Esguerra vs. Trinidad

Facts:

In *Feliciano Esguerra, Canuto Esguerra, Justa Esguerra, Angel Esguerra, Fidela Esguerra, Clara Esguerra, and Pedro Esguerra v. Virginia Trinidad, Primitiva Trinidad, and the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan*, G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007, the Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court, resolved competing title claims over parcels in Camalig, Meycauayan, Bulacan.

The factual background begins with Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (the Esguerra spouses) owning multiple parcels, including one described under Tax Declaration No. 10374 (35,284 sq.m.) and another under Tax Declaration No. 12080 (23,989 sq.m.). By Deed of Sale dated August 11 and 17, 1937, the spouses sold portions of these tracts to several grandchildren: the petitioners (the Esguerra grandchildren) and the Trinidad brothers (Eulalio and Julian). The Esguerra spouses later executed a separate notarized Bilihan ng Lupa dated November 10, 1958, whereby petitioners sold about 5,000 sq.m. (described as a “bahaging palayan”) of the 23,489 sq.m. parcel to Eulalio Trinidad and Damiana Rodeadilla (the Trinidad spouses).

Subsequent cadastral surveys in the late 1960s assigned Lot No. 3593 (1,693 sq.m.) and Lot No. 3591 (measured at 6,268 sq.m.). On application, the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan in Land Registration Case No. N-323-V (Decision dated February 20, 1967) and in Land Registration Case No. N-335-V (Decision dated August 21, 1972) respectively awarded Lot No. 3593 and Lot No. 3591 in favor of persons in the Trinidad line; the Land Registration Commission issued Decree No. N-114039 and Decree No. N-149491 which led to the Register of Deeds issuing OCT No. O-3631 and OCT No. O-6498 in favor of the Trinidads (eventually transmitted to the respondent daughters). Meanwhile, respondents’ acquisition lineage included a notarized instrument of sale by Eulalio Trinidad to his daughters (respondents) dated October 13, 1965.

Believing the titles to have been procured by fraud and/or misrepresentation, petitioners filed two actions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Malolos (Civil Cases No. 737-M-94 and No. 738-M-94) on August 29, 1994 seeking cancellation/nullification of the two OCTs. The cases were consolidated and, after trial, Branch 79 of the RTC dismissed them by Joint Decision dated May 15, 1997. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated February 28, 2005 (with a Motion for Reconsideration denied by Resolution of October 3, 2005).

Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. Respondents challenged the petition on procedural grounds — lack of verification and certification against forum shopping, absence of affidavit of service, and failure to attach material portions of the record — and the record shows petitioners submitted a late Verification and Sworn Certification and an Affidavit of Service and later filed a compliance. The Supreme Court nonetheless found procedural deficiencies not satisfactorily excused, and on the merits affirmed the lower courts: fraud was not proven, Article 1542 of the Civil Code applied to characterize the earlier sale as a lump-s...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Should the petition be dismissed for petitioners' failure to comply with verification and certification against forum shopping and for failing to attach material portions of the record?
• Did petitioners prove fraud sufficient to annul the Torrens titles (OCT Nos. O-3631 and O-6498)?
• Does Article 1542 of the Civil Code bar petitioners' claim for the excess area (1,268 sq.m.) resulting from the cadastral survey?
• Are petitioners' actions to annul the titles barred by prescription (time-barred)?
• Did the petitioners' noncompliance with the barangay conciliation requirement under RA 7160, Sec. 412(a)...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)