GR 139843; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139843. July 21, 2005
CONSUELO N. VDA. DE GUALBERTO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. FRANCISCO H. GO, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners are the heirs of Generoso Gualberto, the former registered owner of a parcel of land in Siniloan, Laguna under TCT No. 9203. In 1965, Generoso and his wife, petitioner Consuelo, sold the land to respondents’ father, Go S. Kiang, through a notarized “Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan.” Consuelo later executed an affidavit in 1973 confirming the sale to facilitate the transfer of the tax declaration. Subsequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1388 was issued in the name of respondent Rosa Javier Go, wife of Go S. Kiang, in 1978.
In 1995, petitioners filed a complaint for Conveyance, Accion Publiciana, and Quieting of Title with Damages against respondents, claiming ownership. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals with the modification of deleting the award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners now elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The core issues are: (1) whether a titled property can be the subject of a free patent title; (2) whether the right of a registered owner to demand return of property can be lost by prescription or laches; and (3) whether an action for reconveyance based on a nullity of title prescribes.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, the Court held that the validity of a Torrens title, such as OCT No. 1388 issued to Rosa Javier Go, cannot be collaterally attacked in an action for conveyance and quieting of title. A direct proceeding for annulment is required. Furthermore, this specific challenge was raised for the first time on appeal and thus cannot be entertained.
On the second and third issues, the Court ruled that petitioners’ action is effectively one for reconveyance, which prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. OCT No. 1388 was issued in 1978, but the complaint was filed only in 1995, well beyond the prescriptive period. The Court also found that laches had set in due to petitioners’ unreasonable delay in asserting their claim, coupled with respondents’ long-standing possession. An action for quieting of title, which is imprescriptible, requires the plaintiff to be in possession, a fact not established by petitioners. The factual findings of the lower courts, which concluded that respondents had been in actual possession since the 1965 sale, are final and conclusive.