REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 03 March 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240271 (lreneo R. Maitem, substituted by his heirs,

namely: Victoriana Maitem, Eduardo T. Maitem, Josefina M. Nunez,
Rainero T. Maitem, Rosalindo T. Maitem, Noniluna M. Bautista, Isagani
T. Maitem, Jansan T. 1'Jaitem, Ivie T. Maitem, and Reynaldo T. Maitem v.
Dorotea B. Cabrera, substituted by her heirs, namely: Salvador T. Bertulfo,
Lourdes C. Lopina, Gabriel B. Cabrera, and Ande John C. Cabrera;
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Southern Leyte; Register of
Deeds of Southern Leyte; and Provincial Assessor of Southern Leyte). -
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari' under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA) January 31, 2017
Decision 2 and May 24, 2018 Resolution3 in CA-G.R. CV. No. 04242. The CA
affirmed and modified the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) November 2, 2011
Decision 4 in Civil Case No. R-3428 denying Juan Rodas' heirs' (Rodas heirs)
complaint for reconveyance, quieting of title, and cancellation of Original
Ce1iificate of Title (OCT) No. 38632, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
T-8423 and ARP No. 08022-00767.

ANTECEDENTS

The dispute revolves around a 559 square-meter property, allegedly

part of Lot 1544 (designated as Lot 5 l 44 after the cadastral survey) and should

1
Rollo, pp. 4-23 .
Id. at 124- 136; penned by Associate Justice Uerald i11e. C. Fiel- lVlacaraig, with the concurrence of
Assoc iate Justices Edg..irdo L. Delos Santos (now a Mt:mber of this Co urt) and Edward B. Contreras.
J Id. at 145-147
4
Id. at 63- 78.

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 2 G.R. No. 240271

have been registered under OCT No. 38623 5 in favor of Rodas heirs.
However, the disputed property was erroneously included in OCT No. 386326
issued in favor of Venancio Tillo' s heirs (Tillo heirs) covering Lot 1522
(designated as Lot 5122 after the conduct of the cadastral survey). OCT No.
38632 was cancelled on August 20, 2002, when TCT No. T-8423 7 was issued
in favor of Venancio Tillo's granddaughter, Dorotea B. Cabrera (Cabrera).
Spouses Juan and Gregoria Rodas' (Spouses Rodas) son Ireneo Maitem
(Ireneo) is the lone petitioner in this case.

The facts, as culled from the records, are summarized as follows:

Spouses Rodas allegedly acquired a 3,458 square-meter parcel of land

situated in San Roque, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. 8 Rodas heirs claimed that
Gregoria occupied the property in the concept of an owner, and in 1951, her
daughter-in-law, Narcisa Rodas, also occupied the same property. Since then,
several improvements were introduced, including coconut trees, artesian well,
and residential houses. 9 In 1994, Ireneo purportedly constructed a house and
a store 10 in the disputed property and started to live there in 1995 with his
family. 11 In 1995, Ireneo and his siblings allowed Ireneo Magsinulog and
Dominador Arayan to construct their own houses on the land and collected
rentals from them. 12

On August I, 1996, the government granted free patents covering Lot

5144 (formerly Lot 1544) with an area of2,899 square meters 13 and Lot 5122
(formerly Lot 1522) with an area of 15,732 square meters 14 in favor of Rodas
heirs and Tillo heirs, respectively. The free patents were based on the cadastral
survey conducted in 1979. Consequently, the Register of Deeds issued OCT
No. 38623 in the name of Heirs ofJuan Rodas, represented by Jreneo Maitem,
and OCT No. 38632 in the name of Heirs of Venancio Tillo, represented by
Dorotea B. Cabrera.

Sometime in 2003, 15 Ireneo learned through a relocation survey

conducted by Tillo heirs that a portion of Lot 1544 was registered as part of
OCT No. 38632 covering Lot 1522/5122. Tillo heirs acknowledged the
erroneous inclusion of a portion of Lot 1544 in the registration of Lot
1522/5122, but Cabrera disagreed and claimed full ownership over the 559
square-meter property. 16 Cabrera even complained to the barangay that Ireneo

Id. at 45.
6
Id. at 36.
Id. at 38.
Id. at 28.
9
Id. at 8.
10
Id. at 28.
11
Id. at 8.
11
Id. at 8.
13
Id. at 45.
14
Id. at 36.
15
Id. at 66.
16
Id. at 28-29.

B(151)URES - more -
 Resolution 3 G.R. No. 24027 1

constructed his house on her land without permission. 17 The parties failed to
reconcile; hence, a Certification to File Action 18 was issued. 19

On May 24, 2005, Rodas heirs filed a complaint for reconveyance,

quieting of title, and cancellation of OCT No. 3 8632, TCT No. T-8423 and
ARP No. 08022-00767 with preliminary injunction and damages,2° before the
RTC. Rodas heirs presented several witnesses and submitted Tax Declarations
(TDs) in Juan Rodas' name to prove their claim of ownership over the
disputed property. Cabrera also presented several witnesses and submitted the
survey of Lot 5122, OCT No. 38632, and TDs in Venancio Tillo's name and
her name to prove ownership over the land.

On November 2, 2011, the RTC rendered its decision in favor ofTillo

heirs. Although the RTC described the witnesses' testimonies and enumerated
the documentary evidence submitted by the parties in its decision, it ruled that
it cannot allow Rodas heirs to adduce evidence to prove their ownership over
the 559 square-meter property because they failed to properly identify the
property in their complaint. The relevant portion of the Decision,2 1 reads:

Lot No. 5122 and Lot No. 5144 are adjacent lots found in San
Roque, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. Each lot is distinct from the other. The
lot number once assigned to a piece of land situated in a particular place in
the country, the lot number attaches to the lot forever. The plaintiffs
identified Lot No. 5144 as the subject matter of the complaint. They cannot
be awarded any property outside or other than Lot No. 5144. What plaintiffs
should have done was to amend their complaint accordingly at the proper
time, this, the plaintiffs failed to do so.

Going back to the questions mentioned earlier, it is the opinion of

the Court that the answer to both questions is in the negative. That the
plaintiffs cannot be allowed to adduce evidence to prove a fact not alleged
in the complaint and that the plaintiffs cannot be awarded ownership over
the property not alleged in the complaint.

WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of the

DEFENDANTS ordering the plaintiffs to respect the right of the defendants
over Lot No. 5122. The defendants are fm1her ordered to remove any
improvements they may have introduced inside Lot No. 5122.

SO ORDERED. ??
~-

Aggrieved, Rodas heirs appealed the case with the CA. Acting on the
appeal, the CA disagreed with the R TC and observed that the disputed
prope1iy was properly identified in the complaint. Nevertheless, Rodas heirs
failed to prove their ownership over the 559 square-meter property alleged to
have been registered under OCT No. 38632. The CA affirmed the RTC's

17
See Dorotea Cabrera's letter dated January 2, 2003, id. at 46.
18
Rollo, p. 47.
19
Id. at 40.
20
Id. al 26-34.
21
Supra note 4.
22
Supra at 78.

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 4 G.R. No. 240271

ruling in denying the complaint filed by Rodas heirs but ordered that the
improvements they introduced in Lot 5122 should not be removed since
Cabrera failed to seek the recovery of the land. The decretal portion of the
CA's January 31, 2017 Decision, 23 reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 2 November 20 11

Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Maasin City, Southern
Leyte, in Civil Case No. R-3428 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
to the effect that the order to plaintiff-appellants to remove the
improvements introduced to Lot No. 5122 is DELETED.

SO ORDERED.24

Rodas heirs sought reconsideration, but the CA denied it in a

Resolution25 dated May 24, 2018. Hence, this recourse by Ireneo, asking for
the reconveyance of the disputed prope1iy in favor of Rodas heirs.

Ireneo asserts that they (Rodas heirs) were able to establish their
ownership over the 559 square-meter land based on succession and adverse
possession since they have been in open, public, and adverse possession of
the property in the concept of an owner since 1906, as shown by their payment
of real estate taxes in favor of the government. 26 He claims that the CA erred
in not recognizing the mistake in the cadastral survey, which resulted in the
inclusion of the disputed property to Lot 1522 and eventually in the
registration under OCT No. 38632. 27 Lastly, he insists that the disputed
property has become private property after the grant of the patent. As such, it
is a proper subject of reconveyance.

For their part, Cabrera's heirs justify that the CA's decision was not
based on a misapprehension of facts and that it did not overlook relevant facts
since its findings are based on the evidence on record. 28 Specifically, the TDs
presented do not conform to the area claimed by Rodas heirs but refer to Lot
1544 covered by OCT No. 38623. Thus, Rodas heirs were only able to
establish possession of Lot 1544, not ownership over the disputed property,
which is part of OCT No. 38632. 29 Additionally, since the disputed property
is registered to Cabrera, Rodas heirs cannot acquire it by prescription. 30
Regarding the alleged mistake in the cadastral survey, Cabrera's heirs contend
that a relocation survey is unnecessary for applying for a free patent. The
approval of the technical description of both lots before the grant of the patents
shows that the two lots did not overlap. Finally, reconveyance is not proper in
this case following this Court's ruling in De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes. 3 1

13
Id.at 124- 136.
24
Id. at 135.
25
Id. at 145- 147.
26 Id. at 13-1 5.
27
ld.at16-l8.
28
ld.atl69.
19
Id. at 170-1 7 1.
30
Id. at 171- 172.
31
785 Phil. 832 (20 I 6).

B(lSl)URES - more -
rr-·
 Resolution 5 G.R. No . 240271

RULING

The petition lacks merit.

Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is not a trier of facts
and it will only entertain questions of law in petitions filed under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. Absent any showing that the findings of the lower courts
are baseless or erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of
discretion, the Court will refrain from analyzing and weighing the evidence
all over again. 32 Here, Ireneo takes exception to the rule and alleges that the
RTC and CA's respective decisions were based on a misapprehension of facts.
He claims that the CA manifestly overlooked undisputed relevant facts, which
would justify a different conclusion to warrant judicial review. 33 Ireneo is
severely mistaken. The Court holds that the CA did not misapprehend relevant
facts to justify a deviation from its findings.

Rodas heirs failed to prove

ownership over the disputed
property.

To successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of real

property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two things:
first, the identity of the land claimed, and second, his title to it.34 Here, the CA
held that Rodas heirs properly identified the 559 square-meter property that
sought to be reconveyed. Cabrera's heirs did not question the CA' s finding
that the disputed property was adequately identified in the complaint; hence,
this matter is already binding upon them. As to the second requisite, we find
that Rodas heirs failed to prove their ownership over the disputed property.

Tax declarations and receipts are good indicia of possession and

ownership because "no one in his [or her] right mind would be paying taxes
for a property that is not in his [or her] actual, or at the least, constructive,
possession."35 Nevertheless, TDs and receipts alone are not conclusive
evidence of ownership or the right to possess the land. 36 More so, if the TDs
and receipts themselves do not identify the property with particularity, as in
this case.

We note that the TDs for the years 1906 to 1980 issued in Juan Rodas'
name specified that the area of the property is 912 square meters, but the metes
and bounds were not described. It was only after the cadastral survey in 1979,
when Rodas heirs' prope1iy was designated as Lot 5144 that the identity of
the lot was ascertained, and its area was increased to 2,899 square meters. This
was aptly observed by the CA:

32
See Abobon v. Abobon, 692 Phil. 530, 543 (20 12) .
3
.1 Rollo, p. 12.
3
~ See C IVIL CODE, Art. 434. See a lso !bot v. Heirs ofFrancisco Tayco, 757 Phil. 441, 450(2015).
35
Republic v. Sps. Co, 815 Phil. 306, 320(20 17), citing Republic v. Cielczyk, 720 Phil. 385, 397(2013).
36
Republic v. Cielczyk, id. at 405.

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 6 G.R. No. 240271

A thorough examination of the TDs only establish that appellants,

through their predecessors-in-interest, possessed a parcel of land with an
area of 912 sq. m. from 1906 to 1980. From the description found on
the TDs, it can be gleaned that the property was located in the relative
vicinity of what are currently designated as Lots 5144 and 5122. Prior
to the cadastral survey, the TDs did not identify the property with
particularity. It was only afterwards when the property claimed by
appellants was designated as Lot 5144 that the identity of the lot could
be ascertained. Beginning 1983, the area claimed by appellants also
increased to 2,899 sq. m.

Given these observations, it is crystal clear that appellants' TDs do

not establish their claim over the subject property. Prior to the cadastral
survey conducted in 1979, the TDs could have pertained to either a
portion of Lot 1544, or a portion of Lot 5122, since the lots were
adjacent to each other. However, after the cadastral survey was
conducted, the TDs definitely pertained to Lot 5144. It is also relevant to
point out that appellees presented their own set of TDs pertaining to their
possession of Lot 5122. 37 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)

Notably, Cabrera and her predecessors-in-interest also paid the real

estate taxes on the disputed property, which was identified as part of Lot 5122.
Thus, Rodas heirs cannot rely on the TDs before the grant of the free patent
because the metes and bounds of the 912 square-meter property were not
specified. After the grant, the TDs become insignificant because the property
was already determined as part of Lot 5122.

Contrary to Ireneo's assertion,38 the CA addressed the alleged mistake

in the cadastral survey. The relevant discussion of the CA, follows:

This Court is aware of appellants' claim that a mistake was made

during the cadastral survey since it erroneously included the subject
property in the technical description of Lot 5122, instead of Lot 5144. x x x.

However, it is noteworthy that appellants were not passive

spectators insofar as the subsequent titling over Lot 5144 is concerned.
They do not dispute appellee's assertion that appellant Ireneo successfully
applied for a free patent over Lot 5144, and was issued OCT No. 38623 in
1996. Thus, in terms of which property the appellants actually possessed
and are entitled to, the proverbial ship has already sailed, with appellant
Ireneo at the helm. 39 (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)

Apparently, the CA took note of Rodas heirs' claim that there was a
mistake in the cadastral survey to point out that, assuming there was one,
Rodas heirs already missed their opportunity to question it. Rodas heirs,
through Ireneo, had necessarily ascertained the identity of the property they
claim the ownership of, when they applied for a free patent since one of the
requisites for the grant is possession throughout a certain number of years.
They cannot now assail the cadastral survey, which was the very basis of their
application, to support their current claim over a different parcel of land. To
J7
Rollo, p. 129.
J8
Id. at 16.
39
Id at 130.

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 7 G.R. No. 240271

be sure, Ireneo applied for a free patent with the knowledge and acquiescence
of the other heirs. Hence, after the grant, the Register of Deeds issued OCT
No. 38623 in the name ofHeirs ofJuan Rodas, represented by lreneo Maitem.
In any case, the supposed mistake in the cadastral survey was not established.

The Com1 cannot give credence to the testimony of Enriqueta Tillo

(Enriqueta), Venancio Tillo (Venancio), and Epifania Galgo (Epifania), who
tried to describe the boundary between Lot 1544 and Lot 1522 without any
other supporting evidence. The oft-repeated rule is that in civil cases, a party
who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it by a preponderance of evidence
or greater weight of credible evidence. 40 Unsubstantiated allegations are bare
allegations 41 unworthy of the Court's consideration.

Enriqueta testified on cross-examination that her father told her that

Juan Rodas is the owner of the land in the south of Tillo's land. 42 She also
testified that the boundary of Tillo's land is up to the mango tree beside the
jackfruit tree, near Cabrera's house. Meanwhile, Venancio testified that
Tillo's land is adjacent to the Rodas family's land and that the boundary
landmark is the house of Gabriel Cabrera. 43 Epifania confirmed that the lands
of Rodas and Tillo are adjacent to each other with the boundary landmark of
two coconut trees existing sometime in 1950; however, the trees are no longer
existing at present because Gabriel Cabrera constructed his house in that
poiiion. 44 We agree with the CA that these testimonies are intrinsically
unpersuasive because of the unreliability of human memory to identify the
specific boundaries that existed several decades ago. 45 Without any other
evidence supporting their claim, the witnesses' testimonies are bare
allegations that have no probative value.

Taken together, Rodas heirs failed to prove their ownership over the
disputed property. The TDs, which they mainly relied on, did not correspond
to the property, and the testimonies of the witnesses did not substantiate the
alleged mistake in the cadastral survey.

Action for reconveyance will not

prosper when the disputed property is
public land.

Section I 146 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as "The

Public Land Act," provides two modes of disposing of public lands through

40
Dra. Dela Liana v. Biong, 721 Phil. 743, 757 (20 13).
41 Id.
42
Rollo, p. 67.
43
Id. at 67.
44
Id. at 49-50 and 68.
45
Id. 13 1.
46
SEC. 11. Public lands suitable for agricultural µurposes can be disposed of only as fo llows, and not
otherwise:
xxxx
4. By confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles:
(a) By Judiciai legalization
(b) By admini:;rrat1,,,;; legalizati on (free patent).

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 8 G.R. No. 24027 1

confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title-judicial legalization and

administrative legalization, or the grant of free patents. Both modes require
continuous occupation and cultivation by the applicant or by their
predecessors-in-interest for a certain period. 47 The main difference is that in
judicial legalization, the applicant already holds an imperfect title to
agricultural land of the public domain after occupying it since June 12, 1945,
or earlier, while in administrative legalization, the applicant does not claim
the land as his or her private property. Instead, the applicant acknowledges
that the land is part of the public domain. 48 In other words, the applicant for
the grant of free patent recognizes that the land covered by the application
belongs to the government.

Here, Ireneo applied for a free patent over Lot 1544 instead of applying
for its registration and confirmation with the trial court. On August 1, 1996,
the free patent application was approved. Accordingly, the corresponding free
patent and certificate oftitle denominated as "Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo
Big. 38623" was issued in the name of Heirs ofJuan Rodas, represented by
Jreneo Maitem. 49

In Sumail v. Judge ofthe Court First Instance of Cotabato,50 the Court

held that Sumail formally acknowledged and recognized that the land covered
by his application was a part of the public domain when he applied for a free
patent. Also, in Taar v. Lawan, 51 petitioners acknowledged that the land
covered by their application belonged to the government and formed part of
the public domain when they chose to apply for free patents instead of judicial
legalization. In the same manner, Rodas heirs formally acknowledged that Lot
1544 and the disputed property, which they thought was erroneously included
in Lot 1522, belong to the government and still form part of the public domain
when they applied for the free patent through Ireneo. That they have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the
disputed property in the concept of an owner is, therefore, negated by their
application for free patent.

Likewise, Rodas heirs could not have acquired the disputed property
through succession and prescription because the property of the State or any
of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character cannot be the object of
prescription. 52 Lands of public domain, absent any declaration that they are
no longer intended for public use, are insusceptible to acquisition by
prescription. Rodas heirs could not have acquired the disputed property
through succession since their predecessors-in-interest did not acquire the
property through prescription.

47
See Sections 44 and 48 (b) of("The Public Land Act.")
48
See Taarv. Lavvan, 820 Phil. 26, 55(20 17); De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, 785 Phil. 832, 840 (2016).
49
Rollo, p. 45.
50
96 Phil. 946 ( 1955).
51
Supra.
51
See CIVIL CODE, Art. 111 3. See also Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic, 605 Phil. 244, 274 (2009).

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 9 G.R. No. 240271

In De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes, 53 the Court clarified that the public

character of the lands precludes the trial court from resolving the conflicting
claims of the parties. As such, reconveyance is not the proper remedy when
the public character of the land is recognized or when its private character was
not established, thus:

Fourth, the remedy of reconveyance is only available to a

landowner whose private property was erroneously or fraudulently
registered in the name of another. It is not available when the subject
property is public land because a private person, who is evidently not
the landowner, would have no right to recover the property. It would
simply revert to the public domain.

Thus, reconveyance cannot be resorted to by a rival applicant to

question the State's grant of free patent. The exception to this rule is
when a free patent was issued over private lands that are beyond the
jurisdiction of the Director of Lands/DENR to dispose of. 54 (Emphases
supplied; citations omitted.)

Indeed, there are instances when we allowed a private individual to

bring an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land that was initially public
and becomes private through the grant of a free patent. 55 The Court's ruling
in Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., 56 is instructive:

A private individual may bring an action for reconveyance of a

parcel of land even if the title thereof was issued through a free patent since
such action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding
and set aside the decree of registration, but only to show that the person who
secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner
thereof.

In Raco, et al. v. Gimeda, we stated that if a patent had already been

issued through fraud or mistake and bas been registered, the remedy of a
party who has been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action
for reconveyance, thus:

It is to be noted that the petition does not seek for a

reconsideration of the granting of the patent or of the decree
issued in the registration proceeding. The purpose is not to annul
the title but to have it conveyed to plaintiffs. Fraudulent
statements were made in the application for the patent and no
notice thereof was given to plaintiffs, nor knowledge of the
petition known to the actual possessors and occupants of the
property. The action is one based on fraud and under the law, it
can be instituted within four years from the discovery of the
fraud. (Art. 1146, Civil Code, as based on Section 3, paragraph
43 of Act No. 190.) It is to be noted that as the patent here has
already been issued, the land has the character of registered
property in accordance with the provisions of Section 122
of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 2332, and the remedy

53
Supra note 3 I.
54
Id. a t 852.
55
Lorzano v. Tabay ag, J,:, 681 Phil. 39 (20 I 2).
56
Id.

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 10 G.R. No. 240271

of the pai1y who has been injured by the fraudulent registration

is an action for reconveyance. (Director ofLands vs. Registered
a/Deeds, 92 Phil., 826; 49 Off. Gaz. [3] 935; Section 55 of Act
No. 496.)

In the same vein, in Quiniano, et al. v. Court ofAppeals, et al., we

stressed that:

The controlling legal norm was set forth in succinct

language by Justice Tuason in a 1953 decision, Director of
Lands v. Register of Deeds ofRizal. Thus: "The sole remedy of
the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from
the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, as was done
in the instant case, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible
and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the
ordinary court ofjustice for reconveyance or, if the property has
passed into the hands of an i1mocent purchaser for value, for
damages." Such a doctrine goes back to the 1919 landmark
decision of Cabanas v. Register of Deeds of Laguna. If it were
otherwise the institution of regi stration would, to quote from
Justice Torres, serve "as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter
bad faith .. . ." In the language of the then Justice, later Chief
Justice, Bengzon: "A different view would encourage fraud and
permit one person unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of
ai1other." It would indeed be a signal failing of any legal system
if under the circumstances disclosed, the aggrieved party is
considered as having lost his right to a prope11y to which he is
entitled. It is one thing to protect an innocent third party; it is
entirely a different matter, and one devoid of justification, if
[deceit] would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator to enjoy
the fruits of his nefarious deed. As clearly revealed by the
undeviating line of decisions coming from this Cou11, such an
undesirable eventuality is precisely sought to be guarded
against. So it has been before; so it should continue to
be. (citations omitted) 57

Accordingly, an action for reconveyance on public land is proper if the

action does not aim to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the
decree of registration, but only to show that the person who secured the
questioned prope1iy's registration is not the real owner because of fraud or
mistake. Such is not the case here. Rodas heirs do not respect the registration
of the disputed property. They even sought its cancellation by imputing an
error in the conduct of the cadastral survey on which the grant of patent is
based. We stress that action for reconveyance respects the decree of
registration as incontrovertible but seeks to transfer the property to the rightful
owner. 58 In other words, in action for reconveyance, the rightful owner does
not seek to set aside the decree of registration but seeks to transfer or reconvey
the land from the registered owner to him or her. 59

57
See also Hortizue/a v. Tagufa, 754 Phil. 499, 510-512 (2015).
58
Uy v. Court vf Appeals, 769 Phil. 705, 7 14 (20 15), citing De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, (442 Phil.
534, 543 (2002)].
59
Hortizuela v Tag z1fa, 754 Phil. 499, 508(20 15).

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 11 G.R. No. 240271

All told, reconveyance of the disputed property in favor of Rodas heirs

is not proper in this case.

FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is

DENI.ED.

Meanwhile, the Court NOTES:

1. The compliance dated November 6, 2019 of Lemy L. Loteyro,

Officer-in-Charge, Register of Deeds, Registry of Deeds for Southern Leyte;

2. The reply to the comment dated October 28, 2019 on the petition
for review on certiorari of petitioners, in compliance with the Resolution
dated January 15, 2020; and

3. The manifestation dated December 16, 2020 of counsel for

petitioners, stating that on June 16, 2020, petitioners filed their reply to private
respondents' comment on the petition, and that petitioners did not receive the
comment of the public respondents on the petition, and praying that said
manifestation be noted by the Court.

SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J. , on leave).

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MA. CO LACION GAMINDE-CRUZADA

Deputy Division Clerk of Court #p?/&
0 7 JUL 2021

B(lSl)URES - more -
 Resolution 12 G .R. No. 240271
March 3, 202 1

RANCES LAW OFFICE (reg)

Counsel for Petitioners
P. Burgos St., Brgy. Tinago
Bato, 6525 Leyte

ASIS AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE (reg)

Counsel for Respondents
Tomas Oppus St., Tunga-Tunga
Maasin City, 6600 Southern Leyte

COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT NATURAL

RESOURCES OFFICE-DENR (reg)
CENRO Bldg., Asuncion
Maasin City, 6600 Southern Leyte

PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR'S OFFICE

OF SOUTHERN LEYTE (reg)
(Norman Victor M. Ordiz)
Provincial Capitol Bu ilding
Asuncion, Maasin City
6600 Southern Leyte

LEMY L. LOTEYRO (reg)

Officer-in-Charge
Register of Deeds of Southern Leyte
Asuncion, Maasin City
6600 Southern Leyte

HON. PRESIDING JUDGE (reg)

Regional Trial Court, Branch 24
Maasin City, Southern Leyte
(Civil Case No. R-3428)

COURT OF APPEALS (reg)

Visayas Station
Cebu City
CA-G.R. CV No. 04242

JUDGMENT DIVISION (x)

Supreme Court, Manila

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-SC]

OFFICE OF THE CHJEF ATTORNEY (x)

OFFICE OF THE REPORTER (x)
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL ACADEMY (x)
Supreme Court, Manila

rft
Please notify the Court of any change in your address.
GR240271. 3/03/2021B(l5l)URES