G.R. No. 98709. May 13, 1993.

* thereof; any claim over it not noted thereon by other

MAGDALENA LLENARES, parties is therefore deemed barred under the principle
petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and of res judicata.
APOLINAR ZABELLA, respondents. Same; Same; Same; A party fraudulently
Civil Law; Land Titles and Deeds; The failure deprived of his property in a cadastral proceeding
of the petitioner to declare for taxation purposes the may file a Petition for Review within one (1) year
subject property does not prejudice her rights thereto from the entry of a decree or after the lapse of said
considering that the continued existence of OCT No. period, file an action for Reconveyance, provided that
43073 in the name of her predecessor-in-interest and the property has not yet passed to an innocent
the payment of the taxes thereon by others, for and in purchaser for value.—A party fraudulently deprived
behalf of the registered owners, operates to benefit of his property in a cadastral proceeding may
the registered owners and their successors-in-interest. nevertheless file, within one (1) year from the entry of
—Since the petitioner is Anastacio Llenares’s sole the decree, a petition for review. After the lapse of the
heir, the continued existence of OCT No. 43073 fully said period, if the property has not yet passed on to an
protected her rights; and her failure to declare for innocent purchaser for value, an action for
taxation purposes the one-half (1/2) portion of the land reconveyance may still be filed by the aggrieved
pertaining to Anastacio did not, therefore, prejudice party. In the instant case, that action for reconveyance
her because the payments of the real estate taxes by could have only been based on an implied trust
others—such as Godofredo Zaracena and Juan defined in Article 1456 of the Civil Code. It is now
Zabella, as found by the public respondent per settled that an action for the reconveyance of property
Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2”—for and in behalf of based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in
the registered owners—benefited the registered ten (10) years.
owners themselves and their successors-in-interest.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the
Same; Same; There exists no law requiring a decision of the Court of Appeals.
sole heir to execute an affidavit of self-adjudication
and to cause the issuance of a new title covering The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
subject property in her name in lieu of the original      Florante P. Pamfilo for petitioner.
title in the name of her predecessor-in-interest in      Renato A. Martinez for private respondent.
order to protect her rights and interests therein
considering that transfer of ownership by succession, DAVIDE, JR., J.:
operates ipso jure.—As has been earlier adverted to,
the continued existence of OCT No. 43073 in Juan Petitioner availed of this recourse under Rule 45
Zabella’s name protected the petitioner as the sole heir
of the Revised Rules of Court to obtain a reversal
of Anastacio Llenares. There is no law which requires
her, as a sole heir, to execute an affidavit of
of the Decision of the Seventh Division of the
adjudication and cause both the cancellation of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 09853,
OCT and the issuance of a new one in her name and in promulgated on 24 April 1991,  and the 1

the names of the heirs of co-owner Juan Zabella in reinstatement of the 4 April 1986 Decision of
order to transfer the ownership of the property to her, Branch 57 of the Regional Trial
or protect her rights and interests therein. The transfer _______________
in her favor took place, ipso jure, upon the death of
Anastacio Llenares.  Annex “A” of Petition; Rollo, 12-18. Per Associate
1

Justice Serafin E. Camilon, concurred in by Associate Justices

Same; Same; A cadastral proceeding, being a Celso L. Magsino and Artemon D. Luna.
proceeding in rem, the failure of the vendee to invoke 12
his claim therein on the subject property barred his 12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
claim under the principle of res judicata.—Finally,
the so-called deed of sale executed by Anastacio Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
Llenares in 1929 had lost its efficacy after the Court (RTC), Lucena City, in a case  involving 2

judgment in the cadastral proceedings adjudicating the recovery of the possession and quieting of
Lot No. 5015 to him and Juan Zabella became final. title over a parcel of land. The dispositive portion
Ariston of the trial court’s decision reads as follows:
_______________ “ ‘WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for the
plaintiff who is declared the true and absolute owner
*
 THIRD DIVISION.
of the land covered by TCT No. 28170 (Registry of
11 Deeds, Lucena City) particularly described in par. 2 of
plaintiff’s complaint and it is hereby ordered—
VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals 1. 1.That the defendant or any person acting in
Zabella, the vendee in the said sale, did not file his behalf surrender and transfer possession
any answer in the cadastral proceedings or advance of the land in question (covered by TCT No.
any claims on the said lot. It is to be noted that the 28170 to the plaintiff;
proceedings under the Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259, as 2. 2.That the defendant render an accounting of
amended) are judicial and in rem. As such, they bind the fruits he received from the
the whole world. The final judgment rendered therein aforementioned property from August 1976
is deemed to have settled the status of the land subject
 until possession is transferred to the plaintiff, On 22 June 1976, petitioner, as the sole heir of
said accounting to be approved by the court; Anastacio Llenares, adjudicated to herself, by
3. 3.That in keeping with the findings of this way of a Salaysay ng Pagmamana ng Nag-iisang
court, the Register of Deeds, Lucena City, Tagapagmana (Exhibit “A”), the one-half (1/2)
should, as he is hereby ordered cancel Entry share in the property belonging to Anastacio
No. 35285 in TCT No. 28170, said entry
Llenares. This fact was likewise annotated in
being an annotation of the adverse claim of
defendant Apolinar Zabella inscribed on OCT No. 43073.
Feb. 17, 1977; On 26 August 1976, however, OCT No. 43073
4. 4.That the defendant pay to plaintiff the was cancelled and in its place, TCT No. T-27166
amount of P2,500.00 as attorney’s fees and was issued for the entire lot. On 16 February
P1,000.00 as expenses of litigation.’ ” 3 1977, private respondent Zabella filed an adverse
claim which was duly annotated in TCT No. T-
Petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint on 27166.
12 July 1977 after she had been allegedly As a consequence of a Kasunduan ng
dispossessed of the property in question by Pagpasukat (Exhibit “I”) executed by and
private respondent Apolinar Zabella in 1976, and between Irene Catapat and the heirs of Rosario
after the latter had caused to be annotated in Zabella Zaracena, Lot No. 5015 was subdivided
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28170 an into Lot Nos. 5015-A, 5015-B and 5015-C. Lot
affidavit of adverse claim on 17 February 1977. No. 5015-A, which comprises one-half (1/2) of
She prayed therein that, inter alia, she be restored Lot No. 5015 corresponding to Anastacio’s share,
to the possession of the said property and that the was allotted to the petitioner. TCT No. T-27166
adverse claim be cancelled. 4 was thereafter cancelled and separate Transfer
As disclosed by the pleadings and the Certificates of Title were issued for each of the
challenged decision, the antecedent facts are as subdivided lots. TCT No. 28170 issued in the
follows: petitioner’s name for Lot No. 5015-A.
Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares were co- As regards the issue of possession, the
owners, in equal shares, of a parcel of land petitioner’s evidence discloses that since she was
situated in barrio Silangang Mayao of the then only four (4) years old when her father died, her
Municipality, now City, of Lucena. In the cousin Rosario Zabella administered the land in
cadastral 14
_______________ 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
2
 Entitled “Magdalena Llenares vs. Apolinar Zabella.”
3
 Rollo, 16. question until 1959 when she (petitioner) placed
4
 Id., 12-13. Rufo Orig as tenant therein. The latter worked as
such, delivering to the petitioner her share of the
13
harvest until 1976, when he stopped doing so as
VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993
he was ordered by the private respondent not to
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals give the petitioner her share anymore. Private
survey of the said municipality, the lot was respondent allegedly claimed ownership over the
designated as Cadastral Lot No. 4804-D. This property. Petitioner further proved that she had
designation was later changed to Lot No. 5015. been paying the land taxes on the property until
On 21 December 1929, Anastacio Llenares the filing of the case.
sold his one-half (1/2) share in the lot to Ariston On the other hand, according to his own
Zabella, private respondent’s father. version, private respondent and his siblings took
Subsequently, after due proceedings, the cadastral possession of that portion of the land sold by
court awarded Lot No. 5015 to Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares after Ariston Zabella’s death
Anastacio Llenares in equal shares. Decree No. on 21 March 1930. He then converted the same
54398 was issued to both of them and on the basis into riceland. It was irrigated in 1955 and he has
thereof, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. been paying the irrigation charges thereon since
43073 was issued in their names on 28 July 1937. 1960. Moreover, he and his co-heirs have been in
Anastacio Llenares passed away on 27 March possession of the property without interference by
1931 leaving the petitioner, his only child, as his any party until “the present.” 5

sole heir. On the other hand, Juan Zabella died on The trial court limited the issues to the
27 June 1952 and was survived by his sister following: whether the private respondent had
Rosario Zabella and niece Irene Catapat. On 5 acquired absolute ownership of the land in
February 1960, Rosario and Irene adjudicated to question by prescription and whether the
themselves Juan Zabella’s one-half (1/2) share in plaintiff’s (petitioner) action is barred by
the lot. This adjudication was annotated in OCT laches.  In finding for the petitioner, the lower
6

No. 43073. Rosario died on 5 June 1962 leaving, court made the following disquisitions:
as her only heirs, her children Godofredo, Noemi, “ ‘It is beyond cavil that the land in question (then part
Natividad, Olimpio and Numeriana, all surnamed of a big parcel) has been registered and titled in the
Zaracena. name of plaintiff’s father Anastacio Llenares since
July 28, 1937 even as it is now registered in the name ‘Secondly, the evidence shows that plaintiff has not
of plaintiff who made an affidavit of self-adjudication been sleeping on her rights. According to her she was
on June 22, 1976 being the only child of Anastacio dispossessed of the land in 1976. It is admitted by the
Llenares. Anastacio Llenares became the registered defendant that in 1977, plaintiff lodged a complaint against
the defendant regarding the land in question with the
owner by virtue of a cadastral proceedings, a
Presidential Action Committee, On Land Problems
proceedings in rem that is binding and conclusive (PACLAP) as (sic) Camp Wilhelm, Lucena City. And then
against the whole world. No evidence of irregularity the instant action was filed in court on July 12, 1977.
or fraud in the issuance of the title has been adduced, ‘On the contrary it is the defendant and/or his
and even if there is intrinsic fraud, the period of one predecessor in interest who have been sleeping on their
year within which to ventilate this infirmity has long rights, if any. They did not assert their right of ownership
expired. It is a postulate in law that ‘no title to over the land in question arising from the Deed of Sale
registered land in derogation to that of the registered during the cadastral proceedings in the year 1937 or
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse thereabout (sic). Except for filing an adverse
possession. Prescription is unavailing not only against 16
the registered owner but also against his hereditary
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTAT
successors because the latter merely step into the
shoes of the decedent by operation of law and are Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
merely the continuation of the personality of their claim on February 17, 1977, defendant has not taken any
predecessor in step to have the title of the property and its tax declaration
_______________ transferred to his name.
‘Thirdly, as adverted to, a title once registered cannot be
5
 Rollo, 12-14. defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession. In
6
 Id., 14. the same vein, laches, too, may not be considered a valid
defense for claiming ownership of registered land. Where
15 prescription would not lie, neither would laches be available
VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993 (De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, CA-G.R. No. 4700-R, Aug. 14,
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals 1950; Adove vs. Lopez, CA-G.R. No. 18060-R, Aug. 30,
1957).’ ” 7

interest.’ (Barcelona vs. Barcelona, 100 Phil. 251).

On this score alone, defendant’s claim of prescription From this adverse decision, the private
should fail. The court also notes, in passing, that respondent appealed to the respondent Court of
defendant’s evidence does not convincingly establish Appeals, which docketed the case as CA-G.R. CV
that he possessed the property publicly, exclusively No. 09853. He asked the respondent Court to
and peacefully in the concept of owner. For one thing,
reverse the RTC because the latter erred: (a) in
he has not even paid any realty tax on the property as
the property is not declared for taxation purposes in not considering the unsullied testimonial and
his name. The court is neither impressed with the documentary evidence for the appellant; (b) in
credibility of defendant’s witnesses. For example, the appreciating the plaintiff-appellee’s flimsy and
witness Sergio Dalida testified that in 1918 the land in insufficient testimonial evidence; (c) in not
litigation was in the possession of Ariston Zabella declaring that prescription and laches were raised
(T.S.N. 8-21-84 p. 8). There seems to be no truth to by the defendant; (d) in declaring that the failure
this because the property was bought by Ariston to present to the cadastral court the deed of
Zabella only in the year 1929. And then, there was absolute sale bars the appellant (private
that other witness Cosme Ranillo who unequivocally respondent) from proving his ownership over the
admitted during cross-examination that he was land in suit; and (e) in rendering judgment in
coached by the defendant (vide: t.s.n. 11-20-84 p. 24-
favor of the petitioner. 8

26).
‘As regards the Deed of Sale of the property in In its Decision, the respondent Court upheld
litigation in favor of Ariston Zabella (Exh. “1”) which the private respondent’s position and decreed as
is apparently the cornerstone of defendant’s claim follows:
over the property the court concurs with the “WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is reversed and
submission of the plaintiff that after final judgment another one entered—
has been rendered in the cadastral proceedings, all
rights or claims prior thereto are deemed barred by the 1. 1)declaring defendant-appellant the true and
principle of res judicata. Hence after the finality of the lawful owner of the 12,501 square meters of
judgment in the cadastral case, the Deed of Sale has land described in and covered by transfer
lost its efficacy functus officio. Certificate of Title No. T-28170 of the
‘With respect to the defense of laches so Registry of Deeds of Lucena City;
emphatically and exhaustively discussed by 2. 2)ordering the plaintiff-appellee to execute to
defendant’s counsel in his brief we find this to be the defendant-appellant the proper deed of
devoid of merit because of the following cogent conveyance transferring full ownership of
reasons, viz: Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-28170 to
‘Firstly, the defense of laches was never interposed or the said defendant-appellant;
pleaded in the answer filed by the defendant. Not even in 3. 3)ordering the Register of Deeds of Lucena
our most gratuitous moment can we see a nuance of this City to cancel said Transfer Certificate of
defense being asserted in the answer: It is a rule of Title No. T-28170 and to issue there-
procedure that defenses and objections not pleaded either in
a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. ______________
(Sec. 2 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court).
7
 Rollo, 14-16.
 8
 Rollo, 6-7. concluded that the petitioner’s claimed possession
17 “is not possession in law that deserves protection
VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993 and recognition.”  On the other hand, it gave
13

Llenares vs. Court of Appeals credit to the private respondent’s version chiefly
because he has been paying irrigation charges
1. after a new one in the name of defendant- since 1960.
appellant, in the event the plaintiff-appellee Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner took this
shall fail or refuse to execute the recourse, and raises the following issues:
conveyance;
2. 4)ordering the plaintiff-appellee to pay 1. “1.Whether or not the alleged sale of a
attorney’s fees of P10,000.00. property by virtue of an instrument
which was not filed or registered under
Costs against the plaintiff-appellee.” 9
Act 3344 and was not submitted before
the Cadastral Court during the hearing
In resolving the appeal against the petitioner, the
thereof may deprived (sic) an
respondent Court stressed the fact that although
adjudicated-declared owner the (sic)
OCT No. 43073 was issued in 1937, it was only
enjoyment of possession and the
on 26 August 1976 that the petitioner initially
improvements thereof.
moved “to change the registered ownerhsip” of
2. 2.Whether or not a party in (sic) whose
the property with the issuance of TCT No. 27166.
title was vested by virtue of a rendition
At that time, petitioner was already forty-nine
of judgment and issuance of the decree
(49) years old. In short, the respondent Court
of registration in a judicial proceeding in
observed that she allowed twenty-eight (28) years
rem which as such, binds the whole
to pass—from the time she attained the age of
world and who ever claim (sic) thereafter
majority—before taking any affirmative action to
on the said land are (sic) deemed barred
protect her rights over the property. It thus
under the principle of res judicata.
concluded that “suspicion then is not altogether
3. 3.Whethere (sic) or not a property covered
unjustified that the inaction was because the
by Torence (sic) Title can be acquired by
appellee knew of the sale by her father to Juan
prescription or adverse possession.” 14

Zabella (sic),” and that such knowledge is notice

“that appellee had no right over half of the land.” 10

Anent the petitioner’s contention that the After the private respondent filed his Comment,
private respondent is not only guilty of laches but We gave due course to the petition and directed
that prescription had already set in against him, both parties to submit their respective
the respondent Court ruled that the former’s Memoranda, which they complied with.
evidence speaks otherwise because after TCT No. The petition is impressed with merit.
T-27166 was issued on 26 August 1976, the 1. In the first place, the public respondent’s
private respondent promptly filed his adverse factual findings on the issue of possession—on
claim, thereby making of record his interest in the the basis of which it rejected the findings of fact
land. Thus, neither prescription nor laches applies and conclusions of the trial court—are conjectural
against him. 11
and speculative. Hence, We cannot be bound by
Public respondent also overturned the trial such findings under the rule that findings of fact
court’s finding that the petitioner was in of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on this
possession of the property until she was Court.  The trial court gave credence to the
15

dispossessed in 1976 by the private respondent petitioner’s account that she had legally possessed
principally because it was only in the third quarter the property in question until 1976, categorically
of 1977 that she (petitioner) declared the ruling that the private
_______________
questioned property in her name, and had paid
land taxes thereon only for the same third quarter 12
 Rollo, 17.
of 1977. The other tax payments were not in her 13
 Id.
14
 Id., 7.
name, but in the names of Godofredo Zaracena 15
 Joaquin vs. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257 [1953]; Salazar vs.
and Juan Zabella. The respondent Court Gutierrez, 33 SCRA 242 [1970]; Remalante vs. Tibe, 158
_______________ SCRA 138 [1988]; Medina vs. Asistio, Jr., 191 SCRA
218 [1990].
9
 Id., 18.
10
 Rollo, 17. 19
11
 Id. VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993
18 Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED respondent’s “evidence does not convincingly
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals establish that he possessed the property publicly,
opined that “[N]ormally, one who claims exclusively and peacefully in the concept of
possession in ownership will declare the property owner.”  The reasons for this pronouncement
16

in his name and will pay taxes on it,”  and 12 have already been given. Clearly, these matters
are inexorably anchored on the witnesses’ have the property declared in her name or pay the
credibility. It is a settled judicial precept that the real estate taxes thereon before 1976 because she
issue of the credibility of witnesses is primarily knew all along about the 1929 sale executed by
addressed to the trial court since it is in a better her father to Ariston Zabella, is plain speculation
position to decide such a question, having seen and, as characterized by the public respondent, a
and heard the witnesses and having observed their mere “suspicion,” thus:
deportment and manner of testifying during the “x x x The suspicion then is not altogether unjustified
trial.  Moreover, its findings on such credibility
17 that the inaction was because the appellee knew of the
carry great weight and respect, and will be sale by her father to Juan (sic) Zabella. x x x” 20

sustained by the appellate court unless certain Such a suspicion has no basis at all. The parties
facts of substance and value have been do not dispute the fact that at the time of
overlooked which, if considered, might affect the Anastacio Llenares’ death on 27 March 1931, the
result of the case.  That the petitioner neither
18
petitioner was only four (4) years old. The deed
declared the property in her name nor paid the of sale was executed by Anastacio Llenares on 21
taxes thereon until 1977 is not, contrary to the December 1929, when the petitioner was only
public respondent’s conclusion, fatal to her cause. two (2) years old. Being at that time very much
Until 27 June 1976, the property remained below the age of reason, the petitioner could not
covered by OCT No. 43073 in the names of Juan have been expected to be aware of the existence
Zabella and Anastacio Llenares. The private of the said deed of sale, much less understand its
respondent’s alleged claim was not annotated contents. The evidence failed to show that the
thereon. There is, as well, no evidence to show private respondent informed the petitioner of such
that the private respondent had earlier made any a sale at any time before the former filed the
extrajudicial or judicial demands to enforce his adverse claim on 17 February 1977.
claim on the property based on the so-called deed 2. Secondly, the respondent Court erroneously
of sale which Anastacio had executed on 21 applied the rule on prescription against the
December 1929 in favor of Ariston Zabella, the petitioner and not against the private respondent.
private respondent’s predecessor-in-interest. The evidence conclusively established that at an
Since the petitioner is Anastacio Llenares’s sole appropriate cadastral proceedings, Lot No. 5015
heir, the continued existence of OCT No. 43073 was awarded by the cadastral court to Juan
fully protected her rights; and her failure to Zabella and Anastacio Llenares in equal pro-
declare for taxation purposes the one-half (1/2) indiviso shares; the decision became final; and on
portion of the land pertaining to Anastacio did 28 July 1937, OCT No. 43073 was issued in favor
not, therefore, prejudice her because the payments of Juan Zabella and Anastacio Llenares. It was
of the real estate taxes by others—such as only on 17 February 1977, or after the lapse of
Godofredo Zaracena and Juan Zabella, as found over thirty-nine (39) years, that the private
by the public respondent per Exhibits “C”, “C-1” respondent, as a successor-in-interest of Ariston
and “C-2” —for and in behalf of the registered
19
Zabella, took the
owners—benefited the registered owners _______________
themselves and their successors-in-interest. On
the other hand, the private 20
 Rollo, 17.
_______________
21
16
 Rollo, 15. VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993
17
 People vs. Bantac 167 SCRA 109 [1988]; People vs. de Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416 [1990]; People vs. Beringuel, 192
SCRA 561 [1990].
first legal step—i.e., the filing of the affidavit of
18 adverse claim—to protect and preserve his
 People vs. Arciaga, 98 SCRA 1 [1980]; People vs.
supposed right acquired under the deed of sale.
Marzan, 128 SCRA 203 [1984]; People vs. Alcid, 135 SCRA
280 [1985]. Unfortunately, however, this move did not
19
 Rollo, 17.
produce any legal effect. An adverse claim under
20 Section 110 of the Land Registration Act (Act
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED No. 496), the governing law at that time, referred
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals to a claim of “any part or interest in registered
respondent neither had the property declared in land adverse to the registered owner, arising
his name for taxation purposes nor paid the real subsequent to the date of the original
estate taxes thereon. All that he paid, and this was registration.”  In the instant case, the private
21

only beginning in 1960, were the irrigation respondent’s “adverse claim” is one based on a
charges. And yet, the respondent Court resolved transaction which had occurred long before the
the issue in his favor. This palpable inconsistency rendition of the decision in the cadastral
on the part of the Court of Appeals defies all proceedings and the issuance of OCT No. 43073.
logic. This seems to have escaped the attention of the
Furthermore, the respondent Court’s public respondent which instead concluded that it
conclusion that the petitioner made no move to was the petitioner who did not take any legal
action from 1937, when OCT No. 43073 was
issued, until 26 August 1976, when TCT No. A party fraudulently deprived of his property
27166 was issued following her execution on 22 in a cadastral proceeding may nevertheless file,
June 1976 of the affidavit of “self-adjudication.” within one (1) year from the entry of the decree, a
This conclusion has no basis. As has been earlier petition for review.  After the lapse of the said
28

adverted to, the continued existence of OCT No. period, if the property has not yet passed on to an
43073 in Juan Zabella’s name protected the innocent purchaser for value, an action for
petitioner as the sole heir of Anastacio Llenares. reconveyance may still be filed by the aggrieved
There is no law which requires her, as a sole heir, party.  In the instant case, that action for
29

to execute an affidavit of adjudication and cause reconveyance could have only been based on an
both the cancellation of the OCT and the issuance implied trust defined in Article 1456 of the Civil
of a new one in her name and in the names of the Code:
heirs of co-owner Juan Zabella in order to transfer “ART. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake
the ownership of the property to her, or protect or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,
her rights and interests therein. The transfer in her considered a trustee of an
_______________
favor took place, ipso jure, upon the death of
Anastacio Llenares. 22
24
 Nieto vs. Quines, 6 SCRA 74 [1962]; Rodriguez vs.
3. Finally, the so-called deed of sale executed Toreno, 79 SCRA 356 [1977]; Cachero vs. Marzan, 196 SCRA
601 [1991].
by Anastacio Llenares in 1929 had lost its 25
 Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of
efficacy after the judgment in the cadastral Manila, 41 Phil. 120 [1920].
proceedings adjudicating Lot No. 5015 to him 26
 Sections 5 and 9, Cadastral Act (see Sections 36 and 37,
P.D. No. 1529).
and Juan Zabella became final. Ariston Zabella, 27
 Section 11, Cadastral Act (see Section 38, P.D. No. 1529).
the vendee in the said sale, did not file any 28
 Section 38, Land Registration Act; Section 32 of P.D No.
answer in the cadastral proceedings or advance 1529.
 Director of Lands vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, 92 Phil.
any claims on the said lot. It is to be noted that
29

826
the proceedings under the Cadastral Act (Act No.
2259, as amended)  are judicial
23 23
_______________ VOL. 222, MAY 13, 1993
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals
21
 Under Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree
(P.D. No. 1529), the lifetime of an adverse claim is limited to implied trust for the benefit of the person from
thirty (30) days from its registration. whom the property comes.”
22
 Article 774, Civil Code.
23 It is now settled that an action for the
 Cadastral proceedings are now governed by the Property
Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529). reconveyance of property based on an implied or
22
constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years. 30

22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDWHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

GRANTING the instant petition, ANNULLING
Llenares vs. Court of Appeals the challenged decision of the public respondent
and in rem. As such, they bind the whole world. Court of Appeals of 24 April 1991 in CA-G.R.
The final judgment rendered therein is deemed to CV No. 09853 and REINSTATING the decision
have settled the status of the land subject thereof; of the trial court subject of the appeal in the latter
any claim over it not noted thereon by other case.
parties is therefore deemed barred under the Costs against the private respondent.
principle of res judicata.  In a cadastral
24

SO ORDERED.
proceeding, the Government is actually the      Feliciano (Chairman),  Bidin, Romero an
plaintiff and all the claimants are d Melo, JJ., concur.
defendants.  This is because the former,
25

represented by the Solicitor General, institutes the Petition granted. Challenged decision
proceedings by a petition against the holders, annulled.
claimants, possessors or occupants of such lands
or any part thereof while the latter, or those
claiming interest in the entire land or any part of
it, whether named in the notice or not, are
required to appear before the court and file an
answer on or before the return day or within such
further time as may be allowed by the court.  All 26

conflicting interests shall be adjudicated therein

and the decree awarded in favor of the party
entitled to the land; when it has become final, the
decree shall serve as the basis for an original
certificate of title in favor of the said party. This
shall have the same effect as a certificate of title
granted under the Land Registration Act. 27