"x x x.
An action for reconveyance is proper in this case.
However, the foregoing rule is not without an exception. A recognized exception is that situation where plaintiff-claimant seeks direct reconveyance from defendant public land unlawfully and in breach of trust titled by him, on the principle of enforcement of a constructive trust.[29]
A private individual may bring an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land even if the title thereof was issued through a free patent since such action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but only to show that the person who secured the registration of the questioned property is not the real owner thereof.[30]
In Roco, et al. v. Gimeda,[31] we stated that if a patent had already been issued through fraud or mistake and has been registered, the remedy of a party who has been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for reconveyance, thus:
It is to be noted that the petition does not seek for a reconsideration of the granting of the patent or of the decree issued in the registration proceeding. The purpose is not to annul the title but to have it conveyed to plaintiffs. Fraudulent statements were made in the application for the patent and no notice thereof was given to plaintiffs, nor knowledge of the petition known to the actual possessors and occupants of the property. The action is one based on fraud and under the law, it can be instituted within four years from the discovery of the fraud. (Art. 1146, Civil Code, as based on Section 3, paragraph 43 of Act No. 190.) It is to be noted that as the patent here has already been issued, the land has the character of registered property in accordance with the provisions of Section 122 of Act No. 496, as amended by Act No. 2332, and the remedy of the party who has been injured by the fraudulent registration is an action for reconveyance. (Director of Lands vs. Registered of Deeds, 92 Phil., 826; 49 Off. Gaz. [3] 935; Section 55 of Act No. 496.)[32]
The controlling legal norm was set forth in succinct language by Justice Tuason in a 1953 decision, Director of Lands v. Register of Deeds of Rizal. Thus: “The sole remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, as was done in the instant case, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages."Such a doctrine goes back to the 1919 landmark decision of Cabanos v. Register of Deeds of Laguna. If it were otherwise the institution of registration would, to quote from Justice Torres, serve "as a protecting mantle to cover and shelter bad faith ...." In the language of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Bengzon: "A different view would encourage fraud and permit one person unjustly to enrich himself at the expense of another." It would indeed be a signal failing of any legal system if under the circumstances disclosed, the aggrieved party is considered as having lost his right to a property to which he is entitled. It is one thing to protect an innocent third party; it is entirely a different matter, and one devoid of justification, if [deceit] would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator to enjoy the fruits of his nefarious deed. As clearly revealed by the undeviating line of decisions coming from this Court, such an undesirable eventuality is precisely sought to be guarded against. So it has been before; so it should continue to be.[34] (citations omitted)
Here, the respondent, in filing the amended complaint for annulment of documents, reconveyance and damages, was not seeking a reconsideration of the granting of the patent or the decree issued in the registration proceedings. What the respondent sought was the reconveyance of the subject property to the heirs of the late Tabayag on account of the fraud committed by the petitioner. Thus, the lower courts did not err in upholding the respondent’s right to ask for the reconveyance of the subject property. To hold otherwise would be to make the Torrens system a shield for the commission of fraud.
That the subject property was not registered under the name of the heirs of Tabayag prior to the issuance of OCT No. 1786 in the name of the petitioner would not effectively deny the remedy of reconveyance to the former. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him.[35]
It cannot be gainsaid that the heirs of Tabayag, by themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, had already acquired a vested right over the subject property. An open, continuous, adverse and public possession of a land of the public domain from time immemorial by a private individual personally and through his predecessors confers an effective title on said possessors whereby the land ceases to be public, to become private property, at least by presumption.[36] Hence, the right of the heirs of Tabayag to ask for the reconveyance of the subject property is irrefutable.
At this juncture, we deem it necessary to reiterate our disquisition in Naval v. Court of Appeals,[37] thus:
The fact that petitioner was able to secure a title in her name did not operate to vest ownership upon her of the subject land. Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner.[38](citations omitted)
x x x."
