G.R. No. 126875. August 26, 1999
HEIRS OF MARIANO, JUAN, TARCELA and JOSEFA, all surnamed BRUSAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF SPOUSES INES BRUSAS and CLETO REBOSA, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves a dispute over a 19-hectare land in San Francisco, Baao, Camarines Sur. Petitioners, heirs of Juan, Mariano, Tarcela, and Josefa Brusas, claimed that the disputed property was part of a 33-hectare land possessed by their grandfather Sixto Brusas since 1924. In 1946, Sixto caused the property to be surveyed (Psu-116520) in the names of his five children: Juan, Ines, Mariano, Tarcela, and Josefa. The property was subdivided lengthwise among them, with each taking possession of their share. However, on July 17, 1968, Ines Brusas applied for and was granted a free patent over Lots 1 and 2 (19.8992 hectares) of the survey, and Original Certificate of Title No. 23356 was issued in her name. Petitioners discovered this in 1973. Efforts to settle failed. In 1974, Ines filed a complaint for recovery of six hectares, alleging her siblings forcibly entered her land. Her siblings countered with an action for reconveyance, alleging Ines used a forged affidavit to obtain title despite knowing she owned only a 1/5 share. The cases were consolidated. After a 19-year trial, the lower court dismissed Ines’s complaint, declared Lots 1 and 2 as pro-indiviso property of the siblings, and ordered Ines to reconvey the shares. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ordering petitioners to vacate and deliver possession to respondents (heirs of Ines) and dismissing the reconveyance complaint. The CA found no competent evidence of fraud by Ines, noted a presumption of regularity in the official grant of the patent, and ruled that Sixto’s occupation did not make the public land part of his hereditary estate since he never applied for a patent himself. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Who are the rightful owners of the disputed property—the petitioners, whose claim is based on a survey and subdivision plan, or the respondents, whose claim is based on an original certificate of title?
2. Was there fraud on the part of Ines Brusas in registering the land under her name, entitling petitioners to reconveyance?

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
1. On Ownership: The Court held that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the registered owner. The survey and subdivision plan submitted by petitioners are inferior proofs of ownership and cannot prevail against the original certificate of title in the name of Ines Brusas. The survey only indicates an interest but does not define its nature or extent. The Torrens System aims to quiet title, and once registered, the owner’s title is secure.
2. On Fraud and Reconveyance: An action for reconveyance requires the plaintiff to prove by clear and convincing evidence both their title to the property and the fact of fraud committed by the registered owner. Petitioners failed to do so. They submitted specimens for NBI examination regarding a supposedly falsified affidavit but failed to present the results, which the Court interpreted as either a lack of pursuit or an adverse result. The existence of another affidavit where the siblings renounced rights to other lots in favor of Mariano suggested recognition of Ines as the sole claimant of Lots 1 and 2. Furthermore, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in granting the free patent. The Court also upheld the CA’s finding that the land was originally public land, and Sixto Brusas’s occupation, without compliance with legal requirements for a patent, did not make it part of his hereditary estate transmissible to his heirs. The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, as none of the exceptions warranting a review were present.