10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

September 17, 2014.*

G.R. No. 195443.
 
JUANARIO G. CAMPIT, petitioner, vs. ISIDRA B. GRIPA,
PEDRO BARDIAGA, and SEVERINO BARDIAGA,
represented by his son ROLANDO BARDIAGA,
respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Res Judicata;

The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on the
merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive
as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes as
an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim,
demand, or cause of action.—A matter adjudged with finality by a
competent court

_______________

*  SECOND DIVISION.

457

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 457

Campit vs. Gripa

having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter

already constitutes res judicata in another action involving the
same cause of action, parties and subject matter. The doctrine of
res judicata provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive as to the rights
of the parties and their privies and constitutes as an absolute bar
to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause
of action. Thus, the validity of petitioner’s title, having been
settled with finality in Civil Case No. 15357, could no
longer be reviewed in the present case.
Same; Same; Same; Execution of Judgments; Under Section 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment may
be executed by the prevailing party as a matter of right by mere
motion within five (5) years from the entry of judgment, failing
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

which the judgment is reduced to a mere right of action which

must be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular
court within ten (10) years from finality of the judgment.—The
August 8, 1978 decision in Civil Case No. 15357, however, was not
executed or enforced within the time allowed under the law.
Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, a final and
executory judgment may be executed by the prevailing party as a
matter of right by mere motion within five (5) years from the
entry of judgment, failing which the judgment is reduced to a
mere right of action which must be enforced by the institution of a
complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years from finality of
the judgment. It appears that no motion or action to revive
judgment was ever filed by the respondents — the prevailing
party in Civil Case No. 15357, to execute and enforce the August
8, 1978 decision. The title to the subject property, therefore,
remained registered under the petitioner’s name. As the
petitioner argued, his title had already become incontrovertible
since the Torrens system of land registration provides for the
indefeasibility of the decree of registration and the certificate of
title issued upon the expiration of one (1) year from the date of
entry of the registration decree.
Civil Law; Land Registration; Torrens System; The Torrens
system of registration cannot be used to protect a usurper from the
true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud, or to permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of others.—
We cannot, however, allow the petitioner to maintain his title and
benefit from the fruit of his and his predecessors’ fraudulent acts
at the

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campit vs. Gripa

expense of the respondents who are the rightful owners of the

subject property. The Torrens system of registration cannot
be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can
it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or to
permit one to enrich oneself at the expense of others.
Notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title, the
registered owner can still be compelled under the law to reconvey
the property registered to the rightful owner under the principle
that the property registered is deemed to be held in trust for the
real owner by the person in whose name it is registered. The
party seeking to recover title to property wrongfully registered in
another person’s name must file an action for reconveyance

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

within the allowed period of time. An action for reconveyance

based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10)
years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
There is, however, an exception to this rule where the filing of
such action does not prescribe, i.e., when the plaintiff is in
possession of the subject property, the action, being in
effect that of quieting of title to the property, does not
prescribe.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Juanito I. Velasco, Jr. for petitioner.
Nolan R. Evangelista for respondents.

BRION, J.:
We review in this petition for review on certiorari1 the
decision2 dated May 13, 2010 and resolution3 dated
January 27, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.­G.R.
CV No. 92356. The CA dismissed the appeal filed by
petitioner Juanario

_______________

1  Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; Rollo, pp. 11­22.

2  Penned by CA Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate
Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring; Rollo, pp.
24­35.
3  Rollo, pp. 37­41.

459

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 459

Campit vs. Gripa

Campit to the decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),

Branch 38, Lingayen, Pangasinan, which ordered him to
surrender a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) that was
found to have been fraudulently issued in his name.
 
Factual Antecedents
Subject of this case is a 2.7360­hectare agricultural land
situated in Umangan, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, presently
occupied by respondents Isidra B. Gripa, Pedro Bardiaga,
and Severino Bardiaga, represented by his son Rolando
Bardiaga, but covered by TCT No. 122237 issued in the
petitioner’s name.5 The petitioner claimed to have

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

purchased the property from his father Jose Campit in

1977.6
On the other hand, respondents Isidra Gripa, Pedro
Bardiaga and Severino Bardiaga (as represented by his
son, Rolando Bardiaga) claimed to be the rightful owners of
the subject property, as earlier adjudged by the court in
Civil Case No. 11858 decided on June 12, 1961, and in Civil
Case No. 15357 decided on August 8, 1978.7
The Court, in these cases, cancelled the titles of the
petitioner and his father Jose because they were obtained
through the misrepresentation of the petitioner’s
grandfather, Isidro Campit.8 The respondents further
contended that they have long desired to divide the subject
property among themselves, but the petitioner adamantly
refused to surrender his title to the property to them, or to
the Register of Deeds, despite their formal demand.9

_______________

4  Dated August 13, 2008; Rollo, pp. 42­46.

5  Id., at p. 25.
6  Id., at p. 26.
7  Id., at p. 25.
8  Id., at pp. 25­26.
9  Id., at pp. 26 and 55.

460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campit vs. Gripa

 
Due to the petitioner’s continued refusal to surrender
the subject TCT, the respondents filed anew an action for
annulment and cancellation of title with the RTC on
August 15, 2003, docketed as Civil Case No. 18421.10
The petitioner opposed the respondents’ action and
argued that the August 8, 1978 decision in Civil Case No.
15357, which declared his title null and void, could no
longer be enforced because its execution was already
barred by the Statute of Limitations, as the said decision
was never executed within 10 years from July 19, 1979 —
the date of finality of the judgment.11
Noting that the action filed by the respondents was not
one for revival of judgment, the RTC proceeded to hear the
case and, in a decision dated August 13, 2008, ruled in the
respondents’ favor, in this wise:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

WHEREFORE, considering that the Transfer of Certificate of

Title No. 122237 issued in the name of defendant Juanario
Campit had earlier been declared null and void in the decision of
the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (sic) Civil Case No.
15357, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, as
follows:
a) Ordering the defendant Juanario Campit to surrender the
said Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 122237 within a period of
fifteen (15) days from finality of this decision to the Register of
(sic) Pangasinan for its cancellation;
b) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan to cancel TCT
No. 122237 in the event that Juanario Campit fails to surrender
the same within the period given to him, and to revive the title
issued in the name of Mariano Campit.

_______________

10  Id., at p. 26.
11  Id., at p. 44.

461

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 461

Campit vs. Gripa

 
Costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the CA, in a decision dated May 13, 2010,

affirmed the RTC and held that:

Not being the true owner of the subject property, the

subsequent issuance of a certificate of title to the defendant­
appellant does not vest him ownership over the subject land.
Registration of real property under the Torrens System does not
create or vest title because it is not a mode of acquiring
ownership.

The petitioner moved to reconsider, but the CA denied

his motion in a resolution dated January 27, 2011, hence,
the filing of the present petition for review on certiorari
with this Court.
The Petition
In his petition before this Court, the petitioner argues
that his title to the subject property must prevail not only
because the August 8, 1978 decision in Civil Case No.
15357, which declared his title null and void, was never
executed, but also because, under the Torrens system of
registration, a certificate of title is an indefeasible and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

incontrovertible proof of ownership of the person, in whose

favor it was issued, over the land described therein. He
now contends that he had acquired the property in good
faith and for valuable consideration and, thus, entitled to
own and possess the subject property.
Our Ruling
We find no merit in the petitioner’s arguments.
The issue on the validity of the petitioner’s title to the
subject property has long been settled in Civil Case No.
15357,
462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campit vs. Gripa

where the court, in its decision dated August 8, 1978, which

became final and executory on July 19, 1979, had found
and declared the petitioner’s title null and void by reason of
fraud and misrepresentation.
A matter adjudged with finality by a competent court
having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter
already constitutes res judicata in another action involving
the same cause of action, parties and subject matter. The
doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment on
the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies
and constitutes as an absolute bar to subsequent actions
involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.12
Thus, the validity of petitioner’s title, having been
settled with finality in Civil Case No. 15357, could no
longer be reviewed in the present case.
The August 8, 1978 decision in Civil Case No. 15357,
however, was not executed or enforced within the time
allowed under the law. Under Section 6, Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment may be
executed by the prevailing party as a matter of right by
mere motion within five (5) years from the entry of
judgment, failing which the judgment is reduced to a mere
right of action which must be enforced by the institution of
a complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years from
finality of the judgment.13
It appears that no motion or action to revive judgment
was ever filed by the respondents — the prevailing party in
Civil Case No. 15357, to execute and enforce the August 8,
1978 decision. The title to the subject property, therefore,
remained registered under the petitioner’s name. As the
petitioner ar­
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

_______________

12   Taganas v. Emuslan, 457 Phil. 305; 410 SCRA 237 (2003), citing
Allied Banking Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108089, January
10, 1994, 229 SCRA 252.
13  Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., G.R. No. 182937,
August 8, 2010, 627 SCRA 425, 431.

463

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 463

Campit vs. Gripa

gued, his title had already become incontrovertible since

the Torrens system of land registration provides for the
indefeasibility of the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued upon the expiration of one (1) year
from the date of entry of the registration decree.14
We cannot, however, allow the petitioner to maintain his
title and benefit from the fruit of his and his predecessors’
fraudulent acts at the expense of the respondents who are
the rightful owners of the subject property. The Torrens
system of registration cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a
shield for the commission of fraud, or to permit one
to enrich oneself at the expense of others.15
Notwithstanding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title,
the registered owner can still be compelled under the law
to reconvey the property registered to the rightful owner16
under the principle that the property registered is deemed
to be held in trust for the real owner by the person in
whose name it is registered.17 The party seeking to recover
title to property wrongfully registered in another person’s
name must file an action for reconveyance within the
allowed period of time.
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the
issuance of the Torrens title over the property.18 There is,
however, an exception to this rule where the filing of such
action does not prescribe, i.e., when the plaintiff is in
possession of the

_______________

14  Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

15  Gustillo v. Maravilla, 48 Phil. 442 (1925); Sps. Lopez v. Sps. Lopez,
G.R. No. 161925, November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 358.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

16   Amerol v. Bagumbaran, No. L­33261, September 30, 1987, 154

SCRA 396, 406­407.
17  Id.
18  Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., No. L­38387, January 29, 1990, 181 SCRA
431, 442.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Campit vs. Gripa

subject property, the action, being in effect that of

quieting of title to the property, does not prescribe.19
In the present case, the respondents, who are the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 18421 (the action for annulment
and cancellation of title filed in 2013), have always been in
possession of the subject property. Worth noting are the
CA’s findings on this respect:

x x x Of course, the defendant­appellant (petitioner herein) has

a certificate of title in his favor. But it cannot be denied that he
has never been in possession of the subject property. Neither did
he exercise acts of ownership over the said land since the time he
allegedly purchased it from his father in 1977. Similarly, the
defendant­appellant was not able to show that his predecessor­in­
interest, Jose Campit, claimed ownership or was ever in
possession of the said land. The defendant­appellant has admitted
that he has paid realty tax covering the subject land only once
when he applied for the issuance of title in his favor.
x x x x
On the other hand, the continuous possession of the
subject premises by the plaintiffs­appellees has not been
denied or disputed by the defendants­appellants (sic). The
possession in the concept of an owner by the plaintiffs­appellees
has also been confirmed by witness Charlie Martin.20 (Emphasis
ours)

 
Considering that the action for annulment and
cancellation of title filed by the respondents is
substantially in the nature of an action for reconveyance
based on an implied or constructive trust, combined with
the fact that the respondents have always been in
possession of the subject property, we shall treat Civil Case
No. 18421 as an action to quiet title, the filing of

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

19  Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas, G.R. No. 157852, December

15, 2010, 638 SCRA 444.
20  Rollo, pp. 31­33.

465

VOL. 735, SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 465

Campit vs. Gripa

which does not prescribe. Thus, we find the respondents’

filing of Civil Case No. 18421 to be proper and not barred
by the time limitations set forth under the Rules of Court
in enforcing or executing a final and executory judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the
present petition for review on certiorari and consequently
AFFIRM the decision dated May 13, 2010 and resolution
dated January 27, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.­
G.R. CV No. 92356.
Costs against petitioner Juanario G. Campit.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.**

and Leonen, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—A certificate of title under the Torrens system

aims to protect dominion; it cannot be used as an
instrument for the deprivation of ownership. (Agtarap vs.
Agtarap, 651 SCRA 455 [2011])
As a general rule, an action to recover registered land
covered by the Torrens System may not be barred by
laches. Neither can laches be set up to resist the
enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right. (Akang vs.
Municipality of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat Province, 699
SCRA 745 [2013])
——o0o——

_______________

* *  Designated as acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C.

Mendoza, per Special Order No. 1767 dated August 27, 2014.

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/10
10/22/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 735

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015f43a99a0719db7082003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/10