Candelaria, Arman A.

Case Digests for the topic of remedies

Land Titles and Deeds

G.R. No. 179155

April 2, 2014
NICOMEDES J. LOZADA, Petitioner,
vs.
EULALIA BRACEWELL, EDDIE BRACEWELL, ESTELLITA BRACEWELL, JAMES
BRACEWELL, JOHN BRACEWELL, EDWIN BRACEWELL, ERIC BRACEWELL, and
HEIRS OF GEORGE BRACEWELL, Respondents
FACTS:
On December 10, 1976, petitioner filed an application for registration and
confirmation of title over a parcel of land covered by Plan PSU-129514, which
was granted on February 23, 1989 by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 134,
acting as a land registration court. Consequently, on July 10, 1997, the LRA
issued Decree No. N-217036 in the name of petitioner, who later obtained
OCT No. 0-78 covering the said parcel of land.
On February 6, 1998, within a year from the issuance of the aforementioned
decree, James Bracewell, Jr. (Bracewell) filed a petition for review of a decree
of registration under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,
otherwise known as the "Property Registration Decree," before the RTC of Las
Pias City, Branch 275 (Las Pias City-RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. LP 980025, claiming that a portion of Plan PSU-129514, consisting of 3,097 square
meters identified as Lot 5 of Plan PSU-180598 (subject lot) of which he is
the absolute owner and possessor is fraudulently included in Decree No. N217036. He allegedly filed on September 19, 1963 an application for
registration and confirmation of the subject lot, as well as of Lots 1, 2, 3, and
4 of Plan PSU-180598, situated in Las Pias City, which was granted by the
RTC of Makati City, Branch 58, on May 3, 1989. He further averred that
petitioner deliberately concealed the fact that he (Bracewell) is one of the
adjoining owners, and left him totally ignorant of the registration proceedings
involving the lots covered by Plan PSU-129514. Instead of impleading him,
petitioner listed Bracewells grandmother, Maria Cailles, as an adjoining
owner, although she had already died by that time.
RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 275 ruled in favor of respondent Bracewell and
it directed the LRA to set aside Decree No. N-217036 and OCT No. 0-78, and
ordered petitioner (a) to cause the amendment of Plan PSU-129514 and to
segregate therefrom the subject lot, and (b) to pay respondents the sum of
P100,000.00 as attorney's fees, as well as the cost of suit. The decision was
challenged before the Court of Appeals citing among others the lack of
jurisdiction of the RTC over the petition for review of a decree of registration
in accordance with Sec. 29 of PD 1529.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 275 has jurisdiction over the
petition of review of a decree of registration
RULING:
Yes. The RTC of Las Pias City, Branch 275 has jurisdiction over the petition
of review of a decree of registration. Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the
review of a decree of registration falls within the jurisdiction of and, hence,
should be filed in the "proper Court of First Instance," nowadays the Regional
Trial Court.
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason
of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments,
subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and
the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by
such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in
the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the
decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the
entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be
entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired
the land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever
the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in
this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or
other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and
the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy
by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.
Since the LRAs issuance of a decree of registration only proceeds from the
land registration courts directive, a petition taken under Section 32 of PD
1529 is effectively a review of the land registration courts ruling. As such,
case law instructs that for "as long as a final decree has not been entered by
the [LRA] and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from the date of
entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in
the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound
discretion of the court rendering it.
G.R. No. 200265
December 2, 2013

LAURA E. PARAGUYA, Petitioner,

vs.
SPOUSES ALMA ESCUREL-CRUCILLO and EMETRIO CRUCILLO,* and the
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SORSOGON, Respondents.
FACTS:
On December 19, 1990, Paraguya filed before the RTC a Complaint against
Sps. Crucillo and the RD for the annulment of OCT No. P-17729 and other
related deeds, with prayer for receivership and damages, alleging that
Escurel obtained the aforesaid title through fraud and deceit. Paraguya
claimed that she is the lawful heir to the subject properties left by her
paternal grandfather, the late Ildefonso Estabillo (Estabillo), while Escurel
was merely their administrator and hence, had no right over the same.
On January 18, 1991, the RD files its answer and denied any involvement in
the aforesaid fraud maintaining that its issuance of OCT No. P-17729 was his
ministerial duty. Thereafter, or on February 7, 1991, Sps. Crucillo filed their
answer with motion to dismiss, averring that Paraguyas complaint had
already been barred by laches and/or prescription. They further alleged,
among others, that Escurel, through her father, the late Angel Escurel,
applied for a free patent over the subject properties, resulting in the issuance
of Free Patent No. V-3 005844 under OCT No. P-17792 in her name.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Paraguyas complaint for the annulment OCT No. P-17729 is
barred by the prescriptive period established by Sec. 32 of PD 1529.
RULING:
Yes. Paraguyas complaint for the annulment OCT No. P-17729 is barred by
the prescriptive period established by Sec. 32 of PD 1529.
It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is conclusive proof of
ownership. Verily, a party may seek its annulment on the basis of fraud or
misrepresentation. However, such action must be seasonably filed, or else
the same would be barred.
In this relation, Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to contest a
decree of registration shall be one (1) year from the date of its entry and
that, after the lapse of the said period, The Torrens certificate of title issued
thereon becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible, viz.:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by the
reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely
affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court by reversing
judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the

government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or

interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopnening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no
case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose rights
may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or
an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an
innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbracer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and
the certificate of title issued shall become inconvertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy
by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible
for the fraud.
In view of the foregoing , the Court is impelled to sustain the CAs dismissal
of Paraguyas complaint for annulment of CT No. P-1772924 since it was filed
only on December 19, 1990, or more than eleven (11) years from the titles
date of entry on August 24, 1979. Based on Section 32 of PD 1529, said title
had become inconvertible and indefeasible after the lapse of one (1) year
from the date of its entry, thus barring Paraguyas action for annulment of
title.
The Court likewise takes note that Paraguyas complaint is likewise in the
nature of an action for reconveyance because it also prayed for the trial
court to order Sps. Crucillo to "surrender ownership and possession of the
properties in question to [Paraguya], vacating them altogether. Despite this,
Paraguyas complaint remains dismissible on the same ground because the
prescriptive period for actions for reconveyance is ten (10) years reckoned
from the date of issuance of the certificate of title, except when the owner is
in possession of the property in which case the action for reconveyance
becomes imprescriptible.