DOLORES CAMPOS VS.

DOMINADOR ORTEGA
FACTS:
-Petitioner Dolores Campos, through her attorney-in-fact
Salvador Pagunsan (Pagunsan), filed a case for specific
performance with damages against respondents. The petition
stated among others that Plaintiff and her husband Ernesto
Campos, along with their family occupied the entire second level
of a residential structure located at No. 208 F. Blumentritt
Street, Mandaluyong City. The lot on which the structure itself is
owned by Dominga Boloy from whom Plaintiff leased the building
beginning in 1966.
-In 1977, under and pursuant to the Zonal Improvement Program
(ZIP) of the then Metro Manila Commission, in coordination with
the Local Government of Mandaluyong City, a census of the Hulo
Estate, where plaintiffs dwelling is located, was conducted
wherein plantiff was among those censused and qualified as bona
fide occupant. As a result, plantiff was assigned an identifying
house tag number on August 20, 1977.
-In 1979, after the death of the owner Dominga Boloy, her
daughter-in-law, Clarita Boloy managed the leased premises. In
1987, Walter Boloy stepped into the situation through counsel
demanded from the plantiff and the family immediate vacation of
the subject premises, with that, an ejectment case was filed with
the MTC of Mandaluyong.
-After receiving the said decision, and after having verified her
husbands status as a bona fide occupant, plaintiff forthwith
authorized her nephew Salvador Pagunsan to follow up with the
NHA. Pursuant thereto, after learing that all bona fide occupants
may be allowed to buy the structure if the owner had already
died. Plantiff was given one month to exercise the option of
buying the property denominated as Lot 17, Block 7 Phase III.

Plantiff acceded since the property they are occupying was Lot
18. As a result, it was awarded to herein respondents.
-Plaintiff questioned the award to respondents with the NHA,
alleging that they are disqualified for not having been duly
censused either as renters or sharers, and also the matter
regarding the alteration the lot number actually being occupied
by plaintiff.
-As a result of the bypassing of plaintiffs rights, she was
dislocated, has suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish,
wounded feelings and undue embarrassment, among others.
-Respondents countered that the complaint stated no cause of
action, and that, if any, such cause of action is already barred by
prior judgment. They noted petitioners admission in the
verification that an action for recovery of possession was
commenced against her by respondents before the RTC of Pasig,
involving the same property and that it was resolved in the
respondents favour, and that such decision was affirmed by the
CA and became final and executor.
-The RTC ruled in favour of petitioner and declared the
acquisition of rsepondents of the Lot 18 of the Hulo Estate void
for being violative of the right of the plaintiff. Upon Appeal, the
CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that the plaintiff had no vested
right over the subject parcel of land and the residential structure
standing thereon.
ISSUE/S:
-Whether or not the petitioner has vested right over the
subject parcel of land?
-Whether or not the filing of an action for Specific
Performance and or damages by Plaintiff would validly attack the
Respondents Torrens Title over the subject lot?

HELD:
-No. Contrary to petitioner's position, the issuance of a tag
number in her favor did not grant her irrefutable rights to the
subject property. The assignment of a tag number was a mere
expectant or contingent right and could not have ripened into a
vested right in favor of petitioner. Her possession and occupancy
of the said property could not be characterized as fixed and
absolute. As such, petitioner cannot claim that she was deprived
of her vested right. Neither does petitioner have a "cognizable"
right respecting the lot in question. Notably, she readily admitted
not exercising their option to buy Boloys property despite the
knowledge that one of the requirements before an entitlement to
an award of the government-owned lot is that they must own the
subject house
-No. This is a collateral attack that is not permitted under
the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title. Section 48 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, unequivocally states:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate
of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law.
A collateral attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a
different relief and as an incident to the present action, an attack
is made against the judgment granting the title while a direct
attack (against a judgment granting the title) is an action whose
main objective is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of
such judgment if not yet implemented, or to seek recovery if the
property titled under the judgment had been disposed of. The
issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was

fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly

instituted for that purpose.
The appropriate legal remedy that petitioner should have availed
is an action for reconveyance. Proof of actual fraud is not
required as it may be filed even when no fraud intervened such
as when there is mistake in including the land for registration.