Calo v. Calo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership and partition of Lot No. 306 of the Butuan Cadastre, originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 337, issued on April 3, 1926, to Alejo Calo, Romualda Calo, Leoncio Peincenaves, and Vicente Calo. Respondent Nona Calo initiated proceedings to reconstitute the lost original of OCT No. 337. Various parties, including the petitioners (Heirs of Jose T. Calo), intervened, asserting claims to portions of the lot. The petitioners claim ownership over a 1/6 share, alleging it was given to their predecessor-in-interest, Jose T. Calo, by his father, Ventura Calo, the original owner. 2. Procedural History: The petition for reconstitution was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City, Branch 5. Subsequently, the parties agreed to convert the proceedings into an action for partition. After trial, the RTC issued a decision on December 10, 1993, ordering the reconstitution of OCT No. 337 and annotating the claims of most intervenors, but dismissing the claim of the heirs of Romualda Calo and modifying the areas for other claimants. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of Romualda's claim and the reduced shares for others, Nona Calo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA modified the RTC decision, affirming the annotation of some intervenors' claims but substantially reducing their areas and confirming the ownership and possession of the heirs of Vicente Calo, heirs of Romualda Calo, and heirs of Leoncio Peincenaves in equal proportions. The CA excluded the petitioners' claim entirely, finding they failed to establish Jose T. Calo's heirship and noting that Jose T. Calo never questioned OCT No. 337's validity, thus barring adverse claims. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Jose T. Calo, filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They contend that the CA erred in excluding their claim to a 1/6 portion of Lot No. 306. Their primary argument is that as successors-in-interest of Jose T. Calo, who was allegedly given this portion by the original owner Ventura Calo, they are entitled to it, especially given their long-standing possession. They assert that despite Jose not being a registered owner, they cannot be deprived of his share. The petition essentially seeks to overturn the CA's finding that they failed to prove Jose's heirship and that their claim was barred by the indefeasibility of the Torrens title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in excluding petitioners' claim to a portion of lot no. 306. Whether petitioners sufficiently established their right to a portion of lot no. 306 based on the deed of conveyance and relinquishment of rights from the heirs of Teofilo Montilla and their alleged possession for over 50 years. Whether the title of the registered owners of lot no. 306 had become indefeasible and barred petitioners from asserting an adverse claim.
Ruling
The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision which excluded the petitioners' claim to a portion of lot no. 306.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in excluding petitioners' claim to a portion of lot no. 306: The Court reiterated the general rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari, with factual issues entertained only in exceptional cases where the findings of fact of the CA and the trial court are conflicting. In this case, the findings of the RTC and the CA were indeed conflicting, prompting the Court to review the factual antecedents. However, the Court found that petitioners failed to present any document proving that Jose was a son of Ventura, the original owner of lot no. 306. Neither did they establish that Jose was fraudulently excluded as a registered owner by his co-heirs when OCT No. 337 was obtained. The deed of conveyance and relinquishment from the heirs of Montilla was insufficient to establish ownership, as it only conveyed possession, not ownership, given the grantors' own uncertainty about the property's registration and their acknowledgment that they did not own it. Furthermore, the lease contracts presented by petitioners showed Montilla as a witness, not a lessor, contradicting their claim of lease. Therefore, the CA did not err in excluding petitioners' claim. On the issue of whether petitioners sufficiently established their right to a portion of lot no. 306 based on the deed of conveyance and relinquishment of rights from the heirs of Teofilo Montilla and their alleged possession for over 50 years: The Court found the deed of conveyance and relinquishment of rights executed by the heirs of Montilla to be insufficient to establish ownership. The instrument itself stated that the property was "registered in the name of our late father," but the heirs expressed uncertainty regarding the "previous reasons or mode of acquisition." This indicated that the heirs of Montilla were aware that they did not own the property, despite being in possession. Consequently, when they "RETURNED, RENOUCED, RELINQUISHED, TRANSFERRED and CONVEYED" all their "rights, interest and participation" to the petitioners, what they effectively transferred was only possession, not ownership. The claim of possession for over 50 years, without a valid basis for ownership derived from the registered owners, did not ripen into ownership. On the issue of whether the title of the registered owners of lot no. 306 had become indefeasible and barred petitioners from asserting an adverse claim: The Court held that OCT No. 337 was issued on April 3, 1926, making Alejo Calo, Romualda Calo, Leoncio Peincenaves, and Vicente Calo the registered owners for more than 60 years. Consequently, their title had become indefeasible, and their rights of dominion over the property could no longer be challenged. The Court emphasized that only those who could trace their rights from the registered owners of lot no. 306 were entitled to annotate their claims on OCT No. 337. Since the petitioners failed to establish a legal basis for their claim originating from the registered owners, their adverse claim was barred by the indefeasibility of the title.
Main Doctrine
A deed of conveyance and relinquishment of rights, where the grantors acknowledge that the property was registered in their father's name but express uncertainty regarding the mode of acquisition, and subsequently return, renounce, and relinquish all their rights, interest, and participation, conveys only possession, not ownership, especially when the grantors themselves were aware they did not own the property. Furthermore, claims against a registered title that has become indefeasible for over sixty years can only be annotated by those who can trace their rights from the registered owners.