Bar Exam Question Related to Quieting of Title

1.
Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which is bounded on the north by the
Maragondon River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares was added to the
registered area. Daniel took possession of the portion formed by accretion and
claims that he has been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession ofsaid
portion since 1923 as shown by a tax declaration. In 1958, Benjamin filed a
Complaint for Quieting of Title and contends that the alluvium belongs to him as
the riparian owner and that since the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the
registered property, the same may be considered as registered property. Decide
the case and explain. (5%)
2
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a five-star hotel in New York,
U.S.A., entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration,
under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year
later, Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the
land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his Deweys
name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent
purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel
of land against Huey.
(a) Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy?
(b) Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the action prosper if
the case was filed beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry of the
decree of registration? 5%
Suggested Answer:
(a) An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper remedy, because
Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go
after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent
sale of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim against the
Assurance Fund (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000] citing
Sps.
Eduarte v. CA, 323 Phil. 462, 467 [1996]).
(b) Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes in ten (10) years,
not within one (1) year when a petition for the reopening of the registration
decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to
reopen the decree of registration (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. 49 [1910}).
There is no need to reopen the registration proceedings, but the property should
just be reconveyed to the real owner.
The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust, which
prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the original certificate of
title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is
the plaintiff who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance would
be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the title which action is imprescriptible
(David v. Malay, 318 SCRA 711 [1999]).

3
Juan and his sister Juana inherited from their mother two parcels of farmland with
exactly the same areas. For convenience, the Torrens certificates of title covering
both lots were placed in Juan's name alone. In 1996, Juan sold to an innocent
purchaser one parcel in its entirety without the knowledge and consent of Juana,
and wrongfully kept for himself the entire price paid.
1. What rights of action, if any, does Juana have against and/or the buyer? |3%]
2. Since the two lots have the same area, suppose Juana flies a complaint to have
herself declared sole owner of the entire remaining second lot, contending that
her brother had forfeited his share thereof by wrongfully disposing of her
undivided share in the first lot. Will the suit prosper? [2%]
Suggested Answer
Under Article 476 of the Civil Code, Juana can file an action for quieting of title as
there is a cloud in the title to the subject real property. Second, Juana can also file
an action for damages against Juan, because the settled rule is that the proper
recourse of the true owner of the property who was prejudiced and fraudulently
dispossessed of the same is to bring an action for damages against those who
caused or employed the same. Third, since Juana had the right to her share in the
property by way of inheritance, she can demand the partition of the thing owned
in common, under Article 494 of the Civil Code, and ask that the title to the
remaining property be declared as exclusively hers. However, since the farmland
was sold to an innocent purchaser for value, then Juana has no cause of action
against the buyer consistent with the established rule that the rights of an
innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected notwithstanding
the fraud employed by the seller in securing his title. (Eduarte vs. CA, 253 SCRA
391)