Heirs of Waga v. Sacabin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Toribio Waga, filed a Free Patent Application for Lot No. 450. A Free Patent and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-8599 were issued in the name of the Heirs of Toribio Waga. Respondent Isabelo Sacabin filed a protest alleging that a portion of his adjacent land, Lot No. 452, was erroneously included in OCT No. P-8599. The DENR recommended the annulment of the patent and title, segregating the 790 sq.m. portion belonging to respondent. When the Director of Lands failed to act, respondent filed a complaint for Amendment of Original Certificate of Title, Ejectment, and Damages. Procedural History: The trial court found that respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the disputed 790 sq.m. portion since 1940. It ordered the segregation of the portion, vacation by defendants, and payment of damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the action was for correction of area and not an attack on the indefeasibility of the title, and that the one-year prescriptive period was not applicable. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that respondent's action was barred by prescription as their title was already indefeasible.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint for amendment of OCT No. P-8599, seeking reconveyance, has prescribed. Whether the respondent's possession of the disputed land since 1940 is uncontroverted. Whether the prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance is applicable in this case.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court's decision is affirmed. The Heirs of Toribio Waga are ordered to segregate and reconvey the 790 sq.m. portion to the plaintiff, vacate the premises, and pay damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription and the applicability of the prescriptive period: The Court held that the action for reconveyance was not barred by prescription. The respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse possession of the disputed 790 sq.m. portion since 1940. The Court reiterated the principle that a certificate of title does not make a usurper the owner of land erroneously included in the title; the Torrens System is not meant to perpetrate fraud. The Court found that the respondent only learned of the erroneous inclusion in 1991 when petitioners subdivided the land. The action for reconveyance, which seeks to transfer property erroneously registered to its rightful owner, is an action based on an implied or constructive trust. While generally subject to a ten-year prescriptive period, this period does not apply when the complainant is in possession of the land to be reconveyed and the registered owner was never in possession of the disputed property. In such a scenario, the action is in the nature of an action to quiet title, which is imprescriptible. The Court cited Caragay-Layno v. CA to support the imprescriptibility of an action to quiet title when the claimant is in possession. The Court emphasized that reconveyance is proper to correct the anomaly where the patentees have a title for land they never possessed, while another person has been in possession in concept of owner. The respondent's undisturbed possession since 1940 gave him a continuing right to seek judicial aid to determine the adverse claim. Therefore, the respondent's action filed in 1998 was not barred by prescription. On the uncontroverted possession of the respondent: The Court affirmed the findings of the DENR and the trial court that the respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the disputed 790 sq.m. portion since 1940. This possession was described as open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse. Evidence, including the testimony of a Special Investigator and a Geodetic Engineer, along with a sketch plan and the presence of fifty-year-old coconut trees forming a natural boundary, supported the claim that the disputed portion rightfully belonged to the respondent and was part of Lot No. 452. The petitioners' reliance on their certificate of title was deemed insufficient to defeat the respondent's long-standing possession. On the issue of prescription and the applicability of the prescriptive period: The Court held that the action for reconveyance was not barred by prescription. The respondent and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, peaceful, and adverse possession of the disputed 790 sq.m. portion since 1940. The Court reiterated the principle that a certificate of title does not make a usurper the owner of land erroneously included in the title; the Torrens System is not meant to perpetrate fraud. The Court found that the respondent only learned of the erroneous inclusion in 1991 when petitioners subdivided the land. The action for reconveyance, which seeks to transfer property erroneously registered to its rightful owner, is an action based on an implied or constructive trust. While generally subject to a ten-year prescriptive period, this period does not apply when the complainant is in possession of the land to be reconveyed and the registered owner was never in possession of the disputed property. In such a scenario, the action is in the nature of an action to quiet title, which is imprescriptible. The Court cited Caragay-Layno v. CA to support the imprescriptibility of an action to quiet title when the claimant is in possession. The Court emphasized that reconveyance is proper to correct the anomaly where the patentees have a title for land they never possessed, while another person has been in possession in concept of owner. The respondent's undisturbed possession since 1940 gave him a continuing right to seek judicial aid to determine the adverse claim. Therefore, the respondent's action filed in 1998 was not barred by prescription.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on a mistakenly included portion in a Torrens title is not barred by prescription if the complainant has been in possession of the disputed property, as such action, in effect, partakes of an action to quiet title, which is imprescriptible.