G.R. No. 202414 - Wee vs. Mardo

Respondent Felicidad Gonzales, married to Leopoldo Mardo, was granted Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284 dated April 26, 1979, covering Lot No. 8348, situated in Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite.
On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to petitioner Josephine Wee a portion of Lot No. 8348 known as Lot No. 8348-B through a Deed of Absolute Sale for ₱250,000, which was fully paid.

Respondent refused to vacate and turn over the property, claiming the sale was falsified.
On December 22, 1994, petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration for a parcel known as Lot No. 8349; later amended on September 19, 1996, to cover Lot 8348-B.
Petitioner claimed ownership based on the deed of sale; respondent opposed the application alleging:

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (October 28, 2000) arguing the land described was different from the land claimed; the motion was denied.

Petitioner completed presentation of evidence and formal offer admitted by the RTC.
On June 10, 2003, while case was pending, respondent registered the land in her name under OCT No. OP-1840.
Petitioner filed a Notice of Lis Pendens on May 10, 2005, annotated on the title.
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading for Reconveyance was denied by the RTC as different from registration application proceedings.
Respondent presented evidence through counsel’s testimony and copies of tax declarations but did not present a deed of sale.

On September 4, 2009, the RTC granted petitioner’s application for registration, ordering issuance of a certificate of title in her name.
Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
On June 26, 2012, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC ruling, denying petitioner’s application for registration.
The CA held petitioner failed to prove possession and occupation as required under Section 14(1) of PD 1529, citing lack of physical possession and act of dominion.
Petitioner received the CA decision on July 2, 2012, and filed the instant petition for review.

Petitioner’s possession should be deemed through respondent (predecessor-in-interest) despite respondent’s refusal to turn over actual possession.
Denial of possession was due to fortuitous events that do not affect her right to register under Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
Respondent had possession under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Registration under respondent’s name was fraudulently secured; thus, reconveyance should have been ordered.
Petitioner claims respondent is a trustee under an implied trust due to fraudulent registration.

Whether petitioner complied with the possession and occupation requirements under Section 14(1) of PD 1529 for original registration.
Whether the registration of respondent’s title under OCT No. OP-1840 bars petitioner’s application for registration.
Whether petitioner’s allegations of fraud and falsification justify granting registration or reconveyance in her favor.
Whether petitioner can collaterally attack respondent’s existing Torrens title in the application for registration proceeding.
Whether the remedy of reconveyance is available to petitioner in the registration proceedings.