JR., JOSE O. FABRIGA AND CRUZ A. LIMBARING, VS. SISTER LUCIA ANCILLA (NEE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff, and against the defendants: 1. Ordering the defendants, Severina Rodrigo, Arnaldo Sauza, Alejandra Sauza, Camilo Sauza, Filemon Sauza, Jr. and the heirs of Cruz A. Limbaring to reconvey Lot 434 (Lots 434-A & 434-B) in favor of plaintiff Esperanza Daomilas (nee Sister Lucia Ancilla), which are presently covered by TCT No. T-5427 in the name of Severina Rodrigo and TCT No. T-5426 in the name of Cruz Limbaring by executing the necessary deeds of conveyance; [10] On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the trial court's decision. [11] Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. [12] Hence, this recourse. The controversy in this petition revolves around whether or not the action for reconveyance filed by respondent should prosper. The remedy of a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is an action for reconveyance, or an action for damages if the property has passed onto the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Paragraph 3, Section 53 of PD 1529 provides that in all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of the decree of registration. To be read in conjunction with the foregoing provision is Article 1456 of the Civil Code which provides that "[i]f the property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes." In this case, Lot 434 was originally registered in the names of respondent's parents, Ramon Daomilas and Lucia Nagac, under OCT No. 428. The OCT evidencing this ownership, however, was borrowed by Vicente Sauza. In furtherance of his plan to defraud the spouses out of their land, Vicente Sauza, through misrepresentation, tricked the spouses into signing a deed of transfer. Afterwards, he twice attempted to secure a transfer of the certificate of title to his name but in both instances failed. However, on January 13, 1971, petitioner Jose Fabriga cancelled OCT No. 428 and precipitately issued TCT No. T-3062 in the name of the late Vicente Sauza. This issuance of the TCT in favor of the deceased Vicente Sauza was done with grave abuse of discretion and clearly in connivance with petitioner Cruz Limbaring. [13] Tainted as it was with mistake and fraud, the issuance of TCT No. T-3062 was invalid. Consequently, the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Vicente Sauza transferring his alleged rights over Lot 434 to his heirs had absolutely no force and effect. As successors-in-interest, his heirs merely acquired whatever rights he had over the property. In this case, none. It goes without saying that the subsequent issuance of TCT Nos. T-5427 and T-5426 in the names of petitioners Severina Rodrigo a