G.R. No. 123490 ; August 9, 2000
SPOUSES NENA ARRIOLA and FRANCISCO ADOLFO, et al., petitioners, vs. DEMETRIO, LOLITA, PEDRO, NENA, BRAULIO and DOMINGA, all surnamed MAHILUM, and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The subject property is Lot No. 1478-B, originally owned by spouses Eusebio Mahilum and Dionisia Blase. They sold it to their son Simeon Mahilum in 1912. Simeon possessed it openly, had it declared in his name for taxation, and in 1931, the cadastral court adjudicated the land to him and his wife. In 1932, Simeon sold one-half of the property to his brother Maximo. Later, Simeon sold portions to Fausto Moncada and a school.
In 1969, Simeon’s sister Rosario fraudulently procured his thumbmark on an Extra-Judicial Partition, misrepresenting it pertained to other lots. Using this, she secured the reconstitution of a non-existent Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. RO-1076) in the names of the original spouses Eusebio and Dionisia in 1970. The heirs of Eusebio then partitioned the property among themselves, excluding Simeon, and issued several Transfer Certificates of Title to themselves and subsequent purchasers.

ISSUE

Whether the reconstituted title (OCT No. RO-1076) and all subsequent titles derived from it are valid, or whether they are null and void due to fraud and the prior vested rights of Simeon Mahilum.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, declaring the reconstituted title and all derivative titles null and void. The legal logic rests on the principle that a reconstituted title can only be based on a previously valid and existing certificate of title. Here, no such title ever existed in the names of Eusebio and Dionisia after the 1912 sale to Simeon. The 1931 cadastral decree had already vested title in Simeon, making him the rightful owner. Therefore, the 1970 reconstitution was baseless and produced no legal effect.
Furthermore, the Extra-Judicial Partition, which facilitated the reconstitution, was vitiated by fraud. Simeon, an illiterate, was deceived into affixing his thumbmark. Consent given through fraud is voidable and renders the deed annullable. Consequently, all acts stemming from this fraudulent partition—the reconstitution and the subsequent issuance of titles to the other heirs and purchasers—are invalid. The Court upheld Simeon’s ownership, subject only to the prior valid sales of portions to Maximo’s heirs, Moncada (later Ricardo Mahilum), and the school. The claims of subsequent purchasers could not be sustained as their titles originated from a void source.