12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

TodayisSunday,December14,2014

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.161211July17,2013
SPOUSESCELSODICO,SR.ANDANGELESDICO,Petitioners,
vs.
VIZCAYAMANAGEMENTCORPORATION,Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN,J.:
Theprescriptionofactionsforthereconveyanceofrealpropertybasedonimpliedtrustis10years.
TheCase
ThisappealbypetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekstosetasidetheadversedecisionpromulgatedonSeptember
11,2002,1wherebytheCourtofAppeals(CA)reversedthedecisionrenderedbytheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)of
NegrosOccidentalinfavorofpetitioners.
Antecedents
CelsoDicowastheregisteredownerofLotNo.486oftheCadizCadastre,comprisinganareaof67,300square
metersandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.22922ofthelandrecordsofNegrosOccidental.Lot
No.486wasadjacenttoLotNo.29BandLotNo.1412(formerlyLotNo.1118B),bothalsooftheCadizCadastre.
CelsoandhiswifeAngelesresidedonLotNo.486since1958.OnMay30,1964,AngelesfiledintheDistrictOffice
oftheBureauofLandsinBacolodCity,herfreepatentapplicationcoveringaportionofLotNo.29B.Onhispart,
CelsoalsofiledinthesameofficeanapplicationforfreepatentcoveringLotNo.1412.Itdoesnotappear,however,
thattheBureauofLandsactedontheirapplications.2
RespondentVizcayaManagementCorporation(VMC)wastheregisteredownerunderTCTNo.T41835ofLotNo.
29B,alsooftheCadizCadastre,comprisinganareaof369,606squaremeters,moreorless.3VMCderiveditstitle
to Lot No. 29B from Eduardo and Cesar, both surnamed Lopez, the registered owners under TCT No. T14827,
whichemanatedfromTCTNo.RT9933(16739)inthenamesofVictoria,EduardoandCesar,allsurnamedLopez.
TCT No. RT9933 (16739) was a transfer from TCT No. T14281, which had been transferred from Original
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 21331 in the name of Negros Philippines Lumber Company. OCT No. 21331 was
issuedpursuanttoDecreeNo.190483ofG.L.R.O.CadastralRecordNo.196.
VMC likewise claimed to be the owner of Lot No. 1412, formerly known as Lot No. 1118B, also of the Cadiz
Cadastre,containinganareaof85,239squaremeters,moreorless,andregisteredinitsnameunderTCTNo.T
41834.4
LotNos.1426B,withanareaof6,635squaremeterscoveredbyTCTNo.T24135,and1426C,withanareaof
6,107 square meters covered by TCT No. T24136, appear to be registered in the names of Eduardo Lopez and
CesarLopez,whohadearlierformedVMC.
In1967,VMC,thennewlyformed,causedtheconsolidationandsubdivisionofLotNo.29B,LotNo.1412,LotNo.
1426B,andLotNo.1426C.TheconsolidationsubdivisionplanwaspreparedbyEngr.RicardoQuilopandfiledin
theLandRegistrationCommission(LRC),renamedNationalLandTitlesandDeedsRegistrationAdministration,but
presentlyknownastheLandRegistrationAuthority.Theconsolidationsubdivisionplanwasassignedthenumber
(LRC)PCS6611.OnJuly26,1967,LRCCommissionerAntonioL.Noblejasapprovedtheconsolidationsubdivision
plan, resulting in Lot No. 29B, Lot No. 1412, Lot No. 1426B, and Lot No. 1426C being consolidated and
subdividedasfollows:LotNo.1withanareaof238,518squaremetersunderTCTNo.T47854LotNo.2withan
areaof216,176squaremetersunderTCTNo.T47855LotNo.3withanareaof11,496squaremetersunderTCT
No. T47856 and Lot No. 4 with an area of 15,392 square meters under TCT No. T47857.5 In all, the total
landholdingofVMCaftertheconsolidationwas481,583squaremeters.
VMC proceeded to develop the Don Eusebio Subdivision project using Lot No. 1 of the consolidationsubdivision
plan under (LRC) PCS6611. The subdivision plan under PSD102560 subdivided Lot No. 1 into 547 small lots.
Subsequently,VMCalsodevelopedtheCristinaVillageSubdivisionprojectusingLotsNos.2,3,and4under(LRC)
PCS6611.UnderPSD12746ofthesubdivisionplanforCristinaVillageSubdivision,consolidatedLotsNos.2,3,
and4weresubdividedinto348smalllots.Starting1971,VMCsoldlotsinitsDonEusebioSubdivisionandCristina
VillageSubdivision.
In 1981, VMC filed against the Dicos a complaint for unlawful detainer in the City Court of Cadiz (Civil Case No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

1/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

649). On April 24, 1981, the City Court of Cadiz rendered its decision in favor of VMC, ordering the Dicos to
demolishtheconcretewatergateorsluicegate(locallyknownastrampahan)locatedinsideLotNo.1,Block3of
the Cristina Village Subdivision. Inasmuch as the Dicos did not appeal, the decision attained finality. On July 3,
1981,theCityCourtofCadizissuedawritofexecution.OnNovember11,1985,asecondaliaswritofexecution
wasissued.
On May 12, 1986, the Dicos commenced an action for the annulment and cancellation of the titles of VMC (Civil
Case No. 180C), impleading VMC, the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration, and the
Director of the Bureau of Lands. On March 12, 1987, the Dicos amended the complaint. They averred, among
others, that they were the registered owners of Lot No. 486 and the possessorsbysuccession of Lot No. 1412
(formerlyLotNo.1118)andLotNo.489thatVMChadlandgrabbedaportionoftheirLotNo.486totaling111,966
squaremetersallegedlybroughtaboutbytheexpansionofCristinaVillageSubdivisionandthatonMay30,1964
theyhadfiledfreepatentapplicationsintheBureauofLandsforLotNo.1412andLotNo.489.6Theyprayedthat
thepossessionofLotNo.486,LotNo.1412,andLotNo.489berestoredtothemandthatthejudgmentinCivil
CaseNo.649beannulled.
Celso died during the pendency of the action, and was substituted by Angeles and their children pursuant to the
orderofNovember22,1991.
RulingoftheRTC
OnJanuary8,1998,theRTCruledinfavoroftheDicos,viz:
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgement is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the
defendantsinthiswise:
1.Theplaintiffsareherebydeclaredabsoluteownersofthe111,959squaremeterportionofLot486andthe
defendantVizcayaManagementCorporation,itsagent,representativesandanypersonsactinginitsbehalf
areherebyorderedtopeacefullyvacatethesaidpremisesandtoturnoverthepossessionofthe111,959
squaremeters,aportionofLot486CadizCadastre,infavoroftheplaintiffs
2.TheCertificateofTitlesfromRT9933(16739)andallothertitlesderivedtherefromareallherebydeclared
spuriousandorderedcancelled
3.ThatdefendantVizcayaManagementCorporationisherebyorderedtopayplaintiffsP3,000.00asmonthly
rental on the 111, 959 square meters, portion of Lot 486, Cadiz Cadastre, which the defendant Vizcaya
ManagementCorporationhadoccupiedfromMay12,1986untiltheplaintiffspropertyisfullyrestoredtothe
latter
4. That defendant Vizcaya Management Corporation is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P100,000.00 by way of attorneys fees and P100,000.00 by way of moral damages and P50,000.00 for
exemplarydamages
5.ThatdefendantNationalLandTitlesandDeedsAdministrationisherebyorderedtomakethenecessary
rectificationonthetitlesofthedefendants
6. The Solicitor General is hereby directed to look into the possibility of reversion of Lots 29A, 29B and
1412,CadizCadastreinfavoroftheGovernmentandinitiatetheEscheatproceedingsthereon
7.Thecounterclaimsofthedefendantsareordereddismissedand
8.Defendantstopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.7
RulingoftheCA
Onappeal,VMCassignedthefollowingerrors,towit:
I
THETRIALCOURTERREDINNOTDISMISSINGPLAINTIFFSCOMPLAINTFORBEINGBARRED
BYPRESCRIPTIONAND/ORLACHESANDFORLACKOFCAUSEOFACTION.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CAPRICIOUSLY DISREGARDING THE CONCLUSIVENESS AND
INDEFEASIBILITY OF THE SUBJECT CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AND IN IGNORING WELL
ENTRENCHED DOCTRINES, PRINCIPLES AND PRESUMPTIONS OF REGULARITY AND
VALIDITYATTENDANTTOTHEIRISSUANCES.
III
THETRIALCOURTERREDINHOLDINGTHATINTHECONSOLIDATIONANDSUBDIVISIONOF
THE LOTS COMPRISING THE EUSEBIO AND CRISTINA SUBDIVISIONS, VMC UNJUSTIFIABLY
INCREASEDTHEAREAOFLOTNO.29BANDENCROACHEDONLOT486.
IV

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

2/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

THETRIALCOURTERREDINHOLDINGTHATLOTNOS.29BAND1412REVERTEDBACK(sic)
TOTHEGOVERNMENTANDINDIRECTINGTHESOLICITORGENERALTOINITIATEESCHEAT
PROCEEDINGSTHEREON.
V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ("TCT")
NO. RT9933 (EXHIBIT "K") IS A SPURIOUS TITLE AND IN ORDERING SAID TITLE, AND ALL
TITLESDERIVEDTHEREFROM,CANCELLED.
VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THERE WAS FRAUD IN VMCS ACQUISITION OF
LOTNOS.29BAND1412.
VII
THETRIALCOURTERREDINNOTFINDINGTHATTHEDESIGNATIONOFLOTNO.1246BAND
1246C IN THE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TITLES OF LOT NOS. 1 TO 4 IS MERELY
TYPROGRAPHICALERROR.
VIII
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING VMC TO PAY RENTALS, DAMAGES AND COSTS TO
PLAINTIFFSANDINDISMISSINGTHECOUNTERCLAIMSPLEADEDBYVMC.8
Asearliermentioned,theCAreversedtheRTCthroughitsdecisionpromulgatedonSeptember11,2002,9rulingas
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and finding the appeal impressed with merit, the same is hereby
GRANTED.TheDecisiondatedJanuary8,1998ofBranch60oftheRegionalTrialCourtofNegrosOccidentalin
CivilCaseNo.180CisherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE,andanewjudgmentisherebyrenderedasfollows:
1.CivilCaseNo.180CisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
2. Defendantappellant Vizcaya Management Corporation is declared the absolute owner of Lot No. 29B
underTCTNo.T41835.
3. Defendantappellant Vizcaya Management Corporation is declared the absolute owner of Lot No. 1412
underTCTNo.T41834.
4.OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.21331andTransferCertificateofTitleNo.RT9933(16739)aredeclared
validandgenuine
5.PlaintiffsappelleesAngelesDico,etal.aredeclaredtheabsoluteownersofLotNo.486underTCTNo.T
22922
6. The Decision dated April 24, 1981 of the City Court of Cadiz in Civil Case No. 649 is hereby declared
VALIDandUPHELDand
7.Nocost.
SOORDERED.10
OnOctober7,2003,theCAdeniedtheDicosmotionforreconsideration.11
Issues
Hence,thisappeal,whereintheDicoscontendthattheCAerredinholdingthatprescriptionand/orlachesalready
barredthemfromassertingtheirright12inacceptingthetheoryofVMCthattheconsolidationofLotNo.1246Band
LotNo.1246Chadresultedfromamerelytypographicalerror13inreversingthedecisionoftheRTCdespiteits
finding that VMC had committed land grabbing14 and in reversing the RTC based on nonexisting evidence that
wascontradictedbytheevidenceonrecords.15
In its comment,16 VMC counters that the petition for review should not be given due course because petitioners
cametocourtwithuncleanhandsthatthepetitionwasfiledoutoftimeevenwiththeextensiongivenbytheCourt
thatthepetitionwasfatallydefectiveinformandinsubstanceandthatthedismissalofthecomplaintwasinaccord
withapplicablelawsandjurisprudence.
In their reply,17 the Dicos reiterate that the findings and conclusions of the RTC were supported by evidence
establishingfraud,encroachmentandotheranomaliesperpetratedbyVMCthattherulesofproceduremustnotbe
rigidlyappliedtooverridesubstantialjusticeandthatVMCcouldnotvalidlyinvoketheindefeasibilityofitstitlesto
defeattheirrightovertheencroachedland.
The decisive issue is whether prescription already barred petitioners cause of action. All the other issues are
subsumedtherein.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

3/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

Ruling
WefindandholdthattheactionoftheDicosforreconveyancewasproperlydismissed.
Tostartwith,theCAsexplanationsforreversingtheRTCwereverythorough,wellfoundedandwellreasoned,to
wit:
GrantingarguendothatfraudintervenedintheprocurementoftheCertificatesofTitletoLotNo.29Bandplaintiffs
appelleeshadthepersonalitytoseekthereconveyancethereofonthebasisofimpliedorconstructivetrust,their
complaintfiledonMay12,1986,orabout29yearsaftertheissuanceofthecertificateoftitletodefendantappellant,
indeedcametoolate.TheyweredeemedtohavediscoveredthefraudasearlyasSeptember20,1934whenTCT
No.RT9933(16739)oftheLopezeswasrecordedoronNovember10,1956whenTCTNo.T41835ofdefendant
appellant was registered. Their right to seek reconveyance of a portion of Lot No. 29B, if it existed at all, had
alreadyprescribed.
Plaintiffsappellees also contend that defendantappellant secured its Certificate of Title to Lot No. 1412 through
fraud.TheycontendthatCelsoDicohadfiledwiththeBureauofLandshisFreePatentApplication(Exh."D",pp.
733735,RecordsVol.3)withrespecttoLotNo.1412.Ontheotherhand,theevidenceonrecordshowsthatLot
No. 1412, formerly Lot No. 1118B, appears to have been already registered in the name of defendantappellant
underTCTNo.T41834(Exh."11").
We fail to see the fraud allegedly committed by defendantappellant in securing its Certificate of Title to Lot No.
1412.IntheirvainefforttoshowthatCelsoDicofiledaFreePatentApplicationforLotNo.1412,plaintiffsappellees
presentedhisallegedFreePatentApplication,Exhibit"D".SaidExhibit"D",however,iswithoutevidentiaryweight
since while the name of plaintiffappellee Angeles Dico, as applicant therein, appears in the Application for Free
Patent,theJointAffidavitinsupportthereof,andNoticeofApplicationforFreePatent,thesignatureofoneCelso
Dicowasonlyclearlysuperimposedthereontomakeitappearhewastheapplicant.Exhibit"D"is,infact,aforged
document.
Thus,thecourtaquoerredwhenitconcludedthatdefendantappellantstitletoLotNo.1412camefromadoubtful
source. There is no evidence on record that clearly showed the fraud allegedly employed by defendantappellant
whenitsecureditstitletoLotNo.1412.Moreover,plaintiffsappelleeshavenotestablishedtheirpersonalitytoseek
thereconveyanceofLotNo.1412astheyarenottheregisteredownersthereof.
In fine, Lots Nos. 29B and 1412 did not revert to the government, as they are already the private properties of
defendantappellantcorporation.
Anent the issue of encroachment on Lot No. 486 by defendantappellant, the court a quo found that defendant
appellantencroachedonLot486whenitconsolidatedandsubdividedthecontestedlots.
Thecourtaquoruled,thus:
"From the evidence presented as revealed by the records of the case, this Court is of the judicious finding that
defendantViscaya(sic)hadencroachedonlot486consideringthatevenifitclaimsithasatitleoverlot29B,stillit
had exceeded its area of possession over lot 29B. Exhibits "J", "K" and "L" reveal that lot 29B only contains an
area of 369,606 square meters, however, when defendant Vizcaya caused the consolidation of their lots the total
areawhichissupposedtobe369,606squaremeterswasincreased.Basingondefendantsexhibits"3"to"6"this
CourtfindsthatTCTNo.1735(lot1)hasanareaof238,518squaremeters,TCTNo.1736(Lot2),216,176square
meters,TCTNo.1737(Lot3)11,496squaremetersandTCTNo.1738,15,392squaremeterswhichwhenadded
together will sum up to a total of 481,582 square meters, clearly exceeding the original area of 369,606 square
metersappearinganddescribedin
Exhibits"J":,"K"and"L".
"Likewise, this Court further finds after an exhausted (sic) examination of the records, that defendant Vizcaya
increasedtheareaontheplanofCristinaVillageSubdivisionwhichisLot2contrarytowhatiscontainedinTCTNo.
1736(Exhibits"P1"and"4")containinganareaofonly216,176squaremeters.
"The increase in area in the title of defendant Vizcaya is 111,976 square meters. This area was taken from the
portionofLot486oftheplaintiffscoveredbyTCTNo.T22922(Exh."E")andwhichwasderivedfromOCTNo.0
3146 (21337) adjacent to Lot 29B (Exh. "J") and later became Lot 2 covered by TCT No. (T47855) 1736, Lot 1
coveredbyTCTNo.(T47854)1735(Exh."P")Lot3coveredbyTCTNo.(T47856)1737(Exh."P2")andLot4
coveredbyTCTNo.(T47857)1738(Exh."P3").TothemindofthisCourt,theintrustion(sic)ofthedefendants
over the area of Lot 486 is a clear and willful manipulation hatched between defendant Vizcaya and its surveyor
withoutregardtotheexistingtechnicaland(sic)descriptionsoftheadjacentlot,particularlythelotbelongingtothe
plaintiffs.Uponcloseexaminationofalltheevidenceonrecord,itappearsthatthemethodandschemeemployedin
ordertohideandconfusetheincreaseintheareawastoconsolidatelots29B,1246B,1246Cand1412andthen
subdivide these lots into several parts to become lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 with its corresponding titles, technical
descriptionsandalreadycontainingvariablebutincreasedareascannolongerbeascertainedorifascertainedthe
samecanbedonewithgreaterdifficultyastheonetaskedtounraveltheseconfusingmazes(sic)oflotswillhaveto
digdeepintothehistoryoftheoriginaltitles.WhatthisCourtfindsamusing,however,isthefactthatLots1246B
and 1246C were consolidated with Lots 29B and 1412 which former lots are located in Barangay Tinampaan,
CadizCitywhileLots29Band1412arelocatedintheCityProperandarenonadjacentorcontigeous(sic)lots.
"The claim of the defendants that the plaintiffs cannot establish a better right or title to real properties over and
aboveavalidandexistingtitle,cannotbegivencredencebythisCourtconsideringthatatorrenstitlecannotcover
fraud,andmoreparticularlyso,becauseLot486isalsotitledpropertyregisteredinthenameoftheplaintiffDico."
(pp.3031,Decisionpp.7980,Rollo)

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

4/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

Wedonotagreewiththeabovefindingsofthecourtaquo.Thedocumentaryevidencefoundintherecordsreveals
thatdefendantappellanthadtwolotstitledinitsname,namely:LotNo.29Bcomprisinganareaof369,606square
meters,containingidenticaltechnicaldescriptionasappearinginplaintiffsappelleesExhs."J","K"and"L"andLot
No.1412,formerly1118B,comprisinganareaof85,239squaremeterscoveredbyTCTNo.T41834(Exh."11").
Further, Eduardo and Cesar Lopez were the registered owners of Lot No. 1426B comprising an area of 6,635
square meters, covered by TCT No. T21435 (Exh. "9") and Lot No. 1426C comprising an area of 6,107 square
meters,coveredbyTCTNo.T21436(Exh."10").Ascontendedbydefendantappellant,itcausedtheconsolidation
andsubdivisionofthesefourlotsfollowingtheapprovedconsolidationsubdivisionplan(Exh."7",p.958,Records
Vol. 4) it submitted to the then Land Registration Commission. The said approved consolidationsubdivision plan
was assigned the number (LRC) PCS6611. Hence, adding the land area of the four consolidated lots, the total
landholding of defendantappellant after the approved consolidationsubdivision plan would be 467,587 square
metersonly,thus:
LotNo.AreainSquareMeters
LotNo.29B369,606squaremeters
LotNo.141285,239squaremeters
LotNo.1426B6,635squaremeters
LotNo.1426C6,107squaremeters
Total467,587squaremeters
Defendantappellants approved consolidationsubdivision plan (Exh. "7") reveals that it was a consolidation
subdivisionofLotsNos.29B(Exh."L"Exh."8"),PSD55731426B(Exh."9")&1426C(Exh."10"),PSD44080,
and1412(Exh."11"),allofCadizCadastre,whichcontainedatotalareaof481,583squaremeters.However,the
totallandareaofthefourconsolidatedlotsasaddedaboveisonly467,587squaremeters.Clearly,thereexistsan
excessof13,996squaremeters,whichwasincludedintheapprovedconsolidationsubdivisionplanofdefendant
appellant. Worth noting is the fact that defendantappellants approved consolidationsubdivision plan contained a
handwrittenentrywhichstatedthatthe"xxxareaisincreasedby13996sq.m"(Exh."7",p.958,RecordsVol.4).
Thus, the court a quo erred when it concluded that there was an excess of 111,959 square meters in defendant
appellantslandholdings.Weagreewiththecontentionofdefendantappellantthatthebasisforcomputingitstotal
landholdingshouldnotbelimitedtothelandareaofLotNo.29Bsincethree(3)otherindividuallotswereincluded
intheconsolidationsubdivisionsurvey.TheevidenceonrecordrevealsthatLotsNos.1412,1426Band1426C
wereincludedintheapprovedconsolidationsubdivisionplan(Exh."7").
Further, the Trial Courts finding that defendantappellant encroached by 111,959 square meters on Lot 486
belongingtoplaintiffsappelleesfindsnojustifiablesupportfromtheevidenceonrecord.LotNo.486underTCTNo.
T22922(Exh."E",p.736,RecordsVol.3)inthenameofCelsoDicocontainedanareaof67,300squaremeters
only. Following the Trial Courts reasoning, defendantappellant shall return to plaintiffsappellees 111,959 square
metersitallegedlylandgrabbedfromLotNo.486.Thus,LotNo.486wouldnowcontainanareaof179,259square
meters, substantially increased by 111,959 square meters which is clearly beyond what is stated in TCT No. T
22922.
AsWehavefoundearlier,theexcessindefendantappellantslandholdingisonly13,996squaremeters.
It is likewise the contention of plaintiffsappellees that PCS6611 does not exist in the records of the then Land
Registration Commission, as evidenced by the Certifications (Exhs. "Q" and "R", pp. 758758A, Records Vol. 3)
issuedbytheSubdivisionandConsolidationDivision,VaultSectionI,LandRegistrationAuthority.
Thecourtaquoruled:
"x x x. Thus, the defendants failed to overcome the preponderance of evidence presented by the plaintiffs,
particularlyonCertifications(Exhs."Q"and"R")certifyingtotheeffectthatPcs6611isnotexistingxxx"(p.34,
Decision).
We cannot agree with conclusion of the court a quo. The evidence on record clearly reveals that defendant
appellant presented a copy of the approved consolidationsubdivision plan (Exh. "7") prominently showing the
number (LRC) PCS6611 assigned by the Land Registration Commission, which is located at the bottomright
portionofthedocument.TheCertifications(Exhs."Q"and"R")issuedbythethenLandRegistrationAuthorityare
not conclusive proof of the nonexistence of the original of the consolidationsubdivision plan (LRC) PCS6611
togetherwithallthesurveyrecordspertainingthereto.Ascorrectlypointedoutbydefendantappellant,theperson
whoissuedsaidcertificationswasnotpresentedincourttoidentifyandaffirmtheveracityoftheircontents.Thus,as
betweentheapprovedconsolidationsubdivisionplan(Exh."7")andthecertifications(Exhs."Q"and"R"),theformer
carriesgreaterevidentiaryweight.
Grantingarguendothatnorecordspertainingto(LRC)PCS6611couldbefoundintheVaultSectionofthethen
LandRegistrationCommission,theexistenceof(LRC)PCS6611wasalreadyestablishedwiththepresentationin
evidenceofacopyofthesaidapprovedconsolidationsubdivisionplan(Exh."7")prominentlyreflectingthereinthe
number(LRC)PCS6611assignedbytheLandRegistrationCommission.Theauthenticityandexistenceof(LRC)
PCS6611 within the records of the Land Registration Commission (now Land Registration Authority) was
establishedbythefactthatitwasusedasabasisfortheapprovaloftheconsolidationsubdivisionplanfortheDon
Eusebio Subdivision under (LRC) PSD102560 (Exh. "14", "14A", "14B", pp. 983985, Records, Vol. 4) and
CristinaVillageSubdivisionunder(LRC)PCS12746(Exh."16",p.982,Records,Vol.4).InExhibits"14"and"16",
(LRC)PCS6611wasclearlyreflectedasthesourceoftheconsolidatedlots.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

5/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

Lastly, defendantappellant contends that the court a quo erred in finding that there was no typographical error
committedindesignatingLotsNos.1246Band1246Cinsteadof1426Band1426C,respectively,initsapproved
consolidationsubdivisionplan.
Thecourtaquoruled:
"xxx.WhatthisCourtfindsamusing,however,isthefactthatLots1246Band1246CwereconsolidatedwithLots
29B and 1412 which former lots are located in Barangay Tinampaan, Cadiz City while Lots 29B and 1412 are
locatedintheCityProperandarenonadjacentorcontigeous(sic)lots.
"xxxx
"Grantingarguendo,thatthedenominationofLots1246Band1246CaremerelytypographicalerrorsofLots1426
Band1426CasclaimedbydefendantVizcaya,thisCourt,uponjudiciousevaluationoftherecordscannotaccept
theargumentrelieduponbythedefendantssinceitisobviousfromtheevidencethatdefendantVizcayaemploysa
retained surveyor for purposes of their subdivision, and despite the technical knowledge of its surveyor it did not
bothertocorrecttheerrorifindeeditisone,onthelotssubjectmatterofthecase,buthadinvokedthesaidground
onlyduringthelitigationproper"(pp.3035,Decisionpp.179184,Rollo).
Defendantappellant contends that it failed to correct this typographical error as such fact came to its knowledge
onlyduringthetrialandtwoyearsafterissuanceofTCTNo.T4785457(Exhs."P","P1"to"P3"Exhs."3"to"6",
pp.750756RecordsVol.3),theseCertificatesofTitleweresubsequentlycancelledandnewTCTswereissued.
On the other hand, plaintiffsappellees contend that Lots Nos. 1246B and 1246C could not be possibly
consolidated with Lot No. 29B because the former lots were situated some 4 kilometers away from defendant
appellantssubdivisionarea,besidesbeingownedbyotherpersons.
Weagreewithdefendantappellant.
While we agree with plaintiffsappellees assertion that consolidation of noncontiguous and nonadjacent lots are
notpossibleespeciallysowhenthelotsaresituatedconsiderablyfarfromeachother,thecaseathanddoesnotfall
underthisscenario.Ascorrectlyexplainedbydefendantappellanttherewasatypographicalerrorinthetechnical
descriptionofitsconsolidatedlotsinthatwhatwasstatedthereinasincludedintheconsolidationplanwereLots
Nos.1246Band1246C,Psd44080,insteadofLotsNos.1426Band1426C,Psd44080.
Worthnotingarethetechnicaldescriptionofthesubjectlotsbeforeandaftertheirconsolidation.
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T24135(Exh."9")coveringLotNo.1426Breads:
"Aparcelofland(LotNo.1426BofthesubdivisionplanPsd44080,beingaportionofLot1426oftheCadastral
Survey of Cadiz, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 196), situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Cadiz, Province of
Negros Occidental, Bounded on the NE., by Lot 1426A of the subdivision plan on the SE., by Lot No. 1423 of
Cadiz,Cad.andontheSW.,byLot1426Cofthesubdivisionplan.xxx"
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T24136(Exh."10")coveringLotNo.1426Creads.
"Aparcelofland(LotNo.1426CofthesubdivisionplanPsd44080,beingaportionofLot1426oftheCadastral
Survey of Cadiz, G.L.R.O. Cad. Record No. 196), situated in the Poblacion, Municipality of Cadiz, Province of
NegrosOccidental,BoundedontheNE.,byLot1426BofthesubdivisionplanontheSE.,byLot1423ofCadiz
Cad.,andontheSW.,byCalleCabahug.xxx."
Ontheotherhand,thetechnicaldescriptionsofthepropertiescoveredbyTransferCertificatesofTitleNos.T47854
toT47857pertainingtoLotNos.1to4(Exhs."P","P1"to"P3)read:
TransferCertificationofTitleNo.T14754:
"Aparcelofland(Lot1oftheconsolidationsubdivisionplan(LRC)Pcs6611,beingaportionoftheconsolidationof
Lots29B,Psd5573,1246B,&1246C,Psd44080&1412,CadizCad.,LRC(GLRO)Cad.Rec.No.196),situated
in the City of Cadiz, Island of Negros x x x containing an area of two hundred thirtyeight thousand five hundred
eighteen(238,518)squaremeters,moreorless.xxx."
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T14755:
"Aparcelofland(Lot2oftheconsolidationsubdivisionplan(LRC)Pcs6611,beingaportionoftheconsolidationof
Lots29B,Psd5573,1246B,&1246C,Psd44080&1412,CadizCad.,LRC(GLRO)Cad.Rec.No.196,situated
in the City of Cadiz, Island of Negros x x x containing an area of TWO HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND ONE
HUNDREDSEVENTYSIX(216,176)SquareMeters,moreorless.xxx."
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T14756:
"Aparcelofland(Lot3oftheconsolidationsubdivisionplan(LRC)Pcs6611,beingaportionoftheconsolidationof
Lots29B,Psd5573,1246B,&1246C,Psd44080&1412,CadizCad.,LRC(GLRO)Cad.Rec.No.196),situated
intheCityofCadiz,IslandofNegrosxxxcontaininganareaofeleventhousandfourhundredninetysix(11,496)
squaremeters,moreorless.xxx."
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T14757:
"Aparcelofland(Lot4oftheconsolidationsubdivisionplan(LRC)Pcs6611,beingaportionoftheconsolidationof
Lots29B,Psd5573,1246B,&1246C,Psd44080&1412,CadizCad.,LRC(GLRO)Cad.Rec.No.196),situated
intheCityofCadiz,IslandofNegros.BoundedontheNE.,points31to1and1to6byLot1426A,Psd44080xxx

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

6/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

containinganareaoffifteenthousandthreehundredninetytwo(15,932)squaremeters,moreorless.xxx."
As can be gleaned clearly from the foregoing, Lots Nos. 1426B and 1426C came from Psd44080. In the same
waythatLotsNos.1246Band1246CcamefromPsd44080.Defendantappellantsubmittedacertifiedcopyofthe
CadastralMapofCadiz(Exh."12",p.986,RecordsVol.4)showingthatadjacenttoLotNo.29BwasLotNo.1426
and being continguous, these lots could be consolidated. Even plaintiffsappellees witness Engr. Luvimin Canoy
testifiedonthepossibilitythatatypographicalerrormighthavebeencommittedinlistingthelotnumbersinthetitle
(pp.3941,TSN,September9,1992).
TherewasnoevidencetotheeffectthatdefendantappellantcausedtheerroneousdesignationofLotsNos.1426B
and1426CasLotsNos.1246Band1246C,respectively,whenitconsolidatedtheselots.Theerrorindeedwas
onlytypographicalasthesubjectlotsallcamefromPsd44080.Intheabsenceofevidencethatdefendantappellant
employedfraudinconsolidatingtheselots,atypographicalerrorinthedesignationoflotnumbersintheCertificates
ofTitlewouldnotwarranttheircancellation.Anamendmentmaycuretheerror.Ithasbeenaptlyruledinonecase
that in the interest of justice and equity, the titleholder may not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the
mistake or negligence of the States agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest
damagetothirdpersons(Republicvs.CourtofAppeals,301SCRA366).18
WehaveexaminedthefactualbasesoftheCAinreachingitsdecision,andhavefoundthatitsaforequotedfindings
of fact and conclusions were based on the evidence presented at the trial. In view of this, the Court accepts the
findings of fact and conclusions of the CA, not just because we are not a trier of facts, but, more importantly,
becausetheCAcreditablyperformeditsmaintaskofconductingathoroughreviewoftheevidenceandrecordsof
thecaseinordertoeruditelyandcarefullyaddresseachoftheissuesraisedandarguedbytheDicos.
Secondly, the CA correctly pointed out that under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, the person obtaining property
throughmistakeorfraudisconsideredbyforceoflawatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofthepersonfrom
whom the property comes. Under Article 1144, Civil Code, an action upon an obligation created by law must be
broughtwithin10yearsfromthetimetherightofactionaccrues.Consequently,anactionforreconveyancebased
onimpliedorconstructivetrustprescribesin10years.
Here,theCAobservedthatevengrantingthatfraudintervenedintheissuanceofthetransfercertificatesoftitle,
andevenassumingthattheDicoshadthepersonalitytodemandthereconveyanceoftheaffectedpropertyonthe
basisofimpliedorconstructivetrust,thefilingoftheircomplaintforthatpurposeonlyonMay12,1986provedtoo
lateforthem.
Thatobservationwascorrectandinaccordwithlawandjurisprudence. Verily,thereckoningpointforpurposesof
theDicosdemandofreconveyancebasedonfraudwastheirdiscoveryofthefraud.Suchdiscoverywasproperly
pegged on the date of the registration of the transfer certificates of title in the adverse parties names, because
registrationwasaconstructivenoticetothewholeworld.19Thelongperiodof29yearsthathadmeanwhilelapsed
fromtheissuanceofthepertinenttransfercertificateoftitleonSeptember30,1934(thedateofrecordingofTCT
No.RT9933(16739)inthenameoftheLopezes)oronNovember10,1956(thedateofrecordingofTCTNo.T
41835inVMCsname)waswaybeyondtheprescriptiveperiodof10years.
1wphi1

And, lastly, the insistence of the Dicos that prescription could not be used by the CA to bar their claim for
reconveyancebyvirtueofVMCsfailuretoaverthemmamotiontodismissormtheanswerwasunwarranted.
We agree with VMC's contention to the contrary. Although defenses and objections not pleaded in a motion to
dismissorinanansweraredeemedwaived,itwasreallyincorrectfortheDicostoinsistthatprescriptioncouldnot
beappreciatedagainstthemforthatreason.TheirinsistencewascontrarytoSectionl,Rule9oftheRulesofCourt,
whichprovidesasfollows:
Section1.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleaded.Defensesandobjectionsnotpleadedeitherinamotiontodismiss
orintheansweraredeemedwaived.However,whenitappearsfromthepleadingsortheevidenceonrecordthat
thecourthasnojurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter,thatthereisanotheractionpendingbetweenthesameparties
for the same cause, or that the action is barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the court shall
dismisstheclaim.(2a)
Under the rule, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, litis pendentia, res judicata, and
prescriptionofactionmayberaisedatanystageoftheproceedings,evenforthefirsttimeonappeal,exceptthat
theobjectiontothelackofjurisdictionoverthesubjectmattermaybebarredbylaches.20
WHEREFORE,theCourtAFFIRMSthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealspromulgatedonSeptemberII,2002and
ORDERSthepetitionerstopaythecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

7/8

12/14/2014

G.R. No. 161211

BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeen
reachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1Rollo,p.4675pennedbyAssociateJusticeSergioL.Pestao(retired/deceased),withAssociateJustice

TeodoroP.Regino(retired)andAssociateJusticeEloyR.Bello,Jr.(retired)concurring.
2Id.at48.
3Id.at48and78.
4Id.at49.
5Id.at50.
6Id.at5152.
7Id.at139.
8Id.at5253.
9Id.at4675.
10Id.at7374.
11Id.at76.
12Id.at26.
13Id.at3031.
14Id.at32.
15Id.at34.
16Id.at301329.
17Id.at335351.
18Id.at6172.
19Lopezv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.157784,December16,2008,574SCRA26,39.
20SeeTijamv.Sibonghanoy,No.L21450,April15,1968,23SCRA29,3435.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jul2013/gr_161211_2013.html

8/8