46 In view of the foregoing discussions it is obvious that the action of the

46 in view of the foregoing discussions it is obvious

This preview shows page 44 - 46 out of 69 pages.

46 In view of the foregoing discussions, it is obvious that the action of the appellees in the three cases now before this Court must fail, It has been shown that appellant J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. had acquired a valid title over the land which includes the six parcels that are claimed by the appellees. The fact, that the predecessors in interest of the appellees—or any person, for that matter—had not filed a petition for the review of the decree of registration in LRC No. 7681 within a period of one year from July 8, 1914 when the decree of registration was issued, is a circumstance that had forever foreclosed any proceeding for the review of said decree. As We have adverted to, that decree of registration had become incontrovertible. An action, similar to one brought by the appellees in each of the present cases, which attack collaterally the said decree of registration cannot be entertained. 47 Neither may the action of the appellees for reconveyance of the lands in question be entertained because such action had already prescribed, and barred by laches, considering that Original Certificate of Title No. 735 had been issued way back in 1914 and the complaint in the present cases
Image of page 44
were filed only on May 19, 1955, or after a lapse of some 41 years. Moreover, as of the time when these complaints were filed the six parcels of land claimed by the appellees are no longer covered by the certificate of title in the names of the persons who procured the original registration of those lands. The title to Parcel 1, which includes the six parcels of land claimed by the appellees, had passed to the hands of parties who were innocent purchasers for value. This Parcel 1 which was one of the two parcels Originally covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 735, was subsequently covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31997. As has been shown, this Parcel 1 was part of the properties of the Mayorasgo _________________ 45 Bolaños vs. J.M. Tuason & Co. Inc., 37 SCRA 223, 229. 46 Secs. 45 and 46, Act 496; Legarda vs. Saleeby; 31 Phil. 590; De la Cruz vs. Fabie, 35 Phil. 144. 47 Domingo vs. Santos Ongsiako, 55 Phil. 361. 581 VOL. 57, JUNE 28, 1974 581 Benin vs. Tuason Tuason and it was conveyed by order of the court in Civil Case No. 24803 of the Court of First Instance of Manila to the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc., and the latter in turn conveyed the same to J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34853 in the name of the Heirs of D. Tuason, Inc. was cancelled and transfer Certificate of Title No. 35073 was issued in the name of J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. It has also been shown that J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. had converted Parcel 1 to a subdivision. Numerous persons and entities bought those subdivision lots, and to those buyers were issued transfer certificates of title covering the lots that they acquired. It is very clear, therefore, that an action for reconveyance cannot prosper against appellant J. M. Tuason & Co., much less against the registered owners of the lots that form parts of the six parcels of land that are claimed by the appellees.
Image of page 45
Image of page 46

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 69 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Trial court, Cadastre, land registration

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes