Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 161360 October 19, 2011
ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED Dece!"e#$ "%b"t&t%te# b' CARMEN M. TIONGCO !.(.!.
CARMEN MATILDE ). TIONGCO, Petitioner,
vs.
*OSE ). TIONGCO !+# ANTONIO G. DORONILA, *R., Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
,ILLARAMA, *R., J.:
"efore us on appeal b# $a# of a petition for revie$ on certiorari under Rule %& is the !ourt of
'ppeals (!') 'u*ust +,, +--. Decision
/
$hich dis0issed petitioner strella Tion*co 1ared2s
appeal and affir0ed the Decision
+
of the Re*ional Trial !ourt (RT!), "ranch +3, of Iloilo !it#,
dis0issin* petitioner2s co0plaint for annul0ent of affidavit of ad4udication, deeds of sale and
Transfer !ertificates of Title (T!Ts), reconve#ance and da0a*es. 'lso assailed is the appellate
court2s Nove0ber +5, +--. Resolution
.
den#in* petitioner2s 0otion for reconsideration.
The factual antecedents, as culled fro0 the records, follo$6
Matilde, 7ose, Vicente, and Felipe, all surna0ed Tion*co, $ere born to 'tanacio and Maria 8uis
Tion*co. To*ether the# $ere 9no$n as the :eirs of Maria 8uis de Tion*co.
The present dispute involves three parcels of land na0el#, 8ots .+%%, .+%3 and /%-%, all located
in Iloilo !it#. 8ots .+%% and /%-% used to be covered b# Ori*inal !ertificates of Title (O!Ts) Nos.
%,% and /%,+, respectivel#, in the na0es of Matilde ($ife of Vicente Rodri*ue;), 7ose (0arried to
!ar0en Sonora), Vicente (0arried to <rsula !asador), and Felipe (0arried to Sabina
Montelibano), each in = undivided share, $hile 8ot .+%3 used to be covered b# O!T No. .3, in
the na0e of >:eirs of Maria 8uis de Tion*co.>
%
?hile all of the :eirs of Maria 8uis de Tion*co have died, the# $ere survived b# their children
and descendants. '0on* the le*iti0ate children of 7ose $ere petitioner and !ar0elo Tion*co,
the father of respondent 7ose ". Tion*co.
&
So0eti0e in /@3&, petitioner built her house on 8ot /%-%
3
and sustained herself b# collectin*
rentals fro0 the tenants of 8ots .+%% and .+%3. In /@3,, petitioner, as one of the heirs of 7ose,
filed an adverse clai0 affectin* all the ri*hts, interest and participation of her deceased father on
the disputed lots, but the adverse clai0 $as annotated onl# on O!T No. %,% and O!T No. /%,+,
respectivel# coverin* 8ots .+%% and /%-%.
5
In /@,., respondent 7ose prohibited petitioner fro0 collectin* rentals fro0 the tenants of 8ots
.+%% and .+%3. In Dece0ber /@,., respondent 7ose filed a suit for recover# of possession $ith
preli0inar# in4unction a*ainst several tenants of 8ots .+%% and .+%3 $herein he obtained a
4ud*0ent in his favor.
,
Respondent 7ose also filed a case for unla$ful detainer $ith da0a*es
a*ainst petitioner as she $as sta#in* on 8ot /%-%. ?hile the RT!, "ranch .., of Iloilo !it# ruled
in respondent 7ose2s favor, the !' reversed the RT!2s decision and ruled in favor of
petitioner.
@
's such, respondent 7ose never too9 possession of the properties.
In /@,,, $hen petitioner inAuired at the Office of the Re*ister of Deeds of Iloilo !it#, she
discovered that respondent 7ose had alread# eBecuted an 'ffidavit of 'd4udication
/-
dated 'pril
/5, /@5%, declarin* that he is the onl# survivin* heir of the re*istered o$ners and ad4udicatin*
unto hi0self 8ots .+%%, .+%3 and /%-%. !onseAuentl#, the O!Ts of the afore0entioned lots
$ere cancelled, and in place thereof, the Re*ister of Deeds of Iloilo !it# issued T!T No. TC.5/@&
for 8ot .+%%, T!T No. TC%33& for 8ot .+%3, and T!T No. TC.5/@. for 8ot /%-%, all in the na0e of
respondent 7ose.
//
"ased on the records $ith the Re*ister of Deeds, it also appears that on Ma# /-, /@5%, the sa0e
da# $hen the T!Ts coverin* 8ots .+%% and /%-% $ere issued, respondent 7ose sold the said
lots to !atalino Torre. T!T Nos. TC.5/@& and TC.5/@. $ere thus cancelled and T!T Nos. TC
.5/@3 and TC.5/@% $ere issued in the na0e of !atalino Torre.
/+
Si0ilarl#, the records of the Re*ister of Deeds sho$ed that 8ot .+%3 $as li9e$ise disposed of b#
respondent 7ose. On March .-, /@5@, or barel# t$o da#s after obtainin* T!T No. TC%33&,
respondent 7ose sold 8ot .+%3 to respondent 'ntonio D. Doronila, 7r. $ho $as issued T!T No.
TC%333 $hich cancelled T!T No. TC%33&. !atalino Torre also sold 8ots .+%% and /%-% on the
sa0e date to Doronila $ho $as issued the correspondin* ne$ T!Ts.
/.
:o$ever, 4ust a fe$ da#s
later, or on 'pril +, /@5@, Doronila sold 8ot /%-% bac9 to respondent 7ose. 8ots .+%% and .+%3
$ere also sold bac9 to respondent on 7anuar# /5, /@,-.
/%
On October +, /@@-, petitioner filed a co0plaint before the court a Auo a*ainst her nephe$
respondent 7ose and respondent 'ntonio D. Doronila, 7r. Petitioner ar*ued that respondent 7ose
9no$in*l# and $ilfull# 0ade untruthful state0ents in the 'ffidavit of 'd4udication because he
9ne$ that there $ere still other livin* heirs entitled to the said properties.
/&
Petitioner clai0ed that
the affidavit $as null and void ab initio and as such, it did not trans0it or conve# an# ri*ht of the
ori*inal o$ners of the properties. 'n# transfer $hatsoever is perforce li9e$ise null and
void.
/3
Moreover, the petitioner averred that since respondent 7ose eBecuted said docu0ents
throu*h fraud, bad faith, ille*al 0anipulation and 0isrepresentation, 8ots .+%% and /%-% should
be reconve#ed to its ori*inal re*istered o$ners and 8ot .+%3 to the heirs of Maria 8uis de
Tion*co sub4ect to subseAuent partition a0on* the heirs.
/5
Petitioner also posited that *rantin* for
the sa9e of ar*u0ent that the affidavit of ad4udication $as si0pl# voidable, respondent 7ose
beca0e a trustee b# constructive trust of the propert# for the benefit of the petitioner.
/,
Respondent 7ose, for his part, ar*ued that the petitioner2s father, 7ose, $as not an heir of Maria
8uis de Tion*co but an heir of Maria !resencia de 8oi; # Don;ale; vda. De Tion*co.
Respondent 7ose clai0ed that he $as the onl# le*iti0ate son and that $hile it $as true that he
has t$o other siblin*s, he refused to ac9no$led*e the0 because the# are
ille*iti0ate.
/@
Respondent 7ose denied that the series of sales of the properties $as fraudulent.
:e clai0ed that 8ot .+%% $as bou*ht b# the !it# of Iloilo fro0 its o$n auction sale for taB
delinAuenc# and $as 0erel# resold to hi0. Respondent 7ose averred that he has been pa#in*
real propert# taBes on the said properties for 0ore than ten (/-) #ears and that petitioner
collected rentals fro0 8ots .+%% and .+%3 onl# because he allo$ed her.
+-
'fter trial, the Iloilo !it# RT! ruled in favor of respondent 7ose. The court a Auo ruled that
prescription has set in since the co0plaint $as filed onl# on October +, /@@- or so0e siBteen
(/3) #ears after respondent 7ose caused to be re*istered the affidavit of ad4udication on Ma# /-,
/@5%.
+/
'**rieved, petitioner appealed to the !'
++
$hich, ho$ever, sustained the trial court2s rulin*. The
!' a*reed $ith the trial court that an action for reconve#ance can indeed be barred b#
prescription. 'ccordin* to the !', $hen an action for reconve#ance is based on fraud, it 0ust be
filed $ithin four #ears fro0 discover# of the fraud, and such discover# is dee0ed to have ta9en
place fro0 the issuance of the ori*inal certificate of title. On the other hand, an action for
reconve#ance based on an i0plied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (/-) #ears fro0 the
date of issuance of the ori*inal certificate of title or transfer certificate of title. For the rule is that
the re*istration of an instru0ent in the Office of the Re*ister of Deeds constitutes constructive
notice to the $hole $orld and therefore the discover# of fraud is dee0ed to have ta9en place at
the ti0e of re*istration.
+.
Petitioner filed a 0otion for reconsideration of the above rulin*, but the !' as aforesaid, denied
petitioner2s 0otion. :ence, the present petition for revie$ on certiorari.
Petitioner raised the follo$in* ar*u0ents in the petition, to $it6
'. T: :ONOR'"8 !O<RT OF 'PP'8S RRD IN 'FFIRMIND T: 8O?R
!O<RT T:'T T: 'FFID'VIT OF 'D7<DI!'TION E!<TD "1 RSPONDNT
7OS ". TIOND!O, ?:O IS ' 8'?1R 'ND IS '?'R OF ITS N<88IT1, IS
MR81 VOID'"8F ON T: !ONTR'R1, S'ID DO!<MNT IS ' !OMP8T
N<88IT1 "!'<S RSPONDNT 7OS ". TIOND!O :'S M'8I!IO<S81 'ND IN
"'D F'IT: 'D7<DI!'TD IN F'VOR OF :IMS8F T: PROPRTIS IN
G<STION OVR ?:I!: :, 'S ' 8'?1R, HNO?S : :'S NO RID:TS
?:'TSOVR 'ND : '8SO HNO?S :'S "N IN POSSSSION OF T:
PTITIONR 'ND :R PRD!SSORSCINCINTRST <NTI8 T: PRSNT.
". T: :ONOR'"8 !O<RT OF 'PP'8S RRD IN 'FFIRMIND T: DISMISS'8
OF PTITIONR2S !OMP8'INT "1 T: 8O?R !O<RT ON T: DRO<ND OF
PRS!RIPTION "!'<S T: RSPONDNT 7OS ". TIOND!O2S 'FFID'VIT OF
'D7<DI!'TION, "IND ' TOT'8 N<88IT1, T: '!TION TO D!8'R S<!:
N<88IT1 'ND OF T:OS S<"SG<NT TR'NS'!TIONS 'RISIND FROM S'ID
'D7<DI!'TION DOS NOT PRS!RI", SP!I'881 "!'<S IN T:IS !'S
T: PTITIONR 'ND :R PRD!SSORSCINCINTRST :'V '8?'1S "N
IN POSSSSION OF T: 8OTS IN G<STION 'ND RSPONDNT 7OS ".
TIOND!O :'S NVR "N IN POSSSSION T:ROF.
+%
!. F<RT:R, VN IF 'RD<NDO, T: 'FFID'VIT OF 'D7<DI!'TION IS
VOID'"8, T: :ONOR'"8 !O<RT OF 'PP'8S STI88 RRD IN 'FFIRMIND
T: DISMISS'8 OF T: !OMP8'INT "1 T: 8O?R !O<RT ON T: DRO<ND
OF PRS!RIPTION "!'<S T: RSPONDNT, 7OS ". TIOND!O, "IND '
8'?1R 'ND "IND '?'R OF PTITIONR2S O?NRS:IP OF T: 8OTS IN
G<STION, T: S'ID 'FFID'VIT OF 'D7<DI!'TION M'HS T: RSPONDNT
'N IMP8ID TR<ST T:ROF FOR T: PTITIONR 'ND T: '!TION FOR
R!ONV1'N! "'SD ON TR<ST DOS NOT PRS!RI" SO 8OND 'S T:
"NFI!I'R1 8IH T: PTITIONR :'S "N IN '!T<'8 P:1SI!'8
POSSSSION OF T: PROPRT1 S<"7!T T:ROF, 'S :8D IN T: !'S OF
VD'. D !'"RR' VS. !O<RT OF 'PP'8S (+35 S!R' ..@).
+&
The onl# issue in this case is $ho has a better ri*ht over the properties.
The petition is 0eritorious.
The !ourt a*rees $ith the !'2s disAuisition that an action for reconve#ance can indeed be
barred b# prescription. In a lon* line of cases decided b# this !ourt, $e ruled that an action for
reconve#ance based on i0plied or constructive trust 0ust perforce prescribe in ten (/-) #ears
fro0 the issuance of the Torrens title over the propert#.
+3
:o$ever, there is an eBception to this rule. In the case of :eirs of Po0posa Saludares v. !ourt
of 'ppeals,
+5
the !ourt reiteratin* the rulin* in Millena v. !ourt of 'ppeals,
+,
held that there is but
one instance $hen prescription cannot be invo9ed in an action for reconve#ance, that is, $hen
the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconve#ed. In :eirs of Po0posa Saludares,
+@
this
!ourt eBplained that the !ourt in a series of cases,
.-
has per0itted the filin* of an action for
reconve#ance despite the lapse of 0ore than ten (/-) #ears fro0 the issuance of title to the land
and declared that said action, $hen based on fraud, is i0prescriptible as lon* as the land has not
passed to an innocent bu#er for value. "ut in all those cases, the co00on factual bac9drop $as
that the re*istered o$ners $ere never in possession of the disputed propert#. The eBception $as
based on the theor# that re*istration proceedin*s could not be used as a shield for fraud or for
enrichin* a person at the eBpense of another.
In 'lfredo v. "orras,
./
the !ourt ruled that prescription does not run a*ainst the plaintiff in actual
possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a ri*ht to $ait until his possession is
disturbed or his title is Auestioned before initiatin* an action to vindicate his ri*ht. :is undisturbed
possession *ives hi0 the continuin* ri*ht to see9 the aid of a court of eAuit# to deter0ine the
nature of the adverse clai0 of a third part# and its effect on his title. The !ourt held that $here
the plaintiff in an action for reconve#ance re0ains in possession of the sub4ect land, the action
for reconve#ance beco0es in effect an action to Auiet title to propert#, $hich is not sub4ect to
prescription.
The !ourt reiterated such rule in the case of Vda. de !abrera v. !ourt of 'ppeals,
.+
$herein $e
ruled that the i0prescriptibilit# of an action for reconve#ance based on i0plied or constructive
trust applies onl# $hen the plaintiff or the person enforcin* the trust is not in possession of the
propert#. In effect, the action for reconve#ance is an action to Auiet the propert# title, $hich does
not prescribe.
Si0ilarl#, in the case of David v. Mala#
..
the !ourt held that there $as no doubt about the fact
that an action for reconve#ance based on an i0plied trust ordinaril# prescribes in ten (/-) #ears.
This rule assu0es, ho$ever, that there is an actual need to initiate that action, for $hen the ri*ht
of the true and real o$ner is reco*ni;ed, eBpressl# or i0plicitl# such as $hen he re0ains
undisturbed in his possession, the statute of li0itation $ould #et be irrelevant. 'n action for
reconve#ance, if nonetheless brou*ht, $ould be in the nature of a suit for Auietin* of title, or its
eAuivalent, an action that is i0prescriptible. In that case, the !ourt reiterated the rulin* in Fa4a v.
!ourt of 'ppeals
.%
$hich $e Auote6
B B B There is settled 4urisprudence that one $ho is in actual possession of a piece of land
clai0in* to be o$ner thereof 0a# $ait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attac9ed
before ta9in* steps to vindicate his ri*ht, the reason for the rule bein*, that his undisturbed
possession *ives hi0 a continuin* ri*ht to see9 the aid of a court of eAuit# to ascertain and
deter0ine the nature of the adverse clai0 of a third part# and its effect on his o$n title, $hich
ri*ht can be clai0ed onl# b# one $ho is in possession. No better situation can be conceived at
the 0o0ent for <s to appl# this rule on eAuit# than that of herein petitioners $hose 0other,
Felipa Fa4a, $as in possession of the liti*ated propert# for no less than .- #ears and $as
suddenl# confronted $ith a clai0 that the land she had been occup#in* and cultivatin* all these
#ears, $as titled in the na0e of a third person. ?e hold that in such a situation the ri*ht to Auiet
title to the propert#, to see9 its reconve#ance and annul an# certificate of title coverin* it, accrued
onl# fro0 the ti0e the one in possession $as 0ade a$are of a clai0 adverse to his o$n, and it is
onl# then that the statutor# period of prescription co00ences to run a*ainst such possessor.1avvphi 1
In this case, petitioner2s possession $as disturbed in /@,. $hen respondent 7ose filed a case for
recover# of possession.
.&
The RT! of Iloilo !it# ruled in respondent 7ose2s favor but the !' on
Nove0ber +,, /@@/, durin* the pendenc# of the present controvers# $ith the court a Auo, ruled
in favor of petitioner.
.3
Petitioner never lost possession of the said properties, and as such, she is
in a position to file the co0plaint $ith the court a Auo to protect her ri*hts and clear $hatever
doubts has been cast on her title b# the issuance of T!Ts in respondent 7ose2s na0e.
The !ourt further observes that the circuitous sale transactions of these properties fro0
respondent 7ose to !atalino Torre, then to 'ntonio Doronila, 7r., and bac9 a*ain to respondent
7ose $ere Auite unusual. :o$ever, this successive transfers of title fro0 one hand to another
could not cleanse the ille*alit# of respondent 7ose2s act of ad4udicatin* to hi0self all of the
disputed properties so as to entitle hi0 to the protection of the la$ as a bu#er in *ood faith.
Respondent 7ose hi0self ad0itted that there eBists other heirs of the re*istered o$ners in the
O!Ts. ven the RT! found that >ItJhese alle*ations contained in the 'ffidavit of 'd4udication
eBecuted b# defendant 7ose ". Tion*co are false because defendant 7ose ". Tion*co is not the
onl# survivin* heir of 7ose Tion*co, Matilde Tion*co, Vicente Tion*co and Felipe Tion*co as the
latters have other children and *randchildren $ho are also their survivin* heirs.>
.5
In the case of Sandoval v. !ourt of 'ppeals,
.,
the !ourt defined an innocent purchaser for value
as one $ho bu#s propert# of another, $ithout notice that so0e other person has a ri*ht to, or
interest in, such propert# and pa#s a full and fair price for the sa0e, at the ti0e of such purchase,
or before he has notice of the clai0 or interest of so0e other persons in the propert#. :e is one
$ho bu#s the propert# $ith the belief that the person fro0 $ho0 he receives the thin* $as the
o$ner and could conve# title to the propert#. ' purchaser can not close his e#es to facts $hich
should put a reasonable 0an on his *uard and still clai0 that he acted in *ood faith.
'nd $hile it is settled that ever# person dealin* $ith a propert# re*istered under the Torrens title
need not inAuire further but onl# has to rel# on the title, this rule has an eBception. The eBception
is $hen the part# has actual 9no$led*e of facts and circu0stances that $ould i0pel a
reasonabl# cautious 0an to 0a9e such inAuir# or $hen the purchaser has so0e 9no$led*e of a
defect or the lac9 of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonabl# prudent 0an to
inAuire into the status of the title of the propert# in liti*ation. The presence of an#thin* $hich
eBcites or arouses suspicion should then pro0pt the vendee to loo9 be#ond the certificate and
investi*ate the title of the vendor appearin* on the face of said certificate. One $ho falls $ithin
the eBception can neither be deno0inated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in
*ood faith and hence does not 0erit the protection of the la$.
.@
In this case, $hen the sub4ect properties $ere sold to !atalino Torre and subseAuentl# to
Doronila, respondent 7ose $as not in possession of the said properties. Such fact should have
put the vendees on *uard and should have inAuired on the interest of the respondent 7ose
re*ardin* the sub4ect properties.
%-
"ut re*ardless of such defect on transfer to third persons, the
properties a*ain reverted bac9 to respondent 7ose. Respondent 7ose cannot clai0 lac9 of
9no$led*e of the defects surroundin* the cancellation of the O!Ts over the properties and
benefit fro0 his fraudulent actions. The subseAuent sale of the properties to !atalino Torre and
Doronila $ill not cure the nullit# of the certificates of title obtained b# respondent 7ose on the
basis of the false and fraudulent 'ffidavit of 'd4udication.
-.ERE/ORE, the petition for revie$ on certiorari is DR'NTD. The 'u*ust +,, +--. Decision
and Nove0ber +5, +--. Resolution of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'CD.R. !V No. %%5@% are hereb#
RVRSD and ST 'SID. The Re*ister of Deeds of Iloilo !it# is ordered to RSTOR
Ori*inal !ertificates of Title Nos. %,%, /%,+, and .3,, respectivel# coverin* 8ots .+%%, /%-% and
.+%3, under the na0eKs of the re*istered ori*inal o$ners thereof.
Further0ore, respondent 'tt#. 7ose ". Tion*co is ORDRD to S:O? !'<S, $ithin ten (/-)
da#s fro0 notice hereof, $h# he should not be sanctioned as a 0e0ber of the bar for eBecutin*
the 'pril /5, /@5% 'ffidavit of 'd4udication and re*isterin* the sa0e $ith the Re*ister of Deeds.
No pronounce0ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
MARTIN S. ,ILLARAMA, *R.
'ssociate 7ustice