G.R. No. 168800. April 16, 2009.

NEW REGENT SOURCES, INC., petitioner, vs. TEOFILO

VICTOR TANJUATCO, JR., and VICENTE CUEVAS,**
respondents.

Remedial Law; Appeals; It is well-established that in an

appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed; A
question of law exists when there is doubt or difference as to what
the law is on a certain state of facts; A question of fact exists if the
doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.—In its
petition, NRSI questions the trial court’s dismissal of its
complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a calibration
of the evidence on record to determine the sufficiency of the factual
basis for the trial court’s order. This factual analysis, however,
would involve questions of fact which are improper in a petition
for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is well-
established that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law
may be reviewed. A question of law exists when there is doubt or
difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A
question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. There is a question of law when the issue does
not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence
presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the
doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on
the matter. Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it raises
essentially questions of fact, the instant petition must be denied.
Same; Civil Procedure; Demurrer to Evidence; The Rules
provide that if the defendant’s motion is denied, he shall have the
right to present evidence; If the defendant’s motion is granted but
on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be deemed to
have waived the right to present evidence.—We note that
Tanjuatco filed a demurrer to evidence before the RTC. By its
nature, a demurrer to evidence is filed after the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence but before the
defendant offers evidence in his defense. Thus, the Rules provide
that if the defendant’s motion is denied, he shall have the right to
present evidence. However, if the defendant’s mo-
_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

**  Also known as Vicente P. Cuevas III.

330

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

tion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he

shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
Civil Law; Property; Reconveyance; An action for reconveyance
is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by
another, to its rightful and legal owner.—Petitioner filed a
complaint for rescission/declaration of nullity of contract,
reconveyance and damages against respondents. An action for
reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully
registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. In an action
for reconveyance, the certificate of title is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the
property, specifically the title thereof, which has been wrongfully
or erroneously registered in another person’s name, to its rightful
and legal owner, or to one with a better right.
Same; Same; Same; Requisites to Warrant a Reconveyance.—
To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following requisites
must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the name of a
person claiming ownership or dominical right over the land
registered in the name of the defendant; (2) the registration of the
land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or
other illegal means; (3) the property has not yet passed to an
innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the action is filed after the
certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible
but within four years from the discovery of the fraud, or not later
than 10 years in the case of an implied trust. Petitioner failed to
show the presence of these requisites.
Same; Same; Accretion; Requisites to Acquire Property by
Accretion.—But it must be stressed that accretion as a mode of
acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code requires
the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the deposition
of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the
result of the action of the waters of the river; and (3) that the land
where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.
Thus, it is not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the
benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion must
show by preponderant evidence that he has met all the conditions
provided by law.
Same; Same; Sales; Certificate of Title; Innocent Purchaser for
Value; A person dealing with registered land may safely rely upon
the

331

VOL. 585, APRIL 16, 2009 331

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will
in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property; Meaning of an Innocent Purchaser for
Value.—Petitioner introduced in evidence TCT Nos. T-369406 and
T-369407 in the name of respondent Tanjuatco. These titles bear
a certification that Tanjuatco’s titles were derived from OCT No.
245 in the name of no less than the Republic of the Philippines.
Hence, we cannot validly and fairly rule that in relying upon said
title, Tanjuatco acted in bad faith. A person dealing with
registered land may safely rely upon the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige
him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. This applies even more particularly when the seller
happens to be the Republic, against which, no improper motive
can be ascribed. The law, no doubt, considers Tanjuatco an
innocent purchaser for value. An innocent purchaser for value is
one who buys the property of another, without notice that some
other person has a right or interest in such property and pays the
full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he
has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the
property.

  PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the

Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Br. 37.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Cortez & Associates for petitioner.
  Law Firm Tanjuatco & Partners for respondents.

QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioner through counsel prays for the reversal of the
Orders dated February 12, 20051 and July 1, 20052 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba City, Branch 37, in
Civil Case No. 2662-98-C. The RTC had granted the
demurrer to
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 26-27. Penned by Judge Antonio T. Manzano.
2 Id., at p. 28.

332

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

evidence filed by respondent Tanjuatco, and then denied

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:
Petitioner New Regent Sources, Inc. (NRSI) filed a
Complaint3 for Rescission/Declaration of Nullity of
Contract, Reconveyance and Damages against respondent
Tanjuatco and the Register of Deeds of Calamba before the
RTC of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 37. NRSI alleged that in
1994, it authorized Vicente P. Cuevas III, its Chairman and
President, to apply on its behalf, for the acquisition of two
parcels of land by virtue of its right of accretion. Cuevas
purportedly applied for the lots in his name by paying
P82,400.38 to the Bureau of Lands. On January 2, 1995,
Cuevas and his wife executed a Voting Trust Agreement4
over their shares of stock in the corporation. Then, pending
approval of the application with the Bureau of Lands,
Cuevas assigned his right to Tanjuatco for the sum of
P85,000.5 On March 12, 1996, the Director of Lands
released an Order,6 which approved the transfer of rights
from Cuevas to Tanjuatco. Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. T-3694067 and T-3694078 were then issued in the
name of Tanjuatco.
In his Answer with Counterclaim,9 Tanjuatco advanced
the affirmative defense that the complaint stated no cause
of action against him. According to Tanjuatco, it was
Cuevas who was alleged to have defrauded the corporation.
He averred further that the complaint did not charge him
with knowledge of the agreement between Cuevas and
NRSI.

_______________
3 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-5.
4 Rollo, pp. 31-33.
5 Id., at pp. 34-37.
6 Records, Vol. I, p. 41.
7 Id., at p. 6.
8 Id., at p. 7.
 9 Id., at pp. 27-34.

333

VOL. 585, APRIL 16, 2009 333

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

Upon Tanjuatco’s motion, the trial court conducted a

preliminary hearing on the affirmative defense, but denied
the motion to dismiss, and ordered petitioner to amend its
complaint and implead Cuevas as a defendant.10
Summons was served on respondent Cuevas through
publication,11 but he was later declared in default for
failure to file an answer.12
After NRSI completed presenting evidence, Tanjuatco
filed a Demurrer to Evidence,13 which the RTC granted in
an Order dated February 12, 2005. In dismissing NRSI’s
complaint,14 the RTC cited the Order of the Director of
Lands and certain insufficiencies in the allegations in the
complaint. The trial court further held that Tanjuatco is an
innocent purchaser for value.
NRSI moved for reconsideration, but it was denied by
the trial court in an Order dated July 1, 2005, thus:

“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the

plaintiff on May 3, 2005 is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.”15

Hence, NRSI filed the instant petition for review on

certiorari, raising the following issues:

_______________
10 Id., at pp. 101-102.
11 Id., at pp. 209-211.
12 Id., at pp. 221-222.
13 Id., at pp. 318-332.
14 Rollo, p. 27.
The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, the Motion To Dismiss by way of Demurrer To
Evidence filed by defendant Tanjuatco is granted. The complaint
for Rescission/Declaration of Nullity of Contract, Reconveyance,
and Damages filed by plaintiff New Regent Sources, Inc. is
DISMISSED.
 SO ORDERED.
15 Id., at p. 28.

334
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

 I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED INSUFFICIENCY OF THE
ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT MAY BE USED AS A
BASIS TO DISMISS THE SAME BY WAY OF A DEMURRER TO
EVIDENCE;
II.
WHETHER OR NOT A COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED ON
DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE BASED ON A DOCUMENT NOT
PROPERLY IDENTIFIED, MARKED AND OFFERED IN
EVIDENCE.16

In a nutshell, the issue for our determination is whether

the trial court erred in dismissing the case on demurrer to
evidence.
NRSI argues that the supposed insufficiency of
allegations in the complaint did not justify its dismissal on
demurrer to evidence. It contends that a dismissal on
demurrer to evidence should be grounded on insufficiency
of evidence presented at trial. NRSI contends that the
sufficiency of its allegations was affirmed when the trial
court denied the motion to dismiss. It likewise asserts that
the RTC erred in declaring Tanjuatco a buyer in good faith.
It stressed that the Order of the Director of Lands, as the
basis for such finding, was not formally offered in evidence.
Hence, it should not have been considered by the trial court
in accordance with Section 34,17 Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court.
Tanjuatco, for his part, maintains that NRSI failed to
make a case for reconveyance against him. He insists that
the complaint stated no cause of action, and the evidence
presented established, rather than refuted, that he was an
innocent purchaser. Tanjuatco adds that the RTC’s denial
of the mo-

_______________
16 Id., at p. 16.
17 SEC. 34. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no evidence
which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is
offered must be specified.

335

VOL. 585, APRIL 16, 2009 335

 New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.

tion to dismiss, and admission of evidence negated NRSI’s

claim that it relied on the complaint alone to decide the
case. Lastly, Tanjuatco argues that the Order of the
Director of Lands was a matter of judicial notice. Thus,
under Section 1,18 Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, there was
no need to identify, mark, and offer it in evidence.
After serious consideration, we find the instant petition
utterly without merit.
In its petition, NRSI questions the trial court’s dismissal
of its complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a
calibration of the evidence on record to determine the
sufficiency of the factual basis for the trial court’s order.
This factual analysis, however, would involve questions of
fact which are improper in a petition for review under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court. It is well established that in an
appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be
reviewed.19 A question of law exists when there is doubt or
difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A
question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts.20 There is a question of law
when the issue does not call for an examination of the
probative value of evidence presented, the truth or
falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns
the

_______________
18 SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.—A court shall take
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of
the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time,
and the geographical divisions. (Emphasis supplied.)
19  Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Santamaria, G.R. No. 139885,
January 13, 2003, 395 SCRA 84, 92.
20 Morales v. Skills International Company, G.R. No. 149285, August
30, 2006, 500 SCRA 186, 194, citing Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp,
Inc., G.R. No. 140946, 438 SCRA 224, 230-231.

336

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.
correct application of law and jurisprudence on the
matter.21 Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it
raises essentially questions of fact, the instant petition
must be denied.
In any event, we find that based on the examination of
the evidence at hand, we are in agreement that the trial
court correctly dismissed NRSI’s complaint on demurrer to
evidence.
Petitioner filed a complaint for rescission/declaration of
nullity of contract, reconveyance and damages against
respondents. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks
to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to
its rightful and legal owner.22 In an action for
reconveyance, the certificate of title is respected as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of
the property, specifically the title thereof, which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person’s
name, to its rightful and legal owner, or to one with a
better right.23
To warrant a reconveyance of the land, the following
requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in
the name of a person claiming ownership or dominical right
over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2)
the registration of the land in the name of the defendant
was procured through fraud24 or other illegal means;25 (3)
the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser
for value;26 and (4) the action is filed after the certificate of
title had already

_______________
21 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
111324, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 186, 199.
22 Heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo v. Heirs of Manuel Y. Quijano, G.R. No.
140457, January 19, 2005, 449 SCRA 15, 27.
23 Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. 38387, January 29, 1990, 181 SCRA
431, 442.
24 Id., at p. 440.
25  Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, G.R. No.
147379, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 206, 217.
26 Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., supra at p. 440.

337

VOL. 585, APRIL 16, 2009 337

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.
become final and incontrovertible27 but within four years
from the discovery of the fraud,28 or not later than 10 years
in the case of an implied trust.29 Petitioner failed to show
the presence of these requisites.
Primarily, NRSI anchors its claim over the lands
subjects of this case on the right of accretion. It submitted
in evidence, titles30 to four parcels of land, which allegedly
adjoin the lots in the name of Tanjuatco.
But it must be stressed that accretion as a mode of
acquiring property under Article 45731 of the Civil Code
requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1)
that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and
imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the
waters of the river; and (3) that the land where accretion
takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.32 Thus, it is
not enough to be a riparian owner in order to enjoy the
benefits of accretion. One who claims the right of accretion
must show by preponderant evidence that he has met all
the conditions provided by law. Petitioner has notably
failed in this regard as it did not offer any evidence to prove
that it has satisfied the foregoing requisites.
Further, it is undisputed that Tanjuatco derived his title
to the lands from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
245 registered in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines. Said

_______________
27 A. Noblejas and E. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds
247 (2007 Revised ed.).
28 Balbin v. Medalla, No. L-46410, October 30, 1981, 108 SCRA 666,
677.
29 Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut, supra at p.
219.
30 Records, Vol. I, pp. 298-305. TCT No. T-312462, TCT No. T-312463,
TCT No. T-312464, TCT No. T-312465.
31  Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters.
32 Meneses v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 82220, 82251 and 83059, July
14, 1995, 246 SCRA 162, 172.

338

338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.
parcels of land formed part of the Dried San Juan River
Bed,33 which under Article 502 (1)34 of the Civil Code
rightly pertains to the public dominion. The Certification35
issued by Forester III Emiliano S. Leviste confirms that
said lands were verified to be within the Alienable and
Disposable Project No. 11-B of Calamba, Laguna per BFD
LC Map No. 3004, certified and declared as such on
September 28, 1981. Clearly, the Republic is the entity
which had every right to transfer ownership thereof to
respondent.
Next, petitioner sought to establish fraudulent
registration of the land in the name of Tanjuatco. NRSI
presented before the trial court a copy of the Voting Trust
Agreement which the spouses Cuevas executed in favor of
Pauline Co. However, nothing in said agreement indicates
that NRSI empowered Cuevas to apply for the registration
of the subject lots on its behalf.
Neither did petitioner adduce evidence to prove that
Cuevas was its President and Chairman. Even assuming
that Cuevas was the president of NRSI, his powers are
confined only to those vested upon him by the board of
directors or fixed in the by-laws.36 In truth, petitioner could
have easily presented its by-laws or a corporate
resolution37 to show Cuevas’s authority to buy the lands on
its behalf. But it did not.
Petitioner disagrees with the trial court’s finding that
Tanjuatco was a buyer in good faith. It contends that the
March

_______________
33 Rollo, pp. 29-30.
34 Art. 502. The following are of public dominion:
(1) Rivers and their natural beds;
x x x x
35 Records, Vol. I, p. 35.
36 H. De Leon, The Law on Partnerships and Private Corporations 281
(2001 ed.).
37 black’s law dictionary 1311 (6th ed.).
Corporation resolution.—Formal documentation of action taken
by board of directors of corporation.

339

VOL. 585, APRIL 16, 2009 339

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.
12, 1996 Order of the Director of Lands which declared that
the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-369406 and T-369407 were
free from claims and conflicts when Cuevas assigned his
rights thereon to Tanjuatco. But petitioner’s claim is
untenable because respondents did not formally offer said
order in evidence. Lastly, petitioner makes an issue
regarding the “below-fair market value” consideration
which Tanjuatco paid Cuevas for the assignment of his
rights to the lots. But it draws unconvincing conclusions
therefrom that do not serve to persuade us of its claims.
We note that Tanjuatco filed a demurrer to evidence
before the RTC. By its nature, a demurrer to evidence is
filed after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of
his evidence but before the defendant offers evidence in his
defense. Thus, the Rules provide that if the defendant’s
motion is denied, he shall have the right to present
evidence. However, if the defendant’s motion is granted but
on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed, he shall be
deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.38 It is
understandable, therefore, why the respondent was unable
to formally offer in evidence the Order of the Director of
Lands, or any evidence for that matter.
More importantly, petitioner introduced in evidence TCT
Nos. T-369406 and T-369407 in the name of respondent
Tanjuatco. These titles bear a certification that Tanjuatco’s
titles were derived from OCT No. 245 in the name of no
less than the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, we cannot
validly and fairly rule that in relying upon said title,
Tanjuatco acted in bad faith. A person dealing with
registered land may safely

_______________
38  SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.—After the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for
dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to
present evidence. If the motion is granted but on appeal the order of
dismissal is reversed he shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence.

340

340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

New Regent Sources, Inc. vs. Tanjuatco, Jr.
 rely upon the correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind
the certificate to determine the condition of the property.39
This applies even more particularly when the seller
happens to be the Republic, against which, no improper
motive can be ascribed. The law, no doubt, considers
Tanjuatco an innocent purchaser for value. An innocent
purchaser for value is one who buys the property of
another, without notice that some other person has a right
or interest in such property and pays the full price for the
same, at the time of such purchase or before he has notice
of the claims or interest of some other person in the
property.40
As regards the consideration which Tanjuatco paid
Cuevas for the assignment of rights to the lands, suffice it
to state that the assignment merely vested upon Tanjuatco
all of Cuevas’s intangible claims, rights and interests over
the properties and not the properties themselves. At the
time of the assignment, the lots were still the subjects of a
pending sales application before the Bureau of Lands. For,
it was not until May 24, 1996, that titles were issued in
Tanjuatco’s name. The assignment not being a sale of real
property, it was not surprising that Cuevas demanded from
Tanjuatco only P85,000 for the transfer of rights.
From all the foregoing, it is plain and apparent that
NRSI failed to substantiate its claim of entitlement to
ownership of the lands in Tanjuatco’s name. The trial
court, therefore, correctly dismissed petitioner’s complaint
for reconveyance.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Orders
dated February 12, 2005 and July 1, 2005 of the Regional
Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 37, in Civil Case No.
2662-98-C are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

_______________
39  Dela Cruz v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 146222, January 15, 2004, 419
SCRA 648, 657.
40 Id.

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.