Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16169 August 31, 1962
BLAS CUNANAN, petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDAD LARA DE ANTEPASADO, ET AL., respondents.
Moises Dalisay for petitioner.
Quitain and Vega for respondents.
BENGZON, C.J.:
Petition for review of a Court of Appeals' decision ordering cancellation of T.C.T. No. 1481 (Register of Deeds of Davao) issued in petitioner's name and the issuance to him of another covering the same land, minus a portion of 125 square meters, which was declared property of respondents Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, et al.
It appears that on October 29, 1938, Luciano Antepasado sold to Blas Cunanan, for P300.00, a portion of his registered lot in Toril, Davao City. The deed of sale (Exhibit A) described the portion sold as:
A parcel of land (Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2 B-1 of the subdivision plan Psd ——, being a portion of Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2 Psd-14271, G.L.R.O. Record No. 317) ... the point of beginning; containing an area of ONE HUNDRED NINETY SEVEN (197) SQUARE METERS more or less." Thereafter, on May 10, 1940, Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, Juliana Antepasado and Gregorio Antepasado (widow and children of the vendor, who had died in the meantime) executed a document entitled "Ratification" (Exhibit B), wherein they admitted a mutual error in that the parties to the above sale (Exhibit A) mistakenly stated the area to be approximately 197 square meters, whereas the portion of land, object of the sale, actually covered 322 square meters, which was therein described. The document further recited:
WHEREAS, the said Luciano Antepasado, in his lifetime, on the 29th day of October, 1938, in the City of Davao, Philippines, executed a certain contract of absolute sale before notary Public Mr. Salvador Ibarreta, Reg. Not. No. 183, Page 41, Book 1, Series of 1938;
WHEREAS, in said contract, Luciano Antepasado transferred and conveyed by way of absolute sale in favor of BLAS CUNANAN a parcel of land situated at Toril, City of Davao, Philippines, which land is more particularly described in the above mentioned contract of sale;
WHEREAS, in the said contract of sale, the parties thereto, in good faith, calculated that the land covered by the sale was approximately One Hundred Ninety Seven (197) square meters in area;
WHEREAS, by virtue of a subsequent survey made and conducted by Mr. Roman Joaquin, the land which was sold in the aforecited contract has an area of Three Hundred Twenty Two (322) square meters, more particularly described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot No. 724-B-2-B-2-B-1 of the subdivision plan Psd-16525, . . .
NOW, THEREFORE, we FELICIDAD LARA, and JULIANA and GREGORIO, surnamed ANTEPASADO, widow and children of the said LUCIANO ANTEPASADO, ratify and make it appear of record that the aforementioned contract of sale entered into between Luciano Antepasado and Blas Cunanan was one of a sale of real estate for lump sum and not at the rate of a specified price for each unit of measures; and that it was the intention and understanding between the parties thereto to sell an area of Three Hundred Twenty Two (322) square meters, more or less, as indicated above.
Upon presentation of Exhibits A and B to the register of deeds, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1481 was issued to Cunanan on May 20, 1940.
In December 1951, Cunanan built his house, a portion of which stood outside the area described in Exhibit A, though within the confines of Exhibit B and T.C.T. No. 1481. Aware thereof, Felicidad Lara de Antepasado, et al., demanded from Cunanan rentals for the use of the land (not covered by Exhibit A) on the ground that same belonged to them. Upon Cunanan refusal, they instituted the present action in the Court of First Instance of Davao seeking annulment of Exhibit B on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and collection of rentals for occupancy of the land not embraced in Exhibit A.
Finding no fraud or misrepresentation, the Davao court rendered judgment for Cunanan. Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals which awarded them the disputed 125 square meters (the difference in area between the land described in Exhibit A and that delimited in Exhibit B and T.C.T. No. 1481). With respect to that portion of Cunanan's house on the disputed land — which was found to have been built in good faith — the appellate court applied Articles 448, 546 and 548 of the Civil Code.1äwphï1.ñët
Expressly waiving the issue of fraud or misrepresentation, the appellate court found no sufficient evidence of mutual error, and therefore held there could be no "ratification" thru Exh. B. Then it went on to hold that said Exhibit could not be regarded as a valid independent contract of transfer of the 125 sq. m. lot, inasmuch as upon execution thereof, no consideration had passed to the widow and heirs of Luciano Antepasado.
Cunanan petitioned for review here; we gave it due course mainly upon the question of prescription. He had raised it in the Davao court; he had won there. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled against him notwithstanding the document Exh. B had been executed in 1940 and his possession admittedly began that year and continued up to the presentation of this action in 1952. More than eleven years.
Said appellate court applied the principle that ownership of lands registered under the Torrens system may not be acquired by prescription or ten-year adverse possession.
There is no dispute over the principle. But Cunanan did not point to the 10-year period to set title in himself over the land. He mentioned it expressly to defeat the plaintiffs' attempt to invalidate Exh. B on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation; more than 10 years had already elapsed, he argued. He does not claim the lot on the strength of a ten-year possession. He claims it by virtue of a Torrens title in his name, and by Exh. B which plaintiffs have signed — with knowledge of its contents1 — and which they must first annul in order to succeed. But unfortunately for them, they moved only after eleven years, i.e. very late.2
In this connection, it may be noted that the appellate court held Exh. B to be void for lack of consideration. Yet such was not the plaintiffs' contention in the court of first instance, wherein they specifically alleged deceit and misrepresentation. On the other hand, if as Cunanan maintains, and the document itself says so, Exh. A erroneously described the lot sold to him, and Exh. B was executed to set matters aright, it would seem correct to argue that the latter exhibit was merely a reformation of Exh. A (ratification he calls it) the consideration therefor being the original price given by the purchaser to the deceased Luciana Antepasado. Nevertheless, there is no need to pass definitely on this phase of the litigation, since it is enough to hold that the action of plaintiffs to annul the contract Exh. B — on the ground of lack of consideration — had prescribed.
It is important to repeat that Cunanan has a Torrens title regularly issued in his name, on the strength of Exh. B3 and Exh. A. For plaintiffs to prevail, they must first annul Exh. B; but their right of action, if any, has prescribed.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment under review is hereby reversed, and one will be entered dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with costs against them.
Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.
Reyes J.B.L., and Makalintal, JJ., took no part.
Footnotes
1 ;The Davao Court said, there was no misrepresentation; and the Court of Appeals did not reverse that finding.
2 Art. 1144, New Civil Code; sec. 43, Act 190.
3 The Davao court related:
"... something in 1940 when the deed of absolute sale (Exh. A) was presented for registration by the defendant the latter has informed by the then Register of Deeds Mr. Tinio that the document could not be registered because the area in the approved plan (of subdivision) did not tally with the area indicated in the advanced technical description appearing in the original contract Exh. A.
The defendant was then instrued to secure a ratification from the widow and as well as the children of age of the deceased Luciano Antepasado, and acting on that instruction the defendant requested Felicidad Lara de Antepasado and her children, who were then of age, to execute the deed of ratification to which the plaintiffs agreed.
This corroborates Cunanan' claim of ratification (reformation) which, by its terms, Exh. B itself confirms.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
