Mendoza vs Navarrete

214 SCRA 337

Facts:
The case involves a complaint filed by the petitioner, Domingo J. Mendoza, on July 25,
1985, with Branch 15 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan. The complaint, docketed as
Civil Case No. 8307-M, sought the annulment of title, partition, and damages against the private
respondents. The central issue in the case revolves around the alleged fraudulent acquisition of a
parcel of land in Sto. Rosario, Paombong, Bulacan.
Teodoro Mendoza, the father of the plaintiff and defendant Maria Mendoza-Navarette,
owned a parcel of residential land in Sto. Rosario, Paombong, Bulacan. Teodoro Mendoza had a
second marriage with Eugenia Aquino, resulting in two children who died before reaching
adulthood. Teodoro Mendoza died intestate on March 19, 1952, leaving behind the contested
land.
The surviving legal heirs of Teodoro Mendoza were his wife, Eugenia Aquino, and his two
children, Domingo Mendoza (the plaintiff), and Maria Mendoza-Navarette (the defendant).
An extrajudicial settlement of Teodoro Mendoza's estate was executed on April 18, 1963,
wherein Domingo Mendoza was allocated three-fourths (3/4) of the land, and Eugenia Aquino
was allotted one-fourth (1/4). Maria Mendoza-Navarette renounced her right to any share.New
tax declarations were issued in favor of Domingo Mendoza and Eugenia Aquino based on the
extrajudicial settlement. Eugenia Aquino sold her one-fourth share to Maria Mendoza-Navarette
and her husband, Leoncio Navarette. Maria Mendoza-Navarette and Leoncio Navarette applied
for a Free Patent with the Bureau of Lands, resulting in the issuance of Original Certificate of
Title No. P-93-45. The plaintiff, Domingo Mendoza, discovered the alleged fraud in early 1985
when he found out that Maria Mendoza-Navarette claimed ownership of the entire lot.
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the annulment of the title, partition of the property, and
damages.
On November 15, 1975, the private respondents filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that
the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The private respondents
claimed that the application for Free Patent and the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title
occurred in 1974, more than ten years before the filing of the complaint, and therefore, the action
was time-barred. The plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss, asserting that the discovery of
fraud occurred in early 1985, within the four-year period allowed for filing such actions.
The trial court, on September 1, 1986, denied the motion to dismiss, emphasizing that
prescription does not run against co-owners in a co-ownership.
The private respondents' motion to set aside the denial was also denied by the trial court on
October 1, 1986. Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the private respondents filed a
petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Court of Appeals. On July 27, 1987,
the Court of Appeals set aside the trial court's orders and directed the dismissal of the complaint,
arguing that the action based on fraud should have been filed within four years from the issuance
of the title in 1974. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the private respondents, concluding
that the action was barred by prescription. As a result, the respondent trial judge was directed to
dismiss the complaint.
ISSUES:

Whether the patent and the corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering the
disputed lot are valid.
Whether prescription as a means of acquiring the property has set in under the factual
circumstances of the case.
COURT’S RULING:
After filing the Comment, Reply, and Rejoinder, the court gave due course to the petition,
and both parties submitted their respective Memoranda. The trial court initially denied a motion
to dismiss, stating that the general rule is that prescription does not run among co-owners, and
the requisites for the exception are not apparent from the complaint. The Court of Appeals
assumed the complaint was based on fraud and ruled that it should have been filed within four
years from the issuance of the original certificate of title.
However, the petitioner argues that the issue of prescription among co-owners is
irrelevant since co-ownership no longer exists. The heirs terminated co-ownership through an
extrajudicial settlement in 1963. The petitioner contends that the lot subject to the Free Patent
application is private land, and the portion he possesses was included fraudulently by Leoncio
Navarette.
The court suggests that the trial court should have deferred the resolution of the motion to
dismiss, as the ground invoked is not indubitable. The court emphasizes that whether the denial
resulted from outright denial or deferment, the Court of Appeals should have rejected the
certiorari petition because the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The court
argues that the petitioner's complaint provides a cause of action for quieting title, which is
imprescriptible when a person is in possession of the property.
The court cites precedents, including Vital v. Anore and Agne v. Director of Lands, to
support the argument that a Free Patent issued over private land is null and void. It highlights
that a Torrens title based on a Free Patent may be void if the land is private, and the statute of
limitations does not apply if the registered owner knew the land belonged to another. The court
emphasizes that the petitioner's possession gives rise to a cause of action for quieting title, which
does not prescribe.
Ultimately, the court sets aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstates the
trial court's orders with a modification that the determination of the motion to dismiss is deferred
due to the indubitable nature of the ground invoked. The decision also imposes costs against the
private respondents.