574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 123713. April 1, 1998.

HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, SR., represented by

their Administrator ELPIDIO VENCILAO, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES SABAS and RUPERTA
GEPALAGO, and DOMICIANO GEPALAGO, respondents.

Land Titles; Prescription; The rule is well-settled that

prescription does not run against registered land—a title, once
registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious
possession.—In awarding the disputed land to petitioners, the
trial court erroneously found that petitioners had been in
possession and enjoyment

____________________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

575

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 575

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

of the property for more than thirty (30) years. It should be noted
that the land in dispute is a registered land placed under the
operation of the Torrens system way back in 1959, or more than
thirty (30) years before petitioners instituted the present action in
the court a quo, and for which Original Certificate of Title No. 400
was issued. The rule is well-settled that prescription does not run
against registered land. Thus, under Sec. 47 of PD 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, it is
specifically provided that “no title to registered land in derogation
of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession.” A title, once registered, cannot be defeated
even by adverse, open and notorious possession. The certificate of
title issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership
of the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole world. All
persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the
registration.
 Same; Evidence; Tax Declarations; Tax Receipts; Tax
declarations and tax receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of
title which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership—tax
declarations and tax receipts are only prima facie evidence of
ownership or possession.—Neither can the tax declarations and
tax receipts presented by petitioners as evidence of ownership
prevail over respondents’ certificate of title which, to reiterate, is
an incontrovertible proof of ownership. It should be stressed that
tax declarations and receipts do not by themselves conclusively
prove title to the land. They only constitute positive and strong
indication that the taxpayer concerned has made a claim either to
the title or to the possession of the property for which taxes have
been paid. Stated differently, tax declarations and tax receipts are
only prima facie evidence of ownership or possession.
Same; Actions; Reconveyance; In order that an action to
recover ownership of real property may prosper, the person who
claims that he has a better right to it must prove not only his
ownership of the same but also satisfactorily prove the identity
thereof.—But assuming ex gratia argumenti that petitioners had
indeed acquired the land they were claiming by prescription,
there likewise exists a serious doubt on the precise identity of the
disputed property. What petitioners claimed in their complaint
was a parcel of land located in Cambansag, San Isidro, Bohol,
with an area of 3,625 square meters. This clearly differs from the
piece of land registered in the name of

576

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

the Gepalagos, which is Lot No. A-73 of the Subdivision Plan

(LRC) Psd-60558, LRC Rec. No. H-4251, and located in
Candungao Calapo, San Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 5,970
square meters. Even the commissioner’s report failed to clarify
the difference in the area and location of the property claimed. In
order that an action to recover ownership of real property may
prosper, the person who claims that he has a better right to it
must prove not only his ownership of the same but also
satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
Same; As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the
name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has
the right to rely on what appears on the face of the title though, by
way of exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary
inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which
indicates any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.—As a
general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of the
vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to
rely on what appears on the face of the title. He is under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of
the vendor appearing on the face of the certificate. By way of
exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary inquiries
if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicates any
cloud or vice in the ownership of the property. Otherwise, his
mere refusal to believe that such defect exists, or his willful
closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in
his vendor’s title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for
value if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective,
and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have
led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution
which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like
situation.
Same; Estoppel; A party is estopped from denying the title of
another where he remained unusually silent while the ownership
of the disputed land transferred from one person to another, never
instituting any action contesting the same nor registering any
objection thereto.—Another consideration that militates heavily
against the present petition is the unusual silence of petitioners
while the ownership of the disputed land transferred from one
person to another. There were at least three (3) transactions on
record involving the property: first, the contract of mortgage
between Luspo and PNB whereby the property was used as
security for the loan contracted by Luspo; second, the foreclosure
of mortgage upon the failure of Luspo

577

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 577

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

to pay the loan and the subsequent sale of the property at public
auction; and, third, the sale of the property to fifty-six (56)
vendees, among whom were the Gepalago spouses. Each of these
transactions was registered and a corresponding transfer
certificate issued in favor of the new owner. Yet in all these,
petitioners never instituted any action contesting the same nor
registered any objection thereto; instead, they remained silent.
Thus, they are now estopped from denying the title of the present
owner. Having failed to assert their rights, if any, over the
property warrants the presumption that they have either
abandoned them or declined to assert them. Or, it could likewise
be inferred therefrom that petitioners themselves were not
convinced in the validity of their claim.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Lord M. Marapao for petitioner.
     Public Attorney’s Office for private respondents.

BELLOSILLO, J.:

Between two (2) sets of claimants of real property—those

claiming ownership by acquisitive prescription, and those
asserting ownership on the basis of a deed of sale recorded
in the certificate of title of the vendor as mortgagee and
highest bidder in a foreclosure sale—who has a better
right?
On 12 February 1990 the heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr.,
represented by their Administrator Elpidio Vencilao, filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol a complaint for
quieting of title, recovery of possession and/or ownership,
accounting and damages with prayer for the issuance of
writs of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction
1
against the spouses Sabas and Ruperta Gepalago. The
complaint was

____________________________

1 Docketed as Civil Case No. 4678, “Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr.,

represented by Elpidio Vencilao v. Sabas and Ruperta Gepa

578

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

subsequently amended to include an action for

reconveyance and cancellation2 of title and to implead
defendant Domiciano Gepalago.
The heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. alleged that they
were the absolute owners of a parcel of land situated in
Cambansag, San Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 3,625
square meters having inherited the same from their father,
Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr., who during his lifetime was in
peaceful, open, notorious and uninterrupted possession and
enjoyment of the property in the concept of owner, declared
the property for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration
No. 37C6-344 and religiously paid the real estate taxes. He
likewise had the property consistently declared as his own
in other documents, e.g., those relevant to the 1987
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). After
his death, his heirs continued to possess and enjoy the
property.
The Gepalago spouses, on the other hand, denied all the
material allegations in the complaint and claimed that they
were the registered owners of a 5,970-square meter
property located in Candungao Calapo, San Isidro, Bohol,
and covered by TCT No. 16042, previously a portion of a
1,401,570 squaremeter land originally owned by a certain
Pedro Luspo. The entire parcel of land was mortgaged by
Pedro Luspo to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as
security for a loan. Since Luspo failed to pay the obligation
upon maturity the mortgage was foreclosed. Thereafter
PNB, the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale, conveyed
the whole property to fifty-six (56) vendees among whom
were the spouses Sabas and Ruperta Gepalago who
acquired the 5,970 square-meter portion thereof. Since
then, they had been the owner and possessor of the land
until they donated the same in 1988 to their son Domiciano
Gepalago.
The trial court appointed a commissioner to survey the
litigated property and determine the areas claimed by both
par-

____________________________

lago,” and raffled to RTC-Br. 2, Bohol, presided by Judge Andres S.

Santos.
2 See Annex “2”; Rollo, p. 59.

579

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 579

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

ties. The commissioner reported that the area claimed by

the Vencilaos was included in the titled property of the
Gepalagos. On the basis of the commissioner’s report and
the other pieces of evidence presented by the parties, the
trial court found the following: (a) The property claimed by
the Gepalagos consisted of 5,970 square meters, while that
of the Vencilaos covered an area of 22,401.58 square meters
as indicated in the survey plan submitted by Engr. Jesus
H. Sarmiento, the court appointed commissioner; (b)
Insofar as the survey plan and report submitted by Engr.
Sarmiento were concerned, these indubitably established
the fact that the Vencilaos owned the excess area of
16,431.58 square meters which was clearly outside the area
claimed by the Gepalagos; (c) The lot in question had been
titled to defendant Sabas Gepalago and subsequently titled
to his son, defendant Domiciano Gepalago, under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 18621 by virtue of a deed of
donation executed on 25 October 1988 by Sabas Gepalago
in favor of Domiciano Gepalago; and, (d) As stated in the
commissioner’s report, “If the titled lot of Domiciano
Gepalago is plotted in accordance with the technical
description appearing in the title, it will be relocated to
more than 219 kilometers eastward away from its supposed3
actual location. This amounts to its non-existence.”
The trial court then ruled in favor of the Vencilao’s
holding that they had been in possession, cultivation and
enjoyment of the litigated property for more than thirty
(30) years and that the improvements therein were
introduced by them long before any title was ever issued to
the Gepalagos. The lower court added that there was ample
evidence showing that the Gepalagos knew when they
bought the property from PNB that the land had long been
possessed and enjoyed in the concept of owners by the
Vencilaos. Thus, while under ordinary circumstances a
certificate of title is indefeasible, it is not so when a person
with prior knowledge of the ownership and possession of
the land by another obtains title to it.
____________________________

3 Annex “A”; Rollo, pp. 19-20.

580

580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

The Gepalagos appealed the decision of the trial court.

After due consideration, the Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court and declared the Gepalagos owners of the
disputed property—

Evidently, defendant-appellants spouses Gepalago were

purchasers in good faith and for value. They acquired their share
in the property from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) which
was the registered owner. Even assuming they had knowledge of
the plaintiff-appellees’ possession of the said property at the time
of the purchase, it was PNB which was the registered owner of
the property. The title was transferred to the bank after the
foreclose sale of the property mortgaged by the previous
registered owner, Pedro Luspo. Thus where the certificate of title
is in the name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for
value has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of
title. The rule that all persons dealing with property covered by
Torrens Certificate of Title are not required to go beyond what
appears on the face of the title is well-settled.
Granting that plaintiff-appellees were possessors of the
property for a long time, they never raised objections to the
transactions affecting the land. There was no action made or any
protest recorded with the Register of Deeds.
Defendant-appellants’ claim of ownership was evidenced by
certificates of title issued in their names. A Torrens Certificate of
Title is the best evidence of ownership of a registered land. As
against the allegations of plaintiff-appellees, defendant-appellants
are the ones entitled to the property. Defendant-appellants’
ownership of the property was evidenced by a certificate of title
while plaintiff-appellees relied merely on tax declaration. Torrens
title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the
land referred to therein. Defendant-appellants acquired the land
in a foreclosure sale and there was no evidence to show that
plaintiff-appellees were defrauded 4
when the property was
mortgaged and then sold x x x x

____________________________

4 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 37772 was penned by then Associate

Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., concurred in by Justices Hector Hofilena and
Celia Lipana-Reyes.

581

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 581

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
The motion5 for reconsideration by the Vencilaos having
been denied they filed the instant petition for review.
In awarding the disputed land to petitioners, the trial
court erroneously found that petitioners had been in
possession and enjoyment of the property for more than
thirty (30) years. It should be noted that the land in
dispute is a registered land placed under the operation of
the Torrens system way back in 1959, or more than thirty
(30) years before petitioners instituted the present action in
the court a quo, and for6 which Original Certificate of Title
No. 400 was issued. The rule is well-settled that
prescription does not run against registered land. Thus,
under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, it is specifically provided that “no title
to registered land in derogation of that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.” A title, once registered, cannot be defeated
even by adverse, open and notorious possession. The
certificate of title issued is an absolute and indefeasible
evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person
whose name appears 7therein. It is binding and conclusive
upon the whole world. All persons must take 8
notice and no
one can plead ignorance of the registration.
Neither can the tax declarations and tax receipts
presented by petitioners as evidence of ownership prevail
over respondents’ certificate of title which, to reiterate, is
an incontrovertible proof of ownership. It should be
stressed that tax declarations and receipts 9do not by
themselves conclusively prove title to the land. They only
constitute positive and

____________________________

5 Annex “C”; Rollo, p. 31.

6 Annex “1”; see Rollo, p. 58.
7 Gestosani v. Insular Development Corp., No. L-21166, 15 September
1967, 21 SCRA 114; Garcia v. Bello, No. L-21355, 30 April 1965, 13 SCRA
769.
8 Jacob v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92159, 1 July 1993, 224 SCRA
189, 193, 194.
9 Director of Lands v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70825, 11
March 1991, 195 SCRA 38, 44.

582

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

strong indication that the taxpayer concerned has made a

claim either to the title or to the possession
10
of the property
for which taxes have been paid. Stated differently, tax
declarations and tax receipts are only prima facie evidence
of ownership or possession.
But assuming ex gratia argumenti that petitioners had
indeed acquired the land they were claiming by
prescription, there likewise exists a serious doubt on the
precise identity of the disputed property. What petitioners
claimed in their complaint was a parcel of land located in
Cambansag, San 11
Isidro, Bohol, with an area of 3,625
square meters. This clearly differs from the piece of land
registered in the name of the Gepalagos, which is Lot No.
A-73 of the Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-60558, LRC Rec.
No. H-4251, and located in Candungao Calapo,12San Isidro,
Bohol, with an area of 5,970 square meters. Even the
commissioner’s report failed to clarify the difference in the
area and location of the property claimed. In order that an
action to recover ownership of real property may prosper,
the person who claims that he has a better right to it must
prove not only his ownership of the 13
same but also
satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the
name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for
value has14 the right to rely on what appears on the face of
the title. He is under no obligation to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing
on the face of the certificate. By way of exception, the
vendee is required to make the necessary inquiries if there
is anything in the certificate of title which indicates any
cloud or vice in the owner-

____________________________

10 Director of Lands v. Reyes, No. L-27594, 28 November 1975, 68 SCRA

177, 194.
11 See Note 2.
12 Annex “3”; Rollo, p. 66.
13 Sese v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 66186, 31 July 1987,
152 SCRA 585.
14 Pino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94114, 19 June 1991, 198 SCRA
434.

583

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 583

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

15
ship of the property. Otherwise, his mere refusal to
believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his
eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his
vendor’s title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for
value if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact
defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the
defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with
that measure of precaution which may reasonably16
be
required of a prudent man in a like situation.
Petitioners maintain that it is the exception, not the
general rule, which should be applied in this case. They
argue that respondents had knowledge of prior possession
and enjoyment by petitioners when they purchased the
property. Thus, they were not innocent purchasers for
value and could not invoke the indefeasibility of their title.
We do not agree. The exception contemplates a situation
wherein there exists a flaw in the title of the vendor and
the vendee has knowledge or at least ought to have known
of such flaw at the time he acquired the property, in which
case, he is not considered as an innocent purchaser for
value. In the instant case, we discern nothing from the
records showing that the title of PNB, the vendor, was
flawed. Petitioners not only failed to substantiate their
claim of acquisitive prescription as basis of ownership but
they also failed to allege, and much less adduce, any
evidence that there was a defect in the title of PNB. In the
absence of such evidence, the presumption leans towards
the validity of the vendor’s title.
Therefore, inasmuch as there was no flaw in the title of
PNB, private respondents rightly believed that they could
and did acquire likewise a flawless title. Indeed, as a result
of the deed of conveyance between PNB and private
respondents, there was transmission of ownership and the
latter stepped into the shoes of the former hence entitled to
all the defenses

____________________________

15 Pino v. Court of Appeals, supra, pp. 445-446, citing Centeno v. Court

of Appeals, No. L-40105, 11 November 1985, 139 SCRA 545, 555.
16 Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644 (1918).

584

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

available to PNB, including those arising from the

acquisition of the property in good faith and for value.
Finally, another consideration that militates heavily
against the present petition is the unusual silence of
petitioners while the ownership of the disputed land
transferred from one person to another. There were at least
three (3) transactions on record involving the property:
first, the contract of mortgage between Luspo and PNB
whereby the property was used as security for the loan
contracted by Luspo; second, the foreclosure of mortgage
upon the failure of Luspo to pay the loan and the
subsequent sale of the property at public auction; and,
third, the sale of the property to fifty-six (56) vendees,
among whom were the Gepalago spouses. Each of these
transactions was registered and a corresponding transfer
certificate issued in favor of the new owner. Yet in all
these, petitioners never instituted any action contesting the
same nor registered any objection thereto; instead, they
remained silent. Thus, they are now estopped from denying
the title of the present owner. Having failed to assert their
rights, if any, over the property warrants the presumption
 that they have either abandoned them or declined to assert
them. Or, it could likewise be inferred therefrom that
petitioners themselves were not convinced in the validity of
their claim.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals of 31 July 1995 as well as its
Resolution of 14 December 1995 denying reconsideration is
AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban and

Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Notes.—The principle of indefeasibility of title is

unavailing where there was fraud that attended the
issuance of the free patents and titles. (Meneses vs. Court of
Appeals, 246 SCRA 162 [1995])

585

VOL. 288, APRIL 1, 1998 585

Philtranco Service Enterprises, Inc. vs. NLRC

Where a person’s right or interest in a lot in question

remains an adverse claim, the same cannot by itself be
sufficient to cancel the certificate of title to the land. (Acap
vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 30 [1995])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.