Scribd
Upload
182 views2 pages

Heirs of Teodora Loyola

The Heirs of Teodora Loyola filed a complaint to annul the free patent and certificate of title over a 4,419 square meter parcel of land issued to Alicia Loyola. They claimed their grandparents possessed the land since time immemorial. The RTC dismissed the case for failure to implead an indispensable party. The CA found no such failure but that petitioners did not overcome the presumption of regularity of the title issued to the respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for using the wrong remedy and affirmed the CA's finding that petitioners did not prove their claim over the property. For a recovery action to succeed, clear and convincing evidence of entitlement and fraud must be shown. Both reconveyance

Uploaded by

Shiela Ventura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
182 views2 pages

Heirs of Teodora Loyola

The Heirs of Teodora Loyola filed a complaint to annul the free patent and certificate of title over a 4,419 square meter parcel of land issued to Alicia Loyola. They claimed their grandparents possessed the land since time immemorial. The RTC dismissed the case for failure to implead an indispensable party. The CA found no such failure but that petitioners did not overcome the presumption of regularity of the title issued to the respondent. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for using the wrong remedy and affirmed the CA's finding that petitioners did not prove their claim over the property. For a recovery action to succeed, clear and convincing evidence of entitlement and fraud must be shown. Both reconveyance

Uploaded by

Shiela Ventura
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

HEIRS OF TEODORA LOYOLA

v
COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No 188658, January 11, 2017

1. The Heirs of Teodora Loyola, petitioner in this case, filed a complaint for annulment of
free patent and original certificate of title, reconveyance of ownership and possession
against the private respondent, Alicia Loyola. Petitioners insisted that the subject
property which is a 4,419-square meter parcel of land located in Lingatin, Morong,
Bataan was possessed by their grandparents since time immemorial. Thus, they assailed
that Alicia Loyola, herein respondent, obtained a free patent and original certificate of
title over the land through fraud and misrepresentation.

2. The Regional Trial Court did not rule on the merits and dismissed the case without
failure to implead an indispensable party because the trial court found that the
successors of one of the heirs, who is an indispensable parties in this case and without
whom no final determination can be rendered by the Court, were not impleaded as
party-plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, found that the RTC erred in finding that there
was a failure to implead an indispensable party and that the heirs mentioned were not
indispensable parties. Thus, a judgment could be rendered without impleading them as
party-plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the CA found that the evidence presented by the
petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of the free patent and
original certificate of title issued to respondent. Thus, the Court of Appeals dismissed
the appeal.

3. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
by the petitioner. The Court said that petitioner should have file a petition for review
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the petition is dismissed because petitioners
failed to avail themselves of the proper remedy. Also, the Court sustains the finding of
the Court of Appeals that petitioners failed to prove their claim over the property
against respondent. It states that testimonies of witnesses and the tax declaration
presented are not sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of
patents and titles as well as the presumption of regularity of the performance of official
duties of the government offices responsible for the issuance.

4. For a particular action to recover property to stand the scrutiny of the Court, the party
seeking to recover the property must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he
or she is entitled to the property and that the adverse party has committed fraud in
obtaining the title. Also, allegations of fraud are not enough and that intentional acts to
deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be
specifically alleged and proved.
5. Both action for reconvenyance and accion reivindicatoria are both remedies to recover
property of a land. Action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to
the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the
name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the
land to him while accion reivindicatoria or accion de reivindicacion is an action whereby
plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.

You might also like