1. In the case of Soquillo v.

Tortola, "An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of

free patents and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion. The
difference between them lies in the allegations as to the character of ownership of the
realty whose title is sought to be nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent
allegations in the complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. Hence in
Gabila v. Barriga where the plaintiff in his complaint admits that he has no right to
demand the cancellation or amendment of the defendant’s title because even if the title
were cancelled or amended the ownership of the land embraced therein or of the portion
affected by the amendment would revert to the public domain, we ruled that the action
was for reversion and that the only person or entity entitled to relief would be the Director
of Lands.1âwphi1

On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate
of title would require allegations of the plaintiff ’s ownership of the contested lot prior to
the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant’s fraud or
mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the
parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the
fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefor is
consequently void ab initio. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff who
alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before
the grant of title to the defendant. x x x."

2. Thus, for an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the
real property subject of action; and the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed
to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by
another, to its rightful and legal owner. Reconveyance is an action distinct from an action
for quieting of title, which is filed whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding
which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective,
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title for purposes of removing
such cloud or to quiet title (Ney v. Quijano. G.R. No. 178609, August 4, 2010).

[A]n action for reconveyance is a recognized remedy, an action in personam, available to

a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in
another's name. In an action for reconveyance, the decree is not sought to be set
aside. It does not seek to set aside the decree but, respecting it as incontrovertible and
no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered
owner to the rightful owner. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property
has not passed to an innocent third person for value.

3. In an action for reconveyance, the parties are obliged to prove their ownership over
the property. Necessarily, the parties may present evidence to support their claims. The
court must weigh these pieces of evidence and decide who between the parties the true
owner is. Therefore, it cannot be bound simply by the factual findings of the land
registration court alone.

An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it

may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment, final
order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction
or through extrinsic fraud. An action for reconveyance, on the other hand, is a legal and
equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to
transfer or reconvey the land to him. 

As stated, a complaint for reconveyance is a remedy where the plaintiff argues for an
order for the defendant to transfer its title issued in a proceeding not otherwise invalid.
The relief prayed for may be granted on the basis of intrinsic rather than extrinsic fraud;
that is, fraud committed on the real owner rather than fraud committed on the procedure
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

An action for annulment of title, on the other hand, questions the validity of the grant of
title on grounds which amount to lack of due process of law. The remedy is premised in
the nullity of the procedure and thus the invalidity of the title that is issued. Title that is
invalidated as a result of a successful action for annulment against the decision of a
Regional Trial Court acting as a land registration court may still however be granted on
the merits in another proceeding not infected by lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud if its
legal basis on the merits is properly alleged and proven. Toledo l   v. Court of Appeals:
86