G.R. No. 216024 - Spouses Yu vs. Topacio, Jr.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 216024)

Key Dates

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-348422 issued to Topacio on June 25, 1992
Absolute Deed of Sale from Spouses Martinez to Spouses Yu dated June 10, 1994
TCT No. T-490552 issued to Spouses Yu on September 1, 1994
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated December 28, 2011
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated March 17, 2014
CA Resolution dated December 22, 2014
Supreme Court Decision dated September 18, 2019

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution
Civil Code provisions: Articles 434, 448, 476, 477
Rules on Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Reconveyance
Presumption of regularity in issuance of Torrens Titles
Legal standards for awarding attorney’s fees

Background and Allegations

Respondent Topacio, the registered owner of Lot 7402-E (9,878 sqm) covered by TCT No. T-348422, alleged that the title held by petitioners Spouses Yu over a portion of 606 sqm covered by TCT No. T-490552 is spurious, illegal, and casts a cloud on his title. Topacio claimed the title issued to Spouses Yu was obtained later than his and sought nullification, recovery of possession, reconveyance, and damages.

Spouses Yu countered that they acquired their property legitimately from Spouses Martinez by an Absolute Deed of Sale. The property had been acquired by Spouses Martinez from the Bureau of Lands in 1989, duly surveyed, and their Torrens title was validly registered. They contended they had been in good faith possession, paying taxes and obtaining proper permits for fencing and construction.

Proceedings and Surveys Conducted

A joint survey ordered by the RTC was conducted by a DENR/CENRO team in 2009, led by Geodetic Engineer Ramoncito TaAola. The survey found that the properties covered by the respective titles of Topacio (Lot 7402-E) and Spouses Yu (Lot 8142-New) have the same reference point (Monument 79) but are geographically distinct and located approximately 1,526 meters apart. However, it was also found that the parcel physically occupied by Spouses Yu, measuring about 450 sqm, is actually located inside Topacio’s Lot 7402-E.

RTC Ruling

The RTC dismissed Topacio’s complaint in 2011, holding there was insufficient proof that the title held by Spouses Yu was obtained by fraud nor that it constituted a cloud upon Topacio’s title. Accordingly, both the complaint and counterclaims were dismissed.

CA Ruling and Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration

The CA modified the RTC decision and ruled that Spouses Yu must vacate and transfer possession of the portion of Lot 7402-E unlawfully occupied, remove improvements at their expense, pay reasonable compensation from the date of judicial demand until they vacate, and pay attorney’s fees and costs.

Spouses Yu moved for reconsideration, arguing that the CA erred by resolving boundaries in a quieting of title case and relying heavily on the verification survey. The CA denied their motion.

Issues on Appeal

Whether the CA erred in resolving property boundaries in an action for quieting title.
Whether the CA correctly relied on the verification survey conducted by the DENR/CENRO.
Whether Topacio’s titles are clouded by Spouses Yu’s title, and whether the issuance of TCT No. T-490552 was valid.
Validity of awards for possession recovery, damages, and attorney’s fees.

Legal Analysis on Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession

Quieting of title requires proof of (1) legal or equitable title or interest by the plaintiff, and (2) that the adverse claim or instrument is invalid or void despite its apparent validity.
Recovery of possession requires proof of ownership and identity of the property, relying on the strength of the plaintiff’s title, not the weakness of the defendant’s.
Reconveyance applies only to rightful owners whose land was wrongfully registered to others, requiring proof of wrongful registration.

Topacio proved title but failed to show the invalidity of Spouses Yu’s title, which was traced to valid acquisition from the Bureau of Lands, and no evidence of fraud was presented. The Torrens title system presumes titles are valid; fraud allegations require clear and convincing evidence, which was lacking here.

Survey and Boundary Determination Considerations

The CA properly relied on the joint verification survey conducted by DENR/CENRO, which was a court-ordered impartial study attended by all parties and their counsels. The survey conclusively showed that TCT Nos. 348422 (Topacio) and 490552 (Spouses Yu) cover different parcels of land situated over a kilometer apart. Claims of procedural irregularities in the survey cannot overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to acts of public officials such as the surveyor.

Findings on the Property Actually Possessed

The survey report also revealed that Spouses Yu physically possessed and improved a portion of Topacio’s Lot 7402-E that was not covered by their title. This represents physical encroachment of another's land. Topacio, as the registered owner of the encroached land, has the right to recover possession of that portion.

Good Faith Possession and Consequences

Spouses Yu were found to have possessed the disputed portion in good faith, honestly believing it was part of their titled property. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, when improvements are made in good faith on another’s land, the landowner can either:

Appropriate the improvements by paying the owner of the improvements; or
Oblige the possessor to pay for the land if the land’s value is not significantly higher than that

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216024)

Factual Background and Parties Involved

The case involves an Amended Complaint for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Reconveyance, and Damages filed by respondent Eulogio A. Topacio, Jr. (Topacio) against petitioners spouses Ernesto V. Yu and Elsie Yu (spouses Yu), and other defendants.
Topacio claimed ownership of Lot 7402-E in Barangay Paliparan, Dasmariñas, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-348422 (9,878 sq. meters).
Spouses Yu hold TCT No. T-490552 (606 sq. meters), which Topacio contends is an illegal, spurious, and clouding title over his property.
Topacio alleged that spouses Yu fenced and constructed on his property despite demand to desist, leading to the case.
Spouses Yu counterclaimed ownership of their property, successfully tracing acquisition from previous owners Spouses Martinez, who purchased the land from the Bureau of Lands through a valid Sales Certificate and Deed.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Topacio’s complaint for lacking sufficient proof of fraud in spouses Yu’s title and ruled their titles untouched by any cloud.
Topacio’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC’s decision partly granting recovery of possession to Topacio over the property physically occupied by spouses Yu, ordering them to vacate and pay reasonable compensation.
Spouses Yu moved for reconsideration of the CA’s order, which was denied.
The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the CA’s ruling.

Issues Presented

Whether the CA erred in resolving property boundaries in an action for quieting of title.
Whether the CA improperly relied on the verification survey conducted by Engr. Ramoncito TaAola of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO).
Whether the action for quieting of title was properly dismissed for lack of merit.
Whether Topacio is entitled to damages and attorney’s fees.

Nature and Requirements of Quieting of Title and Related Actions

Quieting of title aims to remove clouds on titles that are apparently valid but in truth invalid or ineffective, to restore rightful ownership and peaceful enjoyment of property.
Article 476 of the Civil Code governs clouds on title; Article 477 requires the plaintiff to have legal or equitable interest.
The plaintiff must prove the invalidity of the instrument casting a cloud despite its prima facie validity.
In recovery of possession, the plaintiff must show ownership and identity of the property claimed.
Reconveyance is a remedy available only to rightful owners to compel transfer from wrongful registrants, requiring proof of ownership and erroneous or fraudulent registration.

Court’s Findings on Ownership and Title Validity

Topacio proved legal title over Lot 7402-E under TCT No. T-348422 issued June 25, 1992.
Spouses Yu successfully traced valid acquisition of their title TCT No. T-490552 issued Septembe