PACETE vs. ASOTIGUE
GAUDENCIO PACETE vs. INOCENCIO ASOTIGUE
G.R. No. 188575 | December 10, 2012
PRINCIPLE: Reconveyance is available not
only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person with a better
right than the person under whose name said property was erroneously
registered.
FACTS:
The property in dispute is a parcel of agricultural land, known as Lot
No. 5-A, consisting of 22,240 square meters, being a portion of a bigger
agricultural land, known as Lot No. 5, with an area of 118,055 square meters,
situated in Barangay Dolis, Municipality of Magpet, Province of Cotabato,
registered in the name of petitioner Gaudencio Pacete. Respondent Inocencio
Asotigue filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against Pacete before
the RTC.
RESPONDENT:
●
Asotigue averred that on March 22, 1979, he
acquired the disputed land, denominated as Lot No. 5-A, from Rizalino Umpad for
P2,300.00 by virtue of a Transfer of Rights and Improvements, duly notarized
●
That he had been in possession and occupation of
the said lot openly, publicly, notoriously, and in the concept of an owner for
more than 21 years;
●
That he had declared the lot in his name for
taxation purposes, paying faithfully the real taxes due thereon,
●
That he introduced permanent improvements on the
said lot by planting considerable number of rubber trees and other
fruit-bearing trees;
●
That the present dispute arose when he found out
for the first time, upon filing his application for title over the said lot,
that it was included in Pacete's OCT.
●
That he then demanded from Pacete the
reconveyance of the said lot, but his demand was unheeded;
●
That he brought the matter before the Office of
the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo of Barangay Dolis, Magpet, for amicable settlement,
but to no avail;
●
That a Certificate to File Action was
subsequently issued.
Asotigue testified that the disputed lot was previously owned by
Sambutuan Sumagad a native. The lot was mortgaged by Sumagad to Pasague who
later on bought it. Pasague then sold the lot to Umpad by way of Relinquishment
of Rights and Improvements executed on October 19, 1971. On March 22, 1979,
Asotigue bought the lot from Umpad by way of Transfer of Right and
Improvements. Asotigue then entered the lot and planted, among others, rubber
trees, fruit trees and coconut trees.
To strengthen his claim of ownership, Asotigue also submitted
documentary evidence, among which were copies of the Transfer of Rights and
Improvements, several Tax Declarations under his name; Survey Plan of Lot No. 5
and the Relinquishment of Rights and Improvements, executed by Pasague in favor
of Umpad.
PETITIONER: Pacete denied the material allegations of
Asotigue and asserted that he was the owner of the disputed lot, presenting OCT
No. V-16654 issued on July 13, 1961 as evidence of his ownership. He claimed
that sometime in 1979, Asotigue, by stealth, strategy and prior knowledge,
entered the disputed lot and started planting trees despite his demand to
vacate the said lot.
Pacete presented the testimonies of his son, Rolito Pacete and his wife,
Angelica; and Elma Precion to disprove Asotigue's claim of ownership over the
disputed lot. He also submitted documentary evidence, as proof of his
ownership, such as OCT No. 16654, Tax Declarations and Transfer of Rights of
Occupation and Improvements on an Unregistered Land.
Rolito testified that sometime in 1979, Asotigue squatted on about 2.5
hectare portion of their land in Purok 1, Dolis, Magpet, Cotabato. He claimed
that he and his father told Asotigue not to plant anything on the land, but
despite their warning, the latter continued planting. His father was the one
paying the real taxes on the disputed lot and that they had the land titled in
1961. He did not file any case against Asotigue because he was very young then
and his parents were illiterate. Angelica corroborated Rolito's testimony. She
claimed that her husband Pacete was ignorant and that they were afraid of
Asotigue, hence, they did not file any complaint before the police, municipal
officers or the court.
RTC: RTC rendered judgment in favor of Asotigue. It ruled that Pacete was
not able to substantiate his claim that he had a better right of possession and
ownership over the disputed lot.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds and so holds that plaintiff was able to
prove his case by preponderance of evidence. Defendant is directed to convey to
plaintiff a portion of Lot No. 5, located at Dolis, Magpet, Cotabato, Mindanao,
containing an area of 22,240 Square Meters.
CA: the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling in favor of Asotigue. In
upholding the claim of Asotigue, the CA applied the doctrine of tacking of
possession. It found that Asotigue was in material possession of the said lot
for more than thirty (30) years, tacking the possession of his
predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, in 1958 up to the time he led the case in
2000.
Hence, this petition to the SC.
PETITIONER:
●
Pacete contends that OCT No. V-16654, issued in
his name in 1961, is an unassailable evidence of his ownership over the
disputed lot having been issued pursuant to the Torrens System of Registration.
He asserts that he is the legal owner of the lot by virtue of the said title as
against Asotigue's claim of ownership based on tax declarations which are not
conclusive as evidence of ownership or proof of the area covered therein.
Moreover, Pacete argues that the application of the doctrine of tacking of
possession was misplaced and erroneous as there was no proof that the
predecessors-ininterest of Asotigue were in actual or physical possession of
the subject lot and that Asotigue's claim of previous ownership by Sumagad was
not proven by any material and substantial evidence.
●
Finally, Pacete claims that reconveyance was not
proper because he was already the owner of the said portion of land since 1961
and was the one dispossessed by Asotigue, the latter being a planter in bad
faith and not entitled to an award of damages.
ISSUES:
- WON Pacete's title which had included the lot in dispute, can be
considered unassailable evidence of his ownership over the disputed lot
- WON the reconveyance is proper under the availing set of facts
- WON the award of damages is justified.
RULING:
- The Court rules in the negative. Records show that when the
disputed lot was conveyed by Pasague to Umpad, Pacete never objected to
it. Neither did he file a suit against Pasague over the said transfer to
protect his supposed interest over the said lot. In fact, the testimony of
Pasague taken will bolster the fact that Pacete had full knowledge of the
conveyance or transfer of the said lot made by Pasague to Umpad. Pacete was, therefore, not in good
faith when he procured his OCT No. V16654 in 1961. Time and again, the
High Court has ruled that, "it is a settled rule that the Land
Registration Act protects only holders of title in good faith, and does
not permit its provision to be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud, or as a means to enrich oneself at the expense of others."
Thus, Pacete cannot therefore rely
on his OCT as an unassailable evidence of his ownership over the disputed
property. The Land Registration Act and the Cadastral Act only protect
holders of a title in good faith and do not permit their provisions to be
used as a shield to enrich oneself at the expense of another.
- Reconveyance is proper under the circumstances. Reconveyance is
available not only to the legal owner of a property but also to the person
with a better right than the person under whose name said property was
erroneously registered. Although Asotigue is not the titled owner of the
disputed lot, he apparently has a better right than Pacete, the latter not
being in good faith when he obtained his title to the said property.
In Muñoz v. Yabut Jr. the Court had the occasion to describe an action for reconveyance as
follows:
An action for reconveyance is
an action in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully
registered under the Torrens system in another's name. Although the decree is
recognized as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, the registered
owner is not necessarily held free from liens. As a remedy, an action for
reconveyance is filed as an ordinary action in the ordinary courts of justice
and not with the land registration court. Reconveyance is always available as
long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value
innocent third person for value. A notice of lis pendens may thus be annotated
on the certificate of title immediately upon the institution of the action in
court. The notice of lis pendens will avoid transfer to an innocent third
person for value and preserve the claim of the real owner.
In the present case, when Pacete procured OCT No. V-16654 in 1961, the
disputed lot, being a portion covered by the said title, was already in
possession of Asotigue. His predecessor-in-interest, Sumagad, had been
occupying it since 1958. There was, therefore, an erroneous or wrongful
registration of Asotigue's Lot 5-A of Lot 5, GSS-326, in favor of Pacete, who
neither possessed nor occupied the same. Inasmuch
as the latter had not passed the lot in question to an innocent purchaser for
value, an action for reconveyance is proper. After all, the Torrens system
was not designed to shield and protect one who had committed fraud or
misrepresentation and, thus, holds title in bad faith.
- The Court finds no reversible error on the
part of the CA in sustaining the award of damages to Asotigue. The latter
was able to substantiate his entitlement to moral damages due to Pacete's
act of including his (Asotigue's) portion in the registration of his own
land. As a deterrent to others who would have the same thing in mind in
coveting the property of others, the award for exemplary damages is
justifiable.
Comments
Post a Comment