G.R. No. 200265 - LAURA E. PARAGUYA, VS. SPOUSES ALMA ESCUREL-CRUCILLO AND EMETERIO CRUCILLO,* AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF SORSOGON.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it directed the RD to cancel the said title and Sps. Escurillo to surrender ownership and possession of the subject properties to Paraguya. It found that there was a discrepancy in the area of the subject properties applied for registration, as Adoniss affidavit which was made as the basis of Escurels affidavit of adjudication stated that the actual area thereof was only 8,392 square meters (sq. m.) whereas OCT No. P-17729 indicated that the foregoing properties had an area of 30,862 sq. m. In this regard, the RTC concluded that the requisites for the application for registration were not complied with. Likewise, it observed that Escurels ownership over the subject properties was not proven, adding that the affidavit of adjudication made by her and submitted to the CENRO was self-serving. Based on its findings, it then concluded that there was fraud in Escurels acquisition of the above-mentioned title. [16] On May 15, 2009, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the Heirs of Sps. Crucillo, who had substituted the latter due to their supervening death. The said motion was, however, denied on December 16, 2009, prompting them to elevate the case to the CA. [17] The CA Ruling In a Decision [18] dated June 27, 2011, the CA reversed the RTCs ruling and ordered the dismissal of Paraguyas 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 Paraguyas complaint. [20] 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. Aggrieved, Paraguya moved for reconsideration [21] which was, however, denied on January 9, 2012. [22] Hence, this petition. Issue Before the Court The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed Paraguyas complaint for annulment of title. The Courts 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. [23] 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, viz .: Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of ab