Case Summary (G.R. No. 204992)
Petitioners’ Claim
Petitioners allege that respondent’s rip-rapping under Special Work Order (SWO) 13-000271 (1986) altered the river’s course, incorporated 1,680.92 sqm of their land and 3,556.62 sqm of riverbed into TCT 144017, then subdivided into seven derivative titles. They sought: annulment of SWO 13-000271, TCT 144017 and its derivatives; reconveyance of the 1,680.92 sqm; restoration of the river; damages and fees.
Procedural History
• Complaint filed December 17, 1998 (accion reivindicatoria and annulment of title).
• Joint verification survey by City Engineer (April 22–25, 1995) confirmed 1,680.92 sqm encroachment.
• Trial court (Sept. 16, 2010) ruled for petitioners: void SWO and TCTs, restore 1,680.92 sqm, award damages and fees.
• RTC on reconsideration (Nov. 30, 2010) dismissed for prescription.
• Court of Appeals (Feb. 24, 2012) reinstated Sept. 16, 2010 Decision and cancelled derivatives;
• CA Resolutions (July 4 and Dec. 20, 2012) reversed itself, affirmed dismissal for prescription.
• Supreme Court Decision (Sept. 8, 2020).
Key Dates
• Jan. 7, 1950 – Issuance of TCT 16532.
• May 19, 1976 – Extra-Judicial Settlement among heirs.
• Sept. 11, 1986 – Approval of SWO 13-000271.
• Nov. 25, 1986 – Issuance of TCT 144017.
• Apr. 22–25, 1995 – Joint verification survey VS-00-00368.
• Dec. 17, 1998 – Filing of complaint.
• Sept. 8, 2020 – Supreme Court Decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution – protection of property rights, due process.
• Property Registration Decree (PD 1529): Sec. 31 (indefeasibility), Sec. 52 (constructive notice).
• Civil Code: Art. 420 (public dominion), Art. 449–450 (bad-faith improvements), Art. 476 (quieting of title), Art. 502 (rivers as public dominion), Art. 712 (modes of acquiring ownership).
• DENR Memorandum Circular No. 013-10 (Special Work Orders cannot be subject of title).
Trial Court Decision
The RTC held the rip-rapping illegal, SWO 13-000271 void, and TCT 144017 and its derivatives cancelable. It ordered reconveyance of 1,680.92 sqm to petitioners, restoration of the riverbed, P300,000 actual damages, P100,000 attorney’s fees, P50,000 acceptance fees, P1,500 per appearance, and costs. On reconsideration, it dismissed for prescription of an implied-trust action.
Court of Appeals Rulings
First CA decision reinstated the RTC’s original relief, adding cancellation of seven derivative titles and physical restoration. On motion for reconsideration, it reversed itself, dismissed the complaint for prescription (treating it as an implied-trust reconveyance action with a ten-year period), and denied restoration or damages.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether petitioners’ cause of action prescribed.
- Validity of TCT 144017.
- Viability of the accretion theory.
Prescription and Quieting of Title
Under Art. 476, an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if the plaintiff is in possession. Petitioners held constructive and actual possession since 1976 and promptly reported the encroachment in 1995, triggering no prescriptive bar under the 1987 Constitution’s protection of property rights.
Indefeasibility and Prior Registrant Rule
Although Torrens titles are indefeasible (PD 1529, Sec. 31), earlier registrants prevail. TCT 16532 (1950) predated TCT 144017 (1986); respondent was charged with constructive notice of petitioners’ title (PD 1529, Sec. 52). The overlapping 1,680.92 sqm renders TCT 144017 invalid as against petitioners.
Special Work Order and Public Domain
SWO 13-000271 is a mere construction permit under DENR Circular 013-10, not a mode of acquiring title (Civil Code, Art. 712). TCT 144017 covered riverb
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204992)
Facts of the Case
- Fernando Tensuan owned a 32,862 sqm parcel in Poblacion, Muntinlupa City, registered as TCT No. 16532 (issued January 7, 1950).
- Upon Fernando’s death (May 19, 1976), his heirs executed an extra-judicial settlement and annotated it on TCT No. 16532.
- Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez owned an adjacent subdivision (Aguila Village) on the northern bank of the Magdaong River, which served as boundary.
- In the 1990s, Ma. Isabel commissioned rip-rapping of her riverbank under SWO 13-000271 (approved September 11, 1986), altering the river’s course southward into petitioners’ land.
- A joint verification survey (VS-00-00368, April 22–25, 1995) showed 1,680.92 sqm of petitioners’ land encroached; a later survey (Feb 19, 2000) showed 2,165.73 sqm.
- Ma. Isabel obtained TCT No. 144017 (Nov 25, 1986) covering 5,237.53 sqm—1,680.92 sqm from petitioners’ land and 3,556.62 sqm of riverbed—and subdivided it into seven derivative titles.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 98-286 (accion reivindicatoria and annulment of title) on December 17, 1998, seeking to nullify SWO 13-000271, TCT No. 144017 and derivatives, restore property and riverbed, and recover damages.
- Ma. Isabel answered (March 19, 1999), denying encroachment, asserting lawful title by accretion under SWO 13-000271, and claiming various damages from petitioners.
RTC Decision and Reconsideration
- RTC Decision (Sept 16, 2010):
• Declared SWO 13-000271 void and canceled TCT No. 144017;
• Restored 1,680.92 sqm to petitioners;
• Awarded P50,000 acceptance fees, P100,000 attorney’s fees, P1,500 appearance fees, P300,000 actual damages; costs. - RTC Order (Nov 30, 2010) on respondent’s motion: reversed itself, dismissed case for prescription; counterclaim dismissed.
- RTC Resolution on reconsideration: confirme