#44: Javier vs Concepcion 94 scra 212

(petition for review by certiorari) ARTICLE 546 of Civil Code

FACTS
On October 17, 1959, herein respondents filed against petitioners an action for
reconveyance for a parcel of land with land improvements thereon known as Lot 12 and
for an accounting and recovery of the produce of the land from the time the latter took
possession in 1945. Respondents allege that Lot 12 as part of Lot 6 covered by a TCT
under their name. In their Answer, petitioners denied such claim and pointed out that Lot 6
could not include Lot 12 because there exists a big river more than 50 meters wide and
more than 20 meters deep between the two lots. Lot 6 is situated within Dolores, Quezon
while Lot 12 is situated within the jurisdiction of Candelaria, Quezon.
The RTC ruled in favor of the owners of Lot No. 6, herein respondents, also finding Javier
to have acted in bad faith when he filed an opposition for the registration of Lot No. 6.
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of RTC- with a modification that Javier did not act
with evident bad faith in occupying the land in question. Motion for reconsideration was
denied.
ISSUES
1. w/n there was fraud in the registration of the lot
2. w/n the cause of action of the private respondents has been barred by laches
3. w/n the land should be reconveyed to petitioners
4. w/n respondents should pay for the improvements introduced by the petitioners on the
land in question
RULING: Decision of CA is AFFIRMED
1. We found no trace of fraud and misrepresentation in the procurement of the transfer
certificate of title. Fraud as a legal basis for review of a decree means actual or positive
fraud as distinguished from constructive or legal fraud. The decree of registration can no
longer be impugned on the ground of fraud, error or lack of notice to defendant, as more
than one year has already elapsed from the issuance of decree
2. Defense of laches will not apply. Here, there are no intervening rights of third persons
which may be affected or prejudiced by a decision directing the return of Lot No. 12 to
plaintiffs- respondents.
3. The third assigned error does is merely a consequence of the first and second assigned
errors. The same is without merit.
4. As possessors in good faith, petitioners are entitled to the fruits received before their
possession was legally interrupted upon receipt of judicial summons in connection with the
filing of the complaint for reconveyance (but since records do not show the date, we look
at the date when they filed an Answer that is on November 11, 1959). Petitioners should
also be refunded the necessary and useful expenses, with the right to retain the land until
reimbursed of the same, pursuant to Article 546 of the Civil Code. Under the said
provision, respondents have the option to refund the amount of useful expenses or to pay
the increase in value which the land may have acquired by reason thereof. Petitioners
shall be accountable for the fruits of subject property only after 1959, not from 1945..
Respondents are entitled to the produce from November 11, 1959 to the time possession
is delivered to them.