OPINION

Wrongfully included
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated January
07, 2010 12:00 AM

Even after a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) has been issued in the name of a person, the latter
does not necessarily become the owner of the property. A TCT cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or to
permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of another. This principle is again illustrated in the
case between the spouses Gerry and Gina, and spouses Danny and Dina.

The case involved an 80 square meter residential lot owned and occupied by Danny and Dina since
1977. The couple acquired it by donation from Maria and Ana in whose names it was previously
declared for taxation purposes.

In November 1992, Danny and Dina discovered that Vic, one of their neighbors, was granted a
free patent over an 885 square meter land which included their lot and was subsequently issued
an Original Certificate of Title (OCT 253) on March 8, 1978. Thereafter Vic subdivided the entire
parcel into three lots, 9954-A, B and C. Then Vic sold lot 9954-B with an area of 273 square
meters to the spouses Gerry and Gina who earlier opposed Vic’s application for registration of the
entire parcel in his name claiming that they were the owners thereof, having acquired it from
Pedro who was its previous owner. Apparently Vic was swayed by Gerry and Gina’s claim that they
had a right to lot 9954-B so he agreed to sell it to them for P30,000. By virtue of such sale the
OCT 253 was cancelled and TCT 5065 for lot A was issued in Vic’s name, TCT 5066 for lot B in the
name of Gerry and Gina, and TCT 5067 in the name of Mina who also purchased lot C from Vic.

Considering that the property of the couple Danny and Dina is situated between and was included
in Lot 9954-A and B titled respectively in the names of Vic and the spouses Gerry and Gina, Danny
and Dina filed an action for re-conveyance, declaration of nullity of the deed of absolute sale,
cancellation of titles and damages, against Vic and the spouses Gerry and Gina.

In their answer and for their defense, Gerry and Gina contended that the free patent issued in
favor of Vic was issued pursuant to law, that they were innocent purchasers for value and that
their TCT was already incontrovertible. Were they correct?

No. An action for re-conveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to a rightful owner of a
land which had been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for purposes of
compelling the latter to transfer or re-convey the land to him. It does not seek to reopen the
registration proceedings and to set aside the decree of registration but only purports to show that
the person who secured the registration of the property in question is not the real owner thereof.

In this case, Danny and Dina are the rightful owners of the 80 square meter portion of the land
wrongfully included in either or in both of the TCT of Gerry and Gina or Vic, as they were in
possession of the subject property and paid the real property taxes thereon. Thus Vic, not being
the owner of the subject property could not have transferred ownership thereof to Gerry and Gina.
And the latter were not innocent purchasers for value because as neighbors of Danny and Dina,
they certainly would have known that Danny and Dina actually occupied the property.

As a logical consequence, Gerry and Gina did not become the owners of the subject property even
after a TCT had been issued in their names. After all, registration does not vest title. Certificates
of Title merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. Hence re-conveyance of the
subject property is warranted.

In an action for re-conveyance, the decree of registration is highly regarded as incontrovertible.

What is sought is the transfer of the property or its title which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another person’s name, to its rightful owner or to one who has a better right. The
present action for re-conveyance only entails the segregation of the portion wrongfully included in
the certificates of title. The decree of registration is still respected but the certificate of title will be
cancelled for the purpose of amending it in order to exclude the portion wrongfully included
therein. A new title covering the portion re-conveyed shall then be subsequently issued in the
name of the real owner.

Hence, Gerry and Gina and Vic should cause a survey of Lots 9954-A and B in order to determine
the exact location of the 80 square meter portion of Danny and Dina. Thereafter the Register of
Deeds should issue corresponding TCTs in the names of Danny and Dina, Gerry and Gina and Vic
(Spouses Lopez vs, Spouses Lopez, G.R. 161925, November 25, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II)
are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net