Case Digest (G.R. No. 202414)
Facts:
Josephine Wee, Petitioner, vs. Felicidad Mardo, Respondent, G.R. No. 202414, June 04, 2014, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Felicidad Gonzales (also referred to as Felicidad Mardo) was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284 dated April 26, 1979 covering Lot No. 8348 in Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite. On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed a portion of Lot No. 8348 (Lot No. 8348-B) to petitioner Josephine Wee by a Deed of Absolute Sale for P250,000, which petitioner claims was fully paid; respondent, however, refused to vacate the property, alleging the sale was falsified.
On December 22, 1994 petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration initially for Lot No. 8349 and, by amendment dated September 19, 1996, for Lot No. 8348-B. Respondent filed an Opposition on September 19, 1997. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch XVIII, Tagaytay City, denied respondent’s October 28, 2000 Motion to Dismiss and subsequent motions for reconsideration; the RTC admitted petitioner’s evidence and formal offer, but denied petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading seeking reconveyance as distinct from an application for registration.
While the registration case was pending, respondent succeeded in registering the subject parcel under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OP-1840 (patent No. 042118-03-6111) on June 10, 2003; petitioner thereafter filed a Notice of Lis Pendens on May 10, 2005 which was annotated on that title. On September 4, 2009 the RTC granted petitioner’s application and directed the Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator to issue a decree and the Register of Deeds to issue title in petitioner’s name. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied and she appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 96934).
On June 26, 2012 the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC decision and denied petitioner’s application, holding petitioner failed to prove the open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession required by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), observing petitioner ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner’s application for original registration over land already titled in respondent’s name constitute a permissible proceeding or an impermissible collateral attack on an existing certificate of title?
- Did petitioner establish open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under a bona fide claim of ownership as required by Section 14(1) of P.D. No. 1529?
- Could the RTC or the reviewing courts properly order reconveyance of the allegedly fraudulently-registered Torrens title within the original registration proceeding, or must petitioner pursue a separate in personam re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)