Action for Reconveyance

➢ The decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought is the transfer of the
property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful
and legal owner, or to one with a better right.
➢ The complaint must allege ​(1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the land or possessed the land in the
concept of owner​, and ​(2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him of the land.
➢ The property should not have passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value for the action to
prosper.
➢ This is an action in personam, which judgment binds only the same parties and their privies or
successors-in-interest in the same action arising from the same cause, and not strangers.

FACTS:
● Gregorio Caro bought Assessor’s Lot 160 from Ruperto Gepilano (17. 9849 ha; w/deed of sale)
● Gregorio sold to his son Melchor Caro a portion of said lot (70, 124 sq m; Lot 4512; w/deed of sale). On
August 1, 1974 - Melchor Caro applied for a free patent before the Bureau of Lands, District Land Office
No. 6-1, which was opposed by Deogracias de la Cruz
● Regional Director cancelled Caro’s application saying that it is a claim of Deogracias de la Cruz to Lot No.
4512 covered by the application of Melchor Caro.
● Verification of the records disclosed that the land which was actually sold to Gregorio Caro by Ruperto
Gepellano (sic) is Assessor's Lot No. 160. The description and physical identity of Lot No. 160 is basically
different and distinct from Lot No. 4512, the land in question. It has been established that Assessor's Lot
No. 160 corresponds to Lot No. 4511 and not Lot No. 4512 claimed by the protestant. Moreover, Ruperto
Gepilano in his affidavit testified that what he sold to Gregorio Caro is a land distinct and different from
the land in question. It was then ordered that Caro’s application be cancelled.
● Sucaldito filed an Application for Free Patent before the Registry of Deeds and was issued Free Patent
597599 and was issued by the Register of Deeds OCT F 27162. Sucaldito thereafter filed for a Petition for
Writ of Possession before the RTC which was granted.
● Caro filed for Complaint against Sucaldito for Annulment of Title, Decision, Free Patent and/or Recovery of
Ownership and/or Possession with Damages" before the RTC. He alleged:
○ that he was the owner of the subject lot, and had been in possession of the same "since 1953 and/or
even prior thereto in the concept of owner, adversely, openly, continuously and notoriously."
○ that the said lot had been declared for tax purposes in his name and that of his
predecessors-in-interest and that the corresponding land taxes had been paid therefor.
● RTC: for Sucaldito
○ Caro had no personality to file the action for the annulment of the free patent issued in favor of
Sucaldito, which could only be brought by the Solicitor General.
○ "an applicant for a free patent who is not the owner of a parcel of land cannot bring an action in
court to recover the land, for the court may not usurp the authority of the Director of Lands and
the Secretary of Agriculture to dispose lands of the public domain through administrative
proceedings under the Public Land Act,"[16] or Commonwealth Act No. 141
○ The contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is claiming Lot 989 which is owned by Felix
Galabo and located at Brgy. Olacon, is not well taken, because the identification of the lot as
stated in the tax declaration is not binding and conclusive. What is binding and conclusive is what
is stated in the title of the land and its technical description.
● Caro appealed to the CA which dismissed the petition. He alleged:
○ he has the legal personality to bring and institute the present action against the respondent,
considering that title issued on the basis of a patent is annullable on the ground of fraud.
 ○ Furthermore, the one-year period within which to file an action to cancel a torrens title under
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 does not apply where the registered owner, or the
successor-in-interest, knew that the property described in the title actually belongs to another,
as in this case

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner Caro has legal standing to file for the reconveyance of the subject land

RULING: ​NO. ​Petitioner's complaint before the RTC prays for the annulment of the free patent issued in the
respondent's favor. Considering that the ultimate relief sought is for the respondent to "return" the subject
property to him, it is in reality an action for reconveyance. In ​De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that
"the essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but
what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right."

Reversion, on the other hand, is an action where the ultimate relief sought is to revert the land back to the
government under the Regalian doctrine. Considering that the land subject of the action originated from a grant by
the government, its cancellation is a matter between the grantor and the grantee.

Under Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party-in-interest, or one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit." Clearly then, a suit
filed by one who is not a party-in-interest must be dismissed. In this case, the petitioner, not being the owner of
the disputed property but a mere applicant for a free patent, cannot thus be considered as a party-in-interest with
personality to file an action for reconveyance.