G.R. No. 162593 - Feliciano vs. Spouses Zaldivar

Petitioners: Heirs of Remegia Y. Feliciano, represented by Nilo Y. Feliciano.
Respondents: Spouses Aurelio and Luz Zaldivar.
Case involved a complaint for declaration of nullity of title and reconveyance of property covering a parcel of land in Cagayan de Oro City.

Remegia was registered owner of a 444-square meter lot covered by TCT No. T-8502 in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.
Aurelio Zaldivar allegedly obtained TCT No. T-17993 covering a 243-square meter portion of Remegia’s lot through fraud in 1974.
The subject lot was originally leased by Pio Dalman (respondents’ father-in-law) for P5/month, later P100/month.
Remegia alleged she attempted to mortgage the subject lot to Ignacio Gil for P100, but the transaction did not push through.
Aurelio filed a petition before the Court of First Instance (CFI) in 1974 for partial cancellation of TCT No. T-8502, alleging that Aurelio and Luz acquired the subject lot from Dalman, who acquired it from Gil. Petition was granted and TCT No. T-17993 issued to Aurelio.

Remegia denied selling the subject lot to Gil or Dalman; challenged authenticity of joint affidavit confirming sale executed by her and her uncle Narciso Labuntog.
She claimed she never lost possession of her certificate of title—no annotation of any transfer on TCT No. T-8502 supported her claim.
Spouses Zaldivar denied allegations and claimed Aurelio’s absolute ownership evidenced by TCT No. T-17993 and Tax Declaration No. 26864.
Aurelio claimed he purchased the subject lot from Dalman, who bought it from Gil, who purchased from Remegia, validated by joint affidavit and continuous possession since 1947.

RTC ruled in favor of Remegia declaring TCT No. 17993 null and void because it was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud (false affidavit of loss).
The court held the CFI had no jurisdiction when it issued the new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT T-8502 because the original was not lost.
No public instrument proved the sale from Remegia to Dalman.
The joint affidavit of confirmation of sale was impugned as falsified.
Indefeasibility of Torrens title defense was rejected due to prior notice of flaw; adverse possession claim ineffective against registered owner’s title.
RTC awarded moral, exemplary damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses in favor of Remegia.

CA reversed RTC decision and ruled in favor of spouses Zaldivar.
CA accepted validity and evidentiary weight of the deed of sale (Exhibit “5”) and the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale (Exhibit “6”).
Found Dalman declared the property for taxation in his name; Aurelio obtained new owner’s duplicate TCT and partial cancellation order validly after judicial process.
Spouses Zaldivar had uninterrupted possession since 1947; laches and prescription barred Remegia’s claims after 17 years.
The lack of annotation of sale on her TCT was unimportant because it only affected third parties.
The notarizing notary public’s testimony reinforced genuineness of the affidavit; contradictions by Narciso Labuntog’s children discredited by CA.

Petitioners filed motion for reconsideration; denied by CA.
Petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court challenging CA’s decision on multiple grounds.

Whether or not the issuance of the new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 was valid given the original was not lost.
Whether TCT No. T-17993 in the name of Aurelio Zaldivar should be declared null and void.
Whether the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale executed by Remegia and Narciso Labuntog is valid and sufficient to prove the sale of the subject lot.
Whether the spouses Zaldivar acquired valid ownership over the subject lot by virtue of acquisitive prescription or adverse possession.
Whether the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title protects the validity of TCT No. T-17993.
Whether laches or estoppel barred Remegia’s action to annul TCT No. T-17993.
Also, whether the respondents’ constructive possession and improvements on the land entitles them to any rights under Article 448 and Article 453 of the Civil Code despite lack of ownership.