G.R. No. L-4136; February 29, 1952
Montano Vital, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Francisco Anore, Petra de los Santos and The Director of Lands, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On December 13, 1945, Montano Vital filed a complaint against Francisco Anore, Petra de los Santos (widow of Ambrosio Arabit), and the Director of Lands. Vital sought to be declared the owner of a parcel of land, alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, notorious, exclusive, and adverse possession under a bona fide claim of ownership since time immemorial. He discovered that the same land had been granted as a free patent to Ambrosio Arabit (who died in 1929) and that a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued in Anore’s name in 1944. Vital alleged that Arabit had never been in possession of the land during his lifetime and that Anore knew the land belonged to and was possessed by Vital and his predecessors. Petra de los Santos, in her answer, admitted these allegations regarding possession. Anore filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations, as more than ten years had elapsed since the original certificate of title was issued to Arabit in 1934. The Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissed the complaint based on the statute of limitations and on the ground that Petra de los Santos would be incompetent to testify against her deceased husband. Vital appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the action for reconveyance based on an alleged void Torrens title issued from a free patent over private land is barred by the statute of limitations, given the plaintiff’s allegations of the defendant’s and his predecessor’s lack of possession and knowledge of the plaintiff’s ownership.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court held that while a Torrens title issued upon a free patent generally becomes indefeasible after one year from issuance, and an action for cancellation may be barred after ten years, this rule does not apply if the registered owner (or his predecessor-in-interest) knew the land belonged to another and was never in possession. In such a case, the true owner may bring an action for reconveyance based on equity. The plaintiff’s allegations—that he and his predecessors were in possession since time immemorial, that the patentee (Arabit) was never in possession, and that Anore knew these facts—if proven, would justify a judgment directing Anore to reconvey the land. The motion to dismiss admitted these material allegations for its purpose, thus stating a cause of action. The statute of limitations could not be invoked at the pleading stage based on these admitted facts. The Court also clarified that the prohibition on spousal testimony did not preclude proving the admitted facts through other competent witnesses.