Heirs of Tomakin v. Heirs of Navares
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The dispute centers on Lot No. 8467, originally owned by Jose Badana. After his death, his sisters Quirina and Severina Badana became his heirs. Respondents, the Heirs of Celestino Navares, claim ownership of one-half of the lot (Lot No. 8467-B) based on a sale with condition from Quirina Badana on February 23, 1955. They assert continuous payment of realty taxes and possession of this portion. Petitioners, the Heirs of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin, claim ownership of the other half (Lot No. 8467-A) through a sale from Severina Badana on December 6, 1957, to their predecessors, spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca. Petitioners allege that a portion of Lot No. 8467-A was sold to spouses Alfredo Dacua, Jr. and Clarita Bacalso, and that Alfredo Dacua, Jr. subsequently caused Lot No. 8467-A to be titled in his name. Petitioners further claim that an extrajudicial settlement of Jose Badana's estate, purportedly executed by a stranger named Mauricia Bacus, led to Lot No. 8467-B being titled in the names of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin and Lucas J. Nadela. 2. Procedural History: The Heirs of Celestino Navares (respondents) filed a Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages against the Heirs of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin (petitioners) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Cebu City. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to return the owner's copy of TCT No. 131499 and pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses. The respondents appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated October 28, 2014, reversed and set aside the RTC's ruling, declaring the Deed of Sale dated December 6, 1957, as null and void concerning Lot No. 8647-B, and TCT No. 131499 as null and void, ordering the issuance of a new title in the name of the respondents. The CA subsequently denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 23, 2016. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Heirs of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA Decision and Resolution. They raise four issues: (1) whether the CA erred in finding that the respondents' possession was in the concept of an owner; (2) whether the CA erred in disregarding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title; (3) whether the CA erred in not appreciating that the respondents lacked a cause of action for failing to file a declaration of heirship; and (4) whether the CA erred in not finding the respondents guilty of laches. The Supreme Court found the petition to be bereft of merit, affirming the CA's decision and resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in finding that respondents Navares' possession was in the concept of an owner. Whether the CA erred in not upholding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title. Whether the CA erred in not finding that respondents Navares lacked a cause of action for failing to previously file a declaration of heirship. Whether the CA erred in not finding respondents Navares guilty of laches.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari, affirming the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court found no reversible error in the CA's ruling that respondents Navares are the rightful owners of Lot No. 8467-B and that their action for reconveyance was not barred by prescription or laches.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of possession in the concept of an owner: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that respondents Navares were in possession of the property in the concept of an owner. Citing Sps. Alfredo v. Sps. Borras, the Court reiterated that prescription does not run against a plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land, as such possession grants a continuing right to seek judicial aid to determine the nature of adverse claims. The filing of the action for reconveyance itself was an assertion of their title. The CA had already resolved this factual issue in its decision. On the indefeasibility of the Torrens title and collateral attack: The Court found that respondents Navares availed themselves of the correct remedy of reconveyance, which does not constitute a collateral attack on the Torrens title. Citing The Director of Lands v. The Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, the Court explained that the sole remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully registered in another's name is an ordinary action for reconveyance, respecting the decree as incontrovertible after one year from the date of the decree. On the cause of action and declaration of heirship: The Court ruled that petitioners Tomakin could no longer raise the issue of respondents Navares' lack of cause of action for failing to file a declaration of heirship. This issue was not raised in their Answer before the RTC, and it is a well-settled rule that parties may not change their theory of the case on appeal or raise defenses for the first time on appeal. Such belatedly raised issues are barred by estoppel and violate the tenets of fair play and due process. On the issue of laches: The Court held that respondents Navares were not guilty of laches. Given their actual possession and exercise of acts of dominion over the property, as found by the CA, they cannot be deemed to have omitted or neglected to assert their rights. Their undisturbed possession provided them with the continuing right to seek judicial intervention against adverse claims, as supported by the ruling in Sps. Alfredo v. Sps. Borras.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on an alleged fraudulent title is not barred by prescription or laches if the plaintiff remains in actual possession of the property, as such possession grants a continuing right to seek judicial aid to determine the nature of adverse claims. Furthermore, a certificate of title cannot be subjected to collateral attack; the proper remedy for a wrongfully registered title is an ordinary action for reconveyance.