Bernardino Ramos and Rosalia Oli v CA GR No.

1110227, February 3, 1999 (302

SCRA 589)
Facts:
Pedro Tolentino who claims ownership over Lots 572 and 579 separately sold each
lot to the petitioners, Bernardino Ramos. The petitioners instituted an action
for reconveyance with damages against the respondents, Rodolfo Bautista and Felisa
Lopez who allegedly wrongfully registered the said lots in their name. The respondents
acquired their title from Lucia Bautista to whom a Certificate of title covering both lots is
issued by the Register of Deeds. As Lucia’s heir, Rodolfo is able to acquire title to the lots
through a Transfer of Certificate of Title. Petitioners contend that they are in open, public,
continuous, and adverse possession of said lots for not less than 50 years personally and
through their predecessors-in-interest and that Lucia neither claimed ownership thereto
nor took possession of the same. They assail the Certificate of Title in the name of the
respondents as null and void and that they have acquired the lots by acquisitive
prescription. Respondents claims absolute ownership over the said lots pointing out that
based from the cadastral survey, Pedro Tolentino was able to acquire only a different lot
that is adjacent to Lot 572 which is the portion occupied by the petitioners by tolerance of
the original registrant Lucia Bautista. In the affirmative defense respondents maintained
that the action for reconveyance brought by the petitioners is tantamount to a collateral
attack to the decrees of registration while asserting the indefeasible of the Torrens Title.
The lower court ruled to dismiss the petition citing the cadastral proceeding in 1940
where Bernardino Ramos did not answer to the proceeding despite his claim of
possession over the lots and only Lucia filed an answer and appeared to be the lawful
claimant in the proceedings thus was issued an Original Certificate of Title to the lots in
dispute. The trial court presumed that everyone is notified of the cadastral proceeding, it
being in rem in nature. The petitioner has 1 year from the issuance of the decree to file
for the reopening of the proceeding on ground of fraud but he did not do so. Latches
against him have set in for filing the action for reconveyance 36 years after. The court of
appeals upheld the decision of the lower court hence this petition before the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not the registered title of the respondents can be attacked by the petitioners?

Ruling:
NO.Petitioners anchor their claim for ownership over the parcels of land by virtue of the
deed of sale executed between them and Pedro Tolentino. However, they failed to
present evidence according to the forms required by law. The deed of sale was apparently
lost by a fire from their counsel’s office and in lieu thereof they presented a certification
from a notary public who was their other lawyer attesting to the authenticity of the certified
true copy of the deed of sale. The certification however does not meet the requirement of
law provided in section 20 of Rule 132 where before a private document be received as
authentic it must be proved by anyone who witness the execution of the document or
there is genuineness on the signature of the maker presented in evidence. They failed to
present any witness to the execution of said document and they could not demonstrate
the genuineness of the signature from the document as it does not bear any signature of
the maker. Furthermore, even if there is authenticity to the document, the basic civil law
principle of relativity of contract operates and it cannot bind third party like Lucia.
Failure to register the contract of sale to the said lot, the sale was merely binding between
the petitioner and the vendor. Petitioners presented evidence of mortgage of the property
but those did not conform to the form required by law. The instrument did not sufficiently
describe the property of the mortgage therefore it would be difficult for the court to assume
that the property mortgage was the same as the subject of dispute. Their claim of
possession of not less than 50 years on the property can be construed as a bare claim
and it is upon the petitioner to have the burden of proving their claim of possession to the
lot which they failed to prove in court.
Their claim of fraud was not substantiated. Under the law, an action
for reconveyance on ground of fraud prescribed in 4 years which is counted from
the issuance of the registration of title to Lucia Bautista because the registration
served as a constructive notice to the whole world. On one hand, an action based
on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. This means that
petitioners should have enforced the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its
creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property. But the
petitioners failed to avail of any of the aforementioned remedies within the prescribed
periods. Private respondents have in their favor the law that protects holders of title under
the Torrens System of land registration. Petition was denied.