Indefeasible

This case once more demonstrates the value given by the courts on a Certificate of Title issued under the Torrens system of registration.

The case involved a strip of dry land formed by accretion caused by a river. Adjacent to this dry land was Lot C under the lawful possession of the spouses Pedro and Nena. The couple averred that they and their predecessors in interest had been cultivating the said land adjoining their lot C since it was formed by accretion.

Records however disclosed that in 1938, the said accretion was already surveyed as lot B and subdivided into two lots (B-1 with an area of 17,500 sq.m. and B-2 with an area of 5,492 sq.m.), and that on August 5, 1969 Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-16110 was issued in the name of Berto.

Sometime in 1982, while the spouses Pedro and Nena were harvesting their crops from the two lots, Berto arrived and told them that the lots were his properties. Again in 1984, Berto’s wife Mila came and told them to stop gathering coconuts from said lots. This prompted Pedro to investigate the claim of Berto and Mila leading to his discovery that said lots were indeed already under the name of Berto covered by OCT No. P-16110.

So on March 14, 1984, Pedro and Nena filed a complaint against the heirs of Berto (who already died) for re-conveyance of said land. They claimed that they are the rightful possessors and owners of the said land formed by accretion as it adjoined their own lot C. In the meantime Berto’s heirs sold the property to Ambo in whose favor the title was already transferred. So Ambo likewise intervened in the case and claimed that he is the lawful owner of the property having purchased it for value and in good faith from the heirs of Berto. Can Pedro and Nena still recover the land?

No more. Under the Torrens law, the Original Certificate of Title as well as the owner’s duplicate certificate copy thereof can be received in evidence in all courts of the Philippines and shall be conclusive on all matters contained therein principally as to the identity of the owner of the land concerned. And if there are pre-existing claims and liens which existed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Title, they are cut off if not noted thereon and the certificate so issued binds the whole world.

In this case the lots Nos. B-1 and B-2 were inside lot B of the late Berto as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-16110 issued on August 5, 1968 in his name. And intervenor Ambo has the right to rely on what appears in the Certificate of Title in the name of Berto as vendor. The claim of Pedro and Nena that the land in question is an accretion is not supported by evidence and cannot prevail over the Certificate of Title (Garing etc. vs. Heirs of Silva etc., G.R. 150173, September 5, 2007)

The Supreme Court here just sustained the findings of facts and rulings of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals because of the procedural rule that in reviewing said decision on certiorari, it is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to examine and evaluate the probative value of the evidence presented before the concerned tribunal.

Note: Compilation of my articles in labor law, and criminal law (vols I and II are now available in book form. Call tel. no. 7249445 or e-mail [email protected].