7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 747

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.
*
G.R. No. 157567. August 10, 2007.

HEIRS OF MARCELA SALONGA BITUIN, petitioners, vs.

TEOFILO CAOLENG, SR., GONZALO CAOLENG, JUANA
CAOLENG, ANGELA CAOLENG, JOSE GOZUM, ROSITA
GOZUM, EUFROCINA GOZUM, LOURDES GOZUM,
EPIFANIA GOZUM, CRESENCIA GOZUM, INES GOZUM,
NICOLAS GOZUM, CARMEN GOZUM, GORGONIO GOZUM,
BERNARDO SALONGA, ARCELI SALONGA, JULIANA
SALONGA, ERLINDA SALONGA, VICENTE SALONGA,
LYDIA SALONGA, FERNANDA SALONGA, and AGUIDO
SALONGA, respondents.

Civil Law; Property; Reconveyance; Prescription; An action for

reconveyance prescribes in ten years, the reckoning point of which is the
date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of
title over the property.—Well entrenched is the rule that an action for
reconveyance prescribes in ten years, the reckoning point of which is the
date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of
title over the property. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of
registration is highly regarded as incontrovertible. What is sought instead is
the transfer of the property or its title, which has been erroneously or
wrongfully registered in another person’s name to its rightful or legal owner,
or to one who has a better right.
Same; Same; Same; Same; If the person claiming to be the owner of
the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance
which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.—In a
number of cases in the past, the Court declared that if the person claiming to
be the owner of the property is in actual possession thereof, the right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not
prescribe. The reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a
piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession
is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right,
the rationale for the rule being that his undisturbed possession provides him
a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of

_______________

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

* FIRST DIVISION.

748

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third
party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by the
one who is in possession.
Same; Same; Same; Simple possession of a certificate of title is not
necessarily conclusive to a holder’s genuine ownership of property; The
rule on indefeasibility of title cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud
against the legal owner.—Elementary is the rule that simple possession of a
certificate of title is not necessarily conclusive to a holder’s genuine
ownership of property. If a person obtains title that includes land to which
he has no legal right, that person does not, by virtue of said certificate alone,
become the owner of the land illegally or erroneously included. This Court
has held time and again that the rule on indefeasibility of title cannot be
used for the perpetration of fraud against the legal owner. Hence,
registration proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud. To hold
otherwise would be to put a premium on land-grabbing and transgress the
broader principle in human relations that no person shall unjustly enrich
himself at the expense of another.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Norbin P. Dimalanta for petitioners.
Punsalan, Tiongson, Lising and Punsalan for respondents.

AZCUNA, J.:

This petition
1
for review on certiorari assails the June 20, 2002
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
2
CV No. 54684,
which reversed the March 13, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Guagua, Pampanga,

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz with Associate Justices

Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr., and Regalado E. Maambong concurring; Rollo, pp. 26-37.
2 Penned by Judge Rogelio C. Gonzales, id., at pp. 38-47.

749
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 749

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Branch 49,3 in Civil Case No. G-2107, as well as the May 18, 2003
Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The facts of the case, as culled from the records, are: Two parcels
of land were originally owned by siblings Juan Romero and Epifania
Romero, the common ancestors of the parties in this instant petition.
Both properties are located at Sta. Ines, Betis, Guagua, Pampanga
covering an area of 1,713 square meters and 788 sq. m., respectively.
The first property was denominated as Cad. Lot No. 3661, Cad. No.
376-D;4
the second land was denominated as Cad. Lot Nos. 3448 and
3449. Juan Romero later married Maria Pecson, while Epifania
Romero married Jose Caoleng.
Juan Romero and Maria Pecson bore Jacoba Romero. Agustin
Caoleng was the only child of Epifania Romero and Jose Caoleng.
Eventually, Jacoba Romero married Antonio Salonga and they
begot Marcela Salonga, the immediate predecessor-ininterest of
petitioners. Marcela was married to German Bituin and they were 5
blessed with ten children. On July 24, 1986, Marcela died intestate.
Meanwhile, Agustin Caoleng married Maria David and they had
seven children, respondents in this case. The children are: Silverio
(deceased), Gonzalo, Rita (deceased), Juana, Teofilo, Angela, and
Lourdes (deceased).
On October 9, 1989, petitioners, represented by their attorney-in-
fact German Bituin, filed a Complaint for “Quieting of Title,
Reconveyance, Ownership, Recovery of Possession, Damages, with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction” before the RTC of Guagua,
Pampanga, Branch 49, against respondents.

_______________

3 Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz with Associate Justices

Mario L. Guariña III, and Regalado E. Maambong concurring, id., at p. 49.
4 Records, Folder 1, p. 4.
5 Id., at pp. 3-4.

750

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Petitioners alleged in the Complaint that due to stealth and high-

handed machination, Teofilo Caoleng succeeded in securing a title
for Cad. Lot No. 3661 of Guagua Cadastre by fraudulently stating
that the same was owned only by his late father, Agustin Caoleng.
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

The Original Certificate

6
of Title (OCT) No. 3399 under Free Patent
No. (III-1) 002490 was issued on February 11, 1976 by the Bureau
of Lands through the Register of Deeds of Pampanga.
Petitioners averred that they are entitled to the one-half pro
indiviso share of Cad. Lot Nos. 3661, 3448, and 3449 as the only
surviving heirs of Juan Romero. They admit that the other half
belongs to the surviving heirs of Epifania Romero, respondents
herein. Petitioners likewise assert that respondents Gonzalo
Caoleng, Arceli Manalac (the daughter of Lourdes Caoleng), Teofilo
Caoleng together with daughter Victoria, Jose Caoleng, and Melanio
Caoleng are occupying most of Cad. Lot Nos. 3448 and 3449.
However, petitioners claim that they have been in the actual,
physical, material, and continuous possession of a great part of Cad.
Lot No. 3661; while the smaller portion thereof is being occupied by
the respondent Gozums, the heirs of Rita Caoleng.
Petitioners further state that on November 24, 1983, an Extra-
7
Judicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person with Sale was
executed wherein the subject of the instrument was a real property
covered by OCT No. 3399 Free Patent No. (III1) 002490 [Lot No.
3661], containing an area of 1,479 sq. m. In the said deed, Lot A,
with an area of 162 sq. m., was adjudicated in favor of Teofilo
Caoleng; Lot C, having an area of 148 sq. m., was given to Angela
Caoleng; and Lot D, with an area of 148 sq. m., was adjudicated to
the heirs of Rita Caoleng, the Gozums. In the same document, the
shares of Gonzalo, Lourdes, and Juana, all surnamed Caoleng, were
sold to Marcela Salonga and this portion was denominated as Lot B,
having an area of 1,021 sq. m.

_______________

6 Exhibit “4,” Records, Index of Exhibits, p. 135.

7 Exhibit “1,” id., at pp. 10-132.

751

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 751

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Furthermore, petitioners recounted that when Marcela Salonga

Bituin died on July 24, 1986, the properties she left behind were
consolidated and it was only at that time that they discovered OCT
No. 3399, the document referring to the
8
extrajudicial settlement, and
the corresponding subdivision plan which was issued after the
execution of the extrajudicial settlement.
Pursuant to the subdivision plan, petitioners fenced the portion
allotted to the late Marcela Salonga Bituin. Petitioners alleged that
they have been in possession of the property since time immemorial.
They claim that they were only able to fence the three sides of the
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

property, excepting the side adjoining the portion being occupied by

the Gozums, because of a misunderstanding as to the boundaries of
the property. 9
On October 16, 1989, a Temporary Restraining Order was issued
by the court ordering respondents to desist temporarily from selling,
disposing, conveying, or creating any encumbrance against Cad. Lot
No. 3661 covered by OCT No. 3399 until the issue of ownership
shall have been finally determined or unless otherwise ordered by
the court.
In their Answer, respondents, except for Gonzalo Caoleng,
declare that the complaint stated no cause of action because OCT
No. 3399 of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga cannot be attacked,
cancelled, and annulled through the remedy availed by the
petitioners. According to them, a collateral attack of the title is not
allowed by law. Moreover, respondents claim that petitioners are
guilty of estoppel and laches since OCT No. 3399 was issued as
early as February 11, 1978. They likewise allege that the deed of
extra-judicial settlement was a forged document and, therefore,
cannot give rise to any right on the part of petitioners.

_______________

8 Exhibit “D,” id., at p. 133.

9 Records, Folder 1, pp. 18-19.

752

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

On July 30, 1990, petitioners

10
filed a Motion for Leave11
to Admit
Amended Complaint. In their Amended Complaint, petitioners
included in their claim Lot No. 3449, which they allegedly
discovered to have been fraudulently titled by Teofilo Caoleng in the
name of the heirs of Agustin 12Caoleng alone under OCT No. 3398
Free Patent No. (III-1) 002489 issued last February 11, 1976 by the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga. Petitioners, therefore, pray that
judgment be rendered in their favor and against respondents, as
follows:

“a) ordering the cancellation and annulment of Original Certificates of

Titles Nos. 3399 and 3398 of the Register of Deeds of Pampanga;
b) declaring the Plaintiffs owners of Cad. Lots Nos. 3661, 3448, and
3449 of Guagua Cadastre to the extent of one half (1/2) pro-
indiviso;
c) ordering the Defendants to reconvey to Plaintiffs one half (1/2) pro-
indiviso share of Cad. Lots Nos. 3661 and 3449 and covered by
O.C.T.’s Nos. 3399 and 3398 respectively;
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

d) ordering the Defendants to vacate Cad. Lots No. 3448 and 3449 to
the extent of one half (1/2) pro-indiviso share;
e) ordering Defendants – Teofilo Caoleng, Sr. and Gozums, to pay
jointly and severally the Plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as and for
attorney’s fees and incidental expenses, aside from other litigation
expenses and costs of this suit.

Plaintiffs pray further

13
for such and other reliefs as may be just and equitable
in the premises.”

During the trial, petitioners presented two witnesses, namely,

Gonzalo Caoleng and German Bituin.
Gonzalo Caoleng is 81 years old and one of respondents herein.
He testified, among other things, that Lot No. 3661 is located near
the sugar land and is covered by Tax Declaration

_______________

10 Id., at p. 72.
11 Id., at pp. 73-80.
12 Exhibit “3,” Records, Index of Exhibits, p. 134.
13 Records, Folder 1, p. 79.

753

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 753

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.
14
No. 07026-300. Aside from Marcela Salonga Bituin, the other
dwellers of this lot are Rita Caoleng and her family, Juana Caoleng,
and Angela Caoleng. Gonzalo 15
also affirmed that Marcela occupied a
bigger portion of this land. The witness stated that Lot Nos. 16
3448
and 3449 are covered by Tax Declaration No. 07026-215 and are
situated near a creek and now occupied
17
by Loudes Caoleng, Teofilo
Caoleng, and Silverio Caoleng. Gonzalo further testified that the
disputed properties are titled though he had no idea how Teofilo
Caoleng had them registered in the name of Agustin Caoleng. He
elaborated that when the titles were released, Marcela summoned
her relatives for a meeting and they agreed that the property being
occupied by Marcela would be given to her. Thereafter, the parties
prepared an agreement which they called 18
Extra-Judicial Settlement
of Estate of Deceased Person with Sale. When shown a copy of the
document, Gonzalo confirmed that the signature
19
appearing on top of
his typewritten name was his signature. When asked to identify the
signatures of Teofilo and Angela Caoleng, he did so and readily told
the court that
20
both Teolfilo and Angela signed the document at his
residence. After the execution of the deed, Gonzalo related that Lot
No. 3661 was surveyed by the Bureau of Lands and a subdivision
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

plan was prepared pursuant thereto. Lastly, the witness averred that
the extrajudicial settlement was
21
executed so that the share of
Marcela would be given to her.
The second witness, German Bituin, testified that he is the
widower of Marcela Salonga Bituin. Salient points of his tes-

_______________

14 Exhibit “A,” Records, Index of Exhibits, p. 128.

15 TSN, July 8, 1992, pp. 5-6.
16 Exhibit “B,” Records, Index of Exhibits, p. 129.
17 TSN, July 8, 1992, pp. 5-6.
18 Id., at pp. 7-8.
19 TSN, November 23, 1992, p. 2.
20 Id., at pp. 3-4.
21 Id., at pp. 4-5.

754

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

timony show that petitioners are claiming more than 1,000 sq. m. of
the disputed properties which are already in their possession. Some
of the improvements made on the property were a fence and a
bodega that unfortunately burned during the pendency of the case.
He added that his family is occupying a bigger portion of Lot No.
3661 because his deceased wife was the sole heir of Jacoba Romero;
and while Marcela
22
was still alive, she exchanged her share with that
of her cousin. The witness explained that the contested lots are
titled; but his family did not secure a separate title for themselves
inasmuch as the relatives of his wife refused to acknowledge their
right over the property after Marcela died. The relatives did not even
23
recognize the extrajudicial settlement after the death of Marcela.
The lone witness for respondents, Rosita Gabriana, testified that
the signature appearing above her name in the extrajudicial
settlement was not her signature. After discovering the forgery in the
document, Rosita filed a complaint. She further avowed that the
subdivision plan, presented as evidence for the petitioners, 24
is
likewise fake because it was based on a forged document. On
cross-examination, Rosita admitted that she came to know the
properties subject of this case only when she saw the documents
indicating that Agustin Caoleng was the owner of the lots. The
witness admitted that she never learned how Agustin got the
properties although she knows that Agustin is the owner of the lots.
On March 13, 1996, the trial court ruled in favor of petitioners.
The fallo of the decision reads:

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring plaintiffs as owner to the extent of 941 square meters of

Lot 3661 now covered by Original Certificate

_______________

22 TSN, July 26, 1993, p. 5.

23 Id., at pp. 6-7.
24 TSN, October 10, 1994, pp. 4-5.

755

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 755

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

No. 3399, Free Patent No. 002490 of the Registrar of Land Titles
and Deeds of Pampanga. The remaining area shall belong to
defendants.
2. Ordering defendants to cause the segregation of the aforementioned
portion and to reconvey the same to plaintiffs. Segregations shall be
accomplished by means of an approved subdivision plan and an
agreement of subdivision/partition. The expense for the subdivision
plan shall be born [sic] by plaintiffs and defendants pro-rata.
3. After the segregation and the subdivision plan have been
accomplished defendants are ordered to surrender the owners’
duplicate copy of OCT 3399, Free Patent No. 002490 to the
Registrar of Land Titles and Deeds of Pampanga who inturn [sic] is
directed to cancell [sic] said title and to issue two separate titles,
one in the name of plaintiffs for 941 square meters and another in
the name of defendants for 538 square meters on the basis of the
approved subdivision plan to be submitted by the parties to the said
office; the herein parties shall bear their own expense for their own
title.
4. Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiffs P10,000.00 by way of
attorney’s fees and expense of litigation.
25
SO ORDERED.”

Not satisfied with the decision of the RTC, respondents interposed

an appeal.
Stating that respondents’ ownership over Lot No. 3661 is based
on OCT No. 3399 issued under Free Patent No. (III-1) 002490, the
appellate court ruled that respondents are the registered owners of
the lands in dispute. The CA reasoned that a free patent issued by
the proper authority is granted only to qualified applicants and
indicates that the land was previously public in character. Thus,

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

OCT No. 3399 registered in the name of the respondents gives an

indefeasible title in their favor.
As to the issue of reconveyance of property, the CA held that the
action had prescribed. The CA further declared that

_______________

25 Records, Folder 1, pp. 186-187.

756

756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

the allegation of fraud on the part of respondents was not proven by

petitioners as OCT No. 3399 was issued by the Government through
a free patent. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision dated March

13, 1996 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered
DISMISSING Civil Case
26
No. G-2107.
SO ORDERED.”

Petitioners now seek relief from this Court.

The lone issue raised by petitioners is whether or not the CA
committed grave error in applying the law on prescription.
Petitioners posit that there are two fundamental legal grounds
why prescription should not have been applied by the appellate court
against them to defeat their rights over the property at issue:

1. Prescription was not raised by Respondents as a defense –

in a Motion to Dismiss, in their Answer, or even in their
Appeal Brief; and
2. Petitioners were, have been, and still are in possession of
the portion allotted
27
to their predecessor-in-interest, Marcela
Salonga-Bituin.

In their Comment, respondents assert that reconveyance is not a

proper remedy because the lands were previously public in character
and only the Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
the capacity to determine who are qualified to be awarded. They add
that the lots are covered by OCT Nos. 3398 and 3399, and,
therefore, cannot be impugned collaterally. Lastly, respondents aver
that they raised the defense of prescription in connection with
estoppel and laches.
The petition is partly meritorious.

_______________

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

26 Rollo, p. 37.
27 Id., at p. 8.

757

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 757

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Well entrenched is the rule that an action for reconveyance

prescribes in ten years, the reckoning point of which is the date of
registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificate of
title over the property. In an action for reconveyance, the decree of
registration is highly regarded as incontrovertible. What is sought
instead is the transfer of the property or its title, which has been
erroneously or wrongfully registered in another person’s 28
name to its
rightful or legal owner, or to one who has a better right.
However, in a number of cases in the past, the Court declared
that if the person claiming to be the owner of the property is in
actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which 29
in
effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. The
reason for this is that one who is in actual possession of a piece of
land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession
is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his
right, the rationale for the rule being that his undisturbed possession
provides him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third
party and its effect on his own title,
30
which right can be claimed only
by the one who is in possession.
In his testimony, Gonzalo Caoleng, who is one of respondents,
admitted that Marcela Salonga Bituin occupies a portion of Lot No.
3661. His telling testimony follows:

_______________

28 Leyson v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 156357, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 94, 113,
citing Heirs of Pomposa Saludares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128254, January 16,
2004, 420 SCRA 51, 56.
29 Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005, 458
SCRA 496, 510, citing Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104813,
October 21, 1993, 227 SCRA 330.
30 Cuizon v. Remoto, G.R. No. 143027, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 274, 286-
287, citing Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108547, February 3, 1997, 267
SCRA 339, 354.

758

758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Q Will you please tell us Mr. Witness who is now in possession of

that land near the “sugar” land which is denominated as cadastral
lot 3661?
WITNESS:
A Rita Caoleng and her family, Sir.
ATTY. DIMALANTA:
Q Who else?
A Juana and Angela, Sir.
Q Who else aside from these persons you mentioned?
Atty. PUNZALAN:
That is putting the answer to the mouth of the witness, objection,
Your Honor.
ATTY. DIMALANTA:
Q Are they the onely [sic] persons occupying that land?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What about on the portion of the land near the creek, who is in
possession of the said land?
A I and Lourdes, Teofilo and Silverio, Sir.
Q What about this Marcela Salonga, what portion of the land
was she occupying?
A She is occupying the land near the sugarland, Sir.
Q The one being occupied by Rita Caoleng?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Who is occupying a bigger portion of that land near the
sugarland which [is] denominated as cadastral lot 3661?
A Marcela Salonga, Sir.
Q Are these properties covered by titles?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And how were they titled?
A I don’t know how Teofilo Caoleng had them registered in the
name of Agustin Caoleng, Sir.
ATTY. DIMALANTA:
Q Are you referring to these two lots?
WITNESS:
A Yes, Sir.

759

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 759

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Q And how were you able to discover that these two parcels of land
[were] caused to be titled by Teofilo Caoleng in the name of
Agustin Caoleng?
A When the titles were released, Marcela Salonga called a sort of a
meeting among us, Sir.
Q What did you talk in that meeting?
A We agreed that the portion being occupied by Marcela Salonga
would be given to her, Sir.
Q When you said that portion, do you refer to the portion you
mentioned covered by cadastral lot 3661?
ATTY. PUNZALAN:
That would be leading, Your Honor.
ATTY. DIMALANTA;
That is only a clarification.
COURT:
May answer.
WITNESS:
31
A Yes, Sir.

More revealing is the confession of the respondents’ sole witness,

Rosita Gabriana, when she testified in this manner:

Q Mrs. Witness, will you please tell us if this case is covered by

two properties, am I correct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q One is located near the Betis river, and the other is a former
riceland or “mulahan”?
A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. DIMALANTA:
Q And the one located near the Betis river is occupied by Gonzalo
Caoleng?
WITNESS:
A Yes, Sir.
Q And also by Teofilo Caoleng?
A Yes, Sir.

_______________

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

31 TSN, July 8, 1992, pp. 5-7; emphasis supplied.

760

760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

Q And also the daughter of Lourdes Caoleng by the name of

Araceli Manalang, is it not?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And the daughter of Teofilo Caoleng by the name of Victoria
Caoleng?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And also the two sons of Teofilo Caoleng by the name of Jose
and Melanio?
A I don’t know, Sir.
Q But you know Jose Caoleng?
A There is, Sir.
Q While this former agricultural land is now enclosed by a
hallow [sic] block fence on three sides?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And at the edge of the open side is the house of your sister
and also the children of Rita Caoleng, is it not?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And it was the plaintiff, particularly German Bituin who
caused the fencing of the three sides of the portion of the
former agricultural land?
32
A Yes, Sir.

Surprisingly, respondents did not controvert petitioners’ allegations

that they are in possession of a large portion of Lot No. 3661 in the
cross-examination or any of the pleadings. If respondents were truly
the owners of Lot No. 3661, why did they allow petitioners to stay
there for such a long period of time? All this time that petitioners
introduced improvements on the land in controversy, respondents
did not oppose or complain about the improvements. Even the trial
court was correct in observing that petitioners’ possession of Lot
No. 3661 is an advantage for them, thus:

_______________

32 TSN, November 11, 1994, pp. 6-7; emphasis supplied.

761

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 761

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

“Gonzalo Caoleng, a man of 81 years of age and one of the defendants in

this case testified for and in behalf of the plaintiffs. He supported the claim
of the plaintiffs. His testimony is a declaration against his own interest
because by saying that plaintiffs have an interest over the land in dispute he
practically waived his right and interest, which is substantial over the
property which is already titled in the name of the Heirs Agustin Caoleng
and he happens to be one of the heirs of Agustin Caoleng being one of his
children. His testimony which is credible deserves full faith and credit. A
very old man, he undoubtedly has sufficient knowledge of the history of the
disputed land especially of its possessor, so that when he said plaintiff
Marcela Salonga was in possession 33
of the bigger portion of Lot 3661
this testimony cannot be ignored.”

However, the appellate court decided otherwise and emphasized the

fact that respondents are grantees of a free patent and eventually
became holders of a title.
Elementary is the rule that simple possession of a certificate of
title is not necessarily conclusive to a holder’s genuine ownership of
property. If a person obtains title that includes land to which he has
no legal right, that person does not, by virtue of said certificate
alone, become
34
the owner of the land illegally or erroneously
included. This Court has held time and again that the rule on
indefeasibility of title cannot
35
be used for the perpetration of fraud
against the legal owner. Hence, registration proceedings could not
be used as a shield for fraud. To hold otherwise would be to put a
premium on land-grabbing and transgress the broader principle in
human relations that 36
no person shall unjustly enrich himself at the
expense of another.

_______________

33 Rollo, p. 44; emphasis supplied.

34 Bejoc v. Cabreros, G.R. No. 145849, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 78, 87, citing
Veterans Federation of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119281,
November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 348.
35 Id., at p. 87, citing Bayoca v. Nogales, G.R. No. 138201, September 12, 2000,
340 SCRA 154.
36 Leyson v. Bontuyan, supra note 28, at 115, citing Almarza v. Arguelles, G.R. No.
L-49250, December 31, 1987, 156 SCRA 718, 725.

762

762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

37
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529
37
In Vital v. Anore, et al., this Court ruled that:

“x x x if the registered owner, be he a patentee or his successorin-interest to

whom the free patent was transferred or conveyed, knew that the parcel of
land described in the patent and in the Torrens title belonged to another and
who together with his predecessors-in-interest has been in possession
thereof, and if the patentee and his successor-in-interest were never in
possession thereof, then the statute barring an action to cancel a Torrens title
issued upon a free patent does not apply, and the true owner may bring an
action to have the ownership or title to the land judicially settled, and if the
allegations of the plaintiff that he is the true owner of the parcel of land
granted as free patent and described in the Torrens title and that the
defendant and his predecessor-in-interest were never in possession of the
parcel of land and knew that the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-interest
have been in possession thereof be established, then the court in the exercise
of its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the cancellation of the Torrens
title issued upon the patent, may direct the defendant, the registered owner,
to reconvey the parcel38
of land to the plaintiff who has been found to be the
true owner thereof.”

In the present case, it cannot be contradicted that petitioners have

been in actual possession of Lot No. 3661. The reconveyance is just
and proper in order to bring to a halt the intolerable anomaly that the
patentees resort to in obtaining a Torrens title for the land which
they and their predecessors never possessed and 39
which has been
possessed by another in the concept of an owner.
After a careful scrutiny of the pleadings of the case, it was
unearthed that petitioners were asking for the reconveyance of the
one-half portion of Lot Nos. 3661, 3448, and 3449. Sadly, this
cannot be done as the records lack sufficient evi-

_______________

37 90 Phil. 855 (1952).

38 Id., at pp. 858-859.
39 Leyson v. Bontuyan, supra note 28, at p. 115, citing Linaza v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73741, February 28, 1990, 182 SCRA 855, 860.

763

VOL. 529, AUGUST 10, 2007 763

Heirs of Marcela Salonga Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

dence to support this contention. Petitioners were only able to prove

their right to ownership of the 1,021 sq. m. of Lot No. 3661 because
they showed adequate proof of their lengthy possession of that area
of land which was concurred in by the witness for the defendants.
This Court cannot grant petitioners ownership of half of Lot Nos.

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
7/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 529

3448 and 3449 as they have not shown any credible and trustworthy
evidence that they are entitled to that share in accordance with law
or any existing jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The June 20, 2002 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 54684 is MODIFIED.
The Court hereby AFFIRMS the ownership of petitioners of Lot
No. 3661 to the extent of 1,021 square meters and respondents are
ORDERED to RECONVEY title to the same to petitioners. The
Register of Deeds is ORDERED to CANCEL OCT No. 3399 and
ISSUE another certificate of title over the property in favor of
petitioners, to the extent of 1,021 square meters, as co-owners
thereof, and another certificate of title in the name of respondents for
the remainder of the lot as pro indiviso co-owners. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and

Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition partially granted, judgment modified.

Note.—The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the

decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is
sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its
rightful owner or to one with a better right. (De Guzman vs. Court of
Appeals, 394 SCRA 302 [2002])

——o0o——

764

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016bf8cb8733dfbfe98f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16