I. Title:Frias vs.
Esquivel LRC denied the petition as facts relied upon does not constitute
G.R. No. No. L-24679 October 30, 1975 | Munoz Palma, J. |
Remedies
II. Doctrine
Sec. 102 of LRA enables a person wrongfully deprived of his land or
any interest as a result of the application and operation of the LRA to
recover from the Assurance Fund for losses or damages sustained. This
constitutes as sufficient authority where remedy of reconveyance may
be invoked. However, this cannot be availed of where an innocent
purchaser for value will be affected
III. Facts
A residential lot with an area of 1, 357sqm in Nueva Ecija originally
formed part of hereditary estate of Sps. Esquivel who after their
demise left 6 heirs Anastacia, Ceferina, Feliza, Rosalia, Rosa,
Santiago and Alvaro Sr. who, with wife Perpetua, had 5 children
Alvaro, Jr., Orlando, Reynaldo, Ricardo and Vicente (Alvaro Heirs)
herein respondents.
Anastacia executed a deed of sale of the lot in favor of Frias.
Esquivels impugn the validity of the deed on the ground that
Anastacia does not own the lot exclusively but in common with
them. Pending resolution of the case, Frias commenced a
registration proceeding over the said lot under Land Registration
Act (LRA), Esquivels opposed the same in light of the pending
annulment proceedings. Registration case was then held in
abeyance until resolution of annulment case.
SC declared the deed valid with respect to the interest of the
siblings but void as to Alvaro Heirs. Esquivel sisters parted with
their right over the subject lot to Anastacia as evidenced by their
affidavits while Santiago was estopped from denying partition on
account of his silence and deemed tantamount to his
acquiescence. As to the Alvaro Heirs, they were minors and was
represented by Perpetua who was neither legal guardian nor
administrator of their property as under Code of Civil Procedure,
parents are mere natural guardian of minor children and not of his
estate unless ordered by the Court.
Pursuant to the decision, Perpetua who in the meantime
contracted second marriage with the Alvaro Heirs 3 of the
heirs were of age and 2 were minors executed a deed of
sale/conveyance over their 1/7 interest on the lot. Perpetua signed
the contract in their behalf as their natural guardian. However, it
did not produce complete accord between the parties.
After the SC decision and the execution of the deed of conveyance
by Perpetua and children, LRC rendered judgment adjudicating the
lot to Frias and the corresponding decree was issued. Almost a
year after the issuance of the decree, a petition to re-open the
decree of registration was filed by Rosario Esquivel-Gonzales as
guardian ad litem of minors Alvaro Jr. and Reynaldo and Ricardo
who was now declared compos mentis by the appointing court.
extrinsic fraud which would justify re-opening and was affirmed by
CA upon appeal.
Frias, while registration case was then pending, also filed with CFI
this civil suit praying to be declared owners and order Esquivels to
remove uninhabited house on the lot and pay rentals.
CFI: Frias as lawful owners of the lot brought from Anastacia and
Perpetua, except the 77.54sqm portion which must be segregated
for the minors and removal of the house.
CA: CFI affirmed. MR by Ricardo thru his guradian claiming that
former was insane the time of the sale. CA modified judgment
segregating a total of 116.31sqm for the three.
Hence this petition by Frias contending that their torrens title is
indefeasible and immune to collateral attack except under Sec. 38
of Act 496 for a petition for review and damages and payment of
the P500 to the minors as equity makes them the absolute owners.
IV. Issues
(1) Whether CA erred in ordering the segregation of the 116sqm
portion. NO
V. Held
(1) A person who succeeds in registering a real estate to his name is
insulated by law from claims and liens, however it is subject to
exception such as where the registered owner is not the real owner of
the land registered in his name, reconveyance of registered land to the
rightful owner is prescribed but as yet unregistered owner.
Sec. 102 of LRA enables a person wrongfully deprived of his land or
any interest as a result of the application and operation of the LRA to
recover from the Assurance Fund for losses or damages sustained. This
constitutes as sufficient authority where remedy of reconveyance may
be invoked. However, this cannot be availed of where an innocent
purchaser for value will be affected, contrary to Frias claim. In this
case, the nature of the opposition of Esquivels amounts to an action for
reconveyance which the lower court has authority to adjudicate and
settle the question of ownership.
As re: Esquivel siblings
They no longer possess any right or interest over the lot as they sold
the same to Frias.
As re: Vicente and Orlando Esquivels
In light of the execution of deed of conveyance, their interest over the
lot already belongs to Frias.
As re: Alvaro, Jr. and Reynaldo Esquivels minor brothers
Under Sec. 328 of the New Civil Code, a mother who contracts a
second marriage loses parental authority over her children, unless the
deceased father expressly provided in his will that she may marry Timeline:
again and keep and exercise parental authority over their children. 1951 Esquivels impugn the validity of the deed
1946 Waiver of right in favor of Anastacia by Esquivel sisters
In this case, since Alvaro Sr. died intestate and at the time of 1956 SC Decision on annulment case. Sisters waiver in favor of
conveyance Perpetua already contracted second marriage, she already Anastacia & Santiago estopped due to his silence.
lost her parental authority over the minor brothers. She was not FEB Deed of conveyance of 1/7 interest
appointed as the judicial guardian with power to sell their property. 1957
perpetua, and under Art. 1403(1) and 1317, contract entered into by a 1952 Registration proceedings by Frias
person in the name of another without authority is unenforceable OCT LRC decision
unless ratified by the latter. Here, no evidence was presented to prove 1957
that minors ratified conveyance, hence the deed of conveyance was DEC Issuance of decree in favor of Frias
unenforceable and the claim of payment of equity untenable. 1957
DEC Petition to re-open decree by Rosario as guardian ad litem
As re: Ricardo Esquivel 1958
Since CA found him to be insane at the time of the execution of
conveyance and the same not being disputed, the deed is void as to
him for lack of authority of Perpetua.

As re: procedure for of the lot

CFI did not follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 69 of the ROC.
The ROC is designed to provide a just and equitable settlement of the
relative rights of co-owners by securing them the benefits of a trial
where partition will be taken up.

As re: partition
Considering that both parties pray that they be granted such further
and other relief as may be just and equitable, partition of the lot is well
within the general relief prayed for. To afford them complete and
adequate relief and to avoid burdensome litigation, a partition in this
very action is the most logical and equitable path to pursue.

CA affirmed. CFI to proceed with partition in accord with ROC,

and herein Esquivels not liable to pay share in the rentals.

Note:
To succeed in an action for reconveyance after the lapse of one year,
actual fraud in securing the title must be proved. Existence of the
decree is no bar to an action for reconveyance to the true owner even
after the 1yr lapse from issuance of the decree, provided it is shown
that the registration is wrongful and property has not passed to an
innocent purchaser for value.

Remedy of the true owner after one year from issuance of decree is to
bring an action for reconveyance or for damages in case it passed on
to an innocent purchaser for value and not to set aside the decree.