2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Civil Law - Q1

Kawasa Magalang and Mona Wahab filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership and/or declaration of nullity of the acquisition of a lot located in Cotabato (subject lot). They alleged that Magalang inherited the lot from his ancestors and that his family was forced to evacuate in the 1970s due to the Ilaga-Blackshirt conflict. They claimed that after their evacuation, Nestor Heretape, Rosa Rogador, and Roberto Landero (Heretape et al.) usurped the lot and later obtained free patent titles over portions of it.

Magalang presented evidence of ownership, including real property tax receipts, a Memorandum of Agreement regarding a mortgage, and a tax declaration. He also alleged that he mortgaged the land to Lucibar Heretape, Nestor’s father, but Lucibar refused to accept repayment.

Heretape et al. contended that they acquired the land lawfully, asserting that Pedro Deansin, who claimed ownership of the entire lot, sold portions to them. They submitted deeds of sale and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) as proof.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Magalang and Wahab, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision, holding that Magalang and Wahab failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Heretape et al. fraudulently acquired their patents and titles. The CA also ruled that Magalang and Wahab could not acquire the land through prescription since there was no express declaration that the property was no longer intended for public service or development.

Did Magalang and Wahab overcome the burden imposed by law for their action for reconveyance to prosper?

Ans:

No, Magalang and Wahab did not overcome the burden imposed by law for their action for reconveyance to prosper because the evidence of ownership of the property sought to be recovered is not enough.

Under the New Civil Code, the person who claims a better right of ownership to the property sought to be recovered must prove two things:

(a) the identity of the land claimed; and (b) his title thereto.

Here, as for the first requisite, there was no doubt that the land sought to be reconveyed was the subject Lot.

For the second requisite, the rule provides that Torrens title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein and the title holder is entitled to all attributes of ownership of property including possession.

Magalang and Wahab’s single tax declaration and old tax receipts were not considered as evidence of ownership; the same could defeat Heretape et al.’s certificates of title to the lots in question. Hence, the burden imposed by law for their action for reconveyance will not prosper.