Survey is immaterial in proving ownership over a land covered by Torrens Title

persida-acosta

Dear PAO,

I have a dispute with Juan regarding a certain land. He claimed that he was recovering the land of his father, which is covered by a title, and that includes a portion of my farmland. I presented my Torrens title to him to prove that the land was mine, but Juan claimed that I needed a survey plan/map to prove ownership over the land he was also claiming. Please guide me on the matter.

Wesley

Dear Wesley,

The action for recovery of land is provided under Article 434 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, as follows:

"In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim."

For the said action to prosper, the Supreme Court was explicit in their pronouncement in the case of Spouses Yu v. Topacio, Jr., GR 216024, Sept. 18, 2019, penned by Justice Jose Reyes, Jr., that not only must ownership be shown but the identity of the land as well:

"As to the action for recovery of possession, the rule is settled that in order for it to prosper, it is indispensable that he who brings the action fully proves not only his ownership but also the identity of the property claimed by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. Indeed, he who claims to have a better right to the property must clearly show that the land possessed by the other party is the very land that belongs to him. Said action is governed by Article 434 of the Civil Code, which states that the property must be identified and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of defendant's claim."

On this score, the technical description reflected in the Torrens Title may be received as conclusive evidence of the metes and bounds of the lot. This is in consonance with Section 47 of Act 496 or the Land Registration Act, as amended:

"The original certificate in the registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also of the owner's duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all courts of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far as otherwise provided in this Act."

On the other hand, in Carvajal v. Court of Appeals and Solid Homes, Inc., GR 98328 Oct. 9, 1997, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, clarified the value of a survey plan, in so far as proving the boundaries of a lot:

"The law does not require resorting to a survey plan to prove the true boundaries of a land covered by a valid certificate of title; the title itself is the conclusive proof of the realty's metes and bounds. Section 47 of the Land Registration Act, or Act No. 496, provides that '(t)he original certificates in the registration book, any copy thereof duly certified under the signature of the clerk, or of the register of deeds of the province or city where the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also the owner's duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts of the Philippine Islands and shall be conclusive as to all matters contained therein except so far as otherwise provided in this Act.' It has been held that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein and other matters which can be litigated and decided in land registration proceedings. xxx"

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the law does not require you to present a survey plan if the land is covered by a valid Certificate of Title because all the matters contained in the title are conclusive. The metes and bounds of your land are already reflected in your Torrens Title; hence, a survey plan/map is no longer necessary.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor's note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney's Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]