GR 159578; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 159578 ; July 28, 2008
ROGELIA DACLAG and ADELINO DACLAG (deceased) Substituted by RODEL M. DACLAG and ADRIAN M. DACLAG, Petitioners, vs. ELINO MACAHILIG, ADELA MACAHILIG, CONRADO MACAHILIG, LORENZA HABER and BENITA DEL ROSARIO, Respondents.
FACTS
The land in dispute originated from the spouses Candido and Gregoria Macahilig. Their daughter, Maxima, executed a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition in 1982 with the heirs of her deceased brothers, partitioning seven parcels of land. The specific parcel, an irrigated riceland, was divided, with the northern half adjudicated to the respondents as heirs of Eusebio Macahilig. Maxima confirmed this partition via a Statement of Conformity, waiving her rights to the lands adjudicated to her co-heirs. Despite this, in 1984, Maxima sold the entire riceland to the petitioners, the spouses Daclag. Petitioner Rogelia Daclag subsequently obtained an Original Certificate of Title via a free patent application.
The respondents, who were residing in Caloocan City, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership. They alleged that their cousin was the tenant on their northern half and that Maxima was only allowed to farm it out of pity. They sought reconveyance of their portion. The petitioners defended their purchase in good faith and their registered title, arguing it had become incontrovertible.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the entire land as registered owners, or whether the respondents are entitled to reconveyance of the northern half.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering reconveyance. The Court held that the 1982 Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was valid and effectively vested ownership of the northern half in the respondents. Consequently, Maxima had no ownership rights to that portion to convey in the 1984 sale to the petitioners. The sale was void with respect to the respondents’ half.
The Court rejected the defense of being a purchaser in good faith. The petitioners failed to exercise the requisite diligence. They were aware the land was tenanted, and a mere ocular inspection would have revealed the possession of the tenant, Penicula Quijano, who was holding the land for the absentee owners. This fact should have prompted further inquiry into the true ownership. Their failure to do so negates good faith. While a Torrens title is generally indefeasible, it cannot be used to protect a holder who procured it through bad faith. The respondents’ action for reconveyance, based on their established prior ownership, was a proper remedy to prove that the title was fraudulently issued in the petitioners’ names over property that was not Maxima’s to sell.