Dizon vs. Court of Appeals

Original certificates of title issued through a cadastral proceeding in rem become indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of a considerable period without any objection from alleged co-owners, and an action for partition filed sixty-one years after the issuance of such titles must fail where the claimants cannot establish their relationship to the alleged predecessors-in-interest and where the document purportedly evidencing co-ownership does not specifically refer to the disputed property.

The spouses Hilario Galang and Martina Laxamana owned two lots in San Agustin, Potrero, Municipality of Bacolor, Province of Pampanga, and had six children: Dionisio, Marciana, Potenciana, Flaviana, Leonora, and Gertrudes. The spouses mortgaged the lots to Camilo Angeles, and Dionisio Galang allegedly redeemed them, with respondents claiming that part of the redemption funds came from his sisters. A cadastral survey was conducted, and on 19 May 1919, the Court of First Instance ordered the issuance of original certificates of title in the name solely of Dionisio Galang.

The spouses Hilario Galang and Martina Laxamana owned two lots located in San Agustin, Potrero, Municipality of Bacolor, Province of Pampanga. They had six children: Dionisio, Marciana, Potenciana, Flaviana, Leonora, and Gertrudes. The spouses mortgaged the lots to Camilo Angeles. Respondents alleged that Dionisio Galang redeemed these lots in his own name, despite the fact that part of the funds used for the redemption came from his sisters.

A cadastral survey involving the two lots was conducted, and on 19 May 1919, the Court of First Instance ordered the issuance in Cadastral Case No. 14 of OCT Nos. 9010 (for Lot 3548) and 9102 (for Lot 3562) in the name solely of Dionisio Galang. The original certificates of title were issued on 9 January 1922. Respondents, who are heirs of Galang's sisters, claimed that Galang and his five sisters had partitioned the subject lots on 27 June 1920, as embodied in an unnotarized affidavit executed by Galang (Exh. "C"). As a consequence, Galang's sisters constructed their houses on Lot 3548, and the structures passed on from generation to generation, with each of Galang's sisters and their descendants enjoying the benefits therefrom without question or disturbance.

The dispute arose when petitioners (heirs of Galang) informed respondents that the lots were titled in Galang's name and had been partitioned, on the basis of a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition (Exh. "D"), into three equal parts corresponding to his three children. Petitioners had succeeded in subdividing the lots and obtaining titles thereto in their name (TCT Nos. 182670-R and 182671-R) despite respondents' earlier demands for an extrajudicial settlement of their dispute. Respondents filed their complaint on 24 March 1983, or sixty-one years after the issuance of the original certificates of title.

Petitioners contended that the cadastral case was a proceeding in rem, thus binding on the whole world, and that respondents did not raise any objection until March 1983. The trial court upheld Galang's titles, held that respondents' action had long prescribed, and noted respondents' failure to establish their relationship to Galang's five sisters, premising their claim solely on an unsubstantiated assertion that they are descendants of the deceased Galang sisters. The trial court also disregarded the documentary evidence (Exh. "C" and "C-1") allegedly showing co-ownership, as these did not specifically refer to the disputed Lots 3548 and 3562. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring that co-ownership existed based on Galang's affidavit, which, although unnotarized, was nonetheless an ancient document pursuant to Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.

• Indefeasibility of Title: Petitioners argued that the cadastral case which culminated in the issuance of the original certificates of title over the subject lots in the sole name of Galang was a proceeding in rem, thus binding on the whole world, and that the titles had become indefeasible and incontrovertible.
• Prescription: Petitioners contended that when the original certificates of title were issued on 9 January 1922 to Galang, respondents did not raise any objection until March 1983 when they filed the complaint, or after a lapse of sixty-one years, and that the action had long prescribed.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioners maintained that the affidavit executed by Galang did not specifically refer to the disputed Lots 3548 and 3562 and therefore could not support respondents' claim of co-ownership.

• Existence of Co-ownership: Respondents claimed that Galang and his five sisters had partitioned the subject lots on 27 June 1920, as embodied in an unnotarized affidavit executed by Galang, and that the sisters constructed their houses on Lot 3548 as a consequence.
• Ancient Document Rule: Respondents argued that the affidavit, although unnotarized, was nonetheless an ancient document pursuant to Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, since it was executed on 27 June 1920, and that proof of its due execution and authentication could be dispensed with.
• Fraudulent Titles: Respondents claimed that OCT Nos. 9010 and 9102, issued in the name of Dionisio Galang, were fraudulent and should therefore be annulled and cancelled.

• Co-ownership: Whether the properties in question were owned in common by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents and petitioners.
• Prescription: Whether the respondents' action for partition had prescribed.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Heirship: Whether the respondents sufficiently established their relationship to the alleged predecessors-in-interest, the Galang sisters.

• Co-ownership: No. The affidavit executed by Dionisio Galang on 27 June 1920 did not refer to Lot Nos. 3548 and 3562, and therefore was not a sufficient basis to support the alleged partition among Dionisio and his deceased sisters.
• Prescription: Yes. The action had prescribed, the original certificates of title having been issued on 9 January 1922 and the complaint filed only on 24 March 1983, or after a lapse of sixty-one years, without any objection from the alleged co-heirs.
• Sufficiency of Evidence of Heirship: No. In the absence of definite proof establishing respondents' link or relationship to their alleged predecessors-in-interest, they did not have any cause of action, and the suit for partition must necessarily fall.

• Co-ownership: The Court examined the affidavit executed by Galang on 27 June 1920, which stated that he received from his sisters and nephews the sum of P106.00 as complete payment for the discharge of the land they co-inherited. The Court found that there was no reference to Lot Nos. 3548 and 3562 in the affidavit. The document merely referred to a certain "land" which Dionisio Galang and his co-heirs "co-inherited" and partitioned without any indication as to which property was being referred to. The Court agreed with the trial court that the document did not amount to anything insofar as the two lots involved in the case were concerned.

• Prescription: The Court noted that Dionisio Galang's ownership over the disputed lots had been judicially confirmed on 19 May 1919 in Cadastral Case No. 14, G.L.R.O. No. 51, which is a proceeding in rem and hence binding "on the whole world." OCT Nos. 9010 and 9102 were issued on 9 January 1922, and none of Galang's co-heirs objected to or protested their issuance. These titles became indefeasible and incontrovertible. It was only after sixty-one years, or on 24 March 1983, that the descendants of Galang's co-heirs asserted co-ownership claims over the subject lots.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Heirship: The Court agreed with the trial court's observation that the plaintiffs, through their witnesses, tried to prove that they were heirs and direct descendants of Marciana Galang, Potenciana Galang, Flaviana Galang, Leoncia Galang, and Gertrudes Galang. However, all that was proved was that each of the plaintiffs was related to one another in varying degrees of relationship. They failed to establish their connection or relationship with any of the five sisters save for their unfounded averment that they were indeed descendants and heirs of these deceased individuals.

• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title — Original certificates of title issued through a cadastral proceeding in rem become indefeasible and incontrovertible after the lapse of a considerable period without any objection from alleged co-owners. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the titles issued to Dionisio Galang in 1922 could no longer be questioned sixty-one years later.

• Ancient Document Rule (Sec. 22, Rule 132, Rules of Court) — An ancient document, being one executed more than thirty years prior to its presentation, may be admitted without proof of its due execution and authentication. The Court of Appeals relied on this rule to admit Galang's 1920 affidavit, but the Supreme Court found that even if the document was admissible, it did not refer to the disputed lots and therefore could not establish co-ownership.

• Proceeding In Rem — A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem, binding on the whole world. The Court applied this principle to hold that the judicial confirmation of Galang's ownership in 1919 was binding on all persons, including his alleged co-heirs.

• "It is a fact that Dionisio Galang's ownership over the disputed lots (3548 and 3562) had been judicially confirmed on 19 May 1919 in Cadastral Case No. 14, G.L.R.O. No. 51, which is a proceeding in rem and hence binding 'on the whole world.'" — This passage establishes the binding effect of the cadastral proceeding and the indefeasibility of the resulting titles.

• "However, as can be gleaned from the foregoing, there is no reference to Lot Nos. 3548 and 3562. Said affidavit is not therefore a sufficient basis or support for what is alleged by respondents as a partition among Dionisio and his now deceased sisters." — This passage states the Court's finding that the affidavit did not support the claim of co-ownership over the specific disputed lots.

• "We likewise agree with the trial court that in the absence of definite proof establishing respondents' link/relationship to their alleged predecessors-in-interest, i.e., the Galang sisters, they do not have any cause of action, and the suit for partition must necessarily fall." — This passage articulates the Court's ruling on the respondents' failure to establish heirship, which was fatal to their cause of action.

N/A — The decision does not cite any prior case law.

• Section 22, Rule 132, Rules of Court — The ancient document rule, which allows admission of documents executed more than thirty years prior to presentation without proof of due execution and authentication. The Court of Appeals applied this rule to admit Galang's 1920 affidavit, but the Supreme Court found the document insufficient regardless of its admissibility.

Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Bellosillo, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions were noted in the decision.