G.R. No. L-22269 December 20, 1967
AMANDO, FRANCISCO I, TEOFILA and BENITA, all surnamed AÑONUEVO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ALBERTO, FRANCISCO II, FLORENCIO, DAVID, MERCEDES EDUVIJIS and BRIGIDO all surnamed AÑONUEVO, FE ENCISCO and OSCAR ENCISCO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs Amando, Francisco I, Teofila, and Benita Añonuevo are children of the deceased Tomas Añonuevo by his first marriage. They filed an action for partition of six parcels of land allegedly belonging to their father. Defendants are their half-siblings (children of Tomas by his second marriage) and other descendants. Plaintiffs alleged the lands were acquired by Tomas during his first marriage using funds from his first wife’s paraphernal property, and that upon Tomas’s death in 1950, no liquidation of that conjugal partnership occurred. Defendants, in their answer, admitted some allegations, denied others, and filed a cross-complaint for partition of nine other lots held by plaintiffs. The lower court ordered partition of the six parcels in the complaint and three of the nine lots in the cross-complaint (Lots Nos. 5705, 5765, and 5805). Plaintiffs appealed the order to partition these three lots, arguing it violated the indefeasibility of Torrens titles because plaintiff Teofila Añonuevo held transfer certificates of title for them in her name and her husband’s. The records showed these lots were originally registered under Tomas Añonuevo’s name. After his death, Teofila twice petitioned for reconstitution of titles. First, she sought reconstitution of original certificates of title in her name, which was denied after a motion for reconsideration revealed the originals were in Tomas’s name. Subsequently, she filed a second petition in a different branch of the court, this time for reconstitution of lost transfer certificates of title allegedly in her and her husband’s name, which was granted, leading to the issuance of new titles. Defendants contended this reconstitution was obtained through fraud, as no such transfer certificates had ever existed, a fact supported by inconsistencies in Teofila’s claims (e.g., alleging a purchase from Tomas days after his death). The trial court found for the defendants, ordering partition.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court’s order for partition of Lots Nos. 5705, 5765, and 5805, despite the existence of reconstituted transfer certificates of title in the name of Teofila Añonuevo and her husband, violates the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title was not violated because the decision did not review or annul the registration decrees themselves. The reconstituted certificates of title were secured through misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud, as evidenced by the factual findings: no valid transfer from the original owner (Tomas) to Teofila and her husband had occurred, and the alleged lost transfer certificates had never existed. The court treated Teofila as a mere trustee holding the titles for the benefit of all heirs of Tomas Añonuevo. Therefore, ordering partition was in accordance with law, justice, equity, and fair play.