Bar Q and A #42

1.) Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. One year later Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance and caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now invokes the indefeasibility of his title considering that one year has already elapsed from its issuance. He also seeks the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens. 1. May the court cancel the notice of lis pendens even before final judgment is rendered? Explain. 2. Will Rachelle's suit for reconveyance prosper? Explain.

1. A Notice of Lis Pendens may be cancelled even before final Judgment upon proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting or harassing the adverse party or that the notice of lis pendens is not necessary to protect the right of the party who caused it to be registered. (Sec. 77, P.D. No. 1529) In this case, it is given that Rachelle is the legitimate owner of the land in question. It can be said, therefore, that when she filed her notice of lis pendens her purpose was to protect her interest in the land and not just to molest Rommel. It is necessary to record the lis pendens to protect her interest because if she did not do it, there is a possibility that the land will fall into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value and in that event, the court loses control over the land making any favorable judgment thereon moot and academic. For these reasons, the notice of lis pendens may not be cancelled.
2. Yes, Rachelle's suit will prosper because all elements for an action for reconveyance are present, namely:
a. Rachelle is claiming dominical rights over the sameland.
b. Rommel procured his title to the land by fraud.
c. The action was brought within the statutory period of four (4) years from discovery of the fraud and not later than ten (10) years from the date of registration of Rommel'stitle.
d. Title to the land has not passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

Rommel could invoke the indefeasibility of his title if Rachelle had filed a petition to reopen or review the decree of registration. But Rachelle instead filed an ordinary action in personam for reconveyance. In the latter action, indefeasibility is not a valid defense because, in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking to nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of Rommel's title. She is only asking the court to compel Rommel to reconvey the title to her as the legitimate owner of the land.

2.) Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land. Sancho sold the property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for annulment of the sale and reconveyance of the property based on the fact that the sale included his one-half pro-indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens annotated on the title covering the property and ordered the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens could not be cancelled immediately because the title over the property was with a bank to which the property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the case. While the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who immediately caused the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as well as the issuance of a new title in his name. 1. Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a transferee pendente lite? 2. If your answer is (a), how can the right of Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain.

1. Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis pendens was still annotated at the back of the title at the time he bought the land from Bart. The uncancelled notice of lis pendens operates as constructive notice of its contents as well as interests, legal or equitable, included therein. All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains. In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim remains effective and binding notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from its inscription in the registry. This ruling is even more applicable in a lis pendens. Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s share in the co-ownership in the land is concerned because the land was transferred to him during the pendency of the appeal.

2. Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing his appeal; asking the Court of Appeals to order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of Carlos; and by invoking his right of redemption of Bart’s share under Art. 1620.

3.) Juliet offered to sell her house and lot, together with all the furniture and appliances therein to Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase the property, Dehlma went to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet's title. She discovered that while the property was registered in Juliet's name under the Land Registration Act, as amended by the Property Registration Decree, it property, Dehlma told Juliet to redeem the property from Elaine, and gave her an advance payment to be used for purposes of releasing the mortgage on the property. When the mortgage was released, Juliet executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the property which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds, and a new TCT was issued in Dehlma's name. Dehlma immediately took possession over the house and lot and the movables therein. Thereafter, Dehlma went to the Assessor's Office to get a new tax declaration under her name. She was surprised to find out that the property was already declared for tax purposes in the name of XYZ Bank which had foreclosed the mortgage on the property before it was sold to her. XYZ Bank was also the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the property. At that time, the property was still unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the Sheriff's Deed of Conveyance in the day book of the Register of Deeds under Act. 3344 and obtained a tax declaration in its name. 1. Was Dehlma a purchaser in good faith? 2. Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank has a better right to the house and lot?

1. Yes, Dehlma is a purchaser in good faith. She learned about the XYZ tax declaration and foreclosure sale only after the sale to her was registered. She relied on the certificate of title of her predecessor-in-interest. Under the Torrens system, a buyer of registered lands is not required by law to inquire further than what the Torrens certificate indicates on its face. If a person proceeds to buy it relying on the title, that person is considered as buyer in good faith. The “priority in time” rule could not be invoked by XYZ Bank because the foreclosure sale of the land in favor of the bank was recorded under Act No. 3344, the law governing transaction affecting unregistered land, and thus, does not bind the land.

2. Between Dehlma and the bank, the former has a better right to the house and lot.

4.) In an action brought to collect a sum of money based on a surety agreement, the defense of laches was raised as the claim was filed more than seven years from the maturity of the obligation. However, the action was brought within the ten-year prescriptive period provided by law wherein actions based on written contracts can be instituted. Will the defense prosper? Reason.

No, the defense will not prosper. The problem did not give facts from which laches may be inferred. Mere delay in filing an action, standing alone, does not constitute laches. (Agra v. PNB, G.R. No. 133317, June 29, 1999)

5.) Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-hectare property belonging to their conjugal partnership. The sale was made without Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda learned of the sale, when she discovered the deed of sale among the documents in her husband’s vault after his demise. Soon after, she noticed that the construction of the sports complex had started. Upon completion of the construction in 1952, she tried but failed to get free membership privileges in Verde. Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the sale on the ground that she did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde contends that, in accordance with the Spanish Civil Code which was then in force, the sale in 1948 of the property did not need her concurrence. Verde contends that in any case the action has prescribed or is barred by laches. Winda rejoins that her Torrens title covering the property is indefeasible, and imprescriptible. 1. Defineorexplaintheterm―laches. 2. Decide the case, stating your reasons for your decision.

1. LACHES means failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do what, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time. (De Vera v. CA, G.R. No. 97761, April 14, 1999)

2. While Art. 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code did not require the consent of the wife for the validity of the sale, an alienation by the husband in fraud of the wife is void as held in Uy Coque v. Navas. (G.R. No. L-20392, November 20, 1923) Assuming that the alienation in 1948 was in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes the sale to Verde void, the action to set aside the sale, nonetheless, is already barred by prescription and laches. More than 52 years have already elapsed from her discovery of the sale in 1950.

6.) In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered land evidenced by a duly executed deed of sale. The owner presented the deed of sale and the owner's certificate of title to the Register of Deeds. The entry was made in the daybook and corresponding fees were paid as evidenced by official receipt. However, no transfer of certificate of title was issued to Renren because the original certificate of title in Robyn's name was temporarily misplaced after fire partly gutted the Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had been possessed by Robyn's distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely and continuously in the concept of owner since 1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo invoked: a) acquisitive prescription b) laches, asking that he be declared owner of the land. Decide the case by evaluating these defenses.

a) Renren's action to recover possession of the land will prosper. In 1965, after buying the land from Robyn, he submitted the Deed of Sale to the Registry of Deeds for registration together with the owner's duplicate copy of the title, and paid the corresponding registration fees. Under Sec.
56 of PD No. 1529, the Deed of Sale to Renren is considered registered from the time the sale was entered in the Day Book (now called the Primary Entry Book). For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is considered the registered owner of the land. After all, it was not his fault that the Registry of Deeds could not issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title. Mikaelo's defense of prescription cannot be sustained. A Torrens title is imprescriptible. No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. (Sec. 47, P.D. No. 1529) The right to recover possession of registered land likewise does not prescribe because possession is just a necessary incident of ownership.

b) Mikaelo's defense of laches, however, appears to be more sustainable. Renren bought the land and had the sale registered way back in 1965. From the facts, it appears that it was only in 1998 or after an inexplicable delay of 33 years that he took the first step asserting his right to the land. It was not even an action to recover ownership but only possession of the land. By ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or inaction is too long and may be considered unreasonable. As often held by the Supreme Court, the principle of imprescriptibly sometimes has to yield to the equitable principle of laches which can convert even a registered landowner's claim into a stale demand. Mikaelo's claim of laches, however, is weak insofar as the element of equity is concerned, there being no showing in the facts how he entered into the ownership and possession of the land.

7.) A owned a parcel of unregistered land located on the Tarlac side of the boundary between Tarlac and Pangasinan. His brother B owned the adjoining parcel of unregistered land on the Pangasinan side. A sold the Tarlac parcel to X in a deed of sale executed as a public instrument by A and X. After X paid in full the price of the sale, X took possession of the Pangasinan parcel in the belief that it was the Tarlac parcel covered by the deed of sale executed by A and X. After twelve (12) years, a controversy arose between B and X on the issue of the ownership of the Pangasinan parcel, B claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel because B never sold that parcel to X or to anyone else. On the other hand, X claims a vested right of ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription, because X possessed this parcel for over ten (10] years under claim of ownership. Decide on these claims, giving your reasons.

At this point in time, X cannot claim the right of vested ownership over the Pangasinan parcel by acquisitive prescription. In addition to the requisites common to ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription consisting of uninterrupted, peaceful, public, adverse and actual possession in the concept of owner, ordinary acquisitive prescription for ten (10) years requires (1) possession in good faith and (2) just title. "Just title" means that the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right. (Art.1129) In this case, there is no "just title" and no "mode" that can be invoked by X for the acquisition of the Pangasinan parcel. There was no constructive delivery of the Pangasinan parcel because it was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale. Hence, B retains ownership of the Pangasinan parcel of land.

8.) Josef owns a piece of land in Pampanga. The National Housing Authority (NHA) sought to expropriate the property for its socialized housing project. The trial court fixed the just compensation for the property at P50 million. The NHA immediately deposited the same at the authorized depository bank and filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of possession with the trial court. Unfortunately, there was delay in the resolution of the motion. Meanwhile, the amount deposited earned interest. When Josef sought the release of the amount deposited NHA argued that Josef should only be entitled to P50 million. Who owns the interest earned?

Josef owns the interest earned. Interest, which is a civil fruit, follows the owner of the principal. Here, Josef owns the deposited amount since upon deposit of the just compensation, it automatically belongs to the owner of the property expropriated. Hence, Josef, as the owner of the just compensation deposited, is also entitled to the interest earned thereon. (Republic v. Holy Trinity Realty Dev’t Corp., G.R. No. 172410, 2008)

NOTE: In the case of NPC v. Heirs of Ramoran (G.R. No. 193455, 2016), the Court ruled that the imposable rate of interest is 12% per annum from the time of the taking until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until full payment.

9.) Louie, before leaving the country to train as a chef in a five-star hotel in New York, U.S.A., entrusted to his first-degree cousin Dewey an application for registration, under the Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie returned to the Philippines and discovered that Dewey registered the land and obtained an Original Certificate of Title over the property in his Dewey’s name. Compounding the matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel of land against Huey. 1. Is the action pursued by Louie the proper remedy? 2. Assuming that reconveyance is the proper remedy, will the action prosper if the case was filed beyond one year, but within ten years, from the entry of the decree of registration?

1. An action for reconveyance against Huey is not the proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent purchaser for value. The proper recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for damages by reason of the fraudulent registration and subsequent sale of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim against the Assurance Fund. (Heirs of Pedro Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No. 112905, February 3, 2000 citing Sps. Eduarte v. CA, G.R. No. 105944, February 9, 1996)

2. Yes, the remedy will prosper because the action prescribes in ten (10) years, not within one (1) year when a petition for the reopening of the registration decree may be filed. The action for reconveyance is distinct from the petition to reopen the decree of registration. (Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 5246, September 16, 1910) There is no need to reopen the registration proceedings, but the property should just be reconveyed to the real owner. The action for reconveyance is based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the original certificate of title. This rule assumes that the defendant is in possession of the land. Where it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the land, the action for reconveyance would be in the nature of a suit for quieting for the title which action is imprescriptible. (David v. Malay, G.R. No. 132644, November 19, 1999)

10.) What are the essential requisites or elements for the allowance of the reopening or review of a decree of registration?

The essential elements are: (1) that the petitioner has a real or dominical right; (2) that he has been deprived thereof through fraud; (3) that the petition is filed within one (1) year from the issuance of the decree; and (4) that the property has not yet been transferred to an innocent purchaser. (Rublico vs. Orellana, G.R. No. L-26582, November 28, 1969; Libudan vs. Palma Gil, G.R. No. L-21163, May 17, 1972)