Esconde v J. Barlongay (1987, G.R. No. L-67583)

 Basilisa Esconde v. Hon. Samilo Barlongay & Ramon Delfin

July 31, 1987, G.R. No.  L-67583

Delfin applied for registration of his title to his land, with due notice to the Escondes based on documents during the initial hearing and survey. Esconde refused to leave the land despite the writ of possession. SC: The whole world, including the Escondes, is bound to the title. Action for reconveyance is not proper as there was no showing of irregularity or fraud in the subject title registration proceedings.

Facts:

    In 1969, Delfin applied for registration of title at the CFI and was granted in the same year. OTC No. -05002 was issued in 1971, and in 1978, Delfin filed a Petition for Writ of Possession against spouses Esconde. Esconde also filed a complaint for reconveyance against Delfin. 

    The writ of possession was issued and the sheriff delivered the property to Delfin, but Esconde re-entered the premisses. In 1983, Delfin filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Possession. But Delfin was still barred by Esconde from entering the premises, and so the former asked for a writ of demolition for the removal of any construction of the Esconde family.

Issue: W/N the Escondes are bound by the certificate of title when they claim to only come to know of the land registration case upon receipt of petition for writ of possession?

Held: The Escondes are bound. There are records that they received due notice (in the notice of initial hearing they were said to have appeared, and in the survey notification letter, Esconde's husband signed as one of the adjoining owners present.

    Land registration proceedings are valid and conclusive against the whole world. The land registration is binding on the whole world because “by the description in the notice (of initial hearing of the application for registration) “To Whom It May Concern,” all the world are made parties defendant.”

    Reconveyance is not the proper remedy in this case because there is no proof of irregularity in the issuance of title. It was also not established that there was fraud.

Doctrines:

• The applicable law in this case is Act 496 as PD 1529 was enacted only in Jan. 23, 1979.

• It is a settled doctrine that when a decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a petition for review before a competent court, provided that the land has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value

• There is no question that notice to her husband is notice to her under the law, her husband being the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Art. 165, Civil Code).

Reconveyance as a remedy

• remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him
• does not bar a landowner whose property was wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens System from bringing an action, after one year from the issuance of the decree, for the reconveyance of the property in question. 
• does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration,
• does not seek to set aside the decree 
• respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner 
• Prescription: An action for reconveyance of real property on the ground of fraud must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of an original certificate of title