GR 188575; (December, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188575 ; December 10, 2012
GAUDENCIO PACETE, Petitioner, vs. INOCENCIO ASOTIGUE, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Inocencio Asotigue filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against petitioner Gaudencio Pacete over a parcel of agricultural land. Asotigue claimed he acquired the lot in 1979 through a notarized Transfer of Rights and Improvements, had since possessed it openly, introduced permanent improvements like rubber trees, and consistently paid real property taxes under his name. He discovered the lot was included in Pacete’s Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. V-16654, issued in 1961, only when he later applied for his own title. Asotigue’s predecessors-in-interest testified to a chain of transfers dating back to 1958, with Pacete even signing as a witness to a 1971 transaction involving the property.
Pacete defended his ownership based on his OCT, asserting Asotigue entered the land by stealth in 1979. Pacete’s family testified they warned Asotigue but did not take legal action due to fear and illiteracy. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Asotigue, ordering reconveyance and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision ordering Pacete to reconvey the disputed property to Asotigue and to pay damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The Court held that a Torrens title is not indefeasible if procured through fraud or misrepresentation. Pacete’s act of including Asotigue’s already-possessed portion within the technical description of his own land during the registration process constituted fraud. Since Asotigue and his predecessors had been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the disputed lot long before Pacete’s title was issued, Asotigue acquired a vested right over the property. The remedy of reconveyance is precisely available to the true owner when a certificate of title is wrongfully issued in another’s name.
The Court found no reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower courts, which were supported by preponderant evidence, including notarized deeds and tax declarations in Asotigue’s name. The awards for moral and exemplary damages were upheld as Asotigue substantiated the injury caused by Pacete’s fraudulent inclusion of the land, and the exemplary damages serve as a deterrent.