You are on page 1of 2


and RAMON V. DELFIN, respondents.
RamonDelfin (private respondent) filed an application for a parcel of land
located in Valenzuela, Bulacan. It was granted and now covered with an
OCT issued by the Registry of Deeda, Bulacan.
Delfin as an applicant, filed for a petition for Writ of Possession against
spouses Francisco and BasilisaEsconde, as they have been occupying the
said land. Subsequently, on March of 1978 the opposition filed by the
petitioner was denied by Judge Bautista. Moreover, Judge constantino,
who took over the same branch presided over judge Bautista issued an
order for Writ of Possession against the spouses. Immediately, petitioner
filed a motion to quash which was denied.
Petitioner then filed complaint for conveyanceagainstDelfin which was
rebutted by the latter via motion to dismiss on the ground that (1) the cause
of action, if any, is barred by re judicata (2) the complaint fails to state
sufficient cause or causes of action for reconveyance and (3) the plaintiff is
barred by prescription or laches from filing the case.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a rejoinder to motion to dismiss and motion for
leave of court. The sheriff then, upon the courts order, delivered
possession to Delfin however he was barred in entering the premises.
Delfin filed a motion for an Alias writ of possession which was granted.
The sheriff turned over the possession to the representative of Delfin,
however, when the latter went to the premises he was again barred by the
petitioner. Then, Delfine asked for demolition and he moved for a second
alias writ of possession which was again, granted.
Subsequently, the writ of reconveyance filed by the petitioner was
dismissed. After which motions and motions have been filed. The second
resolve the issue, a temporary restraining order directing the sheriff and
Delfin to refrain from enforcing and/or carrying out the third alias writ of
possession. Petitioner then filed motion to amend the resolution and TRO,
either nullifying third alias writ of possession served orto issue a mandatory
injunction which was denied by the said court.

Whether or not action for reconveyance is the proper remedy.
An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted
to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to
transfer or reconvey the land to him. The prevailing rule in this jurisdiction
does not bar a landowner whose property was wrongfully or erroneously
registered under the Torrens System from bringing an action, after one
year from the issuance of the decree, for the reconveyance of the property
in question. Such an action does not aim or purport to re-open the
registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but only to
show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned
property is not the real owner thereof. An ordinary civil action for
reconveyance does not seek to set aside the decree but respecting the
decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer
or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.
Under the circumstances in the case at bar, it is apparent that
reconveyance is not the proper remedy. There was no proof of irregularity
in the issuance of title, nor in the proceedings incident thereto, nor was it
established that fraud had indeed intervened in the issuance of said title,
and the period of one year within which intrinsic fraud could be claimed had
long expired. Under similar conditions, the Court ruled that the land should
be adjudicated to the registered owner that: "Justice is done according to
law. As a rule, equity follows the law. There may be a moral obligation,
often regarded as an equitable consideration (meaning compassion), but if
there is no enforceable legal duty, the action must fail although the
disadvantaged party deserves commiseration or sympathy."
An action for reconveyance of real property on the ground of fraud
must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such
discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of an original
certificate of title.