CONSUELO MALALUAN VDA.

DE RECINTO vs RUPERTO INCIONG and COURT OF

APPEALS

• Consuelo Malaluan Vda. De Recinto – petitioner

• Ruperto Inciong and Court of Appeals – private respondent

RUPERTO AND RECINTO:

• Ruperto Inciong is the registered owner of a parcel of land formerly known as Lot No.
8151. Inciong acquired the land from Matias Amurao in 1946. However, in 1946, after a
relocation survey of the land was conducted, it was discovered that the southern
boundary of the area is in possession of Consuelo Malaluan Vda. De Recinto. Private
respondent filed an action for recovery of possession of the petitioner’s portion.

COURT OF APPEALS RULING:

• After the trial, the lower court issued a ruling acknowledging the petitioner as the land's
lawful owner and ordering Inciong to execute a deed of reconveyance. However, the
Court of Appeals reversed the judgment by ordering the defendant-appellee to return the
portion of the land, pay damages of P100.00 and P1,000.00 for attorney's fee.

PETITION:
• A petition for review on certiorari was filed on the decision, faulting the Court of Appeals
in not considering that it was thru error that the area in dispute was included in the title of
the respondent, the land in question was not included in the sale by Amurao to Inciong,
respondent is acting in bad faith, in declaring in effect that petitioner’s deed of donation
propter nuptias and deed of sale are invalid, and in reversing the decision of trial court.

EVIDENCE:
• Records show that the area in dispute is formerly owned by Petronilo Acar which was
sold to spouses Mariano Recinto and Marta Magsumbol. The spouses then, through
donation propter nuptias or donation by reason of marriage, gave the property to
petitioner and her late husband.
• Atty. Hernandez, who once owned the north part of the land, disclosed that the area he
acquired from his predecessor-in-interest was only that parcel north of the disputed area
and he never claimed any right over the land in question. Evidence shows that the area in
question has been incorrectly included in the cadastral survey of Lot No. 8151 and the
original certificate of title without the parties' knowledge. The private respondent and his
predecessors-in-interest have all along acted as though the petitioner is the rightful owner
of the parcel in dispute and what caught Inciong’s interest was upon learning the disputed
area was included in his title in 1961.

LAND REGISTRATION / CADASTRAL ACT:

• The inclusion of south boundary of the land in the title is void and no effect. Since
according to the Land Registration Act, as well as the Cadastral Act, it protects only the
holders of title in good faith and does not allow the use of its provisions as a cover for
commission of fraud. In the case at the bar, Inciong was not an innocent purchaser for
value since he was aware that the disputed portion was not included in his area and if
he ever claimed it after 15 years, it was because of the error included in his title.

RULING:
• Private respondent, Ruperto Inciong, is ordered to return the disputed portion of land to
the petitioner and pay damages and attorney’s fees. The Register of Deeds of
Batangas is further ordered to segregate the said disputed portion from the entire
portion.