Mariano v. Mariano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute centers on Lots 168-C-6-D (1,511 sqm) and 168-C-6-E (1,760 sqm) in Barrio Bukal Poblacion, Pagbilao, Quezon, originally part of TCT No. 90516 owned by Honesto Mariano Sr. (Honesto Sr.). In 1969, Honesto Sr. sold a portion to Concepcion Pabellon and subdivided the rest into Lots 168-C-6-A to G and K. He sold Lots 168-C-6-B and G to son Romeo Mariano in the 1970s, and Lot 168-C-6-A to Ester Luna. Honesto Sr. died on August 17, 1973, leaving second wife Victoria Mariano (mother of petitioners Maximo, Soledad, Susan, Ruth, Joseph, Marilou) and sons from first marriage: Romeo and Honesto Mariano Jr. (Honesto Jr., father of respondent Clemente). On December 31, 1973, Victoria, Romeo, and Honesto Jr. executed an extrajudicial partition agreement annotated on the mother title, resulting in new titles: TCT T-114934 (Lot C) to Romeo; TCTs T-125293 (Lot D) and T-125294 (Lot E) to Honesto Jr.; TCT T-121438 (Lot K) to Victoria, later sold to Spouses Alcala-Ibanez (TCT T-121459). Petitioners claim Victoria's signature was forged, excluding them as compulsory heirs. Honesto Jr. allowed Susan (petitioner) to build on Lots D and E by tolerance. On July 16, 2004, Honesto Jr. demanded vacation via letter (received August 13, 2004), unheeded. Procedural History: On August 12, 2005, Honesto Jr. filed ejectment (unlawful detainer) against Susan at MTC Pagbilao (Civil Case No. 1042-05); Susan answered denying ownership, claiming heirship and forged partition. Honesto Jr. amended complaint twice; after his death (September 12, 2007), Clemente substituted (February 17, 2009, via extrajudicial settlement, obtaining TCTs T-483073/074). MTC ruled for Clemente (November 24, 2009): vacate, P200/month rental from 2005, P10k attorney's fees. Susan appealed to RTC Lucena Br. 57, reversed (January 29, 2013): no allegation of tolerance, Susan's owner-possession unrefuted, dismissed. Meanwhile, on May 5, 2006, Susan et al. filed partition/reconveyance vs. Honesto Jr., Romeo's heirs at RTC Lucena Br. 55 (Civil Case No. 2006-36), seeking collation/7-way partition. RTC Br. 55 ruled for petitioners (September 20, 2012): collate/partition Lots to Romeo/Victoria/Honesto Jr., damages. Clemente appealed to CA (CA-G.R. CV 99797) and petitioned review (CA-G.R. SP 133848), consolidated; CA reversed both RTCs (September 30, 2015): dismissed partition, reinstated MTC ejectment, citing prescription/laches/title indefeasibility. The Petition: Petitioners assail CA via Rule 45, claiming error in recognizing Clemente's ownership, insisting on forged 1973 partition nullity, their exclusion as heirs entitling partition/reconveyance, actual possession imprescriptible, no tolerance proven, urging reassess evidence for co-ownership.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decisions in the partition/reconveyance and ejectment cases, particularly in upholding Clemente's ownership and possession rights over Lots 168-C-6-D and E despite petitioners' heirship claims and alleged forged partition; and whether petitioners' action concerning partition/reconveyance is barred by prescription, laches, or collateral attack on Torrens title. Whether petitioners' possession renders reconveyance imprescriptible, considering their claims of continuous possession and improvements on the land.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The CA Decision dated September 30, 2015 is AFFIRMED. Clemente P. Mariano has better right to possession of Lots 168-C-6-D and E (TCTs T-483073/074). Petitioners ordered to vacate, deliver possession, pay P200 monthly rental from August 12, 2005 until vacated, and P10,000 attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Clemente's title, ejectment right, and prescription/laches regarding partition/reconveyance: The registered owner of Torrens-titled property (Clemente via TCTs T-483073/074 from Honesto Jr.'s T-125293/294 post-1973 partition and 2008 extrajudicial settlement) has superior possession as ownership attribute per Javelosa v. Tapus (835 Phil. 576). Petitioners' tolerance-based occupation ended with Honesto Jr.'s 2004 demand letter; refusal made it unlawful detainer. MTC properly determined initial ownership for possession issue; no collateral attack on title allowed in ejectment, as titles presume indefeasible ownership per Heirs of Jose Maligaso v. Spouses Encinas (688 Phil. 516). Petitioners' bare heirship/possession claims fail against title evidence; superior right prevails despite familial tolerance. Extrajudicial partition excluding heirs (1973 deed by Victoria/Romeo/Honesto Jr.) fraudulent per Gerona v. De Guzman (120 Phil. 149), annulment prescribes in 4 years from discovery/constructive notice (title annotation 1974); 2006 filing (32 years late) barred. As reconveyance on implied trust (Art. 1456, Civil Code fraud creates constructive trust), prescribes in 10 years from registration/repudiation (Sec. 53 PD 1529; Art. 1144(2)) per Crisostomo v. Garcia (516 Phil. 743). Titles issued March 14, 1974 to Honesto Jr. triggered period; laches applies for unreasonable delay. No clear evidence of Victoria's signature forgery; Honesto Jr./Clemente's owner-possession (post-partition) negates petitioners'. On the imprescriptibility of reconveyance based on possession: Possession imprescriptible only if 'in concept of owner' (Art. 1118; open/continuous/exclusive/notorious via juridical acts like registration/taxes per Tan v. CA, 356 Phil. 555; Heirs of Olviga v. CA, 298 Phil. 93); petitioners' mere physical improvements/tolerance fail proof.
Main Doctrine
A deed of extrajudicial partition excluding compulsory heirs is fraudulent and may be annulled within four years from discovery of fraud, with constructive notice arising from annotation on titles. Even treating the action as reconveyance based on implied trust under Article 1456, Civil Code, it prescribes in ten years from title issuance or repudiation via registration per Section 53, PD 1529 and Article 1144(2). This ten-year period applies when plaintiff is not in possession; if in possession, the action to quiet title is imprescriptible, but possession must be open, continuous, exclusive, notorious, and in concept of owner, acquired via juridical acts like registration or tax payments, not mere physical occupation or tolerance. In ejectment, the registered Torrens owner has superior right to possession as an attribute of ownership, and titles cannot be collaterally attacked by claims of fraud or co-ownership. Petitioners' failure to prove forgery by clear evidence and exercise of owner-like dominion, coupled with laches from 32-year delay, bars recovery.