Case Summary (G.R. No. 223624)
Factual Background
The disputed property was Lot No. 8467 located in Inayawan, Cebu City and originally stood in the name of the late Jose Badana under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2230 (O-7281). Jose Badana died without issue and was survived by his sisters Quirina Badana and Severina Badana. On February 23, 1955, Quirina executed a deed described as a Sale with Condition, conveying one-half of Lot No. 8467 to spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola; the conveyance reserved Quirina’s right to the fruits or products of the land during her lifetime but stated that the document would become absolute upon her death. On December 6, 1957, Severina executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the other half of the lot to spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca, who were predecessors-in-interest of petitioners Tomakin.
Events Leading to Litigation
Respondents Navares alleged continuous payment of realty taxes and open adverse possession of the one-half portion known as Lot No. 8467-B since 1955, and asserted succession from spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola. Petitioners Tomakin alleged succession from spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca, asserted ownership of the other half, and recounted that Lucas Nadela and Leonarda N. Tomakin sold a portion of their share to spouses Alfredo Dacua, Jr. and Clarita Bacalso by Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 30, 1991. Respondents further alleged that TCT No. 131499 was fraudulently issued to Leonarda Nadela Tomakin and Lucas J. Nadela after an Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Jose Badana with Confirmation of Sale involving a third person, Mauricia (or Maurecia) Bacus/Badana.
Trial Court Proceedings
Respondents Navares filed a Complaint for Reconveyance and Damages on May 18, 2004 before the RTC. Petitioners Tomakin answered, pleaded succession and ownership, and asserted prescription and laches as defenses. The RTC, after trial, found that respondents Navares failed to prove ownership of Lot No. 8467-B and rendered judgment on May 6, 2010 directing respondents to return the owner’s copy of TCT No. 131499, and to pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to petitioners Tomakin. Petitioners Tomakin prevailed in the RTC.
Court of Appeals Decision
Respondents Navares appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA, in its Decision dated October 28, 2014, granted the appeal and reversed and set aside the RTC Decision. The CA declared null and void the Deed of Sale dated December 6, 1957 insofar as Lot No. 8467-B was concerned, and ordered cancellation of TCT No. 131499 and issuance of a new title in the name of the Heirs of Celestino Navares. The CA held that respondents’ action was not barred by prescription because they remained in actual possession of Lot No. 8467-B and that the proviso reserving Quirina’s right to fruits did not operate as a condition preventing transfer of ownership because the instrument did not expressly state that non-fulfillment of the obligation would prevent transfer. The CA also held that petitioners Tomakin lacked personality to challenge the 1955 deed’s proviso and that Quirina’s failure to challenge the alleged condition during her lifetime constituted waiver.
Issues Presented in the Rule 45 Petition
Petitioners Tomakin presented four principal issues: whether respondents Navares’ possession was not in the concept of an owner; whether the CA failed to respect the indefeasibility of a Torrens title under Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 thereby allowing a collateral attack; whether respondents lacked cause of action because they never filed a prior petition for declaration of heirship as heirs of spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola; and whether respondents were guilty of laches.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners Tomakin contended that respondents’ possession was not owner-like and thus prescription and laches barred the action; that the reconveyance suit constituted a collateral attack on a Torrens title and thus was barred by Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529; and that respondents had no cause of action because they had not first sought declaration of heirship for their predecessors. Respondents Navares argued below that they and their predecessors had maintained actual and continuous ownership-like possession, that reconveyance was the proper remedy against an erroneously issued title, and that the 1955 sale in their favor was valid and subsisting.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court concluded that petitioners Tomakin failed to show special and important reasons to warrant relief under Rule 45, Rules of Court. The Court endorsed the CA’s factual finding that respondents Navares had actual possession in the concept of an owner and held that such possession tolled prescription for actions to vindicate title or to seek reconveyance. The Court further held that respondents pursued the proper remedy of reconveyance rather than a collateral attack on title, citing The Director of Lands v. The Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal for the proposition that reconveyance is the remedy where property has been wrongfully registered. The Court also ruled that petitioners’ argument concerning the absence of a prior declaration of heirship was waived because it was not raised in the trial court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Finally, the Court held that respondents were not guilty of laches while they remained in undisturbed possession.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Cou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 223624)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- 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, filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court assailing the Decision dated October 28, 2014 and the Resolution dated March 23, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 03806.
- 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, Liduvina N. Valle, Ma. Divina N. Abis, Venusto B. Navares and Rachela N. Tahir, were the respondents in the Rule 45 petition.
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, 7th Judicial Region, Cebu City rendered the judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-30246 on May 6, 2010 in favor of petitioners Tomakin.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC in a Decision dated October 28, 2014 and denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 23, 2016.
- The Supreme Court denied the Rule 45 Petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution, noting that respondents Navares did not file any Comment to the Petition and were deemed to have waived the opportunity to do so.
Key Factual Allegations
- The disputed property is Lot No. 8467 located in Inayawan, Cebu City which was registered in the name of the late Jose Badana, who died without issue and was survived by his sisters Quirina Badana and Severina Badana.
- On February 23, 1955, Quirina Badana executed a Sale with Condition conveying one-half of Lot No. 8467 to spouses Remigio Navares and Cesaria Gaviola, which portion was claimed as Lot No. 8467-B and included a proviso reserving the vendor’s right to the fruits during her lifetime.
- On December 6, 1957, Severina Badana executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the other half identified as Lot No. 8467-A to spouses Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca, who were predecessors-in-interest of petitioners Tomakin.
- On October 30, 1991, Lucas Nadela together with Leonarda N. Tomakin sold a portion of Lot No. 8467 of 1,860 square meters to spouses Alfredo Dacua, Jr. and Clarita Bacalso by Deed of Absolute Sale, and Alfredo Dacua, Jr. caused Lot No. 8467-A to be titled in his name.
- Respondents alleged that on January 10, 1994 a document denominated Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Jose Badana with Confirmation of Sale was made to appear causing Lot No. 8467-B to be titled in the names of Leonarda Nadela Tomakin and Lucas J. Nadela under TCT No. 131499.
- Respondents alleged continuous payment of realty taxes on Lot No. 8467-B and adverse, open possession in the concept of an owner, and alleged that oral demands for reconveyance were ignored.
- Petitioners Tomakin claimed ownership through the 1957 Deed of Absolute Sale and subsequent deeds of partition and sale, alleged uninterrupted acts of ownership, and pleaded prescription and laches against respondents.
Lower Court Decision
- The RTC in its Decision dated May 6, 2010 held that respondents Navares failed to prove rightful ownership