Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 149679 May 30, 2003
HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC, na!"y# IRENEA E. SENO, LI$RA%A E. MALINAO, INES E. MI&O'A, SOLE%A% E. CENI'A,
RO%ULFO ERMAC an( AMELITA E. $ASU$AS, petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS OF )ICENTE ERMAC, na!"y# $EN*AMIN, )IRGINIA, PRECIOSA, %ANILO, a+ HEIRS OF UR$ANO A%OLFO, $ERNAR%INO,
CLIMACO, CESAR, ELSA, FLORAME an( FE, a"" +-.na!( ERMAC, a+ HEIRS OF CLIMACO ERMAC, ESTELITA ERMAC,
ESTANESLAO %IONSON, )ICENTE %IONSON, EUFEMIA LIGARA/, EMIG%IO $USTILLO an( LI'A PARA*ELE, LUISA %EL
CASTILLO,0 respondents.
PANGANI$AN, J.#
Onership should not be confused ith a certificate of title. Re!isterin! land under the Torrens S"ste# does not create or vest title, because
re!istration is not a #ode of ac$uirin! onership. % certificate of title is #erel" an evidence of onership or title over the particular propert"
described therein.
T1! Ca+!
&efore us is a Petition for Revie
'
under Rule () of the Rules of *ourt, see+in! to set aside the ,ebruar" '-, .//' Decision
.
and the %u!ust
-, .//' Resolution
0
of the *ourt of %ppeals
(
1*%2 in *%34R *V No. )5)-(. The dispositive part of the Decision reads6
78H9R9,OR9, pre#ises considered, the instant appeal is hereb" DISMISS9D, and the assailed :D;ecision of the Re!ional Trial
*ourt of Mandaue *it" is hereb" %,,IRM9D.7
)
The assailed Resolution denied petitioners< Motion for Reconsideration.
T1! Fa23+
The factual antecedents of the case are su##ari=ed b" the *% as follos6
7In their *o#plaint, :respondents; clai# that the" are the oners of the various parcels of real propert" that for# part of >ot No.
---, 1plan II3)'.' %#d..2 situated in Mandaue *it", *ebu, hich lot alle!edl" belon!ed ori!inall" to *laudio 9r#ac. ?pon the
latter<s death, the said >ot No. --- as inherited and partitioned b" his children, na#el", 9steban, Pedro and &albina. Siblin!s
Pedro and &albina re$uested their brother 9steban to have their title over the propert" re!istered. 9steban, hoever, as unable
to do so, and the tas+ of re!istration fell to his son, *le#ente. *le#ente applied for re!istration of the title, but did so in his on
na#e, and did not include his father<s brother and sister, nor his cousins. Despite havin! re!istered the lot in his na#e, *le#ente
did not disturb or clai# onership over those portions occupied b" his uncle, aunt and cousins even up to the ti#e of his death.
%#on! the occupants of >ot No. --- are the :respondents; in this case. :Respondents;3heirs of Vicente 9r#ac clai# onership
over the portions of >ot No. --- no occupied b" the# b" ri!ht of succession as direct descendants of the ori!inal oner, *laudio
9r#ac. :Respondents; >uisa Del *astillo and 9staneslao Dionson alle!edl" derived their title b" purchase fro# the children of
*laudio 9r#ac. :Respondent; Vicente Dionson, on the other hand, bou!ht his land fro# the heirs of Pedro 9r#ac, hile
:Respondents; 9#i!dio &ustillo and >i=a Para@ele derived their onership fro# the Heirs of &albina 9r#ac3Dabon. :respondents<;
onership and possession had been peaceful and undisturbed, until recentl" hen the :petitioners;3heirs of *le#ente 9r#ac filed
an action for e@ect#ent a!ainst the#. The filin! of the said e@ect#ent caused a cloud of doubt upon the :respondents<; onership
over their respective parcels of land, pro#ptin! the# to file this action for $uietin! of title.
7:Petitioners;, on the other hand, denied the #aterial alle!ations of the :respondents;, and clai#ed that the :respondents; have no
cause of action a!ainst the#. It is essentiall" clai#ed that it as *le#ente 9r#ac and not his !randfather *laudio 9r#ac ho is
the ori!inal clai#ant of do#inion over >ot No. ---. Durin! his lifeti#e, *le#ente 9r#ac as in actual, peaceful, adverse and
continuous possession in the concept of an oner of the entire >ot No. ---. 8ith the help of his children, he cultivated the said lot,
and planted corn, peanuts, cassava and fruit products. *le#ente also effected the re!istration of the sub@ect lot in his na#e. ?pon
*le#ente<s death, :petitioners; inherited >ot No. ---, and the" constructed their residential houses thereon. :Petitioners; clai# that
:respondents<; recent occupation of so#e portions of >ot No. --- as onl" tolerated b" *le#ente 9r#ac and the :petitioners;.
:Petitioners; in fact had never surrendered onership or possession of the propert" to the :respondents;. :Petitoners; also set up
the defense of prescription and laches.
A A A A A A A A A
7%fter trial, the loer :court; rendered its :D;ecision, findin! that the ori!inal oner of the lot in $uestion as *laudio 9r#ac, and
therefore, the propert" as inherited upon his death b" his children 9steban, &albina and Pedro. %ll the heirs of *laudio 9r#ac,
therefore, should share in the onership over >ot No. ---, b" ri!ht of succession. The rulin! :as; supported b" the ad#issions of
Irene:a; Seno, itness for the :petitioners; and dau!hter of *le#ente 9r#ac, establishin! facts hich sho that :petitioners; and
their predecessor *le#ente did not on the entire propert", but that the other heirs of *laudio 9r#ac are entitled to to3thirds
1.B02 of the lot. Since the entire lot is no re!istered in the na#e of *le#ente 9r#ac, the shares belon!in! to the other heirs of
*laudio 9r#ac, so#e of hich have alread" been purchased b" so#e of the :respondents;, are bein! held in trust b" the
:petitioners; in favor of their actual occupants.7
-
R-"4n5 o6 31! Co-.3 o6 A77!a"+
The *% held that the factual findin! of the Re!ional Trial *ourt 1RT*2
C
should not be disturbed on appeal. The latter found that >ot No. ---
as ori!inall" oned b" *laudio 9r#ac and, after his death, as inherited b" his children 33 9steban, &albina and Pedro. It ruled that
respondents ere able to prove consistentl" and corroborativel" that the" 33 as ell as their predecessors3in3interests 33 had been in open,
continuous and undisturbed possession and occupation thereof in the concept of oners.
%ccordin! to the appellate court, 7:t;he fact that :petitioners; have in their possession certificates of title hich apparentl" bear out that it :as;
*le#ente 9r#ac alone ho clai#ed the entire propert" described therein :has; no discreditin! effect upon plaintiffs< clai#, it appearin! that
such titles ere ac$uired in dero!ation of the eAistin! valid and adverse interests of the plaintiffs hose title b" succession ere effectivel"
disre!arded.7
D
Hence, this Petition.
5
T1! I++-!+
In their Me#orandu#,
'/
petitioners raise the folloin! issues for our consideration6
7I. The validit" of the 8rit of Preli#inar" In@unction dated ,ebruar" ), '55- issued b" the Re!ional Trial *ourt, &ranch .D, directin!
the Municipal Trial *ourt in *ities, &ranch ., to cease and desist fro# conductin! further proceedin!s in *ivil *ase No. .(/':E;
7II. 8hether or not O.*.T. No. RO3C). issued in the na#es of :Spouses; *le#ente 9r#ac :and; %nunciacion Su"co is indefeasible
and incontrovertible under the Torrens S"ste#:E;
7III. 8hether or not the alle!ed taA declarations and taA receipts are sufficient to defeat the title over the propert" in the na#es of
petitioner<s predecessors3in3interest :Spouses; *le#ente 9r#ac and %nunciacion Su"co:E;
7:IV;. 8hether or not laches ha:s; set in on the clai#s b" the respondents on portions of >ot No. ---:.;7
''
T1! Co-.38+ R-"4n5
The Petition is un#eritorious.
F4.+3 I++-!#
P.!"44na.y In9-n234on
Petitioners assail the validit" of the 8rit of Preli#inar" In@unction issued b" the RT* to restrain the e@ect#ent proceedin!s the" had filed
earlier.
This $uestion is not onl" late, but also #oot. If petitioners trul" believed that the issuance of the 8rit as tainted ith !rave abuse of
discretion, the" should have challen!ed it b" a special civil action for certiorari ithin the re!le#entar" period. %n" rulin! b" the *ourt at this
point ould be #oot and acade#ic, as the resolution of the issue ould not involve the #erits of the case, hich this appeal 33 as it is no 33
touches upon.
S!2on( I++-!#
In(!6!a+4:4"43y an( In2on3.o;!.34:4"43y o6 T43"!
Petitioners posit that pursuant to Section 0. of PD ').5 1the Propert" Re!istration Decree2, the certificate of title issued in favor of their
predecessor3in3interest, *le#ente 9r#ac, beca#e incontrovertible after the lapse of one "ear fro# its issuance. Hence, it can no lon!er be
challen!edence, it can no lon!er be challen!ed.
8e clarif". 8hile it is true that Section 0.
'.
of PD ').5 provides that the decree of re!istration beco#es incontrovertible after a "ear, it does
not alto!ether deprive an a!!rieved part" of a re#ed"
'0
in la.
'(
The acceptabilit" of the Torrens S"ste# ould be i#paired, if it is utili=ed to
perpetuate fraud a!ainst the real oners.
')
,urther#ore, onership is not the sa#e as a certificate of title. Re!isterin! a piece of land under the Torrens S"ste# does not create or vest
title, because re!istration is not a #ode of ac$uirin! onership.
'-
% certificate of title is #erel" an evidence of onership or title over the
particular propert" described therein.
'C
Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibilit" that the real propert" #a"
be co3oned ith persons not na#ed in the certificate, or that it #a" be held in trust for another person b" the re!istered oner.
'D
T14.( I++-!#
O<n!.+147 o6 31! %4+7-3!( Lo3
Petitioners clai# that the *% erred in rel"in! on the hearsa" and unsubstantiated testi#on" of respondents, as ell as on taA declarations
and realt" taA receipts, in order to support its rulin! that the land as oned b" *laudio 9r#ac.
8e are not persuaded. The credence !iven to the testi#on" of the itnesses for respondents is a factual issue alread" passed upon and
resolved b" the trial and the appellate courts. It is a hornboo+ doctrine that onl" $uestions of la are entertained in appeals b" certiorari
under Rule () of the Rules of *ourt. The trial court<s findin!s of fact, hich the *% affir#ed, are !enerall" conclusive and bindin! upon this
*ourt.
'5
Moreover, hile taA declarations and realt" taA receipts do not conclusivel" prove onership, the" #a" constitute stron! evidence of
onership hen acco#panied b" possession for a period sufficient for prescription.
./
*onsiderin! that respondents have been in possession
of the propert" for a lon! period of ti#e, there is le!al basis for their use of taA declarations and realt" taA receipts as additional evidence to
support their clai# of onership.
Fo-.31 I++-!#
P.!+2.4734on an( La21!+
Petitioners assert that the onership clai#ed b" respondents is barred b" prescription and laches, because it too+ the latter )C "ears to brin!
the present action. 8e disa!ree.
8hen a part" uses fraud or conceal#ent to obtain a certificate of title to propert", a constructive trust is created in favor of the defrauded
part".
.'
Since *laudio 9r#ac has alread" been established in the present case as the ori!inal oner of the land, the re!istration in the na#e
of *le#ente 9r#ac #eant that the latter held the land in trust for all the heirs of the for#er. Since respondents ere in actual possession of
the propert", the action to enforce the trust, and recover the propert", and thereb" $uiet title thereto, does not prescribe.
..
&ecause laches is an e$uitable doctrine, its application is controlled b" e$uitable considerations.
.0
It cannot be used to defeat @ustice or to
perpetuate fraud and in@ustice.
.(
Its application should not prevent the ri!htful oners of a propert" to recover hat has been fraudulentl"
re!istered in the na#e of another.
=HEREFORE, the Petition is hereb" D9NI9D and the assailed Decision %,,IRM9D. *osts a!ainst petitioners.
SO ORD9R9D.
Puno, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Corona, JJ., on leave.