Javier v Concepcion

Facts:

Lim Chua, Tan Tian On and Tan Sick Tan filed for the reconveyance of a parcel of land (Lot 12) against Urbano Javier and Leonila Albiela. Lot 12 is allegedly a portion of a big parcel of land (Lot 6) located in Quezon. It was alleged that Lot 12 was ordered excluded from Lot 6 by Chua et. al. They said that Lot 12 can never be a part of Lot 6 because the Guhit River serves as a natural boundary between the Lot 12 (which was located in Dolores, Quezon) and Lot 6 (located in Candelaria, Quezon).

As a defense, Javier alleged that they acquired Lot 12 by part-purchase and part-inheritance; that they have a Spanish title to the lot; that the lot was adjudicated to their predecessors-in-interest in Land Registration Cases, that they have declared the land for tax purposes; that they planted the land with numerous fruits w/o interference from Chua et. al; and that Chua et. al, were never owners of Lot 12 as they have acquired their title through fraud and deceit.

The court a quo rendered judgment in favor of Chua et. al. It held that Lot 12 was part of Lot 6 as evidenced by the records of the Chief Surveyor of the Land Registration Office. Javier knew of this fact. His contention that the Commissioner’s report and the plotted area should not be admitted has no merit because of the manifestation of the Chief Surveyor.

The CA affirmed the decision thus the certiorari.

Issue:

1.      Whether or not there was fraud in the registration of Lot 12.

2.      Whether or not Chua et. al’s. cause of action has not been barred by prescription/laches.

Held:

1.      No. Fraud as a legal basis for review of a decree means actual/positive fraud as distinguished from constructive/legal fraud.  Actual fraud is a question of fact. Lot 12 was found to be part of Lot 6 under TCT 16817 issued in the name of    Chua. Furthermore, the decree of registration has long become final. Under sec 38 of Land Registration Act:  the person allegedly deprived of the land by a decree of registration under fraud should file in the CFI a petition for review w/in 1 yr. after the entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. Granting that there was no actual/ positive fraud in securing the title, Javier is barred from questioning it.

2.      Without merit. The rule is one cannot acquire title to a registered land by prescription or adverse possession. There are no intervening rights of 3^rd persons w/c may be affected by a decision directing the return of Lot 12 to Chua et. al. The defense of laches will not apply in this case.

*SC affirms CA.