LAND TITLE AND DEEDS Hence, petitioners filed another motion for the issuance

ATTY. QUIBO of an alias writ of execution. The motion was granted by

the trial court. Unfortunately, the sheriff's return dated
THE TORRENS SYSTEM 4 November 1996 showed that the alias writ was
unsatisfied because the subject property was already
#7 transferred and sold by respondent-spouses Dizons to
DELFIN VOLUNTAD, ET. AL VS SPS MAGTAGGOL & another person, referring to respondent-spouses
DIZON, AND SPS. REYES Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes.
GR NO. 132294, AUGUST 26, 1999
Ponente: BELLOSILLO, J. Petitioners filed a Motion for Second Alias Writ of
Execution claiming, inter alia, that a notice of lis
FACTS: pendens had been annotated in the title with the filing
of Civil Case No. 142-M-93 and the order directing the
On 15 February 1993 petitioners filed a petition for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens had been set
mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, aside by the Court of Appeals and respondents Vicenta
Bulacan, to direct respondent-spouses Magtanggol and Eugenio Reyes were transferees pendente lite when
Dizon and Corazon Dizon to render a true and correct respondent-spouses Dizon sold and transferred to them
accounting of the financial obligation of petitioners. It the property subject of a pending litigation. The trial
appears that on 12 July 1980 petitioners obtained a loan court issued an order denying petitioners motion for
from the Rural Bank of Pandi secured by a mortgage second alias writ of execution.
over one-half of a parcel of land formerly owned by
petitioners and covered by TCT No. 25073 (T-7456-M) Issue:
of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan. 1. Whether the CA erred in not ordering the
Regional Trial Court to issue an alias writ of
For failure of petitioners to pay the loan, the execution against respondents Eugenio and
Rural Bank of Pandi foreclosed the mortgage and the Vicenta Reyes as successors-in-interest and
property was sold at public auction with transferees pendente lite of respondents
the Bank becoming the highest bidder. Magtanggol and Corazon Dizon.
More than three (3) months after the 2. Whether the CA erred in concluding that
certificates of sheriff's sale were respondent-spouses Reyes are buyers in good
registered, the mortgagee-vendee Bank, faith despite existence of circumstances that
without the knowledge of petitioners, assigned should have alerted them to investigate beyond
its rights over the p r o p e r t y t o r e s p o n d e n t - the face of the certificate of title but did not.
s p o u s e s M a g t a n g g o l a n d Corazon Dizon. In
their petition with the trial court, petitioners Held:
prayed to be allowed to exercise their right of The SC gave due course to the petition but only insofar
redemption over the subject property. as respondent-spouses Reyes were concerned, but
denied the petition as against respondent-spouses
The Dizons then filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the Dizon for failure of petitioners to give the correct and
petition and to strike out the notice of lis pendens. Trial present address of said respondents.
court issued an order dismissing the case on the ground
of res judicata and granting the motion to strike out the Pendency of Civil Case No. 142-M-93 with the trial
notice of lis pendens "there is no longer need for such court, petitioners caused the annotation of a notice of
annotation on the title of the subject property with the lis pendens on TCT covering the subject property; that
dismissal of the case." pursuant to the order of the trial court the Register of
Deeds cancelled the previous annotation of lis pendens.
Upon denial of the motion for reconsideration, The following inscriptions appear in TCT:
petitioners went to the Court of Appeals questioning Entry No. 74364(M): Lis Pendens in favor of Delfin
the order of the trial court cancelling the lis pendens R. Voluntad - An action has been commenced and
and dismissing the petition. The appellate court is now pending in RTC of Bulacan Branch.
rendered a decision setting aside the order of the trial
court which dismissed the complaint and remanded the From the attendant circumstances, it is crystal clear that
case to the court a quo for further proceedings. an examination of the certificate of title and the
annotations therein would disclose that a civil action
On 8 December 1995 the trial court rendered a decision was filed with the trial court involving the property
in favor of petitioners. After the judgment had become described in the title. The annotation in the title that
final and executory, the trial court issued an order the property was involved in a suit should have
directing the issuance of a writ of execution. On 21 prompted the prudent purchaser to inquire and verify if
February 1995 a writ of execution was issued which was the suit was finally terminated and the property freed
however returned unsatisfied for the reason that the from any legal infirmity or judicial inquiry.
property was already sold to respondent-spouses
Eugenio and Vicenta Reyes. Although the notice of lis pendens was cancelled
pursuant to the order of the trial court dismissing the
civil action, the cancellation effected after barely 4 days
was premature because the court order was not yet respondent- spouses Reyes need not alter our
final, as petitioners still had the remaining period of 11 conclusion as the cancellation was prematurely done
days to appeal the order. In fact, a mere inquiry with while the appeal in the case between petitioners and
the trial court which issued the order of dismissal respondent-spouses Dizon was still pending with the
and the cancellation of the lis pendens would reveal appellate court.
that petitioners timely appealed the dismissal to the
Court of Appeals. Having purchased registered land with full notice of the
fact that it is in litigation between the vendor and a
The general rule is that a person dealing with registered third party, respondent-spouses Reyes stand in the
land has a right to rely on the Torrens place of their vendor and their title is subject to the
Certificate of Title without the need of inquiring further. incidents and results of the pending litigation. Ought to
But this rule cannot apply when the party has actual have been aware of the pendency of the case,
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel respondent-spouses Reyes should have intervened in
a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or the suit for the protection of their alleged rights. Having
when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or lack failed to do so, they are bound by the results.
of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of A transferee pendente lite stands exactly in the shoes
the title of the property in litigation. of the transferor and is bound by any judgment or
decree which may be rendered for or against the
Hence, when there is something in the certificate of transferor. Petitioners can legally enforce the final
title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of judgment of the trial court against respondent-spouses
the property or any encumbrance thereon, the Eugenio and
purchaser is required to explore further than what the Vicenta Reyes with respect to the petitioners' right to
Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any repurchase the property from the Reyeses as
hidden defect or inchoate right which may subsequently transferees pendente lite of respondent-spouses
defeat his right thereto. Magtanggol and Corazon Dizon.

As a purchaser, respondent-spouses Reyes should have #8

examined the certificate of title and all factual SPOUSES DOMINADOR PERALTA AND OFELIA
circumstances necessary for them to determine PERALTA, Petitioners,
whether or not flaws existed which might invalidate vs.
their title. It is a settled rule that a purchaser of real HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON, represented by
estate with knowledge of any defect or lack of title of MANSUETO ABALON, Respondents.
the vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title GR NO. 183448, JUNE 30, 2014
thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the Ponente: SERENO, CJ.
land or interest therein.
FACTS:
The same rule applies to one with knowledge of facts The instant case before the RTC Legazpi City involved a
which should have put him on inquiry and investigation parcel of land described as Lot 1679 consisting of 8,571
as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects square meters covered by OCT No. (O) 16 and
in the title of his vendor. If circumstances exist that registered under the name of Bernardina Abalon. It was
require a prudent man to investigate and he does not, fraudulently transferred to Restituto Rellama by
he is deemed to have acted in mala fide. A party’s mere executing a Deed of Sale and who, in turn, subdivided
refusal to believe that a defect exists or his willful the subject property and sold it separately to the other
closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a parties - Spouses Dominador and Ofelia Peralta (TCT No.
defect in his vendor’s title will not make him an 42252); and Marissa, Leonil and Arnel, all surnamed
innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards develops Andal (TCT No. 42482 and TCT No. 42821). Thereafter,
that the title was in fact defective. Spouses Peralta and the Andals individually registered
the respective portions of the land they had bought
Similarly, a buyer of registered land who fails to act with under their names. The heirs of Bernardina were
the diligence of a prudent man cannot be a purchaser in claiming back the land, alleging that since it was sold
good faith. Therefore, given the facts of this case which under fraudulent circumstances, no valid title passed to
are clearly set forth in the records and established by the buyers. On the other hand, the buyers, who were
the evidence, there is no need for petitioners to file a now title holders of the subject parcel of land, averred
separate action to enforce their right to repurchase the that they were buyers in good faith and sought the
property as against the new registered owners. protection accorded to them under the law.

In Lising v. Plan, this Court ruled that a writ of execution Issue:

may be issued against a person not a party to the case Whether a forged instrument may become the root of a
where the latter’s remedy which he did not avail of was valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for
to intervene in the case involving rights over the same value, even if the true owner thereof has been in
parcel of land of which he claims to be the vendee. The possession of the genuine title, which is valid and has
cancellation of the lis pendens on the title of not been cancelled.
respondent- spouses Dizon prior to the purchase by the
Held: denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the
Yes. innocent purchaser for value. Thus, the qualifying point
It is well-settled that "a certificate of title serves as here is that there must be a complete chain of
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to registered titles. This means that all the transfers
the property in favor of the person whose name starting from the original rightful owner to the innocent
appears therein. The real purpose of the Torrens system holder for value – and that includes the transfer to the
of land registration is to quiet title to land and put a forger – must be duly registered, and the title must be
stop forever to any question as to the legality of the properly issued to the transferee. Contrary to what the
title." Abalons would like to impress on us, Fule and Torres do
not present clashing views. In Fule, the original owner
The Torrens system was intended to guarantee the relinquished physical possession of her title and thus
integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of enabled the perpetrator to commit the fraud, which
registration, but the system cannot be used for the resulted in the cancellation of her title and the issuance
perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the of a new one. The forged instrument eventually
registered land. It is well-established in our laws and became the root of a valid title in the hands of an
jurisprudence that a person who is dealing with a innocent purchaser for value. The new title under the
registered parcel of land need not go beyond the face of name of the forger was registered and relied upon by
the title. A person is only charged with notice of the the innocent purchaser for value. Hence, it was clear
burdens and claims that are annotated on the title. Any that there was a complete chain of registered titles.
buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens
certificate of title, in the absence of any suspicion, is not In the instant case, there is no evidence that the chain
obligated to look beyond the certificate to investigate of registered titles was broken in the case of the Andals.
the titles of the seller appearing on the face of the Neither were they proven to have knowledge of
certificate. And, he is charged with notice only of such anything that would make them suspicious of the
burdens and claims as are annotated on the title. nature of Rellama’s ownership over the subject parcel
of land. Hence, we sustain the CA’s ruling that the
The determination whether one is a buyer in good faith Andals were buyers in good faith. Consequently, the
or can be considered an innocent purchaser for value validity of their title to the parcel of the land bought
becomes imperative. Section 55 of the Land from Rellama must be upheld.
Registration Act provides protection to an innocent
purchaser for value by allowing him to retain the parcel #9
of land bought and his title is considered valid. ISLAMIC DIRECTORATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANUEL
Otherwise, the title would be cancelled and the original F. PEREA and SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
owner of the parcel of land is allowed to repossess it. petitioners,
vs.
Jurisprudence has defined an innocent purchaser for COURT OF APPEALS and IGLESIA NI CRISTO,
value as one who buys the property of another without respondents.
notice that some other person has a right to or interest GR NO. 117897, MAY 14, 1997
therein and who then pays a full and fair price for it at Ponente: HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.
the time of the purchase or before receiving a notice of
the claim or interest of some other persons in the FACTS:
property. Buyers in good faith buy a property with the 1971, the ISLAMIC DIRECTORATE OF THE PHILIPPINES
belief that the person from whom they receive the ("IDP") was incorporated with the primary purpose of
thing is the owner who can convey title to the property. establishing a mosque, school, and other religious
Such buyers do not close their eyes to facts that should infrastructures in Quezon City.
put a reasonable person on guard and still claim that
they are acting in good faith. IDP purchased a 49,652-square meter lot in Tandang
Sora, QC, which was covered by TCT Nos. RT-26520
The assailed Decision of the CA held that the Andals (176616) and RT-26521 (170567).
were buyers in good faith, while Spouses Peralta were
not. Despite its determination that fraud marred the When President Marcos declared martial law in 1972,
sale between Bernardina Abalon and Rellama, a most of the members of the 1971 Board of Trustees
fraudulent or forged document of sale may still give rise ("Tamano Group") flew to the Middle East to escape
to a valid title. The appellate court reasoned that if the political persecution.
certificate of title had already been transferred from the
name of the true owner to that which was indicated by Thereafter, two contending groups claiming to be the
the forger and remained as such, the land is considered IDP Board of Trustees sprung: the Carpizo group and
to have been subsequently sold to an innocent Abbas group.
purchaser, whose title is thus considered valid.25 The CA
concluded that this was the case for the Andals. In a suit between the two groups, SEC rendered a
decision in 1986 declaring both groups to be null and
The established rule is that a forged deed is generally void. SEC recommeded that the a new by-laws be
null and cannot convey title, the exception thereto, approved and a new election be conducted upon the
pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration Act,
approval of the by-laws. However, the SEC no valid contract.
recommendation was not heeded.
In this case, the IDP, never gave its consent,
through a legitimate Board of Trustees, to the
In 1989, the Carpizo group passed a Board Resolution disputed Deed of Absolute Sale executed in
authorizing the sale of the land to Iglesia Ni Cristo favor of INC. Therefore, this is a case not only of
("INC"), and a Deed of Sale was eventually executed. vitiated consent, but one where consent on the
part of one of the supposed contracting parties
In 1991, the Tamano Group filed a petition before the is totally wanting. Ineluctably, the subject sale is
void and produces no effect whatsoever.
SEC questioning the sale.
Further, the Carpizo group failed to comply with
Meanwhile, INC filed a suit for specific performance Section 40 of the Corporation Code, which
before RTC Branch 81 against the Carpizo group. INC provides that: " ... a corporation may, by a
also moved to compel a certain Leticia Ligon (who is majority vote of its board of directors or trustees,
apparently the mortgagee of the lot) to surrender the sell, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or
otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its
title.
property and assets... when authorized by the
vote of the stockholders representing at least
The Tamano group sought to intervene, but the two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock;
intervention was denied despite being informed of the or in case of non-stock corporation, by the vote
pending SEC case. In 1992, the Court subsequently ruled of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members, in a
that the INC as the rightful owner of the land, and stockholders' or members' meeting duly called
for the purpose...."
ordered Ligon to surrender the titles for annotation.
Ligon appealed to CA and SC, but her appeals were The subject lot constitutes the only property of
denied. IDP. Hence, its sale to a third-party is a sale or
disposition of all the corporate property and
In 1993, the SEC ruled that the sale was null and void . assets of IDP. For the sale to be valid, the
On appeal CA reversed the SEC ruling. majority vote of the legitimate Board of Trustees,
concurred in by the vote of at least 2/3 of the
bona fide members of the corporation should
Issue: have been obtained. These twin requirements
1. Who between Ligon and INC has the better were not met in the case at bar.
right of possession over the owner's duplicate
copy of the TCTs covering the IDP property? 3. No, the Court observes that the INC bought the
(SIDE ISSUE) questioned property from the Carpizo Group
2. W/N the sale between the Carpizo group and without even seeing the owner's duplicate copy
INC is null and void. of the titles covering the property. This is very
3. Whether the INC observed the minimum strange considering that the subject lot is a
requirement for one to be a good faith buyer. large piece of real property in Quezon City
worth millions, and that under the Torrens
Held: System of Registration, the minimum
1. Pending the petition declaring the nullity of the requirement for one to be a good faith buyer
sale, the Supreme Court rendered judgment in for value is that the vendee at least sees the
G.R. No. 107751 on the petition filed by Mrs. owner's duplicate copy of the title and relies
Leticia P. Ligon. The Decision, dated June 1, upon the same. The private respondent,
1995, denied the Ligon petition and affirmed presumably knowledgeable on the aforesaid
the October 28, 1992 Decision of the Court of workings of the Torrens System, did not take
Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-27973 which heed of this and nevertheless went through
sustained the Order of Judge Reyes compelling with the sale with undue haste. The
mortgagee Ligon to surrender the owner's unexplained eagerness of INC to buy this
duplicate copies of TCT Nos. RT-26521 (170567) valuable piece of land in Quezon City without
and RT-26520 (176616) to the Register of Deeds even being presented with the owner's copy of
of Quezon City so that the Deed of Absolute the titles casts very serious doubt on the
Sale in INC's favor may be properly registered. rightfulness of its position as vendee in the
transaction.
The disposition in G.R. No. 107751 entitled,
"Ligon v. Court of Appeals," promulgated on Decision:
June 1, 1995, in no wise constitutes res judicata The Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ordered
such that the petition under consideration to cancel the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale
would be barred if it were the ease. Quite the in the name of respondent Iglesia Ni Cristo, if one has
contrary, the requisites or res judicata do not already been made. If new titles have been issued in the
obtain in the case at bench. name of Iglesia Ni Cristo, the Register of Deeds is
hereby ordered to cancel the same, and issue new ones
2. YES, since the SEC has declared the Carpizo in the name of petitioner Islamic Directorate of the
group as a void Board of Trustees, the sale it Philippines. Petitioner corporation is ordered to return
entered into with INC is likewise void. Without a to private respondent whatever amount has been
valid consent of a contracting party, there can be
initially paid by INC as consideration for the property
with legal interest, if the same was actually received by attack the validity of respondent’s OCT OP-1840
IDP. Otherwise, INC may run after Engineer Farouk on the ground that it was secured by fraud and
Carpizo and his group for the amount of money paid. misrepresentation. [NO]
4. WON petitioner has other remedy. [YES]
#13 [Petitioner can institute and action for specific
THIRD DIVISION performance, or an action for reconveyance, or
JOSEPHINE WEE, Petitioner, vs. an action for rescission]
FELICIDAD MARDO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202414, June 4, 2014 Ruling:
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J. The Petition is DENIED.
1.)Based on the legal paramaters, applicants for
CIVIL LAW: registration of title registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently
FACTS: establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the
Respondent FelicidadMardo was granted a registered disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2)
Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284, dated April 26, 1979, that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have
covering the Lot No. 8348, situated in Putting Kahoy, been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
Silang, Cavite. possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to 1945 or earlier. Republic v. Manimtim, G.R. No. 169599,
petitioner Josephine Wee, through a Deed of Absolute March 16, 2011
Sale a portion of the said lot known as Lot No. 8348-B,
for a consideration of P250,000.00 which was fully paid. The CA denied the application on the issue of open,
Respondent however refused to vacate and turnover continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
the subject property claiming that the alleged sale was occupation of the subject land. It was of the view that
falsified. she could not have complied with the requirement of
possession and occupation under Section 14(1) of P.D.
Petitioner file an Application for Original Registration of No. 1529 considering that she admitted that it was not
a parcel of land claiming that she is the owner of said physically turned over to her.
unregistered land by virtue of a deed of absolute sale.
A more important consideration, however, is that the
Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss the application subject land is already registered under OCT No. OP-
alleging that the land described in the application was 1840 (Patent No. 042118-03-6111) of the Registry of
different from the land being claimed for titling. The Deeds of Cavite, under the name of respondent
motion was however, denied. A motion for Felicidad Mardo.It is equivalent to a Torrens title thus
reconsideration and second urgent motion for cannot be attacked collaterally or indirectly by
reconsideration were subsequently filed by respondent, instituting another registration proceeding.
but both were denied by the RTC. =================
Parties’ Arguments:
Upon presentation of evidence by the parties, the RTC Petitioner presents the theory that she must be
granted the application of the petitioner. Respondent deemed to have been in possession and occupation of
filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the subject property through respondent, her
the RTC, hence, respondent appealed to the CA. predecessor-in-interest, who after the sale in 1993 and
despite demands from her, unexpectedly and
The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able unjustifiably continued to occupy the property and
to comply with the requirement of possession and refused to turn over physical possession to her.
occupation under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. Her Petitioner argues that it is not necessary that the person
admission that the subject lot was not physically turned in possession should himself be the occupant as the
over to her due to some objections and oppositions to occupancy can be held by another in his name.
her title suggested that she was not exercising any acts Moreover, petitioner also seeks reconveyance of the
of dominion over the subject property, an essential subject property arguing that by virtue of its fraudulent
element in the requirement and occupation registration, respondent became a trustee of an implied
contemplated under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529. trust for her benefit, as its real owner, having validly
acquired the same from respondent through an
Hence, this petition. absolute deed of sale.

ISSUES: 2.)P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration

1. Whether Petitioner is entitled to the subject Decree, governs the original registration proceedings of
property. [NO] unregistered land. The subject application for original
2. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to registration was filed pursuant to Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529,
order the registration of land already decreed in which provides the condition necessary for registration.
the name of another [OCT OP-1840] in an Thus:
earlier land registration case. [NO] SEC 14. Who may apply.—The following persons may
3. Whether or not petitioner, in her Application file in the proper Court of First Instance an application
and subsequent proceedings, can collaterally
for registration of title to land, whether personally or another in an earlier land registration case. A second
through their duly authorized representatives: decree for the same land would be null and void, since
(1) Those who by themselves or through their the principle behind the original registration is to
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, register a parcel of land only once.
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of Verily, once a title is registered, as a consequence either
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain of judicial or administrative proceedings, the owner
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
1945, or earlier.(Emphasis supplied) portals of the court sitting in the mirador de su casa to
Based on these legal parameters, applicants for avoid the possibility of losing his land.8 The certificate
registration of title under Section 14(1) must sufficiently of title cannot be defeated by adverse, open and
establish: (1) that the subject land forms part of the notorious possession. Neither can it be defeated by
disposable and alienable lands of the public domain; (2) prescription. As provided under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, no
that the applicant and his predecessors-in-interest have title to registered land in derogation of the title of the
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
possession and occupation of the same; and (3) that it is adverse possession.
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 3.)A Certificate of Title Not Subject to Collateral Attack
1945 or earlier.4 Petitioner argued that the rule on indefeasibility of title
The CA denied the application on the issue of open, does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and misrepresentation. In this case, she alleged that the
occupation of the subject land. It was of the view that respondent fraudulently registered the subject property
she could not have complied with the requirement of under her name after she (respondent) had already sold
possession and occupation under Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No. a portion thereof to her (petitioner). By virtue of the
1529 considering that she had admitted that it was not deed of sale, petitioner insists that she is considered to
physically turned over to her. As she was not in actual be the real owner of the subject parcel of land.
and physical possession, she could not have exercised The Court finds no merit in petitioner’s argument. It is
any acts of dominion over the subject property which settled in this jurisdiction that the issue of the validity of
was essential to the requirement of possession and title can only be assailed in an action expressly
occupation contemplated under Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No. instituted for such purpose. A certificate of title cannot
1529. be attacked collaterally.
A more important consideration, however, is that the
subject land is already registered under OCT No. OP- This rule is provided under Section 48 of PD 1529 which
1840 (Patent No. 042118-03-6111) of the Registry of states that:
Deeds of Cavite, under the name of respondent SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. ― A
Felicidad Gonzales. certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
In the case of Republic vs. Umali,5 this Court ruled that attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled
once a patent is registered and the corresponding except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of (Emphasis supplied)
public domain and becomes private property over In Lagrosa v. Court of Appeals,10 it was stated that it is
which the Director of Lands has neither control nor a well-known doctrine that the issue as to whether title
jurisdiction. A public land patent, when registered in the was procured by falsification or fraud as advanced by
corresponding Register of Deeds, is a veritable Torrens petitioner can only be raised in an action expressly
title, and becomes as indefeasible upon the expiration instituted for the purpose. A Torrens title can be
of one (1) year from the date of issuance thereof. Said attacked only for fraud, within one year after the date
title, like one issued pursuant to a judicial decree, is of the issuance of the decree of registration. Such attack
subject to review within one (1) year from the date of must be direct, and not by a collateral proceeding. The
the issuance of the patent. This rule is embodied in title represented by the certificate cannot be changed,
Section 103 of PD 1529, which provides that: altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. – proceeding.
Whenever public land is by the Government alienated, In this case, the petitioner is contesting the
granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be indefeasibility of title on the ground of fraud and
brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. x misrepresentation. Applying the abovementioned
x x After due registration and issuance of the certificate doctrine, even assuming that the petitioner’s
of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land allegations are true, the same are considered as
to all intents and purposes under this Decree. (Emphasis collateral attacks, and such must be raised in an action
supplied) expressly instituted for such purpose and in a proper
Accordingly, respondent’s registered patent in the proceeding.
corresponding Registry of Deeds is a veritable Torrens Thus, in Carvajal v. Court of Appeals,11 it was ruled that
title and becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title upon an application for registration of an already titled land
the expiration of one (1) year from the date of its constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title. The
issuance. For said reason, the order of the RTC directing title may be challenged only in a proceeding for that
the Administrator of LRA to issue a corresponding purpose, not in an application for registration of a land
decree in petitioner’s name is null and void. A land already registered in the name of another person. After
registration court has no jurisdiction to order the one year from its registration, the title is
registration of land already decreed in the name of incontrovertible and is no longer open to review.
III. Remedy of the petitioner is to file a separate action for rescission. Needless to state, petitioner must
proceeding such as an action for specific performance prove her entitlement because the respondent claims
or for reconveyance Petitioner further argues that that the sale was falsified.
considering the registration of the said land under Reconveyance is based on Section 55 of Act No. 496, as
respondent’s name was fraudulently secured, in order amended by Act No. 3322, which states that in all cases
to avoid multiplicity of suits and to put an end to the of registration procured by fraud the owner may pursue
long pending dispute between the parties, the courts all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties
below should have ordered the reconveyance of the to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights
subject land to her as its rightful owner. of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of
Petitioner advances the theory that by virtue of the title.15 It is an action in personam available to a person
fraudulent registration of a subject property, whose property has been wrongfully registered under
respondent is a trustee of an implied trust for her the Torrens system in another's name. It does not seek
benefit, being the real owner of the subject property, as to set aside the decree but, respecting it as
she had validly acquired the same from respondent incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to
through an absolute deed of sale. transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner
Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade. The issue of to the rightful owner. Reconveyance is always available
fraudulent alienation raised in the second application as long as the property has not passed to an innocent
for registration of the subject property is collateral third person for value.
attack which should be directly raised in a separate
proceeding filed for such purpose. It cannot be #14
entertained in this proceeding. In several cases, the PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C. CALWAG, THOMAS L.
Court has ruled that an attack is indirect or collateral TINGGA-AN, and the Heirs of JULIET B. PULKERA,
when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack Petitioners,
on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as vs.
an incident thereof. CARMELING CRISOLOGO, Respondent.
The RTC was, thus, correct in denying petitioner’s G.R. No. 204626, June 9, 2014
"Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading and to
Admit Attached Supplemental Complaint For Facts
Reconveyance." Allowing it would not have been Carmeling Crisologo, represented by her attorney-in-
permissible because the application for original fact, Pedro Isican , filed her complaint for Recovery of
registration of title over a parcel of land already Possession and/or Ownership with Damages against
registered is a collateral attack itself. It is settled that an Juliet B. Pulkera, Paul P. Gabriel, Ireneo C. Calwag, and
application for registration of a parcel of land already Thomas L. Tingga-an (petitioners) before the MTCC.
covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack, Crisologo alleged, among others, that she was the
not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a registered owner of two parcels of and covered by, two
Torrens title. (2) certificates of title; that the properties were covered
Registration, however, does not deprive an aggrieved by an Assessment of Real Property; that the payments
party of a remedy in law. What cannot be collaterally of realty taxes on the said properties were updated;
attacked is the certificate of title and not the title or that sometime in 2006, she discovered that petitioners
ownership which is represented by such certificate. unlawfully entered, occupied her properties by stealth,
Ownership is different from a certificate of title. The by force and without her prior consent and knowledge,
fact that a person was able to secure a title in his name and constructed their houses thereon; that upon
did not operate to vest ownership upon him of the discovery of their illegal occupation, her daughter, Atty.
subject land. Registration of a piece of land under the Carmelita Crisologo, and Isican personally went to the
Torrens System does not create or vest title, because it properties and verbally demanded that petitioners
is not a mode of acquiring ownership. vacate the premises and remove their structures
A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership thereon; that the petitioners begged and promised to
or title over the particular property described therein. It buy the said properties for; that despite several
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true demands they were not able to pay and or vacate.;
owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission On the other hand, petitioners countered that the titles
of fraud: neither does it permit one to enrich himself at of Crisologo were products of Civil Registration Case No.
the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a 1, Record 211, which were declared void by the
particular person does not foreclose the possibility that Supreme Court., that Crisologo failed to comply with
the real prope1iy may be co-owned with persons not the conditions provided in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271 for
named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust the validation of said titles, hence, the titles were void;
for another person by the registered owner. that petitioners had been in open, actual, exclusive,
4.)The remedy of the petitioner is to file a separate notorious, uninterrupted, and continuous possession of
proceeding or action to protect her alleged interest. As the subject land, in good faith.
she claimed that she bought the subject property for On September 15, 2009, the MTCC rendered a decision
value from the respondent as evidenced by a deed of in favor of Crisologo.
sale, she can file an action for specific performance to The MTCC ruled that Crisologo was the registered
compel the respondent to comply with her obligation in owner of the subject parcels of land, who, as such, had
the alleged deed of sale and/or an action for declared these properties for taxation purposes since
reconveyance of the property. She can also file an 1969 and regularly paid the realty taxes thereon. It
stated that with Crisologo being the owner, petitioners forest, military or otherwise, as certified by
were illegally occupying the land, hence appealed was appropriating government agencies; and 2) compliance
made with the RTC which reversed and set aside the by the titleholder with the payment to the Republic of
MTCC ruling. the Philippines of the correct assessed value of the land
Appeal to the CA was made. It held that Crisologo was within the required period.
entitled to the possession of the subject parcels of land. In the case at bench, the records show that the subject
It explained that her possession was established when parcels of land were registered on August 24, 1967. The
she acquired the same by sale sometime in 1967 and titles are, thus, considered valid although subject to the
when the certificates of title covering the properties conditions set. But whether or not Crisologo complied
were subsequently issued. It added that her payment of with the said conditions would not matter because, this
realty taxes due on the said properties since 1969 would be a collateral attack on her registered titles.
further strengthened her claim of possession. At any rate, petitioners, as private individuals, are not
Moreover, her appointment of Isican as administrator the proper parties to question the status of the
of the subject properties and her offer to sell the lots to respondent’s registered titles. The Solicitor General
the petitioners showed that she had control over the shall institute such actions or suits as may be necessary
same. Accordingly, the CA concluded that Crisologo’s to recover possession of lands covered by all void titles
right to remain in possession of the subject lots should not validated under this Decree."
be preferred over the petitioners’ possession regardless The respondent’s certificates of title give her the better
of the actual condition of her titles. Hence, the right to possess the subject parcels of land.
petitioners, who used force in occupying her properties,
should respect, restore and not disturb her lawful #15
possession of the subject parcels of land. Sampaco v. Lantud (2011)
GR. 163551
ISSUE:
Who between petitioners and respondent Crisologo FACTS:
have a better right of possession over the subject Lantud filed with the RTC an action to quiet title with
parcels of land. Both contending parties claim that they damages against Sampaco for forcibly and unlawfully
have a superior possessory right over the disputed entering his property and destroying the improvements
lands. therein in 1984.

HELD: Lantud testified that he acquired the subject lot

The Court holds that Crisologo has a better right of (described in his complaint as residential lot) from his
possession over the subject parcels of land. grandmother. He had been residing on the lot for more
Accion Publiciana: its nature and purpose than 30 years, applied for a title thereto, and was issued
Also known as accion plenaria de posesion, accion an OCT.
publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine
the better right of possession of realty independently of On the other hand, Sampaco testified that the subject
title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the lot is only a portion of a land he inherited from his
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of father in 1952. Since then, he had been in adverse
action or from the unlawful withholding of possession possession and ownership of the lot. He also alleged
of the realty. that Lantud’s OCT was obtained through fraud and
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to misrepresentation considering that Lantud’s free patent
recover possession only, not ownership. When parties, title is issued over a residential lot. Sampaco prayed for
however, raise the issue of ownership, the court may the cancellation of Lantud’s OCT and for the
pass upon the issue to determine who between the reconveyance of the lot.
parties has the right to possess the property. This
adjudication, nonetheless, is not a final and binding The RTC rendered a decision in favor of Sampaco. It
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for declared 1) Lantud’s OCT as null and void and of no
the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where legal effect on the ground that it was tainted with fraud
the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue based on a certification from the Natural Resources
of possession. Office verifying that the data in Lantud’s OCT had no
The nullity of the decrees of registration and certificates record in the office and for the reason that the lot
of titles in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271 is not absolute. described in the Complaint is a residential lot and
Although Section 1 of P.D. No. 127113 invalidated Lantud’s free patent title thereto cannot validly be
decrees of registration and certificates of title within issued (free patents are normally issued for agricultural
the Baguio Town site Reservation Case No. 1, GLRO lands); and 2) Sampaco the absolute owner and
Record No. 211, the nullity, however, is not that possessor of the land on the ground that Lantud failed
sweeping. The said provision expressly states that "all to establish with competent and credible evidence that
certificates of titles issued on or before July 31, he was in prior possession of the lot and no
1973shall be considered valid and the lands covered by corroborative witness was presented to further prove
them shall be deemed to have been conveyed in fee his prior possession, while Sampaco offered
simple to the registered owners" upon 1) showing proof documentary evidence consisting of real estate
that the land covered by the subject title is not within mortgage of the lot, tax declarations, an official tax
any government, public or quasi-public reservation,
receipt, and testimonial evidence that he had been in receipts cannot prevail over a certificate of title, which
OCEN possession of the lot in the concept of an owner. is an incontrovertible (not able to be denied or
disputed) proof of ownership. An original certificate of
The CA reversed the RTC’s judgment. It declared Lantud title issued by the Register of Deeds under an
as the owner of the lot because 1) OCT was not tained administrative proceeding is as indefeasible (not subject
with fraud and misrepresentation; 2) there was no to being lost, annulled, or overturned) as a certificate of
controversy that Lantud is a holder of a Torrens title; 3 title issued under judicial proceedings.
Sampaco failed to show that the disputed property is
part of his larger property; and 4) Sampaco’s 3.NO. Article 434 of the Civil Code governs an action for
counterclaim for the cancellation of Lantud’s OCT and reconveyance, thus:
for reconveyance was filed beyond the statutory one-
year period; hence, Lantud’s title had become Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be
indefeasible. identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of
his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s
ISSUES: claim.
1. Whether the OCT was tainted with fraud and
misrepresentation. Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully
2. Whether Sampaco is the owner of the lot . maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real
3. Whether Sampaco is entitled to reconveyance of property, the person who claims he has a better right to
the lot. it must prove 2 things: first, the identity of the land
4. Whether Sampaco’s counterclaim for the claimed; second, his title thereto.
annulment of title and reconveyance of the lot has
not prescribed. In regard to the first requisite, in an accion
5. Whether Sampaco’s counterclaim was a collateral reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a
attack on Lantud’s title. better right to the property must first fix the identity of
the land he is claiming by describing the location, area,
RULING: and boundaries thereof.
1. NO. The certification from the Natural Resources
Office certifying that the data contained in Lantud’s OCT In this case, Sampaco claims that the property in
had no records in the said office is, by itself, insufficient dispute is part of his larger property. However, he failed
to prove the alleged fraud. Fraud and to identify his larger property by providing evidence of
misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent the metes and bounds thereof, so that the same may be
and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but compared with technical description contained in
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere Lantud’s title, which would have shown whether the
preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud disputed property really formed part of his larger
is question of fact that must be proved. The signatory of property.
the certification was not presented in court to testify on
the fact of fraud, if any. Hence, Lantud’s Torrens title is In regard to the second requisite of title to property,
a valid evidence of his ownership of the land in dispute. both Lantud and Sampaco separately claim they are
entitled to ownership of the property by virtue of OCEN
The allegation in the Complaint that the land is possession of the land in the concept of an owner.
residential was made only by Lantud, but the true
classification of the disputed land as residential was not Lantud has an OCT to prove his title to the subject
shown to have been made by the President, upon property, while Sampaco merely claims that the
recommendation by the Secretary of Environment and property is already private land by virtue of his OCEN
Natural Resources pursuant to the Public Land Act (CA possession of the land in the concept of an owner.
141). Hence, the trial court erred in concluding that
there was fraud in the issuance of Lantud’s free patent Sampaco failed to prove the requisities of reconveyance
title on the ground that it covered residential land as he failed to prove the identity of his larger property
based only on the Complaint, which stated that the in relation the disputed property, and his claim of title
property was residential land when it was not shown by virtue of OCEN possession of the disputed property
that it was the President who classified the disputed in the concept of an owner is nebulous (vague or ill-
property as residential. The OCT itself stated that the defined) in the light of a similar claim by Lantud who
free patent title covered agricultural land. holds a free patent title over the subject property.

It has been stated that at present, not only agricultural 4. NO. In Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano
lands, but also residential lands, have been made E. Santiago, the Court ruled that the one-year
available by recent legislation for acquisition by free prescriptive period does not apply when the person
patent by any natural born Filipino citizen. seeking annulment of title or reconveyance is in
possession of the lot. This is because the action
2. NO. The Torrens title is conclusive evidence with partakes of a suit to quiet title, which is imprescriptible.
respect to ownership of the land described therein, and A person in actual possession of a piece of land under
other matters, which can be litigated and decided in claim of ownership may wait until his possession is
land registration proceedings. Tax declarations and tax disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right, and his undisturbed possession gives
him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of
equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.

However, the counterclaim seeking for the cancellation

of title and reconveyance of the subject property has
prescribed as Sampaco has not proven actual
possession and ownership of the property due to his
failure to prove the identity of his larger property that
would show that the disputed property is a part
thereof, and his claim of title to the subject property by
virtue of OCEN possession in the concept of an owner is
nebulous in the light of a similar claim by Lantud who
holds a Torrens title to the subject property.

5. NO. Section 48 of PD 1529, the Property Registration

Decree, provides that a certificate of title shall not be
subject to a collateral attack and cannot be altered,
modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding. An
action is an attack on a title when the object of the
action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the
judgment or proceeding pursuant to which the title was
decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an
action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin
its enforcement. On the other hand, an attack on the
judgment or proceeding is indirect or collateral when, in
action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the
judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an
incident thereof.

A counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the

title. In DPB v. CA, the Court ruled on the validity of a
certificate of title despite the fact the nullity thereof
was raised only as a counterclaim. It was held that a
counterclaim is considered a complaint, only this time,
it is the original defendant who becomes the plaintiff. It
stands on the same footing and is to be tested by the
same rules as if it were an independent action.

Based on the forgoing, the SC holds that Sampaco’s

counterclaim for cancellation of Lantud’s title is not a
collateral attack, but a direct attack on Lantud’s Torrens
title.

Wherefore the petition is DENIED. The CA’s decision

and resolution are hereby AFFIRMED.