ISSUE

WON "14. In 1972, defendant-respondent Gerarda Selma bought a 1,000

FACTS square-meter portion of Lot 5679, evidenced by Exhibit "P". Then
The present Petition is rooted in an action for quieting of title filed on February 19, 1975, she bought the bigger bulk of Lot 5679,
before the RTC by Benigna, Miguel, Marcelino, Corazon, Rufina, consisting of 9,302 square meters, evidenced by that deed of
Bernardino, Natividad, Gliceria and Purita -- all surnamed absolute sale, marked as Exhibit "5". The land in question, a 3,000-
Secuya -- against Gerarda M. vda. de Selma. Petitioners asserted square meter portion of Lot 5679, is embraced and included
ownership over the disputed parcel of land, alleging the within the boundary of the later acquisition by respondent Selma;
following facts:
"15. Defendant-respondent Gerarda Selma lodged a complaint,
"xxx xxx xxx and had the plaintiffs-petitioners summoned, before the
Barangay Captain of the place, and in the confrontation and
"8. The parcel of land subject of this case is a PORTION of Lot conciliation proceedings at the Lupong Tagapayapa, defendant-
5679 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, referred to and respondent Selma was asserting ownership over the land
covered [o]n Page 279, Friar Lands Sale Certificate Register of the inherited by plaintiffs-petitioners from Dalmacio Secuya of which
Bureau of Lands (Exh. "K"). The property was originally sold, and they had long been in possession x x x in concept of owner. Such
the covering patent issued, to Maxima Caballero Vda. de Cario claim of defendant-respondent Selma is a cloud on the title of
(Exhs. "K-1"; "K-2). Lot 5679 has an area of 12,750 square meters, plaintiffs-petitioners, hence, their complaint (Annex "C")."[6]
more or less;
Respondent Selmas version of the facts, on the other hand, was
"9. During the lifetime of Maxima Caballero, vendee and patentee summarized by the appellate court as follows: Sc-jj
of Lot 5679, she entered into that AGREEMENT OF PARTITION
dated January 5, 1938 with Paciencia Sabellona, whereby the "She is the registered owner of Lot 5679-C-120 consisting of 9,302
former bound herself and parted [with] one-third (1/3) portion of square meters as evidenced by TCT No. T-35678 (Exhibit "6",
Lot 5679 in favor of the latter (Exh. "D"). Among others, it was Record, p. 324), having bought the same sometime in February
stipulated in said agreement of partition that the said portion of 1975 from Cesaria Caballero as evidenced by a notarized Deed of
one-third so ceded will be located adjoining the municipal road Sale (Exhibit "5", Record, p. 323) and ha[ve] been in possession of
(par. 5, Exh. "D"); Ed-pm-is the same since then. Cesaria Caballero was the widow of Silvestre
Aro, registered owner of the mother lot, Lot. No. 5679 with an
"10. Paciencia Sabellona took possession and occupation of that area of 12,750 square meters of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar
one-third portion of Lot 5679 adjudicated to her. Later, she sold Lands Estate, as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4752
the three thousand square meter portion thereof to Dalmacio (Exhibit "10", Record, p. 340). Upon Silvestre Aros demise, his
Secuya on October 20, 1953, for a consideration of ONE heirs executed an "Extrajudicial Partition and Deed of Absolute
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P1,850.00), by Sale" (Exhibit "11", Record, p. 341) wherein one-half plus one-fifth
means of a private document which was lost (p. 8, tsn., 8/8/89- of Lot No. 5679 was adjudicated to the widow, Cesaria Caballero,
Calzada). Such sale was admitted and confirmed by Ramon from whom defendant-appellee derives her title."[7]
Sabellona, only heir of Paciencia Sabellona, per that instrument
denominated CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF UNDIVIDED The CA Ruling
SHARES, dated September 28, 1976 (Exh. "B");
In affirming the trial courts ruling, the appellate court debunked
"11. Ramon Sabellona was the only [or] sole voluntary heir of petitioners claim of ownership of the land and upheld
Paciencia Sabellona, per that KATAPUSAN NGA KABUT-ON Respondent Selmas title thereto. It held that respondents title can
UG PANUGON NI PACIENCIA SABELLONA (Last Will and be traced to a valid TCT. On the other hand, it ruled that
Testament of Paciencia Sabellona), dated July 9, 1954, executed petitioners anchor their claim on an "Agreement of Partition"
and acknowledged before Notary Public Teodoro P. Villarmina which is void for being violative of the Public Land Act. The CA
(Exh. "C"). Pursuant to such will, Ramon Sabellona inherited all noted that the said law prohibited the alienation or encumbrance
the properties left by Paciencia Sabellona; of land acquired under a free patent or homestead patent, for a
period of five years from the issuance of the said patent. S-jcj
"12. After the purchase [by] Dalmacio Secuya, predecessor-in-
interest of plaintiffs, of the property in litigation on October 20, Hence, this Petition.[8]
1953, Dalmacio, together with his brothers and sisters - he being DECISION
single - took physical possession of the land and cultivated the
same. In 1967, Edilberto Superales married Rufina Secuya, niece The Petition fails to show any reversible error in the assailed
of Dalmacio Secuya. With the permission and tolerance of the Decision.
Secuyas, Edilberto Superales constructed his house on the lot in
question in January 1974 and lived thereon continuously up to the Preliminary Matter: The Action for Quieting of Title
present (p. 8., tsn. 7/25/88 - Daclan). Said house is inside Lot 5679-
C-12-B, along lines 18-19-20 of said lot, per Certification dated In an action to quiet title, the plaintiffs or complainants must
August 10, 1985, by Geodetic Engineer Celestino R. Orozco (Exh. demonstrate a legal or an equitable title to, or an interest in, the
"F"); Jjs-c subject real property.[10] Likewise, they must show that the deed,
claim, encumbrance or proceeding that purportedly casts a cloud
"13. Dalmacio Secuya died on November 20, 1961. Thus his heirs on their title is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
- brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces - are the plaintiffs in Civil appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[11] This point is clear
Case No. CEB-4247 and now the petitioners; from Article 476 of the Civil Code, which reads:

Secuya v De Selma
 "6. I, Paciencia Sabellana y Caballero, hereby accept and take the
"Whenever there is cloud on title to real property or any interest portion herein adjudicated to me by Mrs. Maxima Caballero of
therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance Lot No. 5679 Talisay-Minglanilla Estate and will pay the
or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth corresponding portion to the government after the subdivision of
and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, and the same;
may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet title. Co-urt "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this
5th day of January, 1988, at Talisay, Cebu."[12]
"An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon title to real property or any interest therein." The Agreement: An Express Trust, Not a Partition

In the case at bar, petitioners allege that TCT No. 5679-C-120, Notwithstanding its purported nomenclature, this Agreement is
issued in the name of Private Respondent Selma, is a cloud on not one of partition, because there was no property to partition
their title as owners and possessors of the subject property, which and the parties were not co-owners. Rather, it is in the nature of a
is a 3,000--square-meter portion of Lot No. 5679-C-120 covered by trust agreement. Juri-smis
the TCT. But the underlying question is, do petitioners have the
requisite title that would enable them to avail themselves of the Trust is the right to the beneficial enjoyment of property, the legal
remedy of quieting of title? title to which is vested in another. It is a fiduciary relationship
that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of
Petitioners anchor their claim of ownership on two documents: the beneficiary.[13] Trust relations between parties may either be
the Agreement of Partition executed by Maxima Caballero and express or implied. An express trust is created by the intention of
Paciencia Sabellona and the Deed of Confirmation of Sale the trustor or of the parties. An implied trust comes into being by
executed by Ramon Sabellona. We will now examine these two operation of law.[14]
documents.
The present Agreement of Partition involves an express trust.
First Issue: The Real Nature of the "Agreement of Partition" Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o particular words are
required for the creation of an express trust, it being sufficient that
The duly notarized Agreement of Partition dated January 5, 1938, a trust is clearly intended." That Maxima Caballero bound herself
is worded as follows: Jle-xj to give one third of Lot No. 5629 to Paciencia Sabellona upon the
approval of the former's application is clear from the terms of the
"AGREEMENT OF PARTITION Agreement. Likewise, it is evident that Paciencia acquiesced to
the covenant and is thus bound to fulfill her obligation therein.
"I, MAXIMA CABALLERO, Filipina, of legal age, married to
Rafael Cario, now residing and with postal address in the As a result of the Agreement, Maxima Caballero held the portion
Municipality of Dumaguete, Oriental Negros, depose the specified therein as belonging to Paciencia Sabellona when the
following and say: application was eventually approved and a sale certificate was
issued in her name.[15] Thus, she should have transferred the
"1. That I am the applicant of vacant lot No. 5679 of the Talisay- same to the latter, but she never did so during her lifetime.
Minglanilla Estate and the said application has already been Instead, her heirs sold the entire Lot No. 5679 to Silvestre Aro in
indorsed by the District Land Officer, Talisay, Cebu, for private 1955.
sale in my favor;
From 1954 when the sale certificate was issued until 1985 when
"2. That the said Lot 5679 was formerly registered in the name of petitioners filed their Complaint, Paciencia and her successors-in-
Felix Abad y Caballero and the sale certificate of which has interest did not do anything to enforce their proprietary rights
already been cancelled by the Hon. Secretary of Agriculture and over the disputed property or to consolidate their ownership over
Commerce; Lex-juris the same. In fact, they did not even register the said Agreement
with the Registry of Property or pay the requisite land taxes.
"3. That for and in representation of my brother, Luis Caballero, While petitioners had been doing nothing, the disputed property,
who is now the actual occupant of said lot I deem it wise to have as part of Lot No. 5679, had been the subject of several sales
the said lot paid by me, as Luis Caballero has no means o[r] any transactions[16] and covered by several transfer certificates of
way to pay the government; title. Jj-juris

"4. That as soon as the application is approved by the Director of The Repudiation of the Express Trust
Lands, Manila, in my favor, I hereby bind myself to transfer the
one-third (1/3) portion of the above mentioned lot in favor of my While no time limit is imposed for the enforcement of rights
aunt, Paciencia Sabellana y Caballero, of legal age, single, residing under express trusts,[17] prescription may, however, bar a
and with postal address in Tungkop, Minglanilla, Cebu. Said beneficiary's action for recovery, if a repudiation of the trust is
portion of one-third (1/3) will be subdivided after the approval of proven by clear and convincing evidence and made known to the
said application and the same will be paid by her to the beneficiary.[18]
government [for] the corresponding portion.
There was a repudiation of the express trust when the heirs of
"5. That the said portion of one-third (1/3) will be located Maxima Caballero failed to deliver or transfer the property to
adjoining the municipal road; Paciencia Sabellona, and instead sold the same to a third person
not privy to the Agreement. In the memorandum of

Secuya v De Selma
incumbrances of TCT No. 3087[19] issued in the name of Maxima,
there was no notation of the Agreement between her and Petitioners debunk Private Respondent Selmas title to the
Paciencia. Equally important, the Agreement was not registered; disputed property, alleging that she was aware of their
thus, it could not bind third persons. Neither was there any possession of the disputed properties. Thus, they insist that she
allegation that Silvestre Aro, who purchased the property from could not be regarded as a purchaser in good faith who is entitled
Maximas heirs, knew of it. Consequently, the subsequent sales to the protection of the Torrens system.
transactions involving the land in dispute and the titles covering
it must be upheld, in the absence of proof that the said Indeed, a party who has actual knowledge of facts and
transactions were fraudulent and irregular. Jksm circumstances that would move a reasonably cautious man to
make an inquiry will not be protected by the Torrens system. In
Second Issue: The Purported Sale to Dalmacio Secuya Sandoval v. Court of Appeals,[22] we held:

Even granting that the express trust subsists, petitioners have not "It is settled doctrine that one who deals with property registered
proven that they are the rightful successors-in-interest of under the Torrens system need not go beyond the same, but only
Paciencia Sabellona. has to rely on the title. He is charged with notice only of such
burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.
The Absence of the Purported Deed of Sale
"The aforesaid principle admits of an unchallenged exception:
Petitioners insist that Paciencia sold the disputed property to that a person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on
Dalmacio Secuya on October 20, 1953, and that the sale was the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense without the need of
embodied in a private document. However, such document, inquiring further except when the party has actual knowledge of
which would have been the best evidence of the transaction, was facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious
never presented in court, allegedly because it had been lost. While man to make such inquiry, or when the purchaser has knowledge
a sale of a piece of land appearing in a private deed is binding of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to
between the parties, it cannot be considered binding on third induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of title
persons, if it is not embodied in a public instrument and recorded of the property in litigation. The presence of anything which
in the Registry of Property.[20] excites or arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to
look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
Moreover, while petitioners could not present the purported deed appearing on the face of the certificate. One who falls within the
evidencing the transaction between Paciencia Sabellona and exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for
Dalmacio Secuya, petitioners immediate predecessor-in-interest, value nor a purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the
private respondent in contrast has the necessary documents to protection of the law." Esmsc
support her claim to the disputed property.
Granting arguendo that private respondent knew that petitioners,
The Questionable Value of the Deed Executed by Ramon through Superales and his family, were actually occupying the
SabellonaChief disputed lot, we must stress that the vendor, Cesaria Caballero,
assured her that petitioners were just tenants on the said lot.
To prove the alleged sale of the disputed property to Dalmacio, Private respondent cannot be faulted for believing this
petitioners instead presented the testimony of Miguel Secuya, one representation, considering that petitioners' claim was not noted
of the petitioners; and a Deed[21] confirming the sale executed by in the certificate of the title covering Lot No. 5679.
Ramon Sabellona, Paciencias alleged heir. The testimony of
Miguel was a bare assertion that the sale had indeed taken place Moreover, the lot, including the disputed portion, had been the
and that the document evidencing it had been destroyed. While subject of several sales transactions. The title thereto had been
the Deed executed by Ramon ratified the transaction, its transferred several times, without any protestation or complaint
probative value is doubtful. His status as heir of Paciencia was from the petitioners. In any case, private respondent's title is
not affirmatively established. Moreover, he was not presented in amply supported by clear evidence, while petitioners claim is
court and was thus not quizzed on his knowledge -- or lack barren of proof.
thereof -- of the 1953 transaction.
Clearly, petitioners do not have the requisite title to pursue an
Petitioners' Failure to Exercise Owners' Rights to the Property action for quieting of title.
NOTES
Petitioners insist that they had been occupying the disputed
property for forty-seven years before they filed their Complaint
for quieting of title. However, there is no proof that they had
exercised their rights and duties as owners of the same. They
argue that they had been gathering the fruits of such property;
yet, it would seem that they had been remiss in their duty to pay
land taxes. If petitioners really believed that they owned the
property, they should have been more vigilant in protecting their
rights thereto. As noted earlier, they did nothing to enforce
whatever proprietary rights they had over the disputed parcel of
land.

Third Issue: The Validity of Private Respondents TitleEsm

Secuya v De Selma