G.R. No. 156101 ; February 10, 2009
HEIRS OF JOSE T. CALO, namely: GILDA CALO-SANCHEZ, NEMIA CALO-TEAÑO and WILFREDO C. PABIA, Petitioners, vs. NONA CALO and the HEIRS OF ROMUALDA CALO, namely: LUCINDA LAMIGO, ANITA LAMIGO, MANUEL LAMIGO, JESUS LAMIGO, FEDERICO LAMIGO, RICARDO LAMIGO and CHONA LAMIGO, Respondents.

FACTS

On June 8, 1990, respondent Nona Calo filed a petition for reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 337 covering lot no. 306 of the Butuan Cadastre, issued on April 3, 1926, to Alejo Calo, Romualda Calo, Leoncio Peincenaves and Vicente Calo, claiming the original was lost when the Register of Deeds was destroyed by fire during World War II. Petitioners, the heirs of Jose T. Calo, intervened, asserting ownership over a 1/6 portion of the lot, claiming Jose was a son of the original owner Ventura Calo. They based their claim on possession, stating Jose gave Teofilo Montilla possession of his portion before WWII, and in 1989, Montilla’s heirs executed a deed of conveyance and relinquishment of rights in favor of petitioners. The parties agreed to convert the petition to an action for partition. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the reconstitution of OCT No. 337 and the annotation of the claims of Nona and the intervenors, except the heirs of Romualda, confirming petitioners’ ownership and possession of a 17,974.5 sq. m. portion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC decision, excluding petitioners’ claim, finding they failed to present any deed or affidavit proving Jose was an heir of Ventura and that Jose never questioned the validity of OCT No. 337. The CA affirmed the annotation of claims only for the successors-in-interest of the registered owners.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in excluding the claim of the heirs of Jose T. Calo to a portion of lot no. 306, despite their claim of possession and the deed of conveyance from the heirs of Teofilo Montilla.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the CA’s decision. The Court held that petitioners failed to present any document proving Jose was a son of the original owner Ventura Calo or that Jose was fraudulently excluded when OCT No. 337 was obtained. The deed of conveyance from Montilla’s heirs only assigned possession, not ownership, as the instrument indicated the heirs were unaware why the property was registered in their father’s name and they merely returned their rights and interest. Furthermore, the lease contracts presented showed Montilla was only a witness, not a lessor. The Court emphasized that OCT No. 337, issued in 1926, had been registered in the names of Alejo Calo, Romualda Calo, Leoncio Peincenaves, and Vicente Calo for over 60 years, making their title indefeasible and their rights of dominion unchallengeable. Only those who could trace their rights from these registered owners could annotate their claims on the reconstituted title.