EXCEPTION TO GENERAL RULE:

Under the Cadastral Act, the original certificates of title issued to the original registrant, shall have the same effect
as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land under the Land Registration Act, because no title to
registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession

RAMOS VS CA.
FACTS:
On March 14, 1939, Pedro Tolentino, claiming absolute ownership over Lot Nos. 572 and 579 of the
Gattaran cadastre in Lapogan, Gattaran, Cagayan, separately sold said lots to petitioners, the spouses Bernardino Ramos and
Rosalia Oli, in consideration of the amount of eighty pesos (P80.00) for each sale. The aforesaid conveyances were allegedly
evidenced by two documents both entitled Escritura de Compra Venta and acknowledged before a notary public. Subsequently,
however, petitioners instituted on January 8, 1976 an action for reconveyance with damages alleging that while they were in
open, public, adverse, peaceful and continuous possession of the subject lots in good faith and with just title, for not less
than fifty (50) years, personally and through their predecessors-in-interest, they were surprised to discover in November
1975, that decrees of registration covering Lot Nos. 572 and 579 were already issued on January 7, 1940. Petitioners claimed
instead that they were the ones who acquired prior ownership and possession over the lots to the exclusion of the whole
world. Thus, they concluded that the original certificates of title as well as Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-31698 and T-
31699 obtained by private respondent Rodolfo Bautista who adjudicated unto himself said lots on September 20, 1975, as sole
heir of Lucia Bautista were null and void. On the theory that they already acquired the subject lots by acquisitive prescription,
petitioners demanded their return but private respondents refused to do so, hence, compelling them to file a complaint for
reconveyance with damages. On the other hand, herein private respondents, the spouses Rodolfo Bautista and Felisa Lopez,
likewise claimed absolute ownership of the lots covered by TCT Nos. T-31698 and T-31699. They alleged that while the records
of the Bureau of Lands showed that during the cadastral survey in Gattaran in 1932, Pedro Tolentino was a claimant over lands
in the cadastre, the same was only with respect to Lot No. 1399 which was eventually titled under his name as OCT No.
16110. It just happened that Lot No. 1399 was adjacent to Lot No. 572, a portion of which was occupied by petitioners upon the
tolerance of the original registrant Lucia Bautista. Private respondents maintained that the action for reconveyance filed by
petitioners was tantamount to a reopening of the cadastral proceedings or a collateral attack on the decrees of registration
which cannot be done without violating the rule on conclusiveness of the decree of registration. Moreover, they argued that
since the lots were already under the operation of the Torrens System, acquisitive prescription would no longer be possible.

the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint underscoring the fact that during the cadastral proceedings in 1940,
Bernardino Ramos did not file an answer for the two lots although he was allegedly the claimant and possessor thereof under
the deeds of sale executed by Pedro Tolentino in his favor on March 14, 1939. Since it was only Lucia Bautista who filed an
answer and who appeared to be the lawful claimant in the proceedings, she was therefore issued original certificates of title for
the subject lots. The trial court presumed that everyone was notified about the proceedings inasmuch as cadastral proceedings
are in rem. More notably, within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration on January 9, 1940, Bernardino Ramos
likewise failed to avail of a petition to reopen the proceedings on the ground of fraud as he subsequently alleged in his belated
action for reconveyance. Consequently, when the action for reconveyance was finally filed, more than thirty-six (36) years had
already elapsed and laches had set in. The trial court ruled in this wise:

The settled rule on the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of the title after the expiration of one year
from the entry of the final decree of registration, now bars the plaintiffs from availing this action for reconveyance;
the property in question not having been satisfactorily shown that same was wrongfully titled to in the name of Lucia
Bautista. The defendant Rodolfo Bautista is a possessor with a Torrens title who is not aware of any flaw of his title
which invalidates it, is considered possessor in good faith and his possession does not lose this character except in the
case and from the moment by final judgment of the Court. No action for reconveyance can take place as against a
third party who acquired title over the registered property in good faith and for value. Defendant Rodolfo Bautista
fittingly steps into the shoes of an innocent third person

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the heir of the original registrant of parcels of land under the Torrens System, be deprived of
ownership by alleged claimants thereof through acquisitive prescription?
HELD:
the supposed agreement embodied in the two documents bound only the parties thereto, namely Pedro Tolentino
and the petitioners, because the latter failed to prove that these were later registered as to operate against the whole
world. They could not have bound third persons like Lucia Bautista because of the basic civil law principle of relativity of
contracts which provides that contracts can only bind the parties who had entered into it, and it cannot favor or prejudice a
third person. This basic principle applies even if the sales were supposedly concluded at a time prior to the operation of the
Torrens system of land registration over the properties involved. When the properties were eventually titled in favor of Lucia
Bautista, the sale between Pedro Tolentino and petitioners could not have affected Lucia Bautista and her successor-in-interest
because according to SEC. 50 of PD. 1529 provides that these contracts affecting the land “shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration
shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land”

Hence, petitioners failure to register the Escritura de Compra Venta resulted in the sale being binding only between
them and the vendor, Pedro Tolentino. Lucia Bautista and her successors-in-interest, being third parties to the sale, could not
have been bound thereby.

Petitioners introduced in evidence documents showing that their successors-in-interest mortgaged the properties.
While only owners of properties have the right to mortgage the same, the papers evidencing the alleged mortgages do not,
however, conform to the formal and substantive requirements therefor. The two alleged mortgage that was handwritten one in
Ilocano and one in English did not sufficiently describe the subject property of the mortgage. There is indeed no way that we
can ever determine if the lands referred to in the mortgage were the lots now in controversy.

Under the circumstances of the case, they would only succeed upon sufficient evidence to support their allegation
that fraud attended the registration of the property in Lucia Bautistas name. As it is, however, petitioners failed to present
evidence on the matter thereby leaving their claim barren.

In contrast, private respondent Rodolfo Bautistas claim to the properties registered under the Torrens system
which he traces to his aunt, Lucia Bautista, appears incontrovertible. Under the Cadastral Act, the original certificates of title
issued to the original registrant, shall have the same effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of
land under the Land Registration Act, because no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Pedro Tolentino and petitioners, as the formers alleged successors-in-
interest, have therefore no valid claim of ownership over the property, particularly since petitioners simply failed to
substantiate the nature and extent of Tolentinos rights and interests over the lots. Such being the case, the conveyances in
their favor were void as the subject properties were lawfully owned by another person. Petitioners argument would only be
tenable upon proof that the property was acquired through mistake or fraud. As earlier observed, however, petitioners claim
of fraud was never substantiated and, hence, it has remained a groundless charge. Consequently, petitioners claim of
imprescriptibility of the action for reconveyance is baseless.

Under the law, an action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud prescribes in four (4) years from the
discovery of the fraud. Discovery of the fraud must be deemed to have taken place when Lucia Bautista was issued OCT Nos.
178111 and 17812 because registration of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons and it shall be
counted from the time of such registering, filing or entering. An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten
(10) years. This means that petitioners should have enforced the trust within ten (10) years from the time of its creation or
upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property. But as it is, petitioners failed to avail of any of the aforementioned
remedies within the prescribed periods. With no remedy in view, their claims should forever be foreclosed.