GR 180357; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 180357; August 4, 2009
PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF VICENTE CORONADO, MAURA CORONADO, SIMEON CORONADO, JULIAN CORONADO and CRUZ B. CARBON, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents, heirs of Doroteo Garcia and Cruz Carbon, filed a complaint for annulment of title and/or reconveyance against petitioner Pioneer Insurance. They claimed ownership over a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal, allegedly inherited from Garcia, and asserted that a portion was wrongfully registered under OCT No. 501 in the name of Gaudencio Bocobo. Petitioner acquired the property covered by TCT No. 19781 after foreclosing a mortgage on Bocobo’s land. The trial court ordered a relocation survey to determine the property’s location.
The survey, conducted by Engr. Romulo Unciano, concluded that the property described in petitioner’s TCT No. N-19781 (based on Plan Psu-153144) is situated in Sitio Pinagbarilan, Barrio Malanday, San Mateo, Rizal. In contrast, the land claimed by respondents (Lot 2, Psu-159753) is located in Sitio Manungbian, Barrio San Juan, Antipolo. A subsequent commission confirmed these were two distinct and non-overlapping parcels. The trial court thus dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action, finding petitioner’s titled land different from respondents’ claimed property. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in effectively declaring that the property covered by petitioner’s certificate of title is not located in Antipolo City as stated in the title, based on the survey reports.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case. The legal logic is that a certificate of title under the Torrens system is conclusive evidence not only of ownership but also of the location of the property described therein. While the survey reports indicated the titled land was in San Mateo, not Antipolo, the courts’ declaration effectively modified the certificate of title’s technical description based on extrinsic evidence, which is impermissible without a direct proceeding for that purpose. The Court cited Odsigue v. Court of Appeals, which holds that the location specified in the title is conclusive.
The lower courts, by dismissing the complaint on the ground that the properties were different, implicitly ruled on the location of petitioner’s titled property, a matter not squarely raised in the respondents’ complaint for annulment. This prejudiced petitioner, whose title’s indefeasibility was compromised without a proper direct action challenging the technical description. Therefore, a remand is necessary for the trial court to conduct further proceedings to definitively determine the exact location of petitioner’s property in a manner consistent with the conclusiveness of the certificate of title.