Ney v. Quijano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondents Spouses Celso and Mina Quijano claimed co-ownership over a residential lot located at 1648 Main Street, Paco, Manila, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 122489 in the names of petitioners Manuel P. Ney and Romulo P. Ney. The respondents alleged that they contributed to the purchase price of the lot and that Celso Quijano's name was omitted from the deed of sale and subsequent title due to an oversight. They further stated that a three-door apartment was constructed on the lot, with one unit intended for them. The respondents sought partition of the property and reconveyance of their share, asserting that their claim was recognized in a subsequent Deed of Reconveyance executed by the petitioners. 2. Procedural History: Respondents filed a suit for reconveyance, partition, and damages against the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding the respondents' evidence of co-ownership unreliable and concluding that their possession was by mere tolerance, with their cause of action barred by prescription and laches. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision. The CA found sufficient evidence of co-ownership and treated the action as one for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible. The CA ordered the partition of the lot, reconveyance of the respondents' share, and surrender of the owner's copy of the title. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA erred in treating the respondents' action as one for quieting of title, contending that the complaint specifically prayed for partition and reconveyance, not quieting of title. They assert that the CA ruled on an issue not raised in the pleadings. The petitioners also dispute the respondents' claim of co-ownership, despite the existence of a Deed of Reconveyance executed by the petitioners acknowledging the respondents' one-third share in the property. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the respondents' action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title. Whether the respondents are co-owners of the subject property. Whether the respondents' action is barred by prescription and/or laches.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the CA erred in treating the action as one for quieting of title: The Supreme Court held that while the respondents' complaint and prayer explicitly sought reconveyance and partition, the allegations and reliefs prayed for also made out a case for reconveyance. The Court further noted that an action for reconveyance is distinct from an action for quieting of title. However, citing Mendizabel v. Apao and Lasquite v. Victory Hills, Inc., the Court found no error in the CA's ruling treating the action as in the nature of a suit for quieting of title. This is because if a person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title, does not prescribe. The undisturbed possession gives a continuing right to seek judicial aid to determine the nature of an adverse claim. Therefore, the CA's characterization of the respondents' action as in the nature of an action for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible, was not a reversible error. On whether the respondents are co-owners: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's finding that the respondents are co-owners. This was primarily based on the Deed of Reconveyance executed by the petitioners, Manuel and Romulo Ney. This deed explicitly acknowledged and recognized the rights, interests, and participation of Celso P. Quijano as a co-owner of the one-third portion of the lot where his house was constructed. The deed stated that Celso had paid the corresponding amount for his share but his name was omitted in the Deed of Sale and consequently in the Transfer Certificate of Title. The petitioners did not deny the due execution of this Deed of Reconveyance, admitting their signatures. The Court reiterated that it is not the certificate of title that vests ownership, but it merely evidences such title. The Deed of Reconveyance, voluntarily executed by the petitioners, outweighed their claim based solely on the TCT. On whether the action is barred by prescription and/or laches: The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not barred by prescription and/or laches. The Court's affirmation that the respondents were co-owners and that their action could be treated as one for quieting of title was dispositive of this issue. As established in the cited jurisprudence, an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust generally prescribes in 10 years from the registration of the deed or issuance of the title. However, if the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property, the prescriptive period does not run against them. Since the respondents were in possession of their portion of the property, their right to seek reconveyance, in the nature of quieting of title, was imprescriptible. The petitioners' refusal to surrender the owner's copy of the title for annotation and partition further supported the respondents' need to seek judicial intervention.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance, when the claimant is in actual possession of the property, may be treated as an action to quiet title, which is imprescriptible. A Deed of Reconveyance, voluntarily executed by registered owners acknowledging a co-owner's share, outweighs the certificate of title as evidence of ownership.