Tensuan v. Heirs of Vasquez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, heirs of Fernando Tensuan, alleged that respondent Ma. Isabel Vasquez, through rip-rapping activities commissioned by her, altered the course of the Magdaong River. This alteration allegedly caused the river to encroach upon their property, resulting in the loss of 1,680.92 square meters. Vasquez subsequently obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 144017, which included this encroached portion and parts of the river itself, and then subdivided this into seven new titles. Petitioners sought the annulment of Vasquez's title and derivative titles, the restoration of their property, and the return of the Magdaong River to its original course. Procedural History: The case originated with a complaint filed by the petitioners on December 17, 1998, for accion reivindicatoria and annulment of title. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Vasquez's title void. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case, finding that the petitioners' cause of action had prescribed. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially reversed the RTC's dismissal, reinstating the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioners. Subsequently, the CA granted Vasquez's motion for reconsideration, reversing its earlier decision and affirming the RTC's dismissal, holding that the action had prescribed as it was essentially for reconveyance based on implied trust and the petitioners failed to prove possession. The Petition: Petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' Resolutions dated July 4, 2012, and December 20, 2012, praying for the reinstatement of its earlier Decision dated February 24, 2012. They argue that their action for quieting of title, accion reivindicatoria, and annulment of title is imprescriptible because they have been in constructive possession of the property. They contend that Vasquez's title was acquired in bad faith, as it was based on a Special Work Order that was not presented in court and is not a recognized mode of acquiring ownership. Furthermore, they assert that TCT No. 144017 is void ab initio because it was sourced from a mere construction permit and included portions of the Magdaong River, a property of public dominion, and also overlapped with their existing title. They maintain that their prior registration under the Torrens system grants them superior rights.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners' cause of action has prescribed. Whether TCT No. 144017 was validly issued in respondent Ma. Isabel's name. Whether accretion augmented the size of respondents' property.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court reversed the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated July 4, 2012, and December 20, 2012, and reinstated its Decision dated February 24, 2012. TCT No. 144017 and its derivative titles were declared void ab initio. Respondents were ordered to restore ownership and possession of the 1,680.92 square meter portion to petitioners, pay acceptance fees, appearance fees, and attorney's fees, and inform the trial court of their elected option under Article 450 of the Civil Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Petitioners' Cause of Action Has Prescribed: The Court ruled that petitioners' cause of action had not prescribed. The complaint, though captioned as accion reivindicatoria and annulment of title, sufficiently alleged the requisites for quieting of title. An action for quieting of title, where the plaintiff is in possession of the property, is imprescriptible. Petitioners established their possession, and their prompt reporting of the unauthorized rip-rapping activity to the City Engineer's Office demonstrated they did not sleep on their rights. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the action had prescribed. On Whether TCT No. 144017 Was Validly Issued: The Court held that TCT No. 144017 was not validly issued and was void ab initio. The basis for its issuance was Special Work Order 13-000271, which is a mere construction permit and not a recognized mode of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. Furthermore, Section 161 of DENR Memorandum Circular No. 013-10 explicitly states that a Special Work Order cannot be a subject of titling. The title also covered portions of the Magdaong River, a property of public dominion, and overlapped with petitioners' prior registered land. The presumption of regularity in its issuance was overcome by these facts. On Whether Accretion Augmented Respondents' Property: The Court found no merit in respondents' claim of accretion. This theory was belatedly raised on motion for reconsideration before the trial court and was not alleged in the answer or joined as an issue during the proceedings. A party cannot change its theory on appeal. Moreover, the Court reiterated that TCT No. 144017 was void ab initio, and a void title cannot be cured by accretion. Whether accretion took place is a question of fact, which is improper for the Supreme Court to resolve under Rule 45.
Main Doctrine
A Special Work Order, being a mere construction permit, cannot be the basis for the issuance of a Torrens title, rendering any title derived therefrom void ab initio. Furthermore, an action to quiet title, where the plaintiff is in possession, is imprescriptible.