G.R. No. 199558 , August 14, 2019
KAWASA MAGALANG AND MONA WAHAB, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES LUCIBAR HERETAPE AND ROSALINA FUNA, ROBERTO LANDERO, SPOUSES NESTOR HERETAPE AND ROSA ROGADOR, AND ENGR. EUSEBIO F. FORTINEZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Kawasa Magalang and Mona Wahab filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or declaration of nullity of acquisition of property against respondents. Petitioners claimed ownership of a 10-hectare lot (Lot 1064) inherited by Kawasa Magalang from his grandparents. On February 4, 1969, Kawasa Magalang and respondent Lucibar Heretape executed a memorandum of agreement where Magalang authorized Heretape to occupy and cultivate 2.5 hectares for a period of one year and four months for a consideration of ₱1,310.00, which petitioners characterized as a mortgage. In the early 1970s, petitioners evacuated the lot due to armed conflict. Respondents allegedly took advantage, usurped the entire lot, and, in connivance with Engr. Eusebio Fortinez, subdivided it. Using falsified documents, respondents Spouses Lucibar Heretape, Spouses Nestor Heretape, and Roberto Landero obtained free patent titles over portions of the lot.
Respondents claimed that when Heretape entered the agreement, Magalang misrepresented himself as owner. After Magalang abandoned the lot, a certain Pedro Deansin appeared, claiming ownership and presenting documents including a Deed of Transfer of Rights, a Bureau of Lands Resolution, and an Order from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Unable to locate Magalang, Nestor Heretape bought 5 hectares from Deansin, giving 2.5 hectares to his father Lucibar. In 1974, Deansin sold the remaining 5 hectares to Roberto Landero. Respondents subsequently applied for and were granted certificates of title.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondents to vacate the lots. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint. The CA held that petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to overcome the presumptions in favor of respondents’ certificates of title, which were presented in court. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and dismissing petitioners’ complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or declaration of nullity of acquisition of property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. Petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in its appreciation of the facts and evidence. The CA correctly ruled that petitioners did not present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of respondents’ certificates of title. Petitioners’ evidence, consisting mainly of a memorandum of agreement, tax declarations, and tax receipts, was insufficient to prove their ownership and to annul the titles issued to respondents. The respondents, on the other hand, presented their respective Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) and evidence of a prior administrative case where the Bureau of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources recognized Pedro Deansin’s rights over the lot, which he subsequently transferred to respondents. The Court emphasized that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The action for reconveyance, based on implied or constructive trust, had also prescribed, as more than ten years had elapsed from the issuance of the titles.