10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

TodayisSaturday,October15,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.202414June4,2014
JOSEPHINEWEE,Petitioner,
vs.
FELICIDADMARDO,Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45assailingtheJune26,2012DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
(CA), which reversed and set aside the September 4, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XVIII,
TagaytayCity,Cavite(RTC),grantingpetitioner's"ApplicationforRegistrationofTitle."
FactualandProceduralAntecedents:
Respondent Felicidad Gonzales, married to Leopoldo Mardo, was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV2)
15284,datedApril26,1979,coveringLotNo.8348,situatedinPutingKahoy,Silang,Cavite.
On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed to petitioner, Josephine Wee, through a Deed of Absolute
Sale,1aportionofLotNo.8348knownasLotNo.8348B,foraconsiderationofP250,000.00whichwasfullypaid.
Respondent, however, refused to vacate and turn over the subject property claiming that the alleged sale was
falsified.
On December 22, 1994, petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land located at
BarangayPuttingKahoy,Silang,Cavite,knownasLotNo.8349.SaidapplicationwasamendedonSeptember19,
1996,thistimecoveringaparceloflandknownasLot8348BsituatedinBarangayPutingKahoy,Silang,Cavite.
Petitionerclaimedthatsheistheownerofthesaidunregisteredlandbyvirtueofadeedofabsolutesale.
OnSeptember19,1997,respondentfiledherOppositiontotheAmendedApplicationalleging1]thatsheisthetrue
andlawfulowneroftheparceloflandwhichisthesubjectoftheamendedapplicationand2]thatpetitionersdeed
ofabsolutesaleissurreptitious.
OnOctober28,2000,respondentfiledaMotiontoDismisstheApplicationallegingthatthelanddescribedinthe
application was different from the land being claimed for titling. The motion was, however, denied. A motion for
reconsiderationandsecondurgentmotionforreconsiderationweresubsequentlyfiledbyrespondent,butbothwere
deniedbytheRTC.
Thereafter, petitioner completed her presentation of evidence and filed a formal offer which was admitted by the
RTC.
OnJune10,2003,duringthependencyofthecase,respondentmanagedtoregisterthelandinhernameunder
OriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.OP1840.PetitionerfiledaNoticeofLisPendenswiththeRegistryofDeedsof
CaviteonMay10,2005whichwasannotatedonthetitle.A"MotionforLeavetoFileSupplementalPleadingandto
AdmitAttachedSupplementalComplaintforReconveyance"wasfiledbypetitionerwhichwasdeniedbytheRTCon
thegroundthatamotionforreconveyancewasdifferentfromanapplicationforregistrationoftitle.
Consequently,respondentpresentedherownevidence,throughthetestimonyofhercounsel,whotestifiedthatthe
parcel of land subject of the application for registration was the property she bought ten (10) years ago.
Respondent, however, did not state from whom she bought it. As proof of her alleged ownership, she presented
copiesoftaxdeclarationsintheabsenceofanydeedofsaleinherfavor.
OnSeptember4,2009,theRTCrenderedaDecision2grantingtheapplicationofpetitioner.Thedispositiveportion
ofsaiddecisionreads:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

1/6

10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the applicant, Josephine Wee, as qualified to register the
subjectlandinhername,andtheAdministratorofLRAisherebydirectedtoissuethecorrespondingdecreeinher
name based on the plan and technical description of said land as submitted by the applicant and the Register of
DeedsoftheProvinceofCavitetoissuetitleinhername.
SOORDERED.
AmotionforreconsiderationwasfiledbyrespondentwhichwasdeniedbytheRTC.Hence,respondentappealed
thedecisionbeforetheCA,whichcasewasdocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.96934.
OnJune26,2012,theCAhandeddownaJudgment3reversingandsettingasidetheRTCdecision.Thedecretal
portionoftheCAdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision, dated September 4, 2009, of the Regional Trial Court
(BranchXVIII)ofTagaytayCity,Cavite,inLRCNo.TG647isSETASIDE.
Accordingly,applicantappelleesApplicationforOriginalRegistrationofaparceloflandlocatedatBarangayPutting
Kahoy,SilangCavite,knownasLotNo.8349,Cad.Lot042118011719DofSilangCadastre,isherebyDENIED.
SOORDERED.
The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able to comply with the requirement of possession and
occupationunderSec.14(1)ofP.D.No.1529.Heradmissionthatthesubjectlotwasnotphysicallyturnedoverto
herduetosomeobjectionsandoppositionstohertitlesuggestedthatshewasnotexercisinganyactsofdominion
over the subject property, an essential element in the requirement of possession and occupation contemplated
underSec.14(1)ofP.D.No.1529.
AcopyofthedecisionwasreceivedbypetitioneronJuly2,2012.OnAugust15,2012,petitionerfiledthissubject
petitionforreviewchallengingtheCAdecision.
Hence,thispetition.
Inadvocacyofherpetition,petitionerassignsthefollowing
ERRORS:
I.
TheCourtofAppealsgravelyerredandruledcontrarytolawinnotfindingthatpetitionerisentitledto
register the subject land under her name. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, wherein
petitioners predecessorininterest unexpectedly and unjustifiably continued to be in physical
possessionofthesubjectpropertyafterthesalethereoftopetitioner,thelattermustbedeemedtobe
inpossessionandoccupationthereofthroughherpredecessorininterest.UnderthePublicLandAct
and Presidential Decree No. 1529, the period of possession of an applicants predecessorininterest
benefitsandiscreditedinfavoroftheapplicant.
II.
Moreover,petitionerwasdeniedactualpossessionofthesubjectlandbycircumstancesamountingtoa
fortuitousevent.ByexpressprovisionofSec.48(b)ofthePublicLandAct,suchfortuitouseventdoes
notaffecthervestedrighttoregisterthepropertyunderhername.
III.
TheCourtofAppealslikewiseseriouslyerredandruledcontrarytothelawandtotheevidenceinnot
finding that petitioners predecessorininterest, respondent Felicidad Mardo, had possession and
occupationofthesubjectparceloflandunderabonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,1945,or
earlier.
IV.
Inviewofthefactthatthevalidityofthesaleofthesubjectparceloflandtopetitionerin1993wasduly
establishedbeforethetrialcourtandaffirmedbytheCourtofAppealsandconsideringfurtherthatthe
registration of the said land under respondents name was fraudulently secured, in order to avoid
multiplicity of suits and to put an end to the long pending dispute between the parties, the Court of
Appeals should have ordered the reconveyance of the subject parcel of land to the petitioner as its
rightfulowner.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

2/6

10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

Petitionerpresentsthetheorythatshemustbedeemedtohavebeeninpossessionandoccupationofthesubject
propertythroughrespondent,herpredecessorininterest,whoafterthesalein1993anddespitedemandsfromher,
unexpectedlyandunjustifiablycontinuedtooccupythepropertyandrefusedtoturnoverphysicalpossessiontoher.
Petitioner argues that it is not necessary that the person in possession should himself be the occupant as the
occupancycanbeheldbyanotherinhisname.
Moreover, petitioner also seeks reconveyance of the subject property arguing that by virtue of its fraudulent
registration, respondent became a trustee of an implied trust for her benefit, as its real owner, having validly
acquiredthesamefromrespondentthroughanabsolutedeedofsale.
TheCourtsRuling
Thepetitiondeservesnomerit.
P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Decree, governs the original registration proceedings of
unregisteredland.ThesubjectapplicationfororiginalregistrationwasfiledpursuanttoSec.14(1)ofPD1529,which
providestheconditionnecessaryforregistration.Thus:
SEC 14. Who may apply.The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for
registrationoftitletoland,whetherpersonallyorthroughtheirdulyauthorizedrepresentatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive
andnotoriouspossessionandoccupationofalienableanddisposablelandsofthepublicdomainunderabonafide
claimofownershipsinceJune12,1945,orearlier.(Emphasissupplied)
Basedontheselegalparameters,applicantsforregistrationoftitleunderSection14(1)mustsufficientlyestablish:
(1)thatthesubjectlandformspartofthedisposableandalienablelandsofthepublicdomain(2)thattheapplicant
and his predecessorsininterest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupationofthesameand(3)thatitisunderabonafideclaimofownershipsinceJune12,1945orearlier.4
The CA denied the application on the issue of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the subject land. It was of the view that she could not have complied with the requirement of
possession and occupation under Sec. 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529 considering that she had admitted that it was not
physicallyturnedovertoher.Asshewasnotinactualandphysicalpossession,shecouldnothaveexercisedany
acts of dominion over the subject property which was essential to the requirement of possession and occupation
contemplatedunderSec.14(1)ofP.D.No.1529.
A more important consideration, however, is that the subject land is already registered under OCT No. OP1840
(PatentNo.042118036111)oftheRegistryofDeedsofCavite,underthenameofrespondentFelicidadGonzales.
InthecaseofRepublicvs.Umali,5thisCourtruledthatonceapatentisregisteredandthecorrespondingcertificate
oftitleisissued,thelandceasestobepartofpublicdomainandbecomesprivatepropertyoverwhichtheDirector
ofLandshasneithercontrolnorjurisdiction.Apubliclandpatent,whenregisteredinthecorrespondingRegisterof
Deeds,isaveritableTorrenstitle,andbecomesasindefeasibleupontheexpirationofone(1)yearfromthedateof
issuance thereof. Said title, like one issued pursuant to a judicial decree, is subject to review within one (1) year
fromthedateoftheissuanceofthepatent.ThisruleisembodiedinSection103ofPD1529,whichprovidesthat:
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever public land is by the Government alienated,
grantedorconveyedtoanyperson,thesameshallbebroughtforthwithundertheoperationofthisDecree.xxx
Afterdueregistrationandissuanceofthecertificateoftitle,suchlandshallbedeemedtoberegisteredlandtoall
intentsandpurposesunderthisDecree.(Emphasissupplied)
Accordingly,respondentsregisteredpatentinthecorrespondingRegistryofDeedsisaveritableTorrenstitleand
becomesasindefeasibleasaTorrenstitleupontheexpirationofone(1)yearfromthedateofitsissuance.6
For said reason, the order of the RTC directing the Administrator of LRA to issue a corresponding decree in
petitionersnameisnullandvoid.Alandregistrationcourthasnojurisdictiontoordertheregistrationoflandalready
decreedinthenameofanotherinanearlierlandregistrationcase.Aseconddecreeforthesamelandwouldbenull
andvoid,sincetheprinciplebehindtheoriginalregistrationistoregisteraparceloflandonlyonce.7
Verily,onceatitleisregistered,asaconsequenceeitherofjudicialoradministrativeproceedings,theownermay
restsecure,withoutthenecessityofwaitingintheportalsofthecourtsittinginthemiradordesucasatoavoidthe
possibilityoflosinghisland.8Thecertificateoftitlecannotbedefeatedbyadverse,openandnotoriouspossession.
Neither can it be defeated by prescription. As provided under Sec. 47 of PD 1529, no title to registered land in
derogationofthetitleoftheregisteredownershallbeacquiredbyprescriptionoradversepossession.
ACertificateofTitleNot
SubjecttoCollateralAttack
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

3/6

10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

Petitioner argued that the rule on indefeasibility of title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and
misrepresentation.Inthiscase,sheallegedthattherespondentfraudulentlyregisteredthesubjectpropertyunder
hernameaftershe(respondent)hadalreadysoldaportionthereoftoher(petitioner).Byvirtueofthedeedofsale,
petitionerinsiststhatsheisconsideredtobetherealownerofthesubjectparcelofland.
TheCourtfindsnomeritinpetitionersargument.Itissettledinthisjurisdictionthattheissueofthevalidityoftitle
can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for such purpose.9 A certificate of title cannot be attacked
collaterally.ThisruleisprovidedunderSection48ofPD1529whichstatesthat:
SEC.48.Certificatenotsubjecttocollateralattack.Acertificateoftitleshallnotbesubjecttocollateralattack.It
cannotbealtered,modified,orcanceledexceptinadirectproceedinginaccordancewithlaw.(Emphasissupplied)
InLagrosav.CourtofAppeals,10itwasstatedthatitisawellknowndoctrinethattheissueastowhethertitlewas
procuredbyfalsificationorfraudasadvancedbypetitionercanonlyberaisedinanactionexpresslyinstitutedfor
the purpose. A Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud, within one year after the date of the issuance of the
decreeofregistration.Suchattackmustbedirect,andnotbyacollateralproceeding.Thetitlerepresentedbythe
certificatecannotbechanged,altered,modified,enlarged,ordiminishedinacollateralproceeding.
In this case, the petitioner is contesting the indefeasibility of title on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation.
Applying the abovementioned doctrine, even assuming that the petitioners allegations are true, the same are
consideredascollateralattacks,andsuchmustberaisedinanactionexpresslyinstitutedforsuchpurposeandina
properproceeding.
Thus, in Carvajal v. Court of Appeals,11 it was ruled that an application for registration of an already titled land
constitutesacollateralattackontheexistingtitle.Thetitlemaybechallengedonlyinaproceedingforthatpurpose,
notinanapplicationforregistrationofalandalreadyregisteredinthenameofanotherperson.Afteroneyearfrom
itsregistration,thetitleisincontrovertibleandisnolongeropentoreview.
Remedy of the petitioner is to file a separate proceeding such as an action for specific performance or for
reconveyance
Petitionerfurtherarguesthatconsideringtheregistrationofthesaidlandunderrespondentsnamewasfraudulently
secured,inordertoavoidmultiplicityofsuitsandtoputanendtothelongpendingdisputebetweentheparties,the
courtsbelowshouldhaveorderedthereconveyanceofthesubjectlandtoherasitsrightfulowner.
Petitioner advances the theory that by virtue of the fraudulent registration of a subject property, respondent is a
trusteeofanimpliedtrustforherbenefit,beingtherealownerofthesubjectproperty,asshehadvalidlyacquired
thesamefromrespondentthroughanabsolutedeedofsale.
Petitioners argument fails to persuade. The issue of fraudulent alienation raised in the second application for
registrationofthesubjectpropertyiscollateralattackwhichshouldbedirectlyraisedinaseparateproceedingfiled
forsuchpurpose.Itcannotbeentertainedinthisproceeding.Inseveralcases,theCourthasruledthatanattackis
indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is
neverthelessmadeasanincidentthereof.12
The RTC was, thus, correct in denying petitioners "Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Pleading and to Admit
Attached Supplemental Complaint For Reconveyance." Allowing it would not have been permissible because the
application for original registration of title over a parcel of land already registered is a collateral attack itself. It is
settledthatanapplicationforregistrationofaparceloflandalreadycoveredbyaTorrenstitleisactuallyacollateral
attack,notpermittedundertheprincipleofindefeasibilityofaTorrenstitle.13
Registration,however,doesnotdepriveanaggrievedpartyofaremedyinlaw.Whatcannotbecollaterallyattacked
isthecertificateoftitleandnotthetitleorownershipwhichisrepresentedbysuchcertificate.Ownershipisdifferent
from a certificate of title. The fact that a person was able to secure a title in his name did not operate to vest
ownershipuponhimofthesubjectland.RegistrationofapieceoflandundertheTorrensSystemdoesnotcreateor
vesttitle,becauseitisnotamodeofacquiringownership.
A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It
cannotbeusedtoprotectausurperfromthetrueownernorcanitbeusedasashieldforthecommissionoffraud:
neitherdoesitpermitonetoenrichhimselfattheexpenseofothers.Itsissuanceinfavorofaparticularpersondoes
notforeclosethepossibilitythattherealprope1iymaybecoownedwithpersonsnotnamedinthecertificate,orthat
itmaybeheldintrustforanotherpersonbytheregisteredowner.14
1wphi1

Theremedyofthepetitioneristofileaseparateproceedingoractiontoprotectherallegedinterest.Assheclaimed
thatsheboughtthesubjectpropertyforvaluefromtherespondentasevidencedbyadeedofsale,shecanfilean
actionforspecificperformancetocompeltherespondenttocomplywithherobligationintheallegeddeedofsale
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

4/6

10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

and/or an action for reconveyance of the property. She can also file an action for rescission. Needless to state,
petitionermustproveherentitlementbecausetherespondentclaimsthatthesalewasfalsified.
ReconveyanceisbasedonSection55ofActNo.496,asamendedbyActNo.3322,whichstatesthatinallcasesof
registrationprocuredbyfraudtheownermaypursueallhislegalandequitableremediesagainstthepartiestosuch
fraud,withoutprejudice,however,totherightsofanyinnocentholderforvalueofacertificateoftitle.15Itisanaction
in personam available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in
another'sname.16Itdoesnotseektosetasidethedecreebut,respectingitasincontrovertibleandnolongeropen
toreview,seekstotransferorreconveythelandfromtheregisteredownertotherightfulowner.17Reconveyanceis
alwaysavailableaslongasthepropertyhasnotpassedtoaninnocentthirdpersonforvalue.18
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisherebyDENIED,withoutprejudicetoanyremedialactionbythepetitionertoprotect
herclaimedinterest.
SOORDERED.
JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.*
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

MARVICMARIOVICTORF.LEONEN
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionortheCourt'sDivision.
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,A1iicleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairperson'sAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

DesignatedActingMemberinviewofthevacancyintheThirdDivision.perSpecialOrderNo.1691dated
May22,2014.
1

Rollo,p.54.

Id.at145pennedbyActingPresidingJudgeEmmaS.Young.

Id. at 15 penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes,Jr., and concurred by Associate Justice Priscilla J.
BaltazarPadillaandAssociateJusticeAgnesReyesCarpio
4

Republicv.Manimtim,G.R.No.169599,March16,2011,645SCRA520,533534.

253Phil.732(1989).

TheDirectorofLandsv.DeLuna,110Phil.32(1960).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

5/6

10/15/2016

G.R. No. 202414

7

SpousesLaburadav.LandRegistrationAuthority,350Phil.779,790791(1998).

Salao,etal.v.Salao,162Phil.116(1976).

Ingusanl,Miguelv.HeirsofAurelianoI.Reyes,558Phil.60(2007),citingCaraanv.CourtofAppeals,551
Phil.172(2005)andSpousesApostolv.CourtofAppeals,476Phil.414(2004).
10

Lagrosav.CourtofAppeals,371Phil.238(1999).

11

345Phil.592(1997).

12

Sampacov.Lantud,G.R.No.163551,July18,2011,654SCRA54.

13

FilEstateManagementv.Trono,518Phil.8,1415(2006).

14

Navalv.CourtofAppeals,518Phil.271,282283(2006).

15

HeirsofLopez,Sr.,v.Hon.Enriquez.490Phil.89(2005).

16

Pacetev.Asotigue,G.R.No.188575,December10,2012,687SCRA580.

17

DirectorofLandsv.RegisterofDeeds,G.R.No.L4463,March24,1953,92SCRA831.

18

HeirsofEugenioLopez,Sr.v.Hon.AlfredoEnriquez,490Phil.90(2005).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_202414_2014.html

6/6