Problemas de incidencia

FACTS

.In pursuance of what the Court ordered the surviving spouse of the late Alvaro Esquivel, Sr. and their children executed, in favor of the Frias spouses a deed of sale of their one-seventh (1/7) interest and participation over the parcel of land in question. It will be noted that when the deed was signed only three of the five children were of age, Petitioners had commenced proceedings for the registration of the said lot in their name under the Land Registration Act. Respondents opposed their application. The trial court rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring that the plaintiffs are the lawful owners of the land. On appeal CA modified its decision by ordering the segregation of the lot from disputed land in favor of the esquivel.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the segregation of lot is valid as a Torrens title was issued to Frias and that this title being indefeasible and absolute.

RULING:

A person who succeeds in having a piece of real estate registered to his name is, no doubt, insulated by law from a number of claims and liens. There are, however, a number of instances or causes by which such insulation may be cut loose. The registered owner for instance, is not rendered immune by the law from the claim that he is not the real owner of the land he had registered in his name. This Court had thus in a number of case prescribe reconveyance of the registered land to the rightful but as yet unregistered owner. Indeed, Section 102 of Act 496, after a description of the procedure to be pursued to enable a person wrongfully deprived of his land or any interest therein as a result of the application and operation of the Land Registration Act, to recover from the Assurance Fund the losses or damages he had sustained. Article 1403 and 1317 of the |New Civil Code both specify that unless ratified by the person on whose behalf it has been executed, a contract entered in to the name of another by one who has no authority or legal representation is unenforceable. In the case at bar there are no real traces of ratification.

BASILISA S. ESCONDE, petitioner VS.

HON. SAMILO BARLONGAY AND RAMON DELFIN, respondents CASE NO: 152 SCRA 603

CHAPTER: REMEDIES, P. 327, 328, 351 PONENTE: J. PARAS

FACTS:

Private respondent Ramon Delfin applied for a title at CFI Bulacan containing an area of 2,273 sq. m. it was granted by the Court then Delfin filed a petition for writ of possession against Spouses Esconde filed a petition to quash the writ of possession.

The Judge denied the petition to quash, the sheriff then delivered possession to private respondent Delfin, but then petitioner spouses re-entered the premises and took possession thereof. When the private respondents went to the premises, he was barred by petitioner spouses from entering the property. Sheriff then asked for a writ of demolition for the removal of any construction of the Esconde family on the premises.

Respondent Judge then issued a restraining order and a preliminary injunction. HELD:

1. When a decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a petition for review before a competent court, provided that the land has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.

2. A claimant having failed to present his answer or objection to the registration of a parcel of land under the Torrens system or to question the validity of such registration within a period of one year after the certificate of title had been issued, had forever lost his right in said land even granting that he had any right therein.

3. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.

4. The rule does not bar a landowner whose property was wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens system from bringing an action, after one year from the issuance of the decree, for the reconveyance of the property in question. Such an action does not aim or purport to re open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but only to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof. An ordinary civil action for reconveyance does not seek to set aside the decree but respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.

5. An action for reconveyance of real property on the ground of fraud must be filed within four years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of an original certificate of title.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SEGUNDO SIOSON and PASCUALA BAUTISTA