LAND PROBLEMS and REMEDIES
[38]
1. Action for reconveyance
2. Quieting of title
3. Cancellation suit
4. Action for Damages
5. Action for Compensation against the Assurance Fund
6. Remedies against issuance of patent
ACTION for RECONVEYANCE
PACETE v. ASOTIGUE
Pacete cannot rely on his OCT because he was not in good faith when he obtained it
as he was fully aware of the conveyance of the land between Pasague and Umpad.
Reconveyance is proper not only to the legal owner but also to the person with a
better right. Although Asotigue is not the titled owner, he apparently has a better
right than Pacete, the latter not being in good faith when he obtained his OCT. When
Pacete procured the OCT in 1961, the land was already in possession of Asotigues
predecessor-in-interest since 1958.
Prescriptive Period
ABALOS v. SPS LOMANTONG DARAPA and SINAB DIMAKUTA
The elements of laches must, however, be proved positively because it is evidentiary
in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings.[36] These
are but factual in nature which the Court cannot grant without violating the basic
procedural tenet that, as discussed, the Court is not trier of facts. Yet again, the
records as established by the trial court show that it was rather the DBP's tactic which
delayed the institution of the action. DBF made the spouses believe that there was no
need to institute any action for the land would be returned to the spouses soon, only
to be told, after ten (10) years of naivete, that reconveyance would no longer be
possible for the same land was already sold to Abalos, an alleged purchaser in good
faith and for value.
The Court also disagrees with the DBP's contention that for failure to institute the
action within ten years from the accrual of the right thereof, prescription has set in,
barring the spouses from vindicating their transgressed rights.
The DBP contends that the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently
registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title.[37]
While the above disquisition of the DBP is true, the 10-year prescriptive period
applies only when the reconveyance is based on fraud which makes a contract
voidable (and that the aggrieved party is not in possession of the land whose title is to
be actually, reconveyed). It does not apply to an action to nullify a contract which
is void ab initio, as in the present petition. Article 1410 of the Civil Code
categorically states that an action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract
does not prescribe.
The spouses' action is an action for "Annulment of Title, Recovery of Possession and
Damages,"[39] grounded on the theory that the DBP foreclosed their land covered by
TCT No. T-1,997 without any legal right to do so, rendering the sale and the
subsequent issuance of TCT in DBP's name void ab initio and subject to attack at any
time conformably to the rule in Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
Vda de GUALBERTO v. GO
Action for reconveyance based on implied trust (fraud or mistake) of real property
prescribes in 10 years but prescription does not apply (thus imprescriptible) if the
owner is in actual possession of the property reason: he can wait until his
possession is disturbed before going to court.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE RIGHT OF A REGISTERED OWNER TO DEMAND THE
RETURN OF HIS PROPERTY CAN BE LOST BY PRESCRIPTION OR LACHES. (Yes,
10 years but imprescriptible if in actual possession)
III. WHETHER AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY BASED ON A
NULLITY OF TITLE PRESCRIBES. (same in II)
The two issues are related and boils down to WON registered owners have the right
to assail the validity of Go's title and WON such right prescribes.
Prescription under Section 43, Old Civil Code: recovery of real property -within 4
years (ground fraud not accrued until discovery of the fraud).
New Civil Code NCC 1144 if action for reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust 10 years counted from the issuance of Torrens title over the
property.
NCC 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by
force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom
the property comes.
This case: New Civil Code applies (old cases cited used Old Civil Code provisions
thats why the court says there were discrepancies in some of the SC's rulings.
Exception to the 10 year prescription: if the plaintiff is in actual, continuous, and
peaceful possession of the property involved. The reason for this is is that one who is
in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until
his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his
right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right
can be claimed only by one who is in possession.
In this case, it was never established that Gualbertos were in possession of the
property after their father's sale. In fact, the lower courts concluded that Gos had
actual possession since then and the SC must respect the conclusions of facts of the
trial court.
CABACUNGAN v. LAIGO
Issue: Whether or not Margaritas action has prescribed? NO.
First, fundamental is the rule in land registration law that the issue of whether the
buyer of realty is in good or bad faith is relevant only where the subject of the sale is
registered land. Since the properties in question are unregistered lands, respondents
purchased the same at their own peril.Their claim of having bought the properties in
good faith, i.e., without notice that there is some other person with a right to or
interest therein, would not protect them.
3.
Second, prescription and laches hardly can impair petitioners cause of action.
As to prescription: there are 2 kinds of trusts express and implied. There are in turn
2 kinds of implies trusts - resulting and constructive.
QUIETING of TITLE
IGLESIA ni CRISTO v. PONFERRADA
Imprescriptible if plaintiff is in possession; if not in possession
REPUBLIC v. MANGOTARA
ISSUE (TOPICAL): Whether or not Vidals and Azimuths cause of action has
already prescribed (NO)
1. The defense of prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal
2. Even if the Court ruled on the issue of prescription, it will rule against Teofilo
and Landtrade on the following grounds:
a. A real action is an action affecting title to or recovery of possession of
real property. An action for quieting of title to real property is
indubitably a real action.
b. Article 1141 of the Civil Code provides that real actions over
immovables prescribe after thirty years.
i. Doa Demetria died in 1974, transferring by succession, her title
to the two parcels of land to her only heir, Vidal. Teofilo,
through Atty. Cabildo, filed a petition for reconstitution of the
certificates of title covering said properties in 1978. This is the
first palpable display of Teofilos adverse claim to the same
properties, supposedly, as Doa Demetrias only heir. When
Vidal and AZIMUTH instituted Civil Case No. 4452 in 1998,
only 20 years had passed, and the prescriptive period for
filing an action for quieting of title had not yet prescribed.
c. Article 1411 of the Civil Code also clearly states that the 30-year
prescriptive period for real actions over immovables is without
prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and
other real rights by prescription. The Court must also look into the
acquisitive prescription periods of ownership and other real rights.
i. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and real rights may be
ordinary or extraordinary
ii. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things
in good faith and with just title for the time fixed by law. In the
case of ownership and other real rights over immovable
property, they are acquired by ordinary prescription through
possession of 10 years.
LANDTRADE cannot insist on the application of the 10-year ordinary
acquisitive prescription period since it cannot be considered a possessor in
good faith. The good faith of the possessor consists in the reasonable belief
that the person from whom he received the thing was the owner thereof, and
could transmit his ownership.
a. LANDTRADE came to possession of the two parcels of land after
purchasing the same from Teofilo. However, Teofilo is not the
registered owner of the subject properties as they were still registered in
Doa Demetrias name. The Affidavit of Adjudication is not even
annotated on the OCTs.
b. Worse, LANDTRADE is not dealing directly with Teofilo, but only with
the latters attorney-in-fact, Atty. Cabildo. It is axiomatic that one who
buys from a person who is not a registered owner is not a purchaser in
good faith.
c. In its Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against NAPOCOR and
TRANSCO, LANDTRADE itself alleged that when it bought the two
parcels of land from Teofilo, portions thereof were already occupied by
the Overton Sub-station and Agus Warehouse of NAPOCOR and
TRANSCO. This is another circumstance which should have prompted
LANDTRADE to investigate or inspect the property being sold to it.
d. It is expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire
first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, i.e.,
whether or not the occupants possess the land en concepto de dueo, in
concept of owner.
e. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an ocular
inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard a cautious and
prudent purchaser usually takes. Should he find out that the land he
intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who, as
in this case, is not in actual possession, it would then be incumbent
upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupants possessory
rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to take such precautionary
steps would mean negligence on his part and would thereby preclude
him from claiming or invoking the rights of a purchaser in good faith.
4. Since the ordinary acquisitive prescription period of 10 years does not
extraordinary acquisitive prescription period of 30 years set by Article 1137 of
the Civil Code must be looked at, which reads: Ownership and other real rights
over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession
thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.
a. LANDTRADE adversely possessed the subject properties no earlier
than 1996, when it bought the same from Teofilo, and Civil Case No.
4452 was already instituted two years later in 1998.
b. LANDTRADE cannot tack its adverse possession of the two parcels of
land to that of Teofilo considering that there is no proof that the
latter, who is already residing in the U.S.A., adversely possessed the
properties at all.

REMEDIES AGAINST ISSUANCE of PATENT

LUNA v. LUNA

Here, the CA correctly dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. Let it be
noted that the free patent and the original certificate of title were issued to
respondent Juliana, who is in possession of the subject property found to be a public
land, on May 3, 1976.13 Petitioner instituted the personal action for
reconveyance14 only in May 1999 or after 23 years.

We have held in prior cases that the order or decision granting an application for a
free patent can be reviewed only within one year from its issuance on the ground of
actual fraud via a petition for review in the Regional Trial Court, provided that no
innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property or any interest thereon.
However, an aggrieved party may still file an action for reconveyance based on
implied or constructive trust, but the right of action prescribes in 10 years counted
from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property, provided that
it has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value.15 This 10-year
prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in
possession of the property. If the person claiming to be its owner is in actual
possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect is an action to quiet
title thereto, does not prescribe.16

In the instant case, petitioners action to recover the property and to annul the patent
and title issued to the respondents was filed beyond the prescriptive period. Thus, it
ought to be dismissed.