Rementizo v. Heirs of Madarieta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by the late Pelagia Vda. de Madarieta against Joseph Rementizo, seeking the annulment and cancellation of Emancipation Patent (EP) No. A-028390-H and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. EP-195. Madarieta claimed ownership of Lot No. 153-F, asserting that it was mistakenly included in the Operation Land Transfer program and erroneously awarded to Rementizo, who was allegedly a tenant of Roque Luspo and not of Angel Madarieta, Pelagia's late husband. Madarieta contended she was deprived of her property without due process, as she received no notice of the transfer. Procedural History: The Provincial Adjudicator initially ruled in favor of Madarieta, declaring the emancipation patent and title void and ordering Rementizo to vacate the property. Rementizo appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)-Central Office, which reversed the Provincial Adjudicator's decision, upholding the validity of Rementizo's title and possession. Madarieta then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in an amended decision, set aside its earlier ruling and declared EP No. A-028390-H null and void, finding that Lot No. 153-F was erroneously awarded to Rementizo. The Petition: Joseph Rementizo filed this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' amended decision. The core issue presented is whether the action for annulment of the emancipation patent, which seeks reconveyance of the title, has already prescribed. Rementizo argues that the action was filed more than 10 years after the issuance of the title in 1987, and that there was no evidence of fraud in the issuance of the patent and title. He contends that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the date of title issuance, not from Madarieta's alleged discovery through a relocation survey.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for annulment of the emancipation patent, which seeks reconveyance, has prescribed. Whether fraud was committed in the issuance of the emancipation patent and title.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the Court of Appeals' Amended Decision and Resolution, and dismissed the complaint for annulment and cancellation of the Original Certificate of Title and Emancipation Patent on the ground of prescription. Costs were against the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of the action for annulment and reconveyance: The Court held that the action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens title, which serves as constructive notice to the whole world. In this case, EP No. A-028390-H and OCT No. EP-195 were registered in Rementizo's name in 1987. Madarieta filed her complaint in 1998, more than 11 years later. The Court found that the exception to the prescriptive period, where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, does not apply here because Rementizo was in possession as the registered owner, and there was no indication that Angel Madarieta, the alleged rightful owner, was ever in possession of the disputed property after the issuance of the patent. Therefore, the complaint was barred by prescription. On the issue of fraud: The Court found no allegation or proof of fraud in the issuance of EP No. A-028390-H and OCT No. EP-195. Madarieta's claim was that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) committed a mistake in awarding the patent, not that Rementizo employed fraud. The Court noted that Madarieta's evidence at most tended to show an error in the issuance of the patent, as Rementizo was a tenant of Luspo, not Angel Madarieta. However, the absence of fraud distinguished this case from previous rulings where the prescriptive period was reckoned from the discovery of fraud. Since Angel Madarieta was alive when the patent was issued and registered, and he did not object to Rementizo's possession, his silence or acquiescence was taken to mean recognition of Rementizo's rights. Madarieta's discovery of the ownership through a relocation survey in 1997 was not the reckoning point for prescription due to the absence of proven fraud.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens title, which operates as constructive notice to the whole world. The exception where possession by the plaintiff tolls the prescriptive period does not apply when the registered owner was never in possession.