GR 182908; (August, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 182908, August 6, 2014.
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO I. NARVASA, SR., and HEIRS OF PETRA IMBORNAL and PEDRO FERRER, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact, MRS. REMEDIOS B. NARVASA-REGACHO, Petitioners, vs. EMILIANA, VICTORIANO, FELIPE, MA TEO, RAYMUNDO, MARIA, and EDUARDO, all surnamed IMBORNAL, Respondents.
FACTS
Basilia Imbornal had four children: Alejandra, Balbina, Catalina, and Pablo. Petitioners are the heirs of Alejandra’s children (Francisco I. Narvasa, Sr. and Pedro Ferrer) and Balbina’s daughter (Petra Imbornal). Respondents are the descendants of Pablo. Catalina was married to Ciriaco Abrio. Basilia owned the Sabangan property, which she conveyed to her daughters Balbina, Alejandra, and Catalina in 1920. Ciriaco Abrio applied for and was granted a homestead patent over a riparian land (the Motherland) adjacent to the Cayanga River. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1462 was issued in Ciriaco’s name on December 5, 1933. Petitioners alleged that the Sabangan property was sold, and the proceeds were used to fund Ciriaco’s homestead application, with an agreement that Ciriaco would hold the Motherland in trust for the Imbornal sisters. Ciriaco and his heirs occupied the northern portion of the Motherland, while respondents occupied the southern portion. A First Accretion formed adjoining the Motherland in 1949, and OCT No. P-318 was issued in the name of respondent Victoriano Imbornal in 1952. A Second Accretion formed adjoining the First Accretion in 1971, and OCT No. 21481 was issued in the names of all respondents in 1978. Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance, partition, and/or damages against respondents, claiming rights over the Motherland and both accretions based on an implied trust and alleging that respondents registered the accretions through deceit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering reconveyance and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declaring the descendants of Ciriaco as exclusive owners of the Motherland, the descendants of Victoriano as exclusive owners of the First Accretion, and the descendants of Pablo (respondents) as exclusive owners of the Second Accretion.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in declaring (a) the descendants of Ciriaco as the exclusive owners of the Motherland; (b) the descendants of respondent Victoriano as the exclusive owners of the First Accretion; and (c) the descendants of Pablo (respondents) as the exclusive owners of the Second Accretion.
RULING
The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The Court held:
1. Regarding the Motherland: The action for reconveyance based on an implied trust had prescribed. An action for reconveyance based on a constructive or implied trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which operates as a constructive notice. OCT No. 1462 was issued in Ciriaco’s name on December 5, 1933. Petitioners filed their complaint only in 1984, well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. Furthermore, the homestead patent was a grant by the government to Ciriaco alone after he satisfied the requirements of Commonwealth Act No. 141. The title issued pursuant to the patent became indefeasible and incontrovertible one year after its issuance. The claim that Ciriaco held the land in trust for the Imbornal sisters was unsubstantiated and could not prevail over the Torrens title.
2. Regarding the Accretions: Respondents acquired ownership of the accretions through acquisitive prescription. Accretions do not automatically become registered land and are susceptible to acquisition by prescription by third persons. Respondents had been in continuous, open, and adverse possession of the First Accretion in the concept of an owner since its formation in 1949, leading to the issuance of OCT No. P-318 in 1952. Their possession of the Second Accretion likewise resulted in the issuance of OCT No. 21481 in 1978. Petitioners’ inaction for decades resulted in the respondents’ titles becoming indefeasible. The principle that accretion belongs to the riparian owner presupposes that the riparian owner has maintained ownership of the main property; here, petitioners failed to establish co-ownership of the Motherland.