Heirs of Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Quijano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership of several parcels of land in Antipolo, Medellin, Cebu. Free Patent No. VII-4-2974 was issued to Alan P. Quijano for Lot 374, and Free Patent No. VII-4-3088 was issued to Gwendolyn Q. Enriquez for Lot 379. Gwendolyn Enriquez also applied for free patents over Lots 376 and 378. The heirs of Guillermo Sanjorjo protested the issuance of these patents and applications, claiming the lands were inherited from their predecessor, Ananias Ursal, who had exchanged them with Guillermo Sanjorjo. They sought cancellation of the patents and applications and return of the properties. 2. Procedural History: The heirs of Guillermo Sanjorjo filed a protest with the DENR, which was later withdrawn. The DENR Regional Executive Director dismissed the case, ruling that patents issued over a year prior could not be disturbed and giving due course to the applications for Lots 376 and 378. Subsequently, the petitioners, heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo (a different branch of the Sanjorjo family), filed a complaint for cancellation of titles and reconveyance of Lots 374, 376, 378, and 379. The trial court dismissed this complaint based on res judicata. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, but on the ground of prescription, holding that the titles were indefeasible after one year from their issuance. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision and in ruling that their action was barred by prescription. They contend that the DENR's prior decision was not a judgment on the merits and that their action for reconveyance, based on implied trust due to fraud, was filed within the ten-year prescriptive period. They seek to have the case reinstated for Lots 374 and 379.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the protest by the DENR Regional Executive Director constitutes res judicata barring the petitioners' action for cancellation of titles and reconveyance. Whether the petitioners' action for reconveyance of Lots 374 and 379 is barred by prescription under Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is MODIFIED. The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 13, is DIRECTED to reinstate the complaint insofar as Lots 374 and 379 are concerned. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata: The Court held that the elements of res judicata were not met. Specifically, the decision of the DENR Regional Executive Director was not a judgment on the merits because it was based on a preliminary or technical point, not on a determination of who was right after argument and investigation. The DENR Director dismissed the complaint for cancellation of free patents on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the issuance of the patents, and that only regular courts have jurisdiction after the lapse of one year. The petitioners agreed with this and withdrew their complaint, intending to file an action in court. On the issue of prescription: The Court agreed with the petitioners that their action for reconveyance of Lots 374 and 379 was not barred by prescription. While a Torrens title issued on the basis of a free patent becomes indefeasible after one year from its issuance, an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust is still available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. Such an action prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. The questioned titles were issued on August 29, 1988, and November 11, 1988, respectively. The petitioners filed their action for reconveyance on September 13, 1993, which is well within the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court found that the allegations in the complaint sufficiently constituted an action for reconveyance, asserting ownership and fraudulent deprivation of property.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on implied trust, arising from fraud in obtaining a title, prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the certificate of title, provided the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value. The dismissal of a complaint by an administrative body for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, due to the lapse of one year from the issuance of the patent, does not constitute res judicata as it is not a judgment on the merits.