The Supreme Court has DENIED a petition seeking the cancellation of a land title, affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling that the cancellation of a certificate of title cannot be granted in an action for recovery of possession, and cannot be sought by parties who do not claim ownership of the property.
In the decision in G.R. No. 271451, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 27, 2023, and Resolution dated January 3, 2024, in CA-G.R. CV No. 117872.
The Case
Soledad Punsalan Lopez (Soledad) was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 042-2014001413. Respondent Norberto L. Abalon alleged that Soledad donated the property to him and his children through a Deed of Donation dated February 6, 2019, acknowledged before a Notary Public. A new title, TCT No. 042-2019005107, was thereafter issued in respondent's name.
Respondent claimed ownership of the property, asserted that he had been paying the real property taxes, and demanded that petitioners vacate the premises through a Demand Letter dated April 25, 2019. When petitioners refused, respondent filed a verified Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages dated June 26, 2019, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Angeles City.
The petitioners — Spouses Marciano and Ester Austria, Spouses Rizaldy and Sylvia Caceres, Edina Romero, and all persons acting for and on their own behalf — denied respondent's ownership and argued that his title was invalid. By way of counterclaim, they prayed for the cancellation of TCT No. 042-2019005107. They argued that Soledad had actually already died on December 1, 2017, before the execution of the alleged Deed of Donation dated February 6, 2019, presenting Soledad's Death Certificate.
In its Decision dated May 4, 2021, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, found the title void, and ordered its cancellation. On appeal, the CA affirmed the dismissal but deleted the order cancelling the title, holding that the cancellation of a certificate of title must be pursued in a proper direct proceeding.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as whether the CA erred in deleting the order cancelling TCT No. 042-2019005107.
The Ruling
The Court concurred with the outcome of the CA Decision. It noted that petitioners failed to file the required Reply despite receiving the Court's Resolution, and were thus deemed to have waived the right to file one, but proceeded to decide on the merits.
The Court held that while the RTC was within its authority to find that the title issued pursuant to the void Deed of Donation could not sustain respondent's claim of ownership — such finding being conclusive only in determining who had a better right to possess — the RTC exceeded the ambit of an accion publiciana when it ordered the cancellation of the title and the reinstatement of the original title.
The dispositive portion reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated September 27, 2023, and the Resolution dated January 3, 2024, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117872 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 271451
- TCT No. 042-2014001413 — Soledad's original title
- TCT No. 042-2019005107 — title issued in respondent's name
- Deed of Donation dated February 6, 2019
- Soledad's alleged death: December 1, 2017
- Demand Letter dated April 25, 2019
- Complaint filed June 26, 2019
- RTC Decision dated May 4, 2021
- CA Decision dated September 27, 2023; Resolution dated January 3, 2024
- Php 10,000.00 attorney's fees ordered by the RTC
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that a provisional determination of ownership cannot be the basis for a definitive adjudication affecting title. To allow the cancellation of a certificate of title in an accion publiciana would effectively convert the action into one for recovery of ownership, contrary to the nature of the action as defined by the complaint.
On petitioners' argument that their permissive counterclaim constituted a direct attack on the title, the Court recognized that such a counterclaim may constitute a direct attack and is treated as an independent action. However, once treated as an independent action, the counterclaim must itself satisfy the substantive requirements governing the relief sought.
The Court set aside respondent's argument that petitioners were not the real parties in interest, noting it was raised belatedly for the first time on appeal and was not seasonably invoked before the trial court. Citing settled rules, the Court said issues not raised at the earliest opportunity cannot be considered on appeal.
Nevertheless, the Court held that petitioners were not automatically entitled to cancellation. Citing Hacbang v. Alo and Demegillo v. Lumampao, the Court stressed that even if a title was fraudulently obtained, a party with no legal right or interest in the property cannot seek its cancellation, as that right belongs to the rightful owner. The Court noted petitioners do not claim ownership nor assert any right by which title should be transferred or reconveyed to them.
Thus, while petitioners may invoke the alleged nullity of respondent's title to defeat his claim of possession, they have not established entitlement to the affirmative relief of cancellation of title. The CA properly deleted such relief.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 271451, affirming the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117872.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.