G.R. No. 149679 ; May 30, 2003
HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF VICENTE ERMAC, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, heirs of Claudio Ermac’s other descendants, filed an action for quieting of title over portions of Lot No. 666 in Mandaue City. They claimed Claudio was the original owner, and upon his death, the lot was inherited by his children Esteban, Pedro, and Balbina. They alleged that Esteban’s son, Clemente Ermac, applied for registration of the entire lot in his own name, excluding his uncle, aunt, and cousins. Despite the registration, Clemente never disturbed the possession of the other heirs. Petitioners, Clemente’s heirs, asserted sole ownership based on the Torrens title issued in Clemente’s name, claiming he possessed the entire lot adversely and continuously.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that Lot No. 666 was originally owned by Claudio Ermac and inherited by his three children. It held that petitioners held two-thirds of the lot in trust for the other heirs. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, giving weight to the trial court’s factual findings on possession and succession.

ISSUE

Whether the certificate of title issued in the name of Clemente Ermac conclusively vests ownership of the entire Lot No. 666 upon his heirs to the exclusion of the other heirs of the original owner, Claudio Ermac.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Registration under the Torrens system does not create or vest title; it is merely a means of confirming existing ownership. A certificate of title is only prima facie evidence of ownership and cannot prevail over clear evidence of a superior right. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts that Claudio Ermac was the original owner and that his property passed to his three children by intestate succession.
The legal logic is that the Torrens title, while indefeasible, is subject to the limitation that it cannot be used to perpetrate fraud. The registration procured by Clemente Ermac, which excluded the shares of his co-heirs, constituted fraud. Consequently, petitioners, as Clemente’s successors-in-interest, hold the registered title in trust for the rightful owners of the excluded portions. The respondents, as proven successors of Pedro and Balbina Ermac, have a better right to their respective shares. Their open, continuous, and undisturbed possession in the concept of owners further strengthens their claim. The action for quieting of title was the proper remedy to remove the cloud on their ownership created by the certificate of title issued under fraudulent circumstances.