[G.R. No. 124605. June 18, 1999] absolute sale, signed by Rosa.

The instrument was not

FACTS: On December 16, 1957, Rosas heirs, Estanislao Pajaro and his
two (2) children, Fructoso and Paciencia, executed another deed
Dionisio Fontanilla had four (4) children, namely, Rosa, Antonio, of absolute sale over the same land in favor of respondent
Jose and Lorenza, all surnamed Fontanilla. Rosa married Santiago Fontanilla.
Estanislao Pajaro and their union produced Fructoso and
Paciencia. Lorenza married Alberto Rasca and they had a In 1978, respondents went to the United States to visit their
daughter, petitioner Amparo Rasca (married to Enriquito Serna). daughter Mila Fontanilla Borillo. They stayed there until 1981.
Jose had a son, respondent Santiago Fontanilla (married to
Rafaela Rasing). Hence, the parties involved are first cousins. On December 20, 1978, taking advantage of respondents'
absence from the country, petitioners Enriquito and Amparo
Dionisio Fontanilla was the original owner and possessor of a Serna applied to the land registration court of Pangasinan for
parcel of land, containing an area of twelve thousand five registration of the said parcel of land in their name.
hundred eight square meters (12,508 sq. m.), located in
Barangay Lucap, Alaminos, Pangasinan. In 1979, the land registration court approved the application, and
pursuant to Decree N-176768, the Register of Deeds of
In 1921, the property was declared in his name for taxation Pangasinan issued Original Certificate of Title No. 139 to
purposes. In the same year, Turner Land Surveying Company petitioners. On January 10, 1980, the title was transcribed in the
surveyed the land for Dionisio Fontanilla, with the agreement that registration book of the register of Deeds of Pangasinan.
the cost of survey would be paid upon approval of the plan by the
Bureau of Lands. On March 2, 1923, the Bureau of Lands On May 27, 1981, respondents filed with the Court of First
approved the survey plan. Instance, Branch XIII, Alaminos, Pangasinan, an action for
reconveyance with damages, and sought the annulment of O.C.T.
In 1938, for failing to pay the survey costs and to prevent No. 139.5
foreclosure, Dionisio Fontanilla sold the land to his daughter,
Rosa Fontanilla. In 1939, Rosa began paying the real estate In the trial court, petitioners admitted that Dionisio Fontanilla
property tax thereon. originally owned the land in dispute. However, they claimed that
in 1978 they bought the property for three thousand pesos
On August 21, 1955, for a consideration of one thousand seven (P3,000.00) from Lorenza Fontanilla-Rasca. Lorenza, in turn,
hundred pesos (P1,700.00), Rosa sold the land to her nephew, traced her title from her husband, Alberto Rasca.
respondent Santiago Fontanilla, evidenced by a notarized deed of
Petitioner Amparo said that when Dionisio failed to pay the survey The first issue is factual, which we cannot review on
costs in 1921, Turner Land Surveying Company took the property appeal. However, petitioners make an issue of the fact that
in question as payment for services. Her father, Alberto Rasca, the judge who penned the decision was not the one who
redeemed the property from Turner evidenced by a deed of sale, presided over the proceedings.
which, however, Amparo could not produce in court. When her
father died, Santiago Fontanilla borrowed from her mother the We have ruled in People vs. Rayray, that the fact that the judge
deed covering the transfer of the property, which Santiago did not who heard the evidence is not himself the one who prepared,
return. She said that the property was first declared in Alberto's signed and promulgated the decision constitutes no
name for taxation purposes in 1951. Later, the property was compelling reason to jettison his findings and conclusions,
ceded to her. and does not per se render his decision void. While it is true
that the trial Judge who conducted the hearing would be in a
After due trial and consideration of the evidence presented before better position to ascertain the truth or falsity of the testimonies of
the trial court and in the land registration case, on June 5, 1992, the witnesses, it does not necessarily follow that a judge who was
the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs not present during the trial cannot render a valid and just
(herein respondents) spouses Santiago Fontanilla and decision. For a judge who was not present during the trial can rely
Rafaela Rasing. on the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the trial as
basis of his decision. Such reliance does not violate substantive
From the decision of the trial court, both parties appealed to the and procedural due process.
Court of Appeals. Respondents questioned the court a
quo's failure to grant their claim for moral damages. On the other Petitioners claim ownership of the land based on the deed of
hand, petitioners claimed that the trial court committed serious sale executed by Turner Land Surveying Co. in favor of
error in the appreciation of facts and application of law and Alberto Rasca, which, however, they failed to present in court.
Jurisprudence. The truth or falsity of this claim is a question of fact, which, as
aforesaid, is not reviewable in this appeal.
The Court of Appeals rendered decision affirming that of the
trial court and denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, respondents proved that they were
enjoying open, continuous and adverse possession of the
Hence, this petition for review. property for more than sixty (60) years tacking in the
possession of their predecessors in interest, Dionisio Fontanilla
Petitioners submit these issues for resolution: (1) whether or not and Rosa Pajaro. As early as 1921, Dionisio Fontanilla was in
the appealed decision is supported by evidence; (2) whether adverse possession and paying taxes over the land. Rosa in turn,
or not the decision is in accordance with law and paid taxes for the first time in 1939, while respondents began
Jurisprudence. paying taxes in 1967. They had their residential house built in
1955, which was completed in 1957. In 1980, Santiago executed
a tenancy agreement with Sixto Fontanilla. Until 1984, Santiago
First Issue:
paid the taxes together with his tenant Sixto.
Though mere tax declaration does not prove ownership of the An action based on implied on constructive trust prescribes
property of the declarant, tax declarations and receipts can be in ten (10) years. This means that petitioners should have
strong evidence of ownership of land when accompanied by enforced the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its
possession for a period sufficient for prescription. creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the
property." Discovery of the fraud must be deemed to have taken
Second Issue: place from the issuance of the certificate of title because
registration of real property is considered a 'constructive notice to
That the appellate court's decision is not supported by law all persons' and it shall be counted 'from the time of such
and Jurisprudence, we find this to be vague and without registering, filing or entering.
merit as well.
In the present case, respondents came to know of the fraud in
At the time material hereto, registration of untitled land was securing title to the land sometime after its registration, however,
pursuant to Act No. 496, as amended. Later, Presidential Decree an innocent purchaser for value had not acquired the property.
1529, the Property Registration Decree, amended and codified Extrinsic fraud attended the application for the land
laws relative to registration of property. Adjudication of land in a registration. It was filed when respondents were out of the
registration (or cadastral) case does not become final and country and they had no way of finding out that petitioners
incontrovertible until the expiration of one (1) year after the entry applied for a title under their name.
of the final decree." After the lapse of said period, the decree
becomes incontrovertible and no longer subject to reopening or Fortunately, respondents' action for reconveyance was
review. timely, as it was filed within ten (10) years from the issuance
of the torrens title over the property.
However, the right of a person deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by adjudication or confirmation of WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari for
title obtained by actual fraud is recognized by law as a valid lack of merit. We AFFIRM the decision and resolution of the Court
and legal basis for reopening and revising a decree of of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39922.
registration.
No costs.
The fraud contemplated by the law is actual and extrinsic fraud,
which includes an intentional omission of a fact required by law. SO ORDERED.
For fraud to Justify a review of a decree, it must be extrinsic or
collateral, and the facts upon which it is based have not been
controverted or resolved in the case where the judgment sought
to be annulled was rendered. Persons who were fraudulently
deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original
registration case are entitled to a review of a decree of
registration.