G.R. No.

84888 February 12, 1992

LUNESA BALANGCAD, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUSTCES OF THE COURT OF A!!EALS, "#$ D%&%'%o(, HON. JUDGE
REGONAL TRAL COURT, BANGUED, ABRA BR. , !RO). SHERFF *
DE!UTES, FEDERCO ARCEDO, ANGELES A. FERNANDE+ a(,
FRANCSCO FERNANDE+, respondents.
FACTS-
Civil Case No. 1411 was filed by respondent for quieting of title to a parcel of land
with Lot no.288 which they alleged had been illegally registered in the na!e of
lunesa balangcad "petitioner#. $his was the civil case in which the petitioner
faulted in his petition in questioning the ruling of court of appeals on affir!ing on
the decision of the trial court on having the %urisdiction over civil case no. 1411
because of non&pay!ent of the doc'et fee. (ut )fter trial, %udg!ent was rendered
annulling defendant*s +ree ,atent $itle No. 21-.12 with respect to the land in
suit, which the defendant was ordered to vacate. (ut balangcad invo'es that
cadastral proceedings is in re! in character, she insists on the indefeasibility o.
$er #%#/e #o #$e ,%'0u#e, /a(, a.#er o(e year .ro1 %#' re2%'#ra#%o( a(,
3o(#e(,' %# %' #oo /a#e (o4 .or #$e re'0o(,e(#' #o 3o(#e'# $er o4(er'$%0.
/he stresses that the private respondents slept on their rights. (ut the
respondent contends that the disputed land was already private land when the
petitioner continuously possessed it for over -0 years. )nd ,erico
)rcedo,palintiff, %ust ca!e to 'now the clai! of defendant balangcad and
issuance of a free patent title in her na!e in 11.8 because he was in
'abacan.cotabato. )lso it is hard to believe that she was already clai!ing and
possessing the land before 1122, were she filed the case on 11.8.
SSUES-
1.) 3hether or not the issuance of +ree ,atent $itle No. 21-.12 in petitioner*s
na!e is valid.
2.) 3hether or not the period of one year has already e4pired fro! the ti!e of
certificate of title was issued.
HELD-
No. $he land in suit is already a private land fro! the ti!e the petitioners
possessed the said land. $he grant therefore indicated in the cadastral survey is
null and void with respect to the land in litigation, but valid with respect to the
unquestioned portion.
$he said title does not beco!e incontrovertible but is null and void if the property
covered thereby is originally of private ownership and an action to annul the
sa!e does not prescribe. 5oreover, since herein petitioners are in possession of
the land in dispute, an action to quiet title is i!prescriptible. )s held in Caragay-
Layno vs court of appeals,et al., an adverse clai!ant of a registered land,
undisturbed in his possession thereof for a period of !ore than fifty years and not
'nowing that the land he actually occupied had been registered in the na!e of
another, is not precluded fro! filing an action for reconveyance which, in effect,
see's to quiet title to property as against the registered owner who was relying
upon a torrens title which could have been fraudulently acquired.
3herefore the petition was denied and the questioned decision was affir!ed.