G.R. No. 224083-84 - Mariano vs. Mariano

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224083-84)

Factual Background

The controversy concerns a portion of a parcel of land in Barrio Bukal Poblacion, Pagbilao, Quezon, originally covered by TCT No. 90516 and registered in the name of Honesto Mariano Sr. In 1969 and thereafter, portions of the land were sold and subdivided into Lot Nos. 168-C-6-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, -G, and -K. Romeo Mariano acquired Lots 168-C-6-B and 168-C-6-G; Lot 168-C-6-A was sold to Ester Luna. Honesto Mariano Sr. died on August 17, 1973. On December 31, 1973, an extrajudicial partition among Victoria Mariano (the second wife) and the sons from the first marriage was executed and annotated on the mother title. New titles were issued in the names of the allocating heirs, including TCT Nos. T-125293 and T-125294 covering Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D and 168-C-6-E issued in the name of Honesto Mariano, Jr. On March 15, 1974, other parcels were sold and re-titled accordingly. In August 2005 Honesto, Jr. filed an ejectment action against Susan Mariano. On May 5, 2006, Susan together with several siblings filed a partition and reconveyance action seeking collation and division of the properties left by their father. Honesto, Jr. died on September 12, 2007; his heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement on January 7, 2008, adjudicating Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D and 168-C-6-E to Clemente, and TCT Nos. T-483073 and T-483074 issued in his name on February 17, 2009. Clemente later substituted his father in the ejectment case and prosecuted his claim of ownership and right to possession.

Procedural History

Two parallel proceedings arose. First was the ejectment action filed by Honesto, Jr. on August 12, 2005, ultimately prosecuted by Clemente after substitution. Second was the partition and reconveyance suit filed by Susan and co-plaintiffs on May 5, 2006, in the RTC, seeking to nullify the 1973 extrajudicial partition and to collate and partition the estate. The MTC rendered judgment in the ejectment action in favor of Clemente on November 24, 2009. The RTC, Branch 55, ruled for the plaintiffs in the partition suit on September 20, 2012. The RTC, Branch 57, reversed the MTC in the ejectment case on January 29, 2013. Clemente elevated both adverse RTC rulings to the Court of Appeals; the CA consolidated the appeals and issued a consolidated decision on September 30, 2015. The present petition for review followed.

MTC Ruling (Ejectment case)

In its Decision dated November 24, 2009, the Municipal Trial Court of Pagbilao rendered judgment for the plaintiff, ordering Susan to vacate Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D (1,511 square meters) and 168-C-6-E (1,760 square meters), both covered by TCT Nos. T-483073 and T-483074, and to deliver peaceful possession to the plaintiff cleared of improvements. The MTC further awarded monthly rental of P200 from the filing of the original complaint on August 12, 2005 until vacation, and attorney’s fees of P10,000.

RTC Ruling (Ejectment case)

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, in a Decision dated January 29, 2013, reversed and set aside the MTC decision and dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer. The RTC held that the complaint failed to allege how Honesto, Jr. tolerated or allowed Susan to occupy the land, and that Susan’s claim of occupation in the concept of an owner, as an alleged heir of the original owner, had not been defeated by the plaintiff’s allegations.

RTC Ruling (Partition and Reconveyance case)

In the partition and reconveyance action, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, rendered judgment on September 20, 2012, in favor of the plaintiffs. The RTC ordered collation and partition on a share and share-alike basis into seven shares for portions of the property disposed during the lifetime of Honesto, Sr., directed the re-partition of certain lots, and mandated defendants to pay attorney’s fees, moral damages, and court filing fees as specified in the decretal portion.

Court of Appeals Decision

On September 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and rendered judgment reversing the RTC in the partition case and reversing the RTC, Branch 57, in the ejectment appeal. The CA dismissed the partition complaint as prescribed and reinstated the MTC ejectment decision. The CA observed that the extrajudicial partition among some heirs deprived other compulsory heirs and was therefore fraudulent. The CA ruled, however, that the right to annul such partition accrued in 1974 upon constructive notice by annotation and registration, and that the four-year prescriptive period to annul had long expired. The CA additionally treated the action as one for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust and held that a ten-year prescriptive period applied if the plaintiff was not in possession; the CA found repudiation of any implied trust in 1974 when registration occurred. The CA concluded that Clemente, as a registered owner, enjoyed the superior right to possession; that Susan’s occupation was by mere tolerance and ceased when the registered owner demanded vacation; and that Susan failed to prove forgery of her mother’s signature by clear and convincing evidence. Laches and the indefeasibility of Torrens title further informed the CA’s decision.

Issue Presented

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court decisions in the partition/reconveyance case and in the ejectment case and in recognizing Clemente’s ownership and right of possession over the disputed Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D and 168-C-6-E.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners contended that the 1973 extrajudicial partition was void for fraud and forgery of their mother’s signature, that no lawful right passed to Honesto, Jr. or to Clemente, and that their actual possession as heirs rendered their right imprescriptible. Clemente maintained that he derived ownership from TCT Nos. T-483073 and T-483074, that his predecessors-in-interest lawfully possessed the lots, and that petitioners’ attack on the partition was a collateral attack on his Torrens title. Clemente further asserted that petitioners’ possession was merely tolerated by his predecessors and became unlawful upon demand for vacation.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review under Rule 45, Rules of Court, and affirmed the CA’s consolidated decision. The Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Rule 45 to review errors of law committed by the appellate court, but it nonetheless examined the record in light of the conflicting findings below. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a registered owner under the Torrens system is entitled to possession and that a certificate of title is evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title. The Court held that petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of the respondent’s ownership arising from his Torrens title. The Court characterized petitioners’ challenge to the partition agreement as a collateral attack on the Torrens title, which the law forbids. On prescription, the Court agreed with the CA that an action to annul an extrajudicial partition for fraud must be brought within four years from discovery of the fraud, and that petitioners were constructively notified upon annotation and registration in 1974; petitioners filed suit only in 2006. The Court also applied the rule that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from registration under Article 1456 and Article 1144, as explained in Presidential Decree No. 1529, Sec. 53, and related jurisprudence. The Court observed that the ten-year period applies when the plaintiff is not in possession; if the plaintiff is in actual possession in the concept of an owner, the action may be imprescriptible. The Court found, however, that petitioners failed to prove possession in the concept of an owner because they did not show acts of dominion such as registration, payment of real estate taxes, or other juridical acts that the law recognizes as constructive possession. The record showed petitioners’ occupation arose from mere tolerance by Honesto, Jr., and such tolerance ceased after the demand to vacate was received in August 2004. Accordingly, prescription barred their claims and the registered title of Clemente prevailed.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied on

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 224083-84)

Parties and Posture

MAXIMO C. MARIANO, SOLEDAD C. MARIANO, SUSAN C. MARIANO, RUTH M. MARIANO, JOSEPH M. MARIANO, AND MARILOU M. MARIANO-JACINTO, the petitioners, sought annulment of an extrajudicial partition and reconveyance and resisted an ejectment action.
CLEMENTE P. MARIANO, the respondent, claimed ownership and sought ejectment as registered owner of Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D and 168-C-6-E under TCT Nos. T-483073 and T-483074.
The petitioners escalated the consolidated decisions of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial courts to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court.
The main legal contention concerned the validity of a 1973 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and the right to possession as between competing heirs and a registered titleholder.

Facts

The property originated in the name of Honesto Mariano Sr., who subdivided and sold portions during his lifetime and whose title was annotated with a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition dated December 31, 1973.
Honesto Mariano, Jr. received titles covering Lot Nos. 168-C-6-D and 168-C-6-E after the 1973 partition and was registered under TCT Nos. T-125293 and T-125294.
Petitioners claimed that their mother Victoria’s signature on the 1973 partition was forged and therefore that the partition and subsequent titles were void.
Honesto Mariano, Jr. allegedly tolerated petitioners’ occupation but later demanded vacation by letter dated July 16, 2004, and the petitioners remained in possession thereafter.
Upon Honesto, Jr.'s death, his heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement adjudicating the subject lots to Clemente, and TCT Nos. T-125293 and T-125294 were cancelled and replaced by TCT Nos. T-483073 and T-483074 in Clemente’s name on February 17, 2009.

Procedural History

The Municipal Trial Court of Pagbilao rendered judgment for Clemente in the ejectment case dated November 24, 2009, ordering vacation and payment of rentals and attorney’s fees.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Lucena City, reversed the MTC in a decision dated January 29, 2013 and dismissed the ejectment complaint.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Lucena City, in Civil Case No. 2006-36, issued a decision dated September 20, 2012 ordering collation and partition in favor of the plaintiffs in the partition action.
The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and on September 30, 2015 reversed the RTC Branch 55 decision and reinstated the MTC decision as to ejectment in favor of Clemente.
The petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court challenging the CA’s reversal and the recognition of Clemente’s ownership and right to possession.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC Branch 55 decision in the partition and reconveyance case.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC Branch 57 decision in the ejectment case and in recognizing Clemente’s ownership and superior right of possession.
Whether petitioners’ challenge to the 1973 partition and subsequent Torrens registrations is barred by prescription, laches, or by the rule against collateral attack on a Torrens title.
Whether petitioners’ physica