View full case

MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA

FACTS:

The case involves a parcel of land located in Tumauini, Isabela. The land was initially owned by the parents of petitioner Mariflor Tagufa Hortizuela (Hortizuela), but it was later foreclosed and sold to Atty. Romulo Marquez. Marquez then sold the property to Runsted Tagufa, who is the husband of respondent Gregoria Tagufa. Hortizuela, who was in America at the time, provided the funds for the purchase with the agreement that the property would be reconveyed to her sister. However, Hortizuela later discovered that the property was titled in the name of Gregoria Tagufa. Gregoria Tagufa was able to acquire the title through a free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate. Hortizuela filed a complaint for reconveyance and recovery of possession against Gregoria Tagufa and her co-defendants. The case was initially dismissed by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for lack of merit, but on appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Hortizuela. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the RTC decision, stating that an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession amounts to an indirect or collateral attack on the validity of the certificate of title, which is prohibited by law. Hortizuela filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complaint for reconveyance and recovery of possession filed by the petitioner constitutes a collateral attack on the title of the respondent.

  2. Whether an action for reconveyance is proper in cases where a public land title was unlawfully acquired by the defendant.

  3. Whether the plaintiff in this case has the right to ask for the reconveyance of the subject property.

  4. Whether the registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System vests ownership on the registrant.

  5. Whether a certificate of title can protect a usurper from the true owner or shield the commission of fraud.

  6. Whether the defense of ineligibility to own the property can be raised for the first time on appeal.

RULING:

  1. No, the complaint for reconveyance is not a collateral attack on the title but a direct attack. The Court held that an action for reconveyance is a recognized remedy, an action in personam, available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another's name. It does not seek to set aside the decree of registration but seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent third person for value. The fact that the respondent was able to secure a title in her name does not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land.

  2. An action for reconveyance is proper in cases where a public land title was unlawfully acquired by the defendant. While the indefeasibility of a title over previously public land is generally recognized, there is an exception when the plaintiff-claimant seeks direct reconveyance from the defendant based on a breach of trust or enforcement of a constructive trust. This exception allows for a reconveyance action to be filed to show that the person who acquired the title is not the real owner.

  3. The plaintiff in this case has the right to ask for the reconveyance of the subject property. The purpose of the complaint for reconveyance filed by the plaintiff was to seek the transfer of the land to her on account of the fraud committed by the defendant in acquiring the title. The court upheld the right of the plaintiff to ask for reconveyance, as it would be unjust to allow a person who fraudulently acquired land to enjoy the fruits of their deceit. This ruling is in line with the principle that the Torrens system should not serve as a shield for the commission of fraud.

  4. No, registration under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, as it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership or title over the property described therein.

  5. No, a certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or shield the commission of fraud. It also does not permit one to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

  6. No, the defense of ineligibility to own the property cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be considered by a reviewing court due to the principle of due process.

  7. ================================= PRINCIPLES =================================

  8. Registration under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, as it is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

  9. A certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership or title over the property described therein.

  10. A certificate of title cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or shield the commission of fraud.

  11. A certificate of title does not permit one to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

  12. Points of law, theories, issues, and arguments not raised before the trial court cannot be considered on appeal, as it violates the principle of due process.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The State has the authority to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of a title to public land and file an action for reversion if fraud is found.

  • An action for reconveyance is appropriate when a public land title was unlawfully acquired.

  • The purpose of an action for reconveyance is to transfer or reconvey the land to the rightful owner.

  • The Torrens system should not be used as a shield for the commission of fraud.

================================= PARTIAL DIGEST =================================