Facts:
Emiliano S. Casipit and Antonia C. Casipit Vda. de Beato filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Court of Appeals, former Second Division, decision dated August 22, 1990 in
C.A. G.R. CV-No. 22671 and its resolution dated January 11, 1991, both of which affirmed the
Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna and dismissed their complaint for recovery of ownership, reconveyance, rescission, and damages, while ordering them to vacate and to pay rentals, damages, and attorney’s fees. The antecedents, as found by the trial court, traced the questioned
Lot No. 144 in Sinalhan, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. On July 21, 1919, Urbano Casipit, father of petitioner Emiliano, bought the lot from the government with an area of 661 square meters; on June 7, 1923, Urbano assigned his rights over the lot to
Gabriel Beato due to Urbano’s default in paying the installments; in 1932, Tax Declaration No. 7233 issued in Gabriel Beato’s name; and on February 23, 1933, Patent No. 31464 was issued in Gabriel Beato’s name. Gabriel Beato died on October 7, 1945. In 1945, Tax Declaration No. 2561 was issued in the name of Emiliano Casipit, but it covered only 330 square meters, and Emiliano thereafter paid real estate taxes for several years, including 1945 to 1949, 1950, and 1954. On November 25, 1961, heirs of Gabriel Beato executed a document titled
“Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati” in which they adjudicated properties among themselves and sold the questioned property to private respondents
Spouses Severino B. Diaz and Zenaida Alzona-Diaz, after which the Diaz spouses later obtained reconstituted titles and finally title in their names. In 1962, Narciso Beato filed a
Petition for Reconstitution of Titles, granted on July 17, 1963; on August 30, 1963,
TCT No. RT-7880 issued in Gabriel Beato’s name, later canceled by
TCT No. T-27996 in the heirs’ names and then canceled by
TCT No. T-27997 in the Diazes’ names. In 1965, petitioner Antonia and
Julian Almadovar erected houses on portions of Lot No. 144. On October 8, 1981, Severino Diaz filed a criminal complaint for violation of
P.D. No. 772 against them, but it was dismissed by the fiscal on March 26, 1985 on the ground that the property was not among the areas covered by the government’s slum improvement and resettlement program. On June 6, 1985, the Diaz spouses filed an ejectment complaint against petitioner Antonia (Civil Case No. 1601). On April 27, 1987, petitioners filed the present case for recovery of ownership against the Diaz spouses, Rosa Beato Vda. de Diaz, Fortunata S. Beato, and included the Register of Deeds and the Provincial Assessor of Laguna, later amending the complaint. Petitioners alleged that Emiliano was the true and lawful owner by virtue of continuous possession in the concept of owner since 1930, and that the Diazes’ supposed ownership was derived from a fraudulent reconstitution, wherein Narciso Beato secured reconstitution in Gabriel Beato’s name using fictitious documents. Petitioners prayed for cancellation of reconstituted titles and subsequent tax declarations, reconveyance of the lot, rescission of the Kasulatan insofar as it included the questioned property, and damages and attorney’s fees. The Diazes denied these allegations and counterclaimed for vacation of the property and payment of rentals and damages. The
RTC dismissed petitioners’ Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 1989 and ordered petitioners to pay attorney’s fees of
P5,000.00 and costs, reasoning that petitioners’ proof of ownership was insufficient, their claim was based on fraudulent cause of action that had prescribed, the evidence did not justify cancellation of the Diazes’ title, and the Diazes were buyers in good faith; it also ruled that petitioners were not entitled to damages, attorney’s fees, or costs but awarded attorney’s fees to the Diazes. On August 22, 1990, the
Court of Appeals affirmed, and additionally ordered petitioners to vacate and to pay
reasonable rental of P300.00 per month from October 1981 until they vacate,
moral damages of P30,000.00, and
attorney’s fees of P5,000.00. After the Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on January 11, 1991, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, principally asserting that the action was
imprescriptible because the Kasulatan was void for being based on an alleged absence of the patent in Gabriel Beato’s name, and further contending that ejectment and awards violated
due process because Emiliano was not a party to the ejectment suit.
Issues:
Whether petitioners’ action for reconveyance, rescission, and cancellation of titles based on alleged fraud and a void Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati was
imprescriptible and whether the courts below correctly ordered petitioners to
vacate and to pay
rentals, moral damages, and attorney’s fees to private respondents.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: