Title
Basilio vs. Callo
Case
G.R. No. 223763
Decision Date
Nov 23, 2020
Heirs of Eduveges Bafiaga sought reconveyance of land after discovering fraud in Perla Callo’s title registration, claiming rightful ownership through 30+ years of possession. SC ruled in their favor, canceling Callo’s title due to fraudulent acquisition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 223763)

Case Background

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by petitioners against respondent for reconveyance, accion publiciana, and cancellation of title with damages concerning a 12,459-square meter parcel of land located at West Dirita, San Antonio, Zambales. Claiming to be direct descendants of Eduveges Bafiaga, the petitioners sought to recover the land currently titled to Perla Callo (respondent) under Original Certificate of Title No. P-24666, which they alleged was fraudulently obtained.

Historical Context of the Property

Eduveges Bafiaga, who passed away in 1921, left several parcels of land including the subject lot, which was recognized as belonging to his heirs. A Final Project of Partition executed in 1973 awarded the property to petitioners as descendants of Eduveges' daughter, Rufina Pascasio. The institution of mortgage over the land by Rufina's children to respondent and her husband in the early 1970s set the stage for subsequent disputes over ownership and claims of possession.

Legal Proceedings and Rulings

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners on July 5, 2011, finding that respondent committed fraud by misrepresenting her ownership when obtaining a certificate of title. The RTC declared respondent’s title null and void, granting reconveyance to petitioners. In contrast, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this ruling on September 30, 2015, asserting that petitioners failed to provide adequate proof of their claim and dismissed the case. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied in a March 18, 2016 resolution.

Supreme Court’s Review

The Supreme Court primarily addressed whether the CA erred in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners. The Court found that respondent's acquisition of the property through a free patent was flawed due to her admission of obtaining the property through a mortgage arrangement rather than through conditions required for free patent applications as set forth in Commonwealth Act No. 141, specifically that:

  1. The applicant (respondent) must prove continuous possession and cultivation of the land in the concept of ownership for at least thirty years.
  2. The applicant or predecessors must have paid real estate taxes prior to unauthorized occupation by others.

Findings on Ownership and Title

The Supreme Court determined that respondent lacked a legitimate claim to the land as her possession was predicated on a previous mortgage, which was redeemed by the petitioners. Her failure to acknowledge this in her free patent application constituted fraud, leading to the cancellation of her title.

Legal Implications

The Court emphasized that the title granted under the Torrens system does not impart ownership but merely ser

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.