G.R. No. L-36789 July 25, 1983
FELIPA CORDERO (Deceased) MAURO OCAMPO, CASIMIRO OCAMPO and ELISEA OCAMPO, petitioners, vs. VICTORIA P. CABRAL, ALEJANDRO BERBOSO, DALMACIO MONTAOS and HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of the late Gregorio Z. Ocampo, filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership over a 4,303-square-meter portion of a parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14513 in Ocampo’s name. They alleged that after Gregorio’s death in 1958, they discovered the respondents in possession of the disputed southern portion, with Victoria Cabral claiming ownership and the other respondents acting as her tenants. Despite demands and a survey confirming the land was within the titled property, respondents refused to vacate.
The respondents, in their Answer, claimed ownership through Victoria Cabral and her predecessors-in-interest, asserting actual, adverse, peaceful, and continuous possession. They alleged the land was part of Lot 5-B, Psd-11496, and that its inclusion in Ocampo’s title was through error or fraud. They prayed for affirmative relief, asking the court to declare Cabral the owner and order the petitioners to execute a deed of transfer in her favor.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the respondents’ possession based on an oral contract of sale, a matter not raised or litigated in the trial court, instead of resolving the case on the established issues of ownership under the Torrens title and the respondents’ claim of registration by error or fraud.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the conclusiveness of Torrens title and the improper consideration of an unlitigated issue. The land is incontrovertibly included in TCT No. 14513 under the name of the petitioners’ predecessor. The respondents’ claim that the registration was vitiated by error or fraud was not substantiated by the trial court, which made no categorical finding to support such a conclusion and, significantly, did not grant the affirmative relief the respondents sought. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in basing its decision on a supposed oral contract of sale, which was never pleaded, asserted as a defense, raised as an issue during trial, or assigned as an error on appeal. A judgment must conform to the issues presented and tried.
Consequently, as registered owners, the petitioners are entitled to possession. The respondents, being in possession, were possessors in good faith until the service of the summons in this case, after which they became possessors in bad faith. Pursuant to Article 549 of the Civil Code, they are obligated to vacate the land and surrender it to the petitioners and to account for the fruits received from the time of the service of summons. The Supreme Court ordered the respondents to vacate and surrender the land and to account for its fruits from that date.