B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of L. Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals Heirs of L. Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
I. Recit-ready summary
On Feb. 12, 1990, the heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr., represented by
Administrator Elpidio Vencilao, filed with the RTC of Bohol a complaint for
quieting of title and recovery of ownership against spouses Sabas and Ruperta
Gepalago.
The heirs of Vencilao, Sr. alleged that they owned a parcel of land situated
in Cambansag, San Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 3,625 m2. They inherited the land
from Leopoldo, their father, who was in peaceful, open, notorious, and
uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property in the concept of the owner.
Leopoldo also declared the property for taxation purposes. After Leopoldo’s death,
the heirs continued to possess and enjoy the property.
The Gepalago spouses, meanwhile, denied the allegations and claimed they
were registered owners of a 5,970 m2 property located in Candungao Calapo, San
Isidro, Bohol; the property is covered by TCT No. 16042. This property was initially
part of a 1,401,570 m2 owned by Pedro Luspo. Luspo mortgaged the property to
PNB to secure a loan. Luspo, however, failed to pay the mortgage and the property
was foreclosed. PNB, the highest bidder, sold the property to 56 vendees, one of
whom is the Gepalago spouses. The spouses became owner and possessor of the
land until they donated the property to their son, Domiciano, in 1988.
A commissioner appointed b the RTC found that the area claimed by the
Vencilaos was included in the Gepalagos’ titled property. The RTC ruled in favor
of the Vencilaos. The CA reversed the decision. The Vencilaos’ MR was denied.
Thus, this petition of review.
The Court then held that the Vencilaos did not own the property since the
Gepalagos had title of the property. Furthermore, the Vencilaos’ tax declarations
cannot defeat a certificate of title, which is incontrovertible proof of ownership.
Even if the Vencilaos did acquire by prescription, the identity of the property they
claim is different from that of the Gepalagos’ (see earlier facts). The Vencilaos also
failed to adduce proof that the title of the PNB is defective when the title was sold
to the Gepalago spouses.
Finally, since the Vencilaos failed to bring action to the court during 3 prior
transactions (the mortgage of Luspo, the foreclosure, the sale to the 56 vendees)
involving the land which were all recorded in a transfer certificate, they are estopped
from denying the right of the new owner.
DOCTRINE 1: A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open
and notorious possession. The certificate of title issued is an absolute and
indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole world. All
persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.
DOCTRINE 2: In order that an action to recover ownership of real property
may prosper, the person who claims that he has a better right to it must prove
not only his ownership of the same but also satisfactorily prove the identity
thereof.
G.R. NO: 123713
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Torrens title
April 1, 1998
DOCTRINE 3: As a general rule, where the certificate of the name of the vendor
when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears
on the face of the title. By way of exception, the vendee is required to make
necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicates
any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.
DOCTRINE 4: Failure to assert rights, if any, over the property warrants the
presumption that the party has either abandoned them or declined to assert
them. (Estoppel)
II. Facts of the case
On Feb. 12, 1990, the heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr., represented by
Administrator Elpidio Vencilao, filed with the RTC of Bohol a complaint for quieting
of title and recovery of ownership against spouses Sabas and Ruperta Gepalago. The
complaint was amended to include action for reconveyance and cancellation of title
against Domiciano Gepalago.
The heirs of Vencilao, Sr. alleged that they were the absolute owners of a parcel
of land situated in Cambansag, San Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 3,625 m2 (square
meters). The heirs inherited the land from their father, Leopoldo, who was in peaceful,
open, notorious, and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property in the
concept of the owner. Leopoldo also declared the property for taxation purposes under
Tax Declaration No. 37C6-344 and religiously paid the real estate taxes. After
Leopoldo’s death, the heirs continued to possess and enjoy the property.
The Gepalogo spouses, meanwhile, denied the allegations and claimed they
were registered owners of a 5,970 m2 property located in Candungao Calapo, San
Isidro, Bohol; the property is covered by TCT No. 16042. The land was previously a
portion of a 1,401,570 m2 land originally owned by Pedro Luspo.
The entire land was mortgaged by Luspo to PNB to secure a loan. Luspo failed
to pay so the mortgage was foreclosed. PNB became the highest bidder in the
foreclosure. Then, PNB conveyed the whole property to 56 vendees, one of wom were
the Gepalago spouses who acquired the 5,970 m2 portion. The spouses became owner
and possessor of the land until they donated in 1988 to their son, Domiciano.
The RTC appointed a commissioner to survey and determine the areas claimed
by the parties. The commissioner reported that the area claimed by the Vencilaos
was included in the Gepalagos’ titled property. He also reported that while the
property claimed by the Gepalagos was 5,970 m2, the Vencilaos’ covered 22,401.58
m2. Thus, the area claimed by the Vencilaos was in excess of 16,431.58 m2 than that
claimed by the Gepalagos. The report also stated that “if the titled lot of Domiciano
Gepalago is plotted in accordance with the technical description appearing in the title,
it will be relocated to more than 219 kilometers eastward away from its supposed
actual location. This amounts to its non-existence.”
The RTC ruled in favor of the Vencilaos holding for their continuous possession
and enjoyment for over 30 years and the improvements there were introduced by the
Vencilaos before the Gepalagos had title. Gepalagos appealed to the CA. The CA
reversed the decision. The Vencilaos’ MR was denied. Thus, this petition for review.
PONENTE: Bellosillo, J
DIGEST MAKER: Rainman
 B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED
Heirs of L. Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
III. Issue/s
1. (MAIN ISSUE) WON the Vencilaos had been in possession and
enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years – NO
2. WON there is a flaw in the title, as sold by PNB – NO
3. WON Vencilaos are estopped from denying the title of the present owner –
YES
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
1. The land in dispute is a registered land placed under the operation of the
Torrens system way back in 1959, or more than thirty (30) years before
petitioners instituted the present action in the court a .quo , and for which
Original Certificate of Title No. 400 was issued.
The rule is well-settled that prescription does not run against registered
land. Thus, under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, it is specifically provided that "no title to registered
land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession." A title, once registered, cannot be
defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession. The
certificate of title issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of
ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole world. All persons
must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.
Neither can tax declarations and tax receipts presented by the Vencilaos as
evidence of ownership prevail of the Gepalagos’ certificate of title which
is incontrovertible proof of ownership. Such declarations and receipts are
only prima facie evidence of ownership or possession.
Additionally, even if the Vencilaos acquired the property by prescription,
there exists serious doubt on the identity of the disputed property. What
the Vencilaos claimed in their complaint was a parcel of land located in
Cambansag, San Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 3,625 square meters. This
clearly differs from the piece of land registered in the name of the
Gepalagos, which is Lot No. A-73 of the Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-
60558, LRC Rec. No. H-4251, and located in Candungao Calapo, San
Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 5,970 square meters. In order that an action
to recover ownership of real property may prosper, the person who
claims that he has a better right to it must prove not only his ownership
of the same but also satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
2. As a general rule, where the certificate of the name of the vendor when the
land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on
G.R. NO: 123713
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Torrens title
April 1, 1998
Heirs of L. Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals
the face of the title. By way of exception, the vendee is required to make
necessary inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which
indicates any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.
In the case of bar, however, there is nothing from the records showing that
title of PNB, the vendor, was flawed. The Vencilaos failed to allege, and
much less adduce, any evidence that there was a defect in the title of PNB.
In the absence of such evidence, the presumption leans towards the validity
of the vendor's title. The Gepalogos rightly believed they acquired a
flawless title and are entitled to all the defenses available to PNB, including
those arising from acquisition of property in good faith and for value, when
they bought the property.
3. There were at least 3 transactions on record involving the property:
a. The contract of mortgage between Luspo and PNB as security
for a loan contracted by Luspo;
b. The foreclosure of the mortgage after Luspo defaulted;
c. The sale of the property to 56 vendees, including the Gepalago
spouses.
Each of those transactions was registered and a corresponding transfer
certificate was issued in favor of the new owner. Yet in all these, the
Vencilaos did not institute any action nor registered any objection. They
remained silent. Thus, they are now estopped from denying the title of the
new owner. Having failed to assert their rights, if any, over the
property warrants the presumption that they have either abandoned
them or declined to assert them.
V. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
of 31 July 1995 as well as its Resolution of 14 December 1995 denying
reconsideration is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.
VI. Notes
PONENTE: Bellosillo, J
DIGEST MAKER: Rainman