Case Digest (G.R. No. 223624)
Facts:
Heirs of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin, namely: Lucas Nadela, Octavio N. Tomakin, Romeo N. Tomakin, Ma. Cristeta T. Panopio, and Crescencio Tomakin, Jr. (deceased), represented by his heirs, Barbara Jean R. Tomakin Rafols and Cristina Jean R. Tomakin, petitioners, v. Heirs of Celestino Navares, namely: Ermina N. Jaca, Normita Navares, Felinda N. Ballena, Rhodora N. Singson, Cristina N. Cal Ortiz, Rocelyn N. Sencio, Jaime B. Navares, Conchita N. Bayot, Proculo Navares, Liduvena N. Valle, Ma. Divina N. Abis, Venusto B. Navares and Rachela N. Tahir, respondents, G.R. No. 223624, July 17, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns Lot No. 8467 (Inayawan, Cebu City), originally titled in the name of Jose Badana, who died without issue and was survived by sisters Quirina Badana and Severina Badana. On February 23, 1955 Quirina purportedly sold one-half (identified as Lot No. 8467‑B) to spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola by a Deed of Sale “with condition” reserving to the vendor the fruits of the land during her lifetime. On December 6, 1957 Severina allegedly sold the remaining half (Lot No. 8467‑A) to spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca.
Respondents (the Navares heirs) sued petitioners (the Tomakin heirs) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) by filing a Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages on May 18, 2004, alleging (among others) that the 1955 sale vested ownership of Lot No. 8467‑B in their predecessors, that they and their predecessors had been in actual possession and paying real property taxes since 1955, and that petitioners later caused Lot No. 8467‑B to be titled in the name of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin and Lucas J. Nadela (TCT No. 131499) by means of an Extra‑Judicial Settlement and other transactions.
In their Answer petitioners asserted title through the 1957 sale to spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca, a subsequent partition and an absolute sale (1991) to third parties, and pleaded prescription and laches as defenses. The RTC, Branch 23, Cebu City, rendered a Decision dated May 6, 2010 in favor of petitioners ordering the return of TCT No. 131499 and awarding attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated October 28, 2014 the CA granted the appeal, held that respondents’ possession was in the concept of an owner (so prescription did not bar their action), found that the 1955 sale was valid and that petitioners lacked standing to attack the conditional proviso therein, declared the relevant portion of the 1957 deed and TCT No. 131499 null and void insofar as Lot No. 8467‑B, and ordered cancellation of TCT No. 131499 and issuance of title in the name of the heirs of Celestino Navares. Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated March 23, 2016.
Petitioner...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether respondents Navares’ possession of Lot No. 8467‑B was in the concept of an owner.
- Whether the CA’s ruling constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Torrens title (invoking PD No. 1529, Sec. 48 and the indefeasibility of Torrens titles).
- Whether respondents Navares had no cause of action against petitioners because they had not filed a prior petition for declaration of heirship as heirs of spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola. ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)