909 and a tax receipt for Lot No. 5815-A. On July 25, 1950, the cadastral court declared Gil and Balbina Pancrudo owners of one-half undivided share and Laura Pancrudo of the other half. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-134 covering the entire Lot 5815 was issued on May 29, 1951. Laura Pancrudo died, succeeded by her daughters Asuncion and Gilda Arguelles. On April 20, 1977, private respondents filed Civil Case No. 11051 against petitioner for recovery of the 7,300 sq.m. portion, based on OCT No. 0-134. Petitioner counterclaimed for reconveyance. The Petition: The lower court ruled in favor of private respondents, ordering petitioner to vacate and deliver the disputed portion, dismissing her counterclaim for reconveyance due to prescription, finding that more than ten years had elapsed since the issuance of the title. Petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court on a question of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's action for reconveyance has prescribed. Whether the inclusion of the disputed portion in OCT No. 0-134 is valid and binding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. It ordered the private respondents to cause the segregation of the 7,300 square meter disputed portion of Lot No. 5815 and reconvey it to the petitioner. The Register of Deeds was ordered to cancel OCT No. 0-134 and issue new titles for the segregated portions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of the action for reconveyance: The Supreme Court held that prescription cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance filed by a possessor en concepto de dueno who is in continuous possession of the property. Citing Caragay-Layno v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that such possession gives a continuing right to seek aid from equity to determine the nature of an adverse claim. The Court further clarified that if prescription were to be invoked, it would only commence from the time the possessor becomes aware of an adverse claim. In this case, petitioner was made aware of the adverse claim only upon service of summons in Civil Case No. 11051, and her counterclaim for reconveyance, filed at that time, could not have prescribed. The petitioner's undisturbed possession for over fifty years established her right to seek reconveyance, making the action imprescriptible. On the validity of the inclusion of the disputed portion in OCT No. 0-134: The Supreme Court found the inclusion of the disputed portion (Lot No. 5815-B) in OCT No. 0-134 to be void and of no effect. The evidence presented during the cadastral hearing by Josefa Malote only pertained to Lot No. 5815-A, and no claim was asserted over the disputed portion. A land registration court lacks jurisdiction to decree a lot to individuals who have not claimed it or asserted any right of ownership over it. The Court cited Vda. de Recinto vs. Inciong for the principle that the remedy for property erroneously registered in another's name is an ordinary action for reconveyance. Petitioner availed herself of this remedy seasonably. Furthermore, the private respondents' failure to assert their alleged right under the title for twenty-six years constituted laches, indicating abandonment or waiver of their claim over the disputed portion.
Main Doctrine
A possessor en concepto de dueno of a portion of land, who has been in continuous, peaceful, open, and adverse possession thereof for over fifty years, is entitled to an action for reconveyance even if a Torrens Certificate of Title covering the entire lot was issued to another, especially when the adverse claim was only made known upon the filing of the suit and the inclusion of the disputed portion in the title was erroneous and without basis in the cadastral proceedings.