See - G.R. No. 187633 (lawphil.net)
HEIRS OF DELFIN and MARIA TAPPA, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF
JOSE BACUD, HENRY CALABAZARON and VICENTE MALUPENG, Respondents. G.R. No.
187633, April 4, 2016.
“x x x.
There is no collateral attack
on the Certificate of Title.
Spouses Tappa argue that respondents collaterally attacked the
certificate of title of Lot No. 3441 when they raised the issue of its
validity. Spouses Tappa used the same argument against the CA when it declared
the certificate of title to be without legal effect. 85
Spouses Tappa's argument is without merit. The certificate of
title was not collaterally attacked. Section 48 of PD 1529,86 provides that
"[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law." This rule is not applicable in this case.
We reiterate our ruling in Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of
Appeals,87 where we stated that, "[ w ]hat cannot be collaterally attacked
is the certificate of title and not the title. The certificate referred to is
that document issued by the Register of Deeds x x x. By title, the law refers
to ownership which is represented by that document."88 Ownership is
different from a certificate of title, the latter being only the best proof of
ownership of a piece of land. 89 Title as a concept of ownership should not be
confused with the certificate of title as evidence of such ownership although
both are interchangeably used.90
In Vda. de Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla, 91 citing
Lacbayan v. Samay, Jr., 92 we reaffirm this ruling, and stated that:
Mere issuance of a certificate of title in the name of any
person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under
co-ownership with persons not named in the certificate, or that the registrant
may only be a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over
the property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of title. Stated
differently, placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system
does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate
cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.93
In this case, what respondents dispute, as raised in their
Answer, is Spouses Tappa's claim of sole ownership over Lot No. 3341. As
affirmative defense, respondents claimed that Spouses Tappa were owners of only
one-half (1/2) of the lot since it was originally owned by Genaro, the father
of Lorenzo and Irene. 94 Respondents claim that Lorenzo and Irene became ipso
facto co-owners of the lot. 95 Thus, respondents claim that, by virtue of a
valid transfer from Irene's heirs, they now have ownership and title over
portions of Lot No. 3341, and that they have been in continuous, exclusive, and
uninterrupted possession of their occupied portions.96 Malupeng and Calabazaron
claim ownership and title over their respective portions by virtue of a valid
sale. Bacud claims ownership and title by virtue of succession. Therefore, it
is the ownership and title of Spouses Tappa which respondents ultimately
attack. OCT No. P-69103 only serves as the document representing Spouses
Tappas' title.
Respondents cannot likewise argue that the certificate of
title of Spouses Tappa is indefeasible.97 We have already ruled that the
one-year prescriptive period does not apply when the person seeking annulment
of title or reconveyance is in possession of the property.98 This is because
the action partakes of a suit to quiet title, which is imprescriptible.99 In
this case, respondents have been proved to be in possession of the disputed
portions of Lot No. 3341. Thus, their claim against Spouses Tappa cannot be
barred by the one-year prescriptive period.
X x x.”
