G.R. No. 169985 - MODESTO LEOVERAS, VS. CASIMERO VALDEZ. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 23, 2000 is SET ASIDE. Declaring TCT No. 195812 and TCT No. 195813 as NULL and VOID, [ the petitioner] is hereby directed to reconvey the subject parcels of land to [ the respondent] . [28] (Emphasis added.) Unwilling to accept the CA's reversal of the RTC ruling, the petitioner filed the present appeal by certiorari , claiming that the CA committed "gross misappreciation of the facts" [29] by going beyond what the respondent sought in his complaint. THE PETITION The petitioner claims that the CA should not have ordered the reconveyance of both parcels of land covered by the TCTs in question since the respondent only seeks the reconveyance of the disputed property - i.e. , the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 195813. The petitioner asserts that after the subject sale, the parties physically partitioned the subject property and possessed their respective portions, thereby setting the limits of their ownership. The petitioner admits that the Benigna Deed is "fabricated" but hastens to add that it was only designed (i) to affirm the "true intent and agreement" of the parties on the extent of their ownership, as shown by their actual physical possession, and (ii) as a "convenient tool" to facilitate the transfer of title to his name. THE RESPONDENT'S COMMENT The respondent claims that since the petitioner himself admitted using a spurious document in obtaining his titles (as alleged in the complaint and as found by the CA), then the CA correctly cancelled the latter's titles. [30] The petitioner forged the respondent's signature in the Affidavit to make it appear that he agreed to the division indicated in the document. The respondent defended the CA's reconveyance of both parcels of land, covered by the petitioner's titles, to the respondent by arguing that if the distribution in the Affidavit is followed, the "original intendment" of the parties on their shares of the subject property would be "grievously impaired" [31] THE ISSUES The two basic issues [32] for our resolution are: Whether the CA erred in nullifying the petitioner's titles. Whether the CA erred in ordering the reconveyance of the parcel of land covered by the petitioner's titles. THE RULING We partially grant the petition. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him. [33] The plaintiff in this action must allege and prove his ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant's erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration of the property. We rule that the respondent adequately proved his ownership of the disputed property by virtue of the (i) Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Josefa in favor of the parties; (ii) the parties' Affidavit of Adverse Claim; and (iii) the parties' Agreement, which cover the subject property. The petitioner does not d