This is an appeal certified by the Court of Appeals for the reason  that it involves  only questions  of  law.

Alleging and claiming that the parcel of land described in  the complaint belonged to  Hipolito Rosario, their deceased father,  who  entrusted to  Partenio Rosario,  the deceased father of the defendants, the care  (management) of the parcel of land and that the latter, taking advantage of the confidence and  truat reposed in  him by the former, registered the  parcel  of land  in his  name,  the plaintiffs seek the reconveyance of the  parcel  of land, accounting of  the fruits of  the  land since 1915,  and  the payment of costs.   This case is docketed in the court below as civil case No. 12238.

The defendants moved for  the  dismissal of the  complaint on the  ground that  the action  is  barred by the statute of  limitations.

The Court dismissed the complaint  and the reasons for its  action are set out in the order which reads, as follows:

In these two pases which  are related with  one another, a  motion to dismiss under  date of September 5,  1952, has  been filed by Attys.  Abenojar & Sevidal  in Civil Case No.  12238 which is for reconveyance of property on the ground that the cause of action is barred  by  the statute of  limitations, to which  an opposition has been interposed by plaintiffs' attorney under date of September 9, 1952.

The  complaint  in  this  case  recites that one  Hipolito Rosario, deceased father of the plaintiffs,  was the owner  of  that  parcel of land,  Lot  101 of the Urdaneta Cadastre together with  the improvements  thereon, during his  lifetime;  that  in 1915 he  appointed one Partenio Rosario, defendants' father,  trustee and encargado of said land but said  trustee  registered the  same  land in his own name without the knowledge and  consent  of his principal, Hipolito Rosario; that said lot is now  in the name  of  the defendants, the sons of the ]ate Partenio Rosario,  under Transfer Certificate of Title  No. 6306 of the  Register  of Deeds  of  Pangasinan, and that finally  that  said land  has  not  passed to third persons as buyers in good faith.

The motion to dismiss states, among  others, that even granting arguendo that there really  was a trust created between Hipolito Rosario and Partenio Rosario, reconveyance of the property covered by the said title could no longer  be  had this  time considering  the time that has elapsed since  then.  The plaintiffs contend  otherwise.

A careful perusal of the  records  of these cases  shows that  the land  has been originally  registered  in the  name  of Fartenio  Rosario, deceased father  of  defendants, on  August 28, 1917  (Exhibit 1);  that on  November  11,  1919 said  land  has  been  mortgaged with  the  Philippine  National Rank;  on February 26,  1923,  it  has been  sold under pacto de retro to Librada Villarin who consolidated her dominion  thereon May 3, 1923, and to whom transfer certificate of title  No. 1742  (Exhibit  2)   was  issued;  on  September 2, 1925 said  Librada Villarin sold  the same land  to Geminiano Yillarin (Exhibit  3) who on May 18,  1926  secured transfer certificate of title  No.  2906 (Exhibit 4); that  said  Geminiano Villarin sold  the same lot  on January 14, 1919 to Florentino J.  Rosario and Amador Eosario  (Exhibit  5), the  defendants  herein, who secured Transfer Certificate  of  Title  No.  6306  in their  names  on  June 11, 1949 (Exhibit  6).  All these exhibits, are found  in the record of Civil Case. No. 11091.

It  is very  evident that since the land was  registered in 1917 in the name  of  Partenio  Rosario several transactions had  already been  made  regarding the  land  in question, the first being a mortgage, then a pacto  de retro  sale, followed by a  definite  sale to Geminiano  Villarin  and finally to  the defendants  herein.  Under this setup, even granting that there was a  breach of  trust,  reconveyance of the land in question could no longer be made because the  land has already  passed   to innocent  purchasers  for  value, the last vendees being the  defendants herein  who  happened to be the children  of  the  original  registered  owner.  The  law  on  the matter  is  clear.  Once^a  registered  land has  been  alienated to an innocent purchaser for value, the same may no longer be  reconveyed even  if the land has been registered  fraudulently.

In  this  case, the defendants derived  their  title  from one  Geminiano  Villarin who is not even  a  remote relative  of the original registered owner much less  the defendants.  They,  therefore, could be no other than purchasers in  good faith.  To  allow reconveyance under these  circumstances would be to undo all the various transactions that affected the land in question.  This would  necessarily lead to chaos and confusion.

Another  point to  consider is  the  date when the various  trans- actions were  had.   The mortgage  with the  bank  was  in  1919 the Kale to Librada Villarin  in 1923;  the sale to Geminiano Villarin in 1926 and the sale to the defendants in 1949 the date of one transaction to  that .of another precludes the  possibility that the conveyance was  simulated  or fictitious.  It would  be  a strain to the imagination to consider  it otherwise.

In view  of the foregoing, the court  hereby  sustains defendants' motion to dismiss, and consequently Civil Case No. 12238 is hereby  dismissed  without pronouncement as  to costs. Three  motions for reconsideration were denied.

Under  a  liberal construction, the facts  alleged in the complaint of the  appellants,  except  paragraph  7 which is a  conclusion,  might  be  deemed  sufficient to support the  prayer  for reconveyance,  but the allegation in paragraph 4  of  the complaint where the appellants  state  that in  1915  their deceased  father  in his  lifetime   entrusted the  management  of the  parcel of land  to the late father of  the appellees  who registered it in  his name without the  consent of his principal, and  the  prayer for accounting of the produce of the parcel  of land  since 1915, justify the  motion  to dismiss on  the ground of prescription.  .

The  appellees  state in their brief  that

It  should likewise be  borne in mind  that these two  cases,  Civil Cases  Nos. 11091 and  12238 for recovery  of  possession  and for reconveyance,  respectively, are  related  with one another, so that the  lower court, upon the suggestion of  both  parties, has deemed it expedient and necessary to determine them  jointly.

When our motion  to dismiss was  argued  orally,  the parties had reiterated  their  agreement  that  in  considering said  motion,  the court should also take judicial notice  of the record  of another case (Civil  Case No. 11091). * * * .  (Pp.  6-7.)

The appellants' answer  to  this  statement is

The  appellees  reiterated  that, the documents  attached to  Civil Case No. 11091 (page 7 of Appellees' Brief), by agreement of the parties, are to be considered  by the Court,  and  the  Court  took judicial notice of the same.  This is not true by the  records  of the  case, as appellants have denied the due execution  and authenticity of .each and every document. attached  or  appended to defendants' (appellees herein) answer, namely, Exhibit T, Exhibit  '2' Exhibit '3', Exhibit  '4', Exhibit  '5'  and  Exhibit '61,  (Page 3, REPLY TO  AMENDED ANSWER dated  August 30, 1951, Civil Case  No. 11091; pages 11 and 12, APPELLANTS' brief).  Pp. 1-2 Memorandum for the Appellants.

Denying the genuineness and  due execution  of  documents  attached to the appellees' answer  in the action for recovery of possession of the parcel of land does not  bring the appellants' case under  section 8,  Rule 15, because it refers  to documents  upon which  the  action  is based and not to  documents attached to the answer of the  appellees in support of the allegation that in 1917  the parcel  of land was registered under  Act No. 496, that it was conveyed  successively to several  persons, and that for that reason  the action  for recovery of possession of the parcel of land  is  barred  by the statute  of  limitations.  The fact that the appellees are the  children  of the alleged trustee who, after several conveyances  of  the parcel  of land to other parties, became  the owners  of or  acquired the parcel of land, does  not render them liable for the acts  of their father nor did they  assume upon acquiring the parcel of land the alleged obligation of their father as trustee.  The  action for  reconveyance is an equitable remedy available  only  when the  parcel  of  land  wrongly registered under  the Torrens system in the  name of one who  is not the owner has  not passed into the hands  of an innocent  purchaser for value.

The  order appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as  to costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A,,  Bautista Angelo,  Labrador, Conception, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.