G.R. No. 159284 , January 27, 2009
HEIRS OF BERNARDO ULEP namely: Dolores Ulep, Bernardo Ulep, Jr., Jaime Ulep and Jean Ulep Estrera all represented by Dolores Ulep, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES CRISTOBAL DUCAT and FLORA KIONG, Respondents.

FACTS

The subject of the case is a 4,992-square-meter agricultural lot in La Trinidad, Benguet, originally part of a larger tract owned by Agustin Ulep. On June 1, 1964, Agustin Ulep and respondent Cristobal Ducat executed an agreement wherein Ducat undertook to facilitate the registration and titling of Agustin Ulep’s lands. After Agustin Ulep’s death, his son Cecilio Ulep administered the properties. Ducat continued the titling process, and the lot, originally designated as Lot No. 4 in a 1964 survey plan, was later redesignated as Lot No. 22 in an amended survey plan approved in 1982. On September 16, 1984, Ducat filed an application for free patent over the lot, which was granted, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. P-1390 in the names of spouses Cristobal Ducat and Flora Kiong on November 14, 1984. On November 11, 1994, the heirs of Bernardo Ulep (son of Agustin Ulep) filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against the spouses, alleging that Ducat fraudulently caused the amendment of the survey plan and registration of the lot in his name. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient evidence of fraud. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially affirmed the MTC but later reversed itself in a resolution, ordering reconveyance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC resolution and reinstated the MTC decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioners failed to prove that the respondents fraudulently obtained title over the disputed property, warranting reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The Court held that for an action for reconveyance based on fraud to succeed, the plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence both their title to the property and the fact of fraud. The petitioners relied heavily on Exhibit “D-2,” a Waiver of Rights and Quitclaim with erasures and alterations, to allege fraud. However, the Court found that even with the alterations, this document did not dispose of the disputed lot (Lot No. 4/Lot No. 22) in favor of the respondents and was not the basis for the grant of the title. The Court noted that the amendment of the survey plan was supported by an affidavit from Cecilio Ulep and Dionisio Ulep (co-heirs of Bernardo Ulep), indicating a legitimate purpose to delineate road rights-of-way and occupants, negating fraudulent intent. The Court emphasized that the crucial document establishing respondents’ ownership was Exhibit “15,” an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property executed by Bernardo Ulep himself, transferring his rights over the lot to Cristobal Ducat. This admission against interest by Bernardo Ulep strongly supported respondents’ claim and undermined petitioners’ theory of fraud. The petitioners’ evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome this admission or to prove that the title was fraudulently obtained. Thus, the CA correctly reinstated the MTC decision dismissing the complaint for reconveyance.