Title
Spouses Pico vs. Spouses Salcedo
Case
G.R. No. 152006
Decision Date
Oct 2, 2009
Dispute over ownership of two lots; Salcedos claimed title under OCT, Picos asserted possession and purchase. SC upheld Salcedos' ownership, citing Torrens title indefeasibility and lack of fraud evidence.
ownership dispute
land dispute
property ownership

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152006)

Factual Background

The Salcedos filed the action on December 3, 1986 against the Picos in the RTC. They alleged that Catalina had bought coconut lands in Barangay Bioto, Municipality of Tandag, Surigao del Sur, with a total area of seventeen thousand one hundred fifty-three (17,153) square meters, from the Vallescas family. They claimed that after Catalina acquired the lands, Virginia Pico (daughter of Pionono Vallescas) and her husband Jose Pico asked to remain as tenants over a one thousand two hundred fifteen (1,215) square meter portion (the first lot), with a promise to plant coconuts instead of paying rent. Catalina agreed, and Jose and Virginia Pico, with their son Montano Pico, stayed on the first lot.

The Salcedos further alleged that during a Bureau of Lands survey, which occurred while Catalina and the Salcedos were in Bohol, Montano allegedly succeeded in representing that Jose Pico was the owner of the first lot. As a result, the first lot was designated as Lot No. 1192, Cad-392-D, under Jose Pico’s name, and only fifteen thousand nine hundred sixty-one (15,961) square meters of the original seventeen thousand one hundred fifty-three (17,153) square meters was registered under Catalina’s OCT No. 5930.

In a second cause of action, the Salcedos alleged that the Picos also laid claim to a one thousand two hundred forty-seven (1,247) square meter portion (the second lot) supposedly covered by Catalina’s OCT No. 5930. The Picos asserted that they had bought the second lot from Vicente Diaz. The Salcedos prayed that the RTC declare them rightful owners of both properties.

In their Answer, the Picos denied that Jose Pico was Catalina’s tenant. They asserted that Jose had always owned the first lot and that, upon the deaths of Jose and Virginia Pico, Montano became the legal owner as their compulsory heir. The Picos also denied the Salcedos’ account of Catalina’s absence from the survey, claiming that the cadastral survey was conducted with the knowledge of the adjoining owners, including the Salcedos.

As to the second lot, the Picos claimed a chain of ownership: they alleged they bought from Vicente Diaz on March 7, 1977, and that Vicente Diaz had purchased the second lot from Teodorico Plaza on September 4, 1954. They also asserted that they were in possession of the second lot.

After Catalina died, the heirs of Catalina filed an Amended Complaint on October 14, 1991, stating that her husband and children, as her only compulsory heirs, were taking her place in the case.

Trial Court Proceedings and RTC Disposition

After both parties presented evidence, the RTC issued its decision on April 3, 1995. The RTC declared the Salcedos as owners pro indiviso of the entire Lot No. 1188, Cad. 392-D, covered by OCT No. 5930 in Catalina’s name. The RTC further ordered the Picos to vacate and peacefully turn over possession of the portion of Lot No. 1188 occupied or possessed by the Picos or anyone acting for them, including the portion referred to as the second lot.

At the same time, the RTC declared the Picos (and their co-heirs, if any) as owners pro diviso of Lot No. 1192, Cad. 392-D (the first lot), covered by OCT No. P-24679 in the name of the heirs of Jose Pico. The RTC dismissed both parties’ respective claims for damages.

Appeals Before the CA

Both parties appealed the RTC decision. On January 25, 2000, the CA dismissed both appeals for lack of merit. The CA found that both parties were estopped from questioning the regularity of the survey, emphasizing that they contested the survey only after a long lapse of time, and only after their respective certificates of title covering the disputed lots had already been issued.

The Picos moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied on January 22, 2002. The Picos then filed a petition for review on certiorari.

The Parties’ Contentions in the Supreme Court

Only the Picos assailed the CA decision. The Supreme Court framed the sole question presented as who owned the portion of land registered in Catalina’s name but currently in the Picos’ possession—specifically, the portion corresponding to the second lot.

The Picos argued that they proved by preponderance of evidence that they legally acquired the second lot. They cited the Deed of Sale from Vicente Diaz to them; Vicente Diaz’s “Declaracion Jurada” about having acquired the second lot in 1954 from Teodorico Plaza; Teodorico Plaza’s attestation that he bought the second lot in 1932 when single; and the testimony of Pociano Ajos that he knew about the sale between Vicente Diaz and the Picos.

The Picos also invoked Section 55 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), contending that although Torrens titles are generally indefeasible and cannot be defeated by possession, fraud in the procurement of registration allows the lawful owner to pursue legal and equitable remedies against the party who committed the fraud. They claimed that the Salcedos fraudulently included the second lot in Catalina’s title, so they could still question the registration.

The Salcedos responded that the petition was filed merely for delay and raised no new matter. They also argued that the issues raised by the Picos were factual and not reviewable on appeal by certiorari.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the CA’s decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 50278 dated January 25, 2000, with costs against the petitioners.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the petition raised mere questions of fact. Under a petition for review on certiorari, the Court limited itself to errors of law, absent a showing that the appellate court’s factual findings were unsupported by the records. The Court reiterated the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact, emphasizing that when the resolution requires recalibrating credibility, weighing, or evaluating evidence, the issue is factual.

The Court reasoned that by seeking a ruling that they were the lawful owners of the second lot, the Picos effectively asked the Court to overturn the RTC’s factual findings, already affirmed by the CA. The Court stressed that factual findings of the RTC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, were binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court. The Court was not a trier of facts and would generally not analyze the evidence again, subject only to specific exceptions. The Court found that none of the recognized exceptions was present.

The Court also addressed the merits if it were to consider the facts. It noted that the survey of the lots was conducted from December 16, 1965 to June 16, 1967. After this survey, OCT No. 5930 covering fifteen thousand nine hundred sixty-one (15,961) square meters was issued to Catalina, and it was transcribed in the Registration Book for the Province of Surigao del Sur on January 13, 1969. In contrast, the Picos bought the second lot from Vicente Diaz only on March 7, 1977, or more than eight (8) years after the land had already been registered under Catalina’s title.

The Court then applied the Torrens system principle that property covered by a Torrens title cannot be acquired by mere possession, and that once a title is registered, it cannot be defeated even by adverse, open, and notorious possession. Registered titles serve as notice to the world, and all persons are charged with knowledge of the registration. Thus, even if the Picos possessed the second lot openly and continuously from their purchase in 1977, such possession could not ripen into ownership because the second lot formed part of registered land.

On the Picos’ contention that fraud in the registration entitled them to remedies under Section 55 of Act No. 496, the Court found that the Picos

...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.

About Privacy Terms