HEIRS OF UBERAS VS CFI OF NEGROS ISSUE:

OCCIDENTAL
- Whether or not the case is one for quieting title and
Facts: therefore imprescriptible.

- Siblings Segundo, Albino, Francisco, Pedro and HELD:

Alejandra Uberas inherited a parcel of land from their
parents. Yes. The teaching of Faja vs. Court of Appeals 2 that
- Petitioners [the children and successors in interest an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff
of Segundo Uberas and Albino Uberas ] filed a is imprescriptible and that where there are material facts to be
complaint against respondents [the surviving spouse, inquired into and resolved on the basis of evidence adduced by
the parties which will determine the legal precepts to be
Soledad Rapiz, and the children of Pedro Uberas, as
applied, as in this case, the complaining party should be given
well as Alejandra Uberas who is impleaded as full opportunity to prove his case is fully applicable
an unwilling co-plaintiff.] for quieting of title, here, mutatis mutandis although in Faja the court peremptorily
recovery of possession and ownership, partition and dismissed the complaint by summary judgment, while
reconveyance with damages of the property in suit. respondent court herein likewise summarily dismissed the
- that sometime in 1964 Pedro Uberas, when still alive, complaint on the alleged ground of prescription
notwithstanding contrary factual averments in the complaint
together with his wife, defendant Soledad Rapiz, add
which would clearly rule out prescription.
their children, by means of fraud and deceit,
persuaded his sister, Alejandra Uberas, to join them
As stressed therein by the Court "(T)he demands of a
in signing a declaration of heirship, fair, impartial, and wise administration of justice call for a
stating falsely that Pedro Uberas and Alejandra faithful adherence to legal precepts on procedure which ensure
Uberas were the only heirs of the deceased spouses to litigants the opportunity to present their evidence and secure
Juan Uberas and Dominga Mendoza and adjudicating a ruling on all the issues presented in the respective pleadings.
unto themselves the whole property in question to 'Shortcuts' in judicial processes are to be avoided where they
impede rather than promote a judicious dispensation of
the prejudice and exclusion of their two
justice."
(2) brothers, Segundo Uberas and Albino Uberas as
well as their sister Francisca Uberas, the latter having
HEIRS OF VALIENTES VS. HON. RAMAS DIGEST
died without issue (paragraph 9, complaint); that as a
result of the execution of this declaration of heirship G.R. No. 157852: December 15, 2010
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-1976 (156) in the
name of Juan Uberas, married to Dominga Mendoza, FACTS:
was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
31151 issued on December 2, 1966 was issued in the Petitioners claim that they are the heirs of Valientes who,
names of the deceased defendant before his death, was the owner of a parcel of land in
- Defendants/respondents sought for dismissal on the Zamboanga delSur. In 1939, Valientes mortgaged the subject
ground that action is barred by prescription. property to secure his loan to the spouses Belen. In the 1950s,
the Valientes family purportedly attempted, but failed, to
- Plaintiffs maintain that the action is imprescriptible retrieve the subject property from the spouses Belen. Through
because it is one for partition and to quiet title to the an allegedly forged document captioned VENTA
property in question, declaring the declaration of DEFINITIVA purporting to be a deed of sale of the subject
heirship and deed of sale executed by defendants to property between Valientes and the spouses Belen, the latter
be null and void ab initio.
obtained title over the land. On February 28, 1970, the
- The RTC, dismissed the complaint holding that while
legitimate children of the late Valientes, had their Affidavit of
it is true the complaint is entitled as one for 'Quieting
Adverse Claim. Upon the death of the spouses Belen, their
of Title, Recovery of Ownership, Partition and
surviving heirs executed an extra-judicial settlement with
Reconveyance with Damages', there is no doubt that
partition and sale in favor of private respondent Minor, the
essentially the cause of action is one for
present possessor of the subject property. On June 20, 1979,
reconveyance based upon a contructive or implied
Minor filed with the then CFI a "PETITION FOR
trust resulting from fraud. It cannot be considered as
CANCELLATION OF MEMORANDUM OF
an action for partition among co-heirs which does not
ENCUMBRANCE APPEARING IN THE TITLE IN HER
prescribe. A true action for partition indeed does not
POSSESSION" which the RTC granted. On the other hand,
prescribe as long as none of the co-heirs repudiate the
petitioners filed a complaint for the cancellation of the title in
co-ownership and claim the entire property under an
Minors possession and its reconveyanceto them. On this
adverse title
complaint, Minor filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of forum shopping and litis pendentia, which the RTC A parcel of land was conveyed by Regalado to DBT through a
dismissed. Undeterred, Minor filed a Motion for dacion en pago for services rendered. On June 24, 1992, the
Reconsideration which was granted. Petitioners filed a Motion respondents Panes and his sons filed a complaint for quieting
for Reconsideration based on this decision which was denied. of title with damages and petition for injunction against
They appealed it to the CA, which although found that there Regalado and DBT.
was no forum shopping nor litis pendentia, dismissed the case
on the ground of prescription and laches. In the complaint, Ricaredo alleged that he is the lawful owner
of the land which he had declared for taxation purposes in his
ISSUE: name. Respondents alleged that per certificate issued by the
DENR the land was verified to be correct and on file.
Whether or not prescription or laches has already set in to bar
the filing of the case at hand.

HELD: Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED Respondents also claimed the Ricaredo and his immediate
family had been and still are in actual possession of the subject
CIVIL CODE; PRESCRIPTION property, and their possession preceded the 2nd world war. To
perfect his title, Ricaredo filed with the RTC QC.
When the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, the
action, being in effect that of quieting of title to the property, Respondents averred that in the process of complying with the
does not prescribe. In the case at bar, petitioners are not in registration, it was found out that a portion of the land was
possession of the subject property. In this case, if it were to be with the subdivision plan of Regalado which was conveyed by
considered as that of enforcing an implied trust, should have Regalado to DBT.
therefore been filed within ten years from the issuance of TCT
to spouses Belen.But, the case was instituted beyond the On December 28, 1993, then defendants Spouses Jaime and
prescriptive period. Rosario Tabangcura (Spouses Tabangcura) filed their Answer
with Counterclaim, claiming that they were buyers in good
faith and for value when they bought a house and lot covered
by TCT No. 211095 from B.C. Regalado, the latter being a
As to the alternative defense of petitioners, applying Arts.
subdivision developer and registered owner thereof, on June
1141, 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code, thus entitling them to
30, 1986. When respondent Abogado Mautin entered and
a 30 year period to assail the title, the Court ruled that the
occupied the property, Spouses Tabangcura filed a case for
applicable law in this instant case is Presidential Decree No.
Recovery of Property before the RTC, Quezon City, Branch
1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree
97 which rendered a decision in their favor.
(since it is more specific that the general rules of the above
mentioned articles of the Civil Code). Under the Torrens On its part, DBT, traversing the complaint, alleged that it is
System as enshrined in P.D. No. 1529, the decree of the legitimate owner and occupant of the subject property
registration and the certificate of title issued become pursuant to a dacion en pago executed by B.C. Regalado in the
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date former’s favor; that respondents were not real parties-in-
of entry of the decree of registration, without prejudice to an interests because Ricaredo was a mere claimant whose rights
action for damages against the applicant or any person over the property had yet to be determined by the RTC where
responsible for the fraud. he filed his application for registration; that the other
respondents did not allege matters or invoke rights which
would entitle them to the relief prayed for in their
It took petitioners 28 before filing this case. This period is complaint; that the complaint was premature; and that the
unreasonably long for a party seeking to enforce its right to action inflicted a chilling effect on the lot buyers of DBT.
file the appropriate case. Thus, petitioners claim that they had
RTC's Ruling:
not slept on their rights is patently unconvincing.
The testimony of Ricaredo that he occupied the property since
The Decision of the CA and the Resolution are AFFIRMED.
he was only 16 had not been rebutted; Ricaredo's occupation
G.R. NO. 167232, JULY 31, 2009 and cultivation of the land for more than 30 years vested him
equitable ownership.
DBT MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS
RICAREDO PANES, ETC.

Facts:
DBT filed a motion for reconsideration based on the grounds Thus, respondents' claim of acquisitive prescription over
of prescription and laches. While this motion was still pending, the subject property is baseless. Under Article 1126 of the
judge Bacalla died. Civil Code, acquisitive prescription of ownership of lands
registered under the Land Registration Act shall be governed
by special laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496, as amended by
PD No. 1529, provides that no title to registered land in
Then an intervenor claimed that portions of the subject land
derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
was part of the estate of certain Don Jose de Ocampo.
adverse possession. Consequently, in the instant case, proof
CA's Ruling: CA reversed and set aside the RTC Orders dated of possession by the respondents is immaterial and
November 8, 2001 and June 17, 2002 and reinstated the RTC inconsequential.
Decision dated June 15, 2000. The CA held that the properties
Note:
described and included in TCT No. 200519 are located in San
Francisco del Monte, San Juan del Monte, Rizal and Cubao, - action for reconveyance can be barred by prescription.
Quezon City while the subject property is located in Brgy. When an action for reconveyance is based on fraud, it must be
Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City. Furthermore, the CA filed within four (4) years from discovery of the fraud, and
held that Engr. Vertudazo's testimony that there is a gap of such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the
around 1,250 meters between Lot 503 and Psu 123169 was not issuance of the original certificate of title. On the other hand,
disproved or refuted. The CA found that Judge Juanson an action for reconveyance based on an implied or
committed a procedural infraction when he entertained issues constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of
and admitted evidence presented by DBT in its Motion for the issuance of the original certificate of title or transfer
Reconsideration which were never raised in the pleadings and certificate of title. The rule is that the registration of an
proceedings prior to the rendition of the RTC Decision. The instrument in the Office of the RD constitutes constructive
CA opined that DBT's claims of laches and prescription notice to the whole world and therefore the discovery of the
clearly appeared to be an afterthought. Lastly, the CA held fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration.
that DBT's Motion for Reconsideration was not based on
grounds enumerated in the Rules of Procedure. BUCTON VS GABAR

Issues: Facts:

(1) Did the RTC err in upholding DBT's defenses of - In 1946, Josefina bought a parcel of land from the
prescription and laches as raised in the latter's Motion for Villarin spouses, payable in installments. Josefina
Reconsideration? (2) Which between DBT and the then entered into a verbal agreement with Nicanora
respondents have a better right over the subject property? whereby the latter would pay 1/2 of the price [3M]
and would then own ½ of the land.
Held: - Nicanora paid 1, 000 in 1946 and 400 in 1948. Both
were evidenced by receipts issued by Josefina
(1) Affirmative. The facts demonstrating the lapse of the
- After payment of 1000, Nicanora took possession of
prescriptive period be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily
the portion of the land indicated to them by Josefina
apparent on the record; either in the averments of the
and built therein a Nipa house. Subsequently, the
plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence.
nipa house was demolished and replaced by a house
However, the conclusion reached by the RTC in its assailed
of strong materials with apartments for rental
Order was erroneous. The RTC failed to consider that the
purposes.
action filed before it was not simply for reconveyance but an
- In 1947, the Villarin spouses executed a deed of sale
action for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.
in favor of Josefina. Nicanora then sought to obtain a
separate title for their portion of the land but Josefina
refused on the ground the the entire land was still
Therefore, laches will not apply to this case, because mortgaged with the PNB as guarantee for a loan.
respondents' possession of the subject property has rendered - Nicanora continued enjoying possession of their
their right to bring an action for quieting of title portion of the land, planting fruit trees and receiving
imprescriptible and, hence, not barred by laches. Moreover, rentals from the building.
since laches is a creation of equity, acts or conduct alleged to - In 1953, with Josefina’s consent, Nicanora had the
constitute the same must be intentional and unequivocal so as land resurveyed and subdivided preparatory to their
to avoid injustice. obataining titles thereto. A fence was thereafter
ereted to demarcate the division. Nicanora continued
 to insist on obtaining a separate title but Josefina appellee is in possession of the land, the action is
refused. imprescriptible. Considering that the foregoing
circumstances obtain in the present case, We hold that
ISSUE: petitioners' action has not prescribed.
WON the petitioner’s action has prescribed.

HELD: CALACALA v REPUBLIC

The real and ultimate basis of petitioners' action is their FACTS: Spouses Calacala, the predecessors-in-interest of
ownership of one-half of the lot coupled with their herein petitioners, were the registered owners of the parcel of
possession thereof, which entitles them to a conveyance land subject of this case. The land was offered by the spouses
of the property. In Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana, 3 this Court, as a property bond in a case then pending to secure the
speaking thru Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, explained that, provisional release of an accused. The accused failed to appear
under the circumstances no enforcement of the contract is at his scheduled arraignment, and the bondsman also failed to
needed, since the delivery of possession of the land sold produce the body of the accused in court. Because of this, the
had consummated the sale and transferred title to the court ordered the bond forfeited in favor of the government.
purchaser, and that, actually, the action for conveyance is The land was sold at public auction to satisfy the amount of
one to quiet title, i.e., to remove the cloud upon the the bond, and the Republic emerged as the winning bidder.
appellee's ownership by the refusal of the appellants to The Certificate of Sale was registered and annotated on the
recognize the sale made by their predecessors. We held subject property’s title in 1982, thereby giving spouses
therein that "... it is an established rule of American Calacala a period of 1 year within which to redeem the
jurisprudence (made applicable in this jurisdiction by Art. property. Spouses Calacala, however, never did, up to their
480 of the New Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to deaths in 1988 and 1994. Petitioners now claim to be the
property in the possession of the plaintiff are owners of the land as heirs of the spouses. They filed a
imprescriptible (44 Am. Jur. p. 47; Cooper vs. Rhea, 20 complaint for Quieting of Title against Republic and the
L.R.A. 930; Inland Empire Land Co. vs. Grant County, Sheriff. They premised their argument on the Republic’s
138 Wash. 439, 245 Pac. 14). failure to secure the Certificate of Final Sale, execute an
Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership and obtain a writ of
The prevailing rule is that the right of a plaintiff to have
possession over the property within 10 years from the
his title to land quieted, as against one who is asserting
registration of the Certificate of Sale in 1982. They contended
some adverse claim or lien thereon, is not barred while
that Republic’s right over the property in question has already
the plaintiff or his grantors remain in actual possession of
prescribed or has been abandoned and waived.
the land, claiming to be owners thereof, the reason for this
rule being that while the owner in fee continues liable to ISSUE:
an action, proceeding, or suit upon the adverse claim, he
has a continuing right to the aid of a court of equity to Whether or not the complaint for Quieting of Title will lie.
ascertain and determine the nature of such claim and its
effect on his title, or to assert any superior equity in his RULING:
favor. He may wait until his possession is disturbed or his
No, it will not because the essential requisites are not present.
title in attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.
Under Article 476 and Article 477, the common law remedy
But the rule that the statute of limitations is not available
of Quieting of Title may only be availed of when these
as a defense to an action to remove a cloud from title can
requisites concur: 1. Plaintiff must have a legal or equitable
only be invoked by a complainant when he is in
title on the real property subject of the action, and 2. The
possession. One who claims property which is in the
alleged cloud (a deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding) on
possession of another must, it seems, invoke remedy
his title must be shown to be in fact invalid and inoperative
within the statutory period. (44 Am. Jur., p. 47)
despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.
The doctrine was reiterated recently in Gallar v. Husain, For the first requisite, plaintiffs, from the very moment they
et al., 4 where We ruled that by the delivery of the failed to redeem the property during the 1-year period, has lost
possession of the land, the sale was consummated and their right of redemption. Republic’s failure referred to by the
title was transferred to the appellee, that the action is petitioners will not in any way operate to restore the rights
actually not for specific performance, since all it seeks is they lost. (Supreme Court also noted that prescription does not
to quiet title, to remove the cloud cast upon appellee's lie against the government, nor could it be bound by the
ownership as a result of appellant's refusal to recognize negligence or mistakes of its officials.) As to the second
the sale made by his predecessor, and that as plaintiff- requisite, petitioners never put in issue the validity of the
Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale. It was not proven that the cloud, Petitioners fail to point out any any instrument, record, claim,
although appeared to be valid was in fact and in truth invalid encumbrance or proceeding that could been a “cloud” to their
or inoperative. Thus, the complaint filed by the petitioners for title. In fact, both plaintiffs and defendant admitted the
Quieting of Title will not lie existence of the agreement of partition dated June 8, 1957 and
in accordance therewith, a fixed area was allotted to them and
VDA. DE AVILES v. CA that the only controversy is whether these lands were properly
measured.
An action to quiet title or to remove cloud may not be brought
for the purpose of settling a boundary dispute. A special civil action for quieting of title is not the proper
remedy for settling a boundary dispute, and that petitioners
FACTS:
should have instituted an ejectment suit instead. An action for
Eduardo Aviles, the predecessor of the petitioners is the bother forcible entry, whenever warranted by the period prescribed in
of defendant Camilo. They inherited their lands from their Rule 70, or for recovery of possession de facto, also within the
parents and have agreed to subdivide the same amongst prescribed period, may be availed of by the petitioners, in
themselves. The area alloted (sic) to Eduardo Aviles is 16,111 which proceeding the boundary dispute may be fully threshed
square meters more or less, to Anastacio Aviles is 16,214 out.
square meters more or less, while the area alloted to defendant
G.R. No. 104813 October 21, 1993
Camilo Aviles is 14,470 square meters more or less.
HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA, NAMELY: PLACIDA S.
Defendant’s land composed of the riceland portion of his land
OLVIGA, VIRGILIO OLVIGA, LOLITA OLVIGA,
is 13,290 square meters, the fishpond portion is 500 square
CARMENCITA O. ALPUERTO and JEANETTE OLILA,
meters and the residential portion is 680 square meters, or a
petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
total of 14,470 square meters.
ANGELITA R. GLOR, SERILINA G. JAMON,
The Petitioners claim that they are the owners of the fish pond EMELITA G. MADELA, EMAN G. MANALO, MYRNA
which they claim is within their area. Defendant Camilo GLOR, FELIPE GLOR, GAUDENCIO GLOR and
Aviles asserted a color of title over the northern portion of the CORNELIO GLOR,
property with an area of approximately 1,200 square meters by
Angelita Glor and her children filed for reconveyance of a
constructing a bamboo fence (thereon) and moving the earthen
parcel of land with the RTC of Caluag, Quezon against the
dikes, thereby molesting and disturbing the peaceful
heirs of Jose Olviga. The RTC ruled in favor of the Glors
possession of the plaintiffs over said portion.
which led to the Olvigas to appeal with the CA arguing that
Petitioners say that the fences were created to unduly encroach the action for reconveyance has already prescribed and that
to their property but the defendant said that he merely they were purchasers in good faith. The CA affirmed the RTC
reconstructed the same. decision. A summary of events follows because it is much
easier that way:
Petitioners brought an action to quiet title but were denied thus
this case. 1950 - Lot in question was still forestland when Eutiquio
Pureza and his father cultivated it by introducing fruit bearing
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioners filed the right action trees such as coconuts, jackfruits, mangoes, avocado and
bananas.
RULING:
1956 – The Bureau of Lands surveyed the land in the name of
No, Petitioners filed the wrong action. This is obviously a Pureza but Godofredo Olviga, a son of Jose Olviga, protested
boundary dispute and as such the action must fail. and claims that they’re entitled to ½ of the lot.

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or 1960 – Pureza filed for homestead application over the lot.
any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or 1961 – Pureza transferred his rights to Cornelio Glor, the
effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, husband of Angelita. Neither the homestead application nor
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, the transfer was acted upon by the Director of Lands for
an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the unknown reasons.
title.
1967 – Jose Olviga obtained a registered title for said lot in a
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cadastral proceeding, in fraud of the rights of Pureza and his
cast upon a title to real property or any interest therein.
transferee, Cornelio Glor and family. The lot was split and first occupied by his father, Dianson, in 1884. The land has
transferred to the Olilas. been survey under Psu-153657 on September 10, 1956.

1988 – Glors learned of the Olvigas title April 10, 1989 – The Cacao Dianson is occupying the land and has fenced it. Josefa
Glors filed an action for reconveyance Abaya Mapa has constructed a sort of a shack near the land.
Terraces were made by Cacao Dianson in the premises. Cacao
ISSUE: W/N the action for reconveyance has already Dianson has also constructed a shack inside the land.
prescribed?
No survey appears to have been conducted on the land
Held: covered by the Miscellaneous Sales Application of Josefa
Abaya Mapa.
NO. The SC has ruled in a number of cases that action for
reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or Rodrigo H. Romea conducted a survey on the land. However,
constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference Mr. Romea made two surveys separately. One on the land
being the date of registration of the deed of the date of the pointed to her by Josefa Abaya Mapa and the other, on the
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. However land which according to his findings and opinion would be the
such rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of correct place of the land covered by the application of Josefa
the property. If a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in Abaya Mapa.
actual possession of the property, the right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to property Facts:
doesn’t prescribe. In the case at bar, the Glors were in actual
possession since 1950 hence their undisturbed possession gave Cacao Dianson, has a free patent application, he filed with the
them the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to District Land Office in Baguio City a letter protesting the
determine the nature of the claim of the Olvigas who, upon construction in April, 1956 by Josefa Abaya Mapa of on the
their discovery in 1988 of the adverse title, disturbed their parcel of land (described as "portion A") of one of the parcels
possession. Added factual note: What must’ve happened was of land covered by his Free PatentApplication.The controversy
that the Glors were not notified of the registration proceedings was referred to Bureau of Lands Investigator Antonio Mejia.
with Angelita testifying that there’s been neither notice nor He found thatJosefa Abaya Mapa has filed a Miscellaneous
posting. Jose Olvigas falsely omitted the fact that other Sales Application, the same was awarded to her onMay 12,
persons were in possession of the land he sought to be 1934. The purchase price has been paid in full in 1943
registered. evidenced by an Official Receipt.Cacao Dianson filed a Free
Patent Application for the same parcel of land on June 1,
G.R. No. L-38387 January 29, 1990 1956,alleging that the said land was first occupied by his
father, Dianson, in 1884.The regional land officer of Dagupan
HILDA WALSTROM, vs. FERNANDO MAPA, JR., City decided that Free Patent Application of CacaoDianson
VICTORINO A. MAPA, MARIA C.M. DE GOCO, should exclude Portion "A" which is covered by the
FERNANDO MAPA, III, MARIO L. MAPA, and THE Miscellaneous Sales Application of Josefa Abaya Mapa. Two
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE PROVINCE OF years after the death of Dianson, Walstrom filed a motion for
BENGUET reconsideration, claiming that Dianson is her predecessor in
interest, the motion for reconsideration resulted in setting
Josefa Abaya Mapa has filed a Miscellaneous Sales
aside the decision of the Regional land officer. Mapa
Application for a parcel of land located in Pico, La Trinidad,
thenappealed to the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Mt. Province, on June 9, 1933 and the same was awarded to
Resources reinstated the decision of theRegional land officer,
her on May 12, 1934. The land has an area of 2800 square
then Gabriela Walstrom filed for motion for reconsideration
meters with the following boundaries. North — Public Land,
but wasdenied. While Walstrom filed for a second motion for
South-East — Public Land, South-Road and West — Public
reconsideration of the order of DANR,Mapa filed a motion for
Land.
execution. DANR granted the motion for execution. Walstrom
The purchase price has been paid in full in 1943 as per then fileda petition for relief with the DANR but then pending
Official Receipt No. B-1982778 dated November 8, 1943. the petition, she died. The heirs of Mapa pursued the case.
This petition of Walstrom remained unresolved, according to
The land was first applied for by her husband, Fernando Mapa, petitioner HildaWalstrom, daughter of Gabriela Walstrom, she
but it was later transferred to Josefa Abaya Mapa. was compelled to file an action in the court because the 1 year
prescriptive period provided for in Sec 38 of Land
Cacao Dianson filed a Free Patent Application for the same Registration act was aboutto lapse.
parcel of land on June 1, 1956, alleging that the said land was
Issues:*Whether or not Walstrom’s civil complaint against the or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration
respondents praying for nullification of the Mapa’s sales obtained by fraud to file in the competent Court of First
patent and certificates of title issued by the register of deeds Instance a petition for review within one year after entry of the
under Section 38of Act 496 or the Land Registration Act is decree provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired
valid. an interest....

Instead of invoking Section 38, the petitioner should have

pressed for the speedy resolution of her petition with the
DANR. The petitioner avers that since the one-year
prescriptive period for seeking judicial relief provided for in
Sec. 38 of the Land Registration Act was about to lapse, she
was compelled to file the action to nullify said patent. 15 The
petitioner's submission is not correct. Her fear of the futility,
or even only inefficacy, of exhausting the administrative
remedies granted her by law is clearly unfounded

We have ruled before in Amerol vs. Bagumbaran that

notwithstanding the irrevocability of the Torrens title already
issued in the name of another person, he can still be compelled
under the law to reconvey the subject property to the rightful
owner. The property registered is deemed to be held in trust
for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered.
After all, the Torrens system was not designed to shield and
protect one who had committed fraud or misrepresentation and
thus holds title in bad faith. 17

In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is

respected as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the
transfer of the property, in this case the title thereof, which has
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's
name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better
right. This is what reconveyance is all about. 18

Yet, the right to seek reconveyance based on an implied or

constructive trust is not absolute nor is it imprescriptible. An
action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive
trust must perforce prescribe in ten years from the issuance of
the Torrens title over the property. 19

SEC. 38. Decree of registration and remedies after entry of

decree.

If the court after hearing finds that the applicant or adverse

claimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim
and proper for registration, a decree of confirmation and
registration shall be entered. Every decree of registration shall
bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the
exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular
Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned
by name in the application, notice of citation, or included in
the general description "To all whom it may concern," Such
decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy,
or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees;
subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land