GR L 50420; (May, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50420. May 29, 1987. REMEDIOS FERRER-LOPEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, TOMAS MANINGDING, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, heirs of Dominga Velasco, sought the reversal of a Court of Appeals decision and the reconveyance of a 2.6486-hectare portion of land. They claimed ownership over a 44-hectare inheritance (Lot 12509) from their mother, alleging that the private respondents, who held Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 13505 for the adjacent Lot 12510, were encroaching upon a portion of their property. Petitioners contended that the father of the respondents, Ramon Puzon, who acted as overseer for both properties during the 1935 cadastral survey, manipulated the boundary lines to benefit his children. They asserted they had been in continuous, peaceful possession of the disputed area for over 60 years and that the respondents’ claim, filed in 1967, was belated.
Private respondents maintained that the disputed land was part of the 52,908-square-meter Lot 12510, which they validly purchased in 1935 and for which they obtained a registered title in 1957. They argued that the cadastral survey and subsequent titling clearly delineated the boundaries of their lot, which was separate from the petitioners’ inherited property. They denied any conflict of interest by Ramon Puzon and emphasized the indefeasibility of their Torrens title.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners have a superior right to the disputed portion of land, warranting the reconveyance of the property from the registered owners, the private respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling in favor of the private respondents. The Court held that the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the conclusive and indefeasible character of OCT No. 13505 issued to the respondents. The doctrine of implied trust was found inapplicable as there was no proof that the respondents held legal title for the benefit of the petitioners. The elements necessary to establish such a trust under the Civil Code were absent.
Furthermore, the claim of acquisitive prescription could not prevail against a registered title under the Torrens system. The decree of registration bars all prior claims. The Court found no credible evidence of boundary manipulation by Ramon Puzon, noting that the lots had separate, marked boundaries and titles. The factual findings of the lower courts, which determined that the disputed land was within the respondents’ titled property, were respected, as no material facts were overlooked or misappreciated. Thus, the respondents’ ownership and right to possession, based on their registered title, were upheld.