Gualberto v. Go
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners are the heirs of Generoso Gualberto, the former registered owner of a parcel of land. In 1965, Generoso and his wife, Consuelo, sold the land to respondents' father, Go S. Kiang, evidenced by a deed of sale. Consuelo executed an affidavit in 1973 attesting to this sale for tax declaration purposes. In a forcible entry case filed by respondents against petitioners, a decision in favor of respondents was affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. In 1978, OCT No. 1388 was issued in the name of Rosa Javier Go, wife of Go S. Kiang. Procedural History: On August 10, 1995, petitioners filed a complaint for Conveyance, Accion Publiciana, and Quieting of Title with Damages against respondents. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to pay attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but deleted the award of attorney's fees. The denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration led to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek to nullify the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, raising issues regarding the validity of a free patent title over a titled property, and whether the right to demand the return of property can be lost by prescription or laches.
Issue(s)
Whether or not a titled property can be the subject of a free patent title. Whether or not the right of a registered owner to demand the return of his property can be lost by prescription or laches. Whether an action for reconveyance of property based on a nullity of title prescribes.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the validity of a Torrens title cannot be assailed collaterally and that the action for reconveyance, in this case, had prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a titled property can be the subject of a free patent title: The Court held that the validity of a Torrens title cannot be assailed collaterally. The present action, which is for conveyance, accion publiciana, and quieting of title, is not a direct attack on the validity of OCT No. 1388. Furthermore, this issue was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, which is generally not allowed as it violates the rule on fair play, justice, and due process. Issues not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. On the issue of whether the right of a registered owner to demand the return of his property can be lost by prescription or laches, and whether an action for reconveyance of property based on a nullity of title prescribes: The Court reiterated the doctrine that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title. This rule, however, does not apply when the plaintiff is in actual, continuous, and peaceful possession of the property. In this case, it was not established that the petitioners remained in actual possession of the property after the sale in 1965 until the filing of their complaint in 1995. The trial court found that the respondents had actual possession of the property. Therefore, the action for reconveyance was not imprescriptible and had prescribed. On the general rule regarding factual findings: The Court emphasized that as a rule, the conclusions of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court. While exceptions exist, none were found to be applicable in this case. The Court found the factual findings of the Court of Appeals to be borne out by the record and sufficiently anchored on the evidence presented.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title, unless the plaintiff is in actual, continuous, and peaceful possession of the property.