G.R. No. 200265 Case Digest

G.R. No. 200265, December 2, 2013

Laura Paraguya

vs Spouses Alma Crucillo and Emeterio crucillo

Ponente: Perlas-Bernabe

Facts:

December 1990, Paraguya filed before the RTC a complaint against Crucillo for annulment of some deeds, with prayer for receivership and damages alleging that Escurel obtained the aforesaid title through fraud and deceit. She claims to be the lawful heir to the subject properties by her paternal grandfather, while Escurel was Merel their administrator.

RD denied the fraud, maintaining that its issuance of OCT No. was his ministerial duty. Crucillo then filed their answer with motion to dismiss, averring that Paraguya's complaint had already been barred by laches and/or prescription.

RTC granted Paraguya saying that the requisites of the registration was not complied and Escurel's ownership over the properties was not proven. A motion for reconsideration was filed by heirs of Crucillo, who had substituted the latter due to his death. But the motion was denied, prompting them to elevate the case to the CA.

CA reversed the RTC and ordered for the dismissal of Praguya's complaint. Citing Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1529,19 otherwise known as the “Property Registration Decree,” it held that OCT No. P–17729 became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of one (1) year from its issuance on August 24, 1979, thus barring Paraguya’s complaint. Moreover, it found that the express trust relationship between Escurel and Estabillo was not sufficiently established. Finally, it pointed out that Paraguya was not a real–party–interest since she has not proven her title over the subject properties, stating that the titulo posesorio she held could no longer be used as evidence of ownership.

SC's Ruling:

The petition has no merit.

It is an established rule that a Torrens certificate of title is not conclusive proof of ownership. Verily, a party may seek its annulment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. However, such action must be seasonably filed, else the same would be barred.

In this relation, Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the period to contest a decree of registration shall be one (1) year from the date of its entry and that, after the lapse of the said period, the Torrens certificate of title issued thereon becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible.