G.R. No. 18454; April 4, 1923
NICANOR VILLAROSA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ANTONIO SARMIENTO, as administrator of the intestate estate of Jose Sarmiento, deceased, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In a cadastral proceeding, lot No. 639 was adjudicated to the heirs of Jose Sarmiento and lot No. 642 to Nicanor Villarosa and the heirs of Victor Flores, with corresponding certificates of title issued. The plaintiffs (Villarosa et al.) later filed a complaint alleging that a portion of their fish pond, yielding substantial annual profit, was wrongfully included within the boundaries of lot No. 639 and adjudicated to the Sarmiento heirs. They claimed this inclusion resulted from fraud, as the defendants allegedly led them to believe the fish pond was not claimed and was not included in lot No. 639, preventing them from filing an opposition in the cadastral case. The plaintiffs asserted ownership and possession of the fish pond until deprived by a writ of possession obtained by the defendant administrator in November 1919. The defendant denied fraud, asserted valid title via the cadastral decree and certificate of title, and counterclaimed for unpaid lease rentals. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to convey the disputed portion or indemnify them.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs, as alleged true owners of a portion of land included by survey error within a lot adjudicated and registered under the Torrens system in another’s name, can recover that portion after the decree of registration has become final.

RULING

No. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. The defendant is absolved from the complaint, and possession of the disputed fish pond is ordered returned to him. The plaintiffs are absolved from the counterclaim for rentals. The certificate of title issued to the Sarmiento heirs is conclusive and indefeasible. The cadastral court’s decree, having become final, vested title in the registered owners. The alleged error was not a mere error in description but an error in the title itself, which cannot be collaterally attacked. The remedy of reconveyance based on fraud was not available because no such action was filed within the one-year period prescribed by Section 38 of the Land Registration Act after the decree became final. Ownership by prescription could not prevail against a Torrens title.