G.R. No. L-73733, December 16, 1986
Epifania Magallon, petitioner, vs. Hon. Rosalina L. Montejo, in her Official Capacity as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, Branch XXI, Concepcion Lacerna, Eleceria Lacerna and Purita Lacerna, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, claiming to be the children of Martin Lacerna and the deceased Eustaquia Pichan, filed an action for partition against Martin Lacerna. They asserted a right to one-half of a homestead land, contending it was acquired during the coverture of Martin and Eustaquia and thus formed part of their conjugal partnership. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them entitled to half of the land as heirs of their mother. This decision was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court and became final. During the pendency of the appeal, however, Original Certificate of Title No. P-11568 was issued for the land, but it named “Martin Lacerna, married to Epifania Magallon” as the registered owner, not Martin and the deceased Eustaquia. After the judgment became final, the trial court issued an alias writ of execution to enforce the partition. Epifania Magallon, the second wife named in the title, filed a motion to intervene and stay execution, arguing the property was now conjugal property between her and Martin under an incontestable Torrens title.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution can be enforced against the property registered in the names of Martin Lacerna and Epifania Magallon, despite the final judgment declaring half of it as belonging to the conjugal partnership of Martin and the deceased Eustaquia Pichan.

RULING

The Supreme Court annulled the writ of execution. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of implied or constructive trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code. The final and binding factual findings established that the land rightfully pertained to the conjugal partnership of Martin and Eustaquia. Its registration in the names of Martin and Epifania, therefore, occurred through mistake or fraud. Consequently, Epifania Magallon holds her apparent title under an implied trust for the benefit of the rightful owners—the heirs of Eustaquia. A Torrens title cannot be used to protect a fraud or perpetuate a mistake. However, the Court clarified that the writ of execution was improperly issued because it commanded a simple delivery of a 5-hectare portion, which was not in conformity with the proper procedure for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The final judgment declared the respondents’ right to a share but did not specify the exact portion. Thus, the trial court was ordered to set aside the writ and instead conduct proper partition proceedings under Rule 69 to effectuate the judgment, determining the specific lot to be allocated to the heirs. The Court also noted, obiter, that the lower courts erred in not recognizing Martin Lacerna as a compulsory heir of Eustaquia entitled to concur in her succession, but this error was beyond review as the judgment had become final.