FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC.,
MEGATOP REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PEAKSUN ENTERPRISES AND EXPORT CORP., ARTURO
DY, AND ELENA DY JAO, Petitioners, versus GEORGE H. TRONO, MA. TERESA
TRONO, MA. VIRGINIA TRONO, JESSE TRONO, MA. CRISTINA TRONO, PATRICIA TRONO, MA.
DIVINA TRONO, INOCENCIO TRONO, JR., CARMEN TRONO, AND ZENAIDA TRONO, Respondents.
G.
R. No. 130871, February
17, 2006.
“x x x.
Section 2 of
Presidential Decree (PD) 1529[7] partly provides:
Sec. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts.
Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines
shall be in rem, and shall be based
on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens System.
Courts of First Instance
shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
all applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions. x x x
Pursuant to the above provisions, the Regional Trial
Court (formerly Court of First Instance) has the authority to act, not only on applications for original
registration of title to land, but also on all petitions filed after the
original registration of title. Thus, it has the authority and power to
hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or
petitions.[8]
The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in ruling that
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Pinas City has no jurisdiction over
LRC Case No. M-228 on the ground that the land subject of respondents
application for registration was already registered in the Registry of Deeds of
Las Pias City.
Significantly, even respondents themselves admit in their
comment on the instant petition that what they should have filed was a
complaint for nullity of petitioners titles.
Likewise, Section
48 of PD 1529 provides:
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. (Underscoring ours)
Respondents
application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens
title is actually a collateral attack against petitioners title not permitted
under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well settled
that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; 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 the purpose.[9] Hence, whether or
not respondents have the right to claim title over the property in question is
beyond the province of the instant proceeding. That should be threshed out in a
proper action. It has been invariably stated that the real purpose of the
Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to
its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the mirador
su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land.[10]
In Ramos v. Rodriguez,[11] we held:
It must be noted that
petitioners failed to rebut the LRA report and only alleged that the title of
the Payatas Estate was spurious, without offering any proof to substantiate
this claim. TCT No. 8816, however,
having been issued under the Torrens System, enjoys the conclusive presumption
of validity. As we declared in an earlier case (Reyes and Nadres vs.
Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791), (t)he very purpose of the Torrens
system would be destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration. The application for registration of the
petitioners in this case would, under the circumstances, appear to be a
collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is not allowed under Section 48 of P.D.
1529. (underscoring ours)
Corollarily, Section
32 of the same law states:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value.
The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of
absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject,
however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches
thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance
a petition for reopening and review
of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date
of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such
petition be entertained by the court where
an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein
whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer
for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible.
Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the
applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. (underscoring
ours)
A decree of
registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the
questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that
might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings.[12]
As per records of the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas
City, TCT No. T-9182[13] was registered in petitioners name as early as April
28, 1989, or five (5) years before the filing of respondents application for
registration. Thus, it is too late for them (respondents) to question
petitioners titles considering that the Certificates of Title issued to the
latter have become incontrovertible after the lapse of one year from the decree
of registration.
X x x.”
