4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

THIRDDIVISION

MODESTOLEOVERAS,
Petitioner,

G.R.No.169985

versus

Present:
CARPIOMORALES,J.,Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR.,and
SERENO,JJ.
Promulgated:

June15,2011

CASIMEROVALDEZ,

Respondent.
xx

DECISION

BRION,J.:
[1]
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the March 31,
[2]
[3]
2005 decision and the October 6, 2005 resolution of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in
[4]
CAG.R.CVNo.68549.The CA decision reversed the June 23, 2000 decision of the
RegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch46,UrdanetaCity,Pangasinan,dismissingrespondent
Casimero Valdezs complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against
petitionerModestoLeoveras.

FACTUALANTECEDENTS

Maria Sta. Maria and Dominga Manangan were the registered owners three
fourths () and onefourth () proindiviso, respectively of a parcel of land located in
Poblacion, Manaoag, Pangasinan, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

1/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

[5]
24695,withanareaof28,171squaremeters.

[6]
InSeptember1932,Sta.Mariasoldherthreefourths()sharetoBenignaLlamas.
ThesalewasdulyannotatedatthebackofOCTNo.24695.WhenBenignadiedin1944,
[7]
shewilledherthreefourths()shareequallytohersistersAlejandraLlamasandJosefa
[8]
Llamas. Thus,AlejandraandJosefaeachownedonehalf()ofBenignasthreefourths
()share.

On June 14, 1969, Alejandras heirs sold their predecessors onehalf () share
(roughlyequivalentto10,564squaremeters)totherespondent,asevidencedbyaDeedof
[9]
AbsoluteSale.

AlsoonJune14,1969,Josefasoldherownonehalf()share(subjectproperty) to
therespondentandthepetitioner,asevidencedbyanotherDeedofAbsoluteSale.

[10]
On

[11]
even date, the respondent and the petitioner executed an Agreement,
allotting their
portionsofthesubjectproperty.

WITNESSETH

That we [petitioner and respondent] are the absolute owners of [the subject
property]whichisparticularlydescribedasfollows:

xxx

ThatourownershipoverthesaidportionmentionedaboveisevidencedbyaDeed
ofAbsoluteSalexxx

That in said deed of sale mentioned in the immediate preceding paragraph, our
respective share consist of 5, 282.13 [onehalf of 10,564 square meters] square meter
each.

That we hereby agreed and covenanted that our respective share shall be as
follows:

Modesto Leoveras 3,020 square meters residential portion on the northern part
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

2/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

near the Municipal road of Poblacion Pugaro, Manaoag,

Pangasinan
[12]
CasimeroValdez7,544.27
squaremetersoftheparceloflanddescribedabove.
[13]

On June 8, 1977, the petitioner and the respondent executed an Affidavit of Adverse
[14]
Claim over the subject property.
The parties took possession of their respective
[15]
portionsofthesubjectpropertyanddeclareditintheirnamefortaxationpurposes.

In 1996, the respondent asked the Register of Deeds of Lingayen, Pangasinan on

the requirements for the transfer of title over the portion allotted to him on the subject
property.Tohissurprise,therespondentlearnedthatthepetitionerhadalreadyobtainedin
hisnametwotransfercertificatesoftitle(TCTs):one,TCTNo.195812coveringanarea
of 3,020 square meters and two, TCT No. 195813 covering an area of 1,004 square
meters(oratotalof4,024squaremeters).

TheRegisterofDeedsinformedtherespondentthattheycouldnotfindtherecord
of OCT No. 24695 instead, the Register of Deeds furnished the respondent with the
[16]
following
(collectively,petitionersdocuments):
1.Two(2)deedsofabsolutesaledatedJune14,1969,bothexecutedbySta.
Maria,purportedlyconveyinganunspecifiedportionofOCTNo.24695
asfollows:

[17]
a.11,568squaremeterstotherespondentandpetitioner
[18]
b.8,689squaremeterstooneVirgiliaLiMeneses

2.DeedofAbsoluteSale(BenignaDeed)alsodatedJune14,1969executed
[19]
byBenigna
whichreads:

I, Benigna Llamas, Fernandez xxx do sell xxx by way of ABSOLUTE

SALE unto the said Casimero Valdez, Modesto Leoveras and Virgilia Meneses
their heirs and assigns, 7,544 sq.m. 4,024sq.m. and 8,689 sq. m. more or less
respectivelyofaparceloflandwhichisparticularlydescribedasfollows:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

3/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

Aparceloflandxxxcoveredby[OCTNo.]24695.(Emphasesadded)

[20]
3.SubdivisionPlanofPSU21864ofOCTNo.24695

[21]
4. Affidavit of Confirmation of Subdivision
dated May 3, 1994
(Affidavit),whichreads:

That we, Virgilia Li Meneses, xxx Dominga Manangan Modesto Leoveras

andCasimeroValdezxxx

xxx are coowners of a certain parcel of land with an area of 28, 171 sq. m.
moreorlessinsubdivisionplanPsu21864xxxcoveredby[OCTNo.]24695situated
atPoblacion(nowPugaro),Manaoag,Pangasinan

xxx we agree xxx to subdivide and hereby confirmed the subdivision in the
followingmannerxxx:

Lot2withanareaof3,020sq.m.xxxtoModestoLeoverasxxx

Lot3withanareaof1,004sq.m.xxxtoModestoLeoverasxxx

Lot4withanareaof7,544sq.m.xxxtoCasimeroValdezxxx

Lot5withanareaof8,689sq.m.xxxtoVirgiliaMeneses

Lot 6 with an area of 7,043 sq. m. xxx to Dominga Manangan (Emphasis

supplied.)

On June 21, 1996, the respondent filed a complaint for Annulment of Title,
ReconveyanceandDamagesagainstthepetitioner,seekingthereconveyanceofthe1,004
squaremeterportion(disputedproperty)coveredbyTCTNo.195813,onthegroundthat
the petitioner is entitled only to the 3,020 square meters identified in the parties
Agreement.

The respondent sought the nullification of the petitioners titles by contesting the
authenticityofthepetitionersdocuments.Particularly,therespondentassailedtheBenigna
DeedbypresentingBenignasdeathcertificate.TherespondentarguedthatBenignacould
nothaveexecutedadeed,whichpurportstoconvey4,024squaremeterstothepetitioner,
in1969becauseBenignaalreadydiedin1944.Therespondentaddedthatneithercould
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

4/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

Sta. Maria have sold to the parties her threefourths () share in 1969 because she had
[22]
already sold her share to Benigna in 1932.
The respondent denied his purported
[23]
signatureappearingintheAffidavit,
andprayedfor:

a)xxxthecancellationofthe[petitionersdocuments]

b) thecancellationofTCTNo.195813inthenameofModestoLeoverasandthatitbe
reconveyedtothe[respondent]

c) the cancellation and nullification of [TCT No. 195812] covering an area of 3,020
squaremetersxxx

d)[theissuanceof]titlexxxinthenameof[respondent]overanareaof17,104square
[24]
metersofOCT24695
(Underscoringsupplied)

Inhisdefense,thepetitionerclaimedthatthepartiesalreadyhad(i)delineatedtheir
respective portions of the subject property even before they acquired it in 1969 and (ii)
agreedthatuponacquisition,eachwouldowntheportionasdelineatedthattheareahe
actually possessed and subsequently acquired has a total area of 4,024 square meters,
which he subdivided into two portions and caused to be covered by the two TCTs in
question. The petitioner claimed that in signing the Agreement, he was led to believe,
based on the parties rough estimation, that the area he actually possessed is only 3,020
square meters contrary to the parties real intention i.e., the extent of their ownership
[25]
wouldbebasedontheiractualpossession.

The petitioner further claimed that the respondent voluntarily participated in

executing the Affidavit, which corrected the mistake in the previously executed
[26]
Agreement
andconfirmedthepetitionersownershipoverthedisputedproperty.The
petitioner asked for the dismissal of the complaint and for a declaration that he is the
lawfulowneroftheparcelsoflandcoveredbyhistitles.

RTCRULING

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

5/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

The RTC dismissed the complaint. The court ruled that the respondent failed to
preponderantly prove that the Benigna Deed and the Affidavit are fabricated and,
consequently,nogroundexiststonullifythepetitionerstitles.Thecourtobservedthatthe
respondent did not even compare his genuine signature with the signatures appearing in
thesedocuments.

CARULING

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC by ruling against the authenticity of the
BenignaDeedandtheAffidavit.TheCAgaveweighttoBenignasdeathcertificatewhich
showstheimpossibilityofBenignasexecutionofthedeedin1969.TheCAalsonotedthe
discrepancy between the respondents signatures as appearing in the Affidavit, on one
[27]
TheCAaddedthattherespondents

hand,andthedocumentsonrecord,ontheother.

failure to compare his genuine signature from his purported signatures appearing in the
petitionersdocumentsisnotfatal,sinceSection22,Rule132oftheRulesofCourtallows
thecourttomakeitsowncomparison.Inlightofitsobservations,theCAruled:

Asthetotalityoftheevidencepresentedsufficientlysustains[therespondents]claimthat
the titles issued to [the petitioner] were based on forged and spurious documents, it
behoovesthisCourttoannulthesecertificatesoftitle.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 23, 2000 is SET ASIDE.
DeclaringTCTNo.195812andTCTNo.195813asNULLandVOID, [thepetitioner]is
[28]
hereby directed to reconvey the subject parcels of land to [the respondent].
(Emphasisadded.)

Unwilling to accept the CAs reversal of the RTC ruling, the petitioner filed the
presentappealbycertiorari,claimingthattheCAcommittedgrossmisappreciationofthe
[29]
facts
bygoingbeyondwhattherespondentsoughtinhiscomplaint.

THEPETITION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

6/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

ThepetitionerclaimsthattheCAshouldnothaveorderedthereconveyanceofboth
parcels of land covered by the TCTs in question since the respondent only seeks the
reconveyance of the disputed property i.e., the parcel of land covered by TCT No.
195813.

Thepetitionerassertsthatafter the subject sale, the parties physically partitioned

thesubjectpropertyandpossessedtheirrespectiveportions,therebysettingthelimitsof
theirownership.

ThepetitioneradmitsthattheBenignaDeedisfabricatedbuthastenstoaddthatit
wasonlydesigned(i)toaffirmthetrueintentandagreementofthepartiesontheextentof
theirownership,asshownbytheiractualphysicalpossession,and(ii)asaconvenienttool
tofacilitatethetransferoftitletohisname.

THERESPONDENTSCOMMENT

The respondent claims that since the petitioner himself admitted using a spurious
documentinobtaininghistitles(asallegedinthecomplaintandasfoundbytheCA),then
[30]
theCAcorrectlycancelledthelatterstitles.

The petitioner forged the respondents signature in theAffidavit to make it appear

that he agreed to the division indicated in the document. The respondent defended the
CAs reconveyance of both parcels of land, covered by the petitioners titles, to the
respondent by arguing that if the distribution in the Affidavit is followed, the original
intendment of the parties on their shares of the subject property would be grievously
[31]
impaired

THEISSUES

[32]
Thetwobasicissues
forourresolutionare:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

7/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

1.WhethertheCAerredinnullifyingthepetitionerstitles.
2.WhethertheCAerredinorderingthereconveyanceoftheparcelofland
coveredbythepetitionerstitles.

THERULING

Wepartiallygrantthepetition.

Anactionforreconveyanceisalegalandequitableremedygrantedtotherightful
landowner,whoselandwaswrongfullyorerroneouslyregisteredinthenameofanother,
[33]
tocompeltheregisteredownertotransferorreconveythelandtohim.
Theplaintiffin
thisactionmustallegeandprovehisownershipofthelandindisputeandthedefendants
erroneous,fraudulentorwrongfulregistrationoftheproperty.

We rule that the respondent adequately proved his ownership of the disputed
property by virtue of the (i) Deed ofAbsolute Sale executed by Josefa in favor of the
parties(ii)thepartiesAffidavitofAdverseClaimand(iii)thepartiesAgreement,which
coverthesubjectproperty.

Thepetitionerdoesnotdisputethedueexecutionandtheauthenticity
[34]
of these documents,
particularly theAgreement. However, he claims that since the
Agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties, the Affidavit was
subsequentlyexecutedinordertoreflectthepartiestrueintention.

[35]

Thepetitionersargumentcallstoforetheapplicationoftheparolevidencerule,

i.e., when the terms of an agreement are reduced to writing, the written agreement is
deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and no evidence of these terms can be
[36]
admittedotherthanwhatiscontainedinthewrittenagreement.
Whateverisnotfound
[37]
inthewritingisunderstoodtohavebeenwaivedandabandoned.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

8/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

Toavoidtheoperationoftheparolevidencerule,theRulesofCourtallowsaparty
topresentevidencemodifying,explainingoraddingtothetermsofthewrittenagreement
ifheputsinissueinhispleading,asinthiscase,thefailureofthewrittenagreementto
expressthetrueintentandagreementoftheparties.Thefailureofthewrittenagreement
toexpressthetrueintentionofthepartiesiseitherbyreasonofmistake,fraud,inequitable
conduct or accident, which nevertheless did not prevent a meeting of the minds of the
[38]
parties.

At the trial, the petitioner attempted to prove, by parol evidence, the alleged true
intentionofthepartiesbypresentingtheAffidavit,whichallegedlycorrectedthemistake
inthepreviouslyexecutedAgreementandconfirmedhisownershipoftheparcelsofland
covered by his titles. It was the petitioners staunch assertion that the respondent co
executedthisAffidavitsupposedlytoreflectthepartiestrueintention.

Inthepresentpetition,however,thepetitionermadeadamagingadmissionthatthe
BenignaDeedisfabricated,therebycompletelybolsteringtherespondentscauseofaction
forreconveyanceofthedisputedpropertyonthegroundoffraudulentregistrationoftitle.
SincetheAffidavitmerelyreflectswhatisembodiedintheBenignaDeed,thepetitioners
admission,coupledwiththerespondentsdenialofhispurportedsignatureintheAffidavit,
placed in serious doubt the reliability of this document, supposedly the bedrock of the
petitionersdefense.

Curiously, if the parties truly intended to include in the petitioners share the
disputedproperty,thepetitionerobviouslyneednotgoatlengthoffabricatingadeedof
saletosupporthisapplicationforthetransferoftitleofhisrightfulportionofthesubject
property.Notably,thereisnothingintheAffidavit(thatsupposedlycorrectedthemistake
in the earlier Agreement) that supports the petitioners claim that the partition of the
subjectpropertyisbasedonthepartiesactualpossession.

NotethattheRTCdismissedthecomplaintbasedontherespondentsallegedfailure
toprovethespuriousnessofthedocumentssubmittedbythepetitionertotheRegisterof
Deeds. However, by admitting the presentation of a false deed in securing his title, the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

9/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

petitioner rendered moot the issue of authenticity of the Benigna Deed and relieved the
respondentoftheburdenofprovingitsfalsityasagroundtonullifythepetitionerstitles.

By fraudulently causing the transfer of the registration of title over the disputed
propertyinhisname,thepetitionerholdsthetitletothisdisputedpropertyintrustforthe
[39]
benefitoftherespondentasthetrueowner
registrationdoesnotvesttitlebutmerely
confirms or records title already existing and vested.The Torrens system of registration
cannotbeusedtoprotectausurperfromthetrueowner,norcanitbeusedasashieldfor
[40]
thecommissionoffraud,ortopermitonetoenrichoneselfattheexpenseofothers.
Hence, the CA correctly ordered the reconveyance of the disputed property, covered by
TCTNo.195813,totherespondent.

ThepartiesAgreementeffectivelypartitionedthesubject
property

Thepetitioneralsoreliesonhisallegedactualpossessionofthedisputedproperty
to support his claim of ownership. Notably, both parties make conflicting assertions of
[41]
possession of the disputed property.
The petitioner testified on his possession as
follows:

Q:Howmanysquaremetersdidyougetfromthelandandhowmanysquaremeterswas
theshareof[respondent]?
A:4[0]20squaremetersandmybrotherinlaw6,000plussquaremeters.

xxx

Q: Was there a boundary between the 4,020 square meters and the rest of the property
which(sic)designatedbyyourbrotherinlaw?

A:Thereissir,andtheboundaryisthefence.

Q:Whendidyouputupthatfencewhichistheboundary?

A:Afterthedeedofsalewasmade.

Q:And that boundary fence which you put according to you since the execution of the
DeedofAbsoluteSalein1969uptothepresentdoesitstillexist?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

10/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

A:Yes,sir.

Q:Since the time you purchased the property according to you you already divided the
property,isthatcorrect?

A:Yes,sir.

Q:Andthatasoftodaywhoisinpossessionofthat4,020squaremeters?

[42]
A:I,sir.

Thepetitionerandtherespondentwereoriginallycoownersofthesubjectproperty
when they jointly bought it from the same vendor in 1969. However, the parties
immediatelyterminatedthisstateofindivisionbyexecutinganAgreement,whichisinthe
natureofapartitionagreement.

TheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesdefinespartitionastheseparation,divisionand
[43]
assignmentofathingheldincommonamongthosetowhomitmaybelong.
Partition
is the division between two or more persons of real or personal property, owned in
common, by setting apart their respective interests so that they may enjoy and possess
[44]
theseinseveralty,
resultingin
[45]
thepartialortotalextinguishmentofcoownership.

Inthepresentcase,thepartiesagreedtodividethesubjectpropertybygivingthe
petitioner the 3,020 square meters residential portion on the northern part near the
[46]
Municipalroad.
Thereisnodisputethatthis3,020squaremeterportionisthesame
parceloflandidentifiedasLotNo.2(whichisnotthesubjectoftherespondentsaction
for reconveyance) in theAffidavit and the Subdivision Plan presented by the petitioner
beforetheRegisterofDeeds.ThefactthattheAgreementlacks technical description of
the parties respective portions or that the subject property was then still embraced by a
singlecertificateoftitlecouldnotlegallypreventapartition,wherethedifferentportions
[47]
allottedtoeachweredeterminedandbecameseparatelyidentifiable,asinthiscase.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

11/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

What is strikingly significant is that even the petitioners own testimony merely
attempted to confirm his actual possession of the disputed property, without, however,
supportinghisclaimcontrarytothewrittenAgreement thatthepartiesownershipofthe
subject property would be coextensive with their possession. This is the core of the
petitionersdefense.Atanyrate,justasnonpossessiondoesnotnegateownership,neither
[48]
does possession automatically prove ownership,
especially in the face of an
unambiguousdocumentexecutedbythepartiesthemselves.

Contrarytothepetitionersclaimthathisactualpossessiondeterminestheextentof
hisownership,itisthepartiesAgreementthatdefinestheextentoftheirownershipinthe
subject property. One of the legal effects of partition, whether by agreement among the
coownersorbyjudicialproceeding,istoterminatethecoownershipand,consequently,
tomakethepreviouscoownerstheabsoluteandexclusiveowneroftheshareallottedto
[49]
him.

Parenthetically,therespondentdeclaredfortaxationpurposestheportionheclaims
[50]
inDecember1987.
Thetotalarea(7,544squaremeters)ofthepropertiesdeclaredis
equivalenttotheareaallottedtotherespondentundertheAgreement.Ontheotherhand,
thepetitionerdeclaredthe1,004squaremeterportiononlyinSeptember1994,underTax
[51]
Declaration No. 9393,
despite his claim of exclusive and adverse possession since
1969.

Nullificationofthepetitionerstitleoverthe3,020square
meterportion

While the petitioner admitted using a spurious document in securing his titles,
nonetheless, he questions the CAs nullification ofTCT No. 195812 on the ground that,
pertherespondentsownadmissionandthepartiesAgreement,heistherightfulownerof
thelandcoveredbythistitle.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

12/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

Wedisagree.

[52]
The petitioners argument confuses registration of title with ownership.
While
the petitioners ownership over the land covered by TCT No. 195812 is undisputed, his
ownershiponlygavehimtherighttoapplyforthepropertransferoftitletotheproperty
in his name. Obviously, the petitioner, even as a rightful owner, must comply with the
[53]
statutory provisions on the transfer of registered title to lands.
Section 53 of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529providesthatthesubsequentregistrationoftitleprocuredby
the presentation of a forged deed or other instrument is null and void. Thus, the
subsequent issuance of TCT No. 195812 gave the petitioner no better right than the
tainted registration which was the basis for the issuance of the same title. The Court
simply cannot allow the petitioners attempt to get around the proper procedure for
registeringthetransferoftitleinhisnamebyusingspuriousdocuments.

Reconveyanceistheremedyoftherightfulowner
only

WhiletheCAcorrectlynullifiedthepetitionerscertificatesoftitle,theCAerredin
ordering the reconveyance of the entire subject property in the respondents favor. The
respondent himself admitted that the 3,020 square meter portion covered by TCT No.
[54]
195812 is the petitioners just share in the subject property.
Thus, although the
petitionerobtainedTCTNo.195812usingthesamespuriousdocuments,thelandcovered
by this title should not be reconveyed in favor of the respondent since he is not the
[55]
rightfulownerofthepropertycoveredbythistitle.

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed decision and

resolutionoftheCourtofAppealsareMODIFIED.Accordingly,thepetitionerisdirected
toRECONVEYtotherespondenttheparceloflandcoveredbyTCTNo.195813.Costs
againstpetitioner.

SOORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

13/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbefore
thecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

14/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
ChairpersonsAttestation,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecision
hadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinion
oftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
[2]
Rollo,pp.1221pennedbyAssociateJusticeVicenteS.E.Veloso,withtheconcurrenceofAssociateJusticesRobertoA.
BarriosandAmelitaG.Tolentino.
[3]
Id.at10.
[4]
Id.at2225pennedbyJudgeModestoC.Juanson.
[5]
AnnexQ.
[6]
AnnexQ2.
[7]
AnnexJ.
[8]
AnnexK,par.5,andAnnexC,par.3.
[9]
AnnexA.ThedeedwasregisteredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofLingayen,Pangasinanon June20,1977,
underEntryNo.456592.
[10]
AnnexC.ThedeedwasregisteredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedsofLingayen,PangasinanonJune20,1977,
underEntryNo.456594Records,pp.23.
[11]
AnnexD.
[12]
Theareaofthesubjectpropertyis10,564squaremeters.TheAgreementitselfstatesthat priortotheallotmentofthe
partiesrespectiveportions,thepartiesownaproindivisoonehalfshare,thatis,5,282squaremetersofthesubjectland.
TheRTCfoundthatundertheAgreement,therespondentisentitledto7,544sq.m.
[13]
Supranote11AnnexO.
[14]
TheAffidavitofAdverseClaimwasannotatedatthebackofOCTNo.24695asEntryNo.456593,AnnexN.
[15]
Rollo,pp.2324.
[16]
Records,pp.45.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

15/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

[17]
AnnexF.
[18]
AnnexH.
[19]
AnnexG.
[20]
AnnexS.
[21]
AnnexI.
[22]
TSN,September9,1996,p.13.
[23]
TSN,September4,1996,p.6.
[24]
Records,pp.78.
[25]
Id.at7273.
[26]
Id.at7475.
[27]
Thesedocumentsare:theAgreement,executedin1994,therespondentsAffidavitofAdverseClaimovertheportion
sold to him by the heirs of Alejandra, executed in 1977, and the Verification and Certification against NonForum
ShoppingattachedtotheComplaint.
[28]
Rollo,pp.4950.
[29]
Id.at30.
[30]
Id.at122123.
[31]
Id.at124.
[32]
Id.at122therespondentsComment.
[33]
Escondev.Barlongay,No.L67583,July31,1987,152SCRA603.
[34]
InPermanentSavingsandLoanBankv.Velarde(G.R.No.140608,September23,2004,439SCRA1),theCourtruled
thattheallegationthatthewrittenagreementdoesnotexpressthetrueintentionofthepartiesdoesnotcarrywithitthe
specificdenialofthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthewritteninstrument.
[35]
Section9,Rule130oftheRulesofCourtreads:

SEC.9.Evidenceofwrittenagreements.Whenthetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,it
isconsideredascontainingallthetermsagreeduponandtherecanbe,betweenthepartiesandtheirsuccessorsin
interest,noevidenceofsuchtermsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreement.

However,apartymaypresentevidencetomodify,explainoraddtothetermsofthewrittenagreementifheputsin
issueinhispleading:

(a)Anintrinsicambiguity,mistakeorimperfectioninthewrittenagreement
(b)Thefailureofthewrittenagreementtoexpressthetrueintentandagreementofthepartiesthereto
(c)Thevalidityofthewrittenagreementor
(d) Theexistenceofothertermsagreedtobythepartiesortheirsuccessorsininterestafterthe
executionofthewrittenagreement.

Thetermagreementincludeswills.
[36]
Ortaezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.107372,January23,1997,266SCRA561.
[37]
HeirsofCarmenCruzZamorav.MultiwoodInternational,Inc.,G.R.No.146428,January19,2009,576SCRA137.
[38]
Article1359oftheCivilCodeofthePhilippinesreads:
When,therehavingbeenameetingofthemindsofthepartiestoacontract,theirtrueintentionis
not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement, by reason of mistake, fraud,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

16/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

inequitableconductoraccident,oneofthepartiesmayaskforthereformationoftheinstrumenttotheend
thatsuchtrueintentionmaybeexpressed.

If mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or accident has prevented a meeting of the minds of the
parties,theproperremedyisnotreformationoftheinstrumentbutannulmentofthecontract.

[39]
Article1456oftheCivilCodereads:
If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,
consideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofthepersonfromwhomthepropertycomes.
[40]
Lopezv.Lopez,G.R.No.161925,November25,2009,605SCRA358.
[41]
Therespondenttestifiedthathehasbeeninpossessionofthelandinlitigationsince1969.(TSN,September9,1996,p.
2.)Ontheotherhand,thepetitionertestifiedthathehasbeeninpossessionofthe4,020squaremeters.(TSN,June19,1997,
pp.34.)
[42]
TSN,June19,1997,pp.34.
[43]
Article1079.
[44]
ArturoM.Tolentino,2CommentariesandJurisprudenceontheCivilCodeofthePhilippines,p.210.
[45]
Article494oftheCivilCodereads:
Nocoownershallbeobligedtoremaininthecoownership.Eachcoownermaydemandatany
timethepartitionofthethingownedincommon,insofarashisshareisconcerned.
[46]
Supranote11AnnexO.
[47]
DelaCruzv.Cruz,No.L27759,April17,1970,32SCRA307.
[48]
Medinav.GreenfieldDevelopmentCorporation,G.R.No.140228,November19,2004,443SCRA150.
[49]
EduardoP.Caguioa,2CommentsandCasesonCivilLaw,1966ed.,p.151,citingArticle1091oftheCivilCodewhich
reads:
Apartitionlegallymadeconfersuponeachheirtheexclusiveownershipofthepropertyadjudicatedtohim.
[50]
IntherespondentsTaxDeclarationNo.3131(MarkedasAnnexE),hedeclaredthefollowingwiththeircorresponding
area:Residential750[squaremeters]Unirrig.Riceland4,794.27[squaremeters]PastureLand2000[squaremeters].
[51]
Records,Annex6.
[52]
Ownershipofapieceoflandisonething,andregistrationundertheTorrenssystemofthatownershipisquiteanother
(Grandev.CourtofAppeals,No.L17652,June30,1962,5SCRA524).
[53]
Section51ofPresidentialDecreeNo.(P.D.)1529reads:
Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of registered land may convey,
mortgage,lease,chargeorotherwisedealwiththesameinaccordancewithexistinglaws.Hemayusesuch
formsofdeeds,mortgages,leasesorothervoluntaryinstrumentsasaresufficientinlaw.xxx

Section53ofP.D.1529reads:
Presentationofownersduplicateuponentryofnewcertificate.Novoluntaryinstrumentshallberegisteredby
theRegisterofDeeds,unlesstheownersduplicatecertificateispresentedwithsuchinstrument,exceptincases
expresslyprovidedforinthisDecreeoruponorderofthecourt,forcauseshown.

xxx

Section57ofP.D.1529reads:
Procedureinregistrationofconveyances.Anownerdesiringtoconveyhisregisteredlandinfeesimple
shall execute and register a deed of conveyance in a form sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds shall
thereaftermakeoutintheregistrationbookanewcertificateoftitletothegranteeandshallprepareanddeliver
to him an owner's duplicate certificate. The Register of Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

17/18

4/19/2016

G.R.No.169985

certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book in which the new certificate is
registeredandareferencebynumbertothelastprecedingcertificate.Theoriginalandtheowner'sduplicateof
thegrantor'scertificateshallbestamped"canceled".Thedeedofconveyanceshallbefilledandindorsedwith
thenumberandtheplaceofregistrationofthecertificateoftitleofthelandconveyed.
[54]
TSN,September9,1996,p.15.
[55]
Escondev.Barlongay,No.L67583,July31,1987,152SCRA603.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/169985.htm

18/18