G.R. No. L-26083. May 31, 1977.
CONSUELO MALALUAN VDA. DE RECINTO, petitioner, vs. RUPERTO INCIONG and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Ruperto Inciong is the registered owner under TCT No. Rt-379 of a parcel of land in Batangas. In 1961, a relocation survey revealed that a southern portion of this titled land, measuring 8,591 square meters, was in the actual possession of petitioner Consuelo Malaluan Vda. de Recinto. Inciong filed an action for recovery of possession. Petitioner claimed ownership and counterclaimed for reconveyance. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring her the lawful owner and ordering reconveyance. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering petitioner to return the land and pay damages.
The evidence established that the disputed portion was originally owned by Petronilo Acar, sold to spouses Mariano Recinto and Marta Magsumbol in 1918, and donated to petitioner and her late husband in 1931. They possessed it openly, with a living fence separating it from the land to the north. That northern land passed through several owners—Norberto Leyesa, the Templos, Atty. Ponciano Hernandez, and Matias Amurao—before being sold to respondent Inciong in 1946. Crucially, all these predecessors-in-interest of Inciong recognized the fence as the boundary and disclaimed any right to the disputed area south of it.

ISSUE

Whether the inclusion of the disputed portion in Inciong’s certificate of title is valid, thereby making him the rightful owner, or whether the title is void as to that portion, warranting reconveyance to the petitioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, ordering reconveyance. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that a certificate of title cannot confer ownership over land not rightfully included in the registration decree. The Court found that the disputed area was erroneously included in the cadastral survey of Lot No. 8151, which formed the basis of Inciong’s title. This error was carried through successive transfers. The land registration court had no jurisdiction to decree the disputed portion to the claimants of Lot No. 8151, as those claimants—Inciong’s predecessors—never asserted any claim or right over it. They consistently recognized the fence as the boundary and the petitioner’s ownership. Registration does not protect a title obtained in bad faith or through error when the true owner is in possession. Since the inclusion was void ab initio, the title, while indefeasible in general, is not a shield for fraud or error against the true owner. Inciong, having purchased with knowledge of the visible, physical boundary (the fence) and the possession of another, cannot be considered an innocent purchaser for value. Therefore, reconveyance is the proper remedy to correct the error and vest title in the rightful owner, the petitioner, who has proven prior and continuous possession under a valid claim of ownership.