Wrong remedy

A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) - Jose C. Sison - The Philippine Star

This is a case about the reconstitution of Lot No. 527, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 28907 which was allegedly lost or destroyed. The land involved here was one of the several parcels of land owned by Protacio.

Upon the death of Protacio, the properties were inherited by his five children – Dante, Victor, Alice, Celia and Lina. Later on, when said five children of Protacio also died, the properties were inherited by their respective children, including Ernesto, son of Dante.

During his lifetime, Ernesto claimed ownership of Lot 527 by filing a Petition for Reconstitution before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of their province with a prayer for the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title in his name. This was granted by the CFI which ordered the reconstitution of said OCT and thereafter cancel it for the issuance of a TCT in the name of Ernesto. Pursuant to this decision, TCT No. 2345 was issued in the name of Ernesto.

Twenty-four years later, when Ernesto was already dead, his heirs claimed ownership of said Lot 527. This was contested by the siblings of Ernesto, the other heirs of Protacio who filed an action for Quieting of Title before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which declared TCT No. 2345 null and void and reinstated OCT 28907.

The heirs of Ernesto thus filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the jurisdiction of the RTC in declaring TCT 2345 null and void, contending that the RTC cannot pass upon the validity of said TCT in an action for quieting of title.

The CA ruled that while a TCT should not have been issued to Ernesto in an action for reconstitution, the declaration of its nullity can only be made in an action for annulment of judgment before the CA or in an action for reconveyance before the RTC. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court ruled that the CA is correct in ruling that the proper remedy of the heirs of Protacio is an action for reconveyance and not for annulment of the judgment reconstituting OCT 28907 then cancelling it and in lieu thereof to issue a new TCT in the name of the heirs of Ernesto.

The proper recourse of the heirs of Protacio should have been to file an action for reconveyance. This is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.

In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. 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 and legal owner, or to the one with a better right. So the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment. (Heirs of Procopio Borras etc. vs. Heirs of Eustaqio Borras etc. G.R.213888, April 25, 2022)


  • Latest
  • Trending
Are you sure you want to log out?

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

or sign in with