Lawyerly

GR No. 202950

2015-04-06

BALTAZAR IBOT v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO TAYCO

REYES, J.

[39] Sampaco v. Lantud, G.R. No. 163551, July 18, 2011,654 SCRA36, 50-51.

GR No. 205867

2015-02-23

MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA

MENDOZA, J.

The Court is not unmindful of the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title and Section 48 of P.D. No. 1528 where it is provided that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack.[14] A Torrens title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. When the Court says direct attack, it means that the object of an action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[15] In its decision, the MCTC wrote: Obviously, the bone of contention in this case are the deed of sale by and between Romulo Marquez and Runsted Tagufa, the estranged husband of defendant Gregoria Tagufa, and OCT No. P-84609 registered in the name of Gregoria Tagufa who, according to the plaintiff, fraudulently caused the titling of the same.

GR No. 205664

2014-06-09

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. MARIANO TULIAO

MENDOZA, J.

Here, Tuliao, as the registered owner, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and removal of structure. To support his claim, he presented not only tax declarations and tax receipts, but also a certificate of title. The Court agrees with the CA that the said pieces of evidence were sufficient to resolve the issue of who had the better right of possession. That being the case, the burden was shifted to the DepEd to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, the DepEd only presented testimonial evidence and nothing more to prove its defense and refute Tuliao's claim. Its lone witness was all that the DepEd had to prove its right of possession. As between a certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership,[19] accompanied with a tax declaration and a tax receipt on one hand, and a testimony of a lone witness who is a retired teacher on the other, the former prevails in establishing who has a better right of possession over the property, following the rule that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over documentary evidence.[20]

GR No. 165863

2013-04-10

ALBERT CHUA v. B.E. SAN DIEGO

MENDOZA, J.

A person, who seeks registration of title to a piece of land, who claims that he has a better right to the property, or who prays for its recovery, must prove his assertion by clear and convincing evidence, and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property.[32]

GR No. 165863

2013-04-10

ALBERT CHUA v. B.E. SAN DIEGO

MENDOZA, J.

The properties, presently in possession of San Diego, are located in Barrio Niog, as described in their titles. Although Barrio Talaba and Barrio Niog are adjacent to each other, their respective boundaries are clearly defined and delineated from the plans, maps and surveys on record. It has not been shown, so far, that the said barrios were one and the same at some point in time. Basic is the rule that a person, who claims that he has a better right to the property or prays for its recovery, must prove his assertion by clear and convincing evidence and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property.[50]

GR No. 165838

2013-04-03

NEMESIO FIRAZA v. SPS. CLAUDIO AND EUFRECENA UGAY

REYES, J.

In the recent case of Sampaco v. Lantud,[22] the Court applied the foregoing distinction and held that a counterclaim, specifically one for annulment of title and reconveyance based on fraud, is a direct attack on the Torrens title upon which the complaint for quieting of title is premised.[23] Earlier in, Development Bank of the Philippines v. CA,[24] the Court ruled similarly and explained thus: Nor is there any obstacle to the determination of the validity of TCT No. 10101. It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. In the instant case, the original complaint is for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the latter to question the validity of TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its right. To rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is tantamount to a collateral attack. However, it should not [b]e overlooked that private respondent filed a counterclaim against petitioner, claiming ownership over the land and seeking damages. Hence, we could rule on the question of the validity of TCT No. 10101 for the counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the same. x x x.[25]

GR No. 199501

2013-03-06

REPUBLIC v. VS.HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO

CARPIO, J.

This Court is not a trier of facts. Fraud is a question of fact.[29] Whether there was fraud and misrepresentation in the issuance of the sales patent in favor of Oribello calls for a thorough evaluation of the parties' evidence. Thus, this Court will have to remand the reversion case to the trial court for further proceedings in order to resolve this issue and accordingly dispose of the case based on the parties' evidence on record.

GR No. 184746

2012-08-15

SPS. CRISPIN GALANG AND CARLOAD GALANG v. SPS. CONRADO S. REYES AND FE DE KASTRO REYES

MENDOZA, J.

The bottom line here is that, fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of titl~, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evi~ence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved.[22]

GR No. 171209

2012-06-27

SPS. AMBROSIO DECALENG AND SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND JULIA “WANAY” DECALENG v. BISHOP OF MISSIONARY DISTRICT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN US

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, and the issue on its validity can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[59] A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an incident in said action.[60]

GR No. 175763

2012-04-11

HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO v. SALOME E. GABRIEL

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto. In regard to the first requisite, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.[46] In this case, petitioners failed to identify Lot 2 by providing evidence of the metes and bounds thereof, so that the same may be compared with the technical description contained in OCT No. 1035, which would have shown whether Lot 2 consisting of 147 square meters was erroneously included in respondents' title. The testimony of Agueda Dinguinbayan's son would not suffice because said witness merely stated the boundary owners as indicated in the 1966 and 1967 tax declarations of his mother. On his part, Arturo Tayag claimed that he had the lots surveyed in the 1970s in preparation for the consolidation of the two parcels. However, no such plan was presented in court.

	GR No. 202950 2015-04-06	BALTAZAR IBOT v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO TAYCO REYES, J.
[39] Sampaco v. Lantud, G.R. No. 163551, July 18, 2011,654 SCRA36, 50-51.
	GR No. 205867 2015-02-23	MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA v. GREGORIA TAGUFA MENDOZA, J.
The Court is not unmindful of the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title and Section 48 of P.D. No. 1528 where it is provided that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack.[14] A Torrens title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. When the Court says direct attack, it means that the object of an action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[15] In its decision, the MCTC wrote: Obviously, the bone of contention in this case are the deed of sale by and between Romulo Marquez and Runsted Tagufa, the estranged husband of defendant Gregoria Tagufa, and OCT No. P-84609 registered in the name of Gregoria Tagufa who, according to the plaintiff, fraudulently caused the titling of the same.
	GR No. 205664 2014-06-09	DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. MARIANO TULIAO MENDOZA, J.
Here, Tuliao, as the registered owner, filed a complaint for recovery of possession and removal of structure. To support his claim, he presented not only tax declarations and tax receipts, but also a certificate of title. The Court agrees with the CA that the said pieces of evidence were sufficient to resolve the issue of who had the better right of possession. That being the case, the burden was shifted to the DepEd to prove otherwise. Unfortunately, the DepEd only presented testimonial evidence and nothing more to prove its defense and refute Tuliao's claim. Its lone witness was all that the DepEd had to prove its right of possession. As between a certificate of title, which is an incontrovertible proof of ownership,[19] accompanied with a tax declaration and a tax receipt on one hand, and a testimony of a lone witness who is a retired teacher on the other, the former prevails in establishing who has a better right of possession over the property, following the rule that testimonial evidence cannot prevail over documentary evidence.[20]
	GR No. 165863 2013-04-10	ALBERT CHUA v. B.E. SAN DIEGO MENDOZA, J.
A person, who seeks registration of title to a piece of land, who claims that he has a better right to the property, or who prays for its recovery, must prove his assertion by clear and convincing evidence, and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property.[32]
	GR No. 165863 2013-04-10	ALBERT CHUA v. B.E. SAN DIEGO MENDOZA, J.
The properties, presently in possession of San Diego, are located in Barrio Niog, as described in their titles. Although Barrio Talaba and Barrio Niog are adjacent to each other, their respective boundaries are clearly defined and delineated from the plans, maps and surveys on record. It has not been shown, so far, that the said barrios were one and the same at some point in time. Basic is the rule that a person, who claims that he has a better right to the property or prays for its recovery, must prove his assertion by clear and convincing evidence and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property.[50]
	GR No. 165838 2013-04-03	NEMESIO FIRAZA v. SPS. CLAUDIO AND EUFRECENA UGAY REYES, J.
In the recent case of Sampaco v. Lantud,[22] the Court applied the foregoing distinction and held that a counterclaim, specifically one for annulment of title and reconveyance based on fraud, is a direct attack on the Torrens title upon which the complaint for quieting of title is premised.[23] Earlier in, Development Bank of the Philippines v. CA,[24] the Court ruled similarly and explained thus: Nor is there any obstacle to the determination of the validity of TCT No. 10101. It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. In the instant case, the original complaint is for recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the latter to question the validity of TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its right. To rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is tantamount to a collateral attack. However, it should not [b]e overlooked that private respondent filed a counterclaim against petitioner, claiming ownership over the land and seeking damages. Hence, we could rule on the question of the validity of TCT No. 10101 for the counterclaim can be considered a direct attack on the same. x x x.[25]
	GR No. 199501 2013-03-06	REPUBLIC v. VS.HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ORIBELLO CARPIO, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. Fraud is a question of fact.[29] Whether there was fraud and misrepresentation in the issuance of the sales patent in favor of Oribello calls for a thorough evaluation of the parties' evidence. Thus, this Court will have to remand the reversion case to the trial court for further proceedings in order to resolve this issue and accordingly dispose of the case based on the parties' evidence on record.
	GR No. 184746 2012-08-15	SPS. CRISPIN GALANG AND CARLOAD GALANG v. SPS. CONRADO S. REYES AND FE DE KASTRO REYES MENDOZA, J.
The bottom line here is that, fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of titl~, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evi~ence, with mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved.[22]
	GR No. 171209 2012-06-27	SPS. AMBROSIO DECALENG AND SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS) AND JULIA “WANAY” DECALENG v. BISHOP OF MISSIONARY DISTRICT OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN US LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, and the issue on its validity can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[59] A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an incident in said action.[60]
	GR No. 175763 2012-04-11	HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO v. SALOME E. GABRIEL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under Article 434 of the Civil Code, to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed; and second, his title thereto. In regard to the first requisite, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof.[46] In this case, petitioners failed to identify Lot 2 by providing evidence of the metes and bounds thereof, so that the same may be compared with the technical description contained in OCT No. 1035, which would have shown whether Lot 2 consisting of 147 square meters was erroneously included in respondents' title. The testimony of Agueda Dinguinbayan's son would not suffice because said witness merely stated the boundary owners as indicated in the 1966 and 1967 tax declarations of his mother. On his part, Arturo Tayag claimed that he had the lots surveyed in the 1970s in preparation for the consolidation of the two parcels. However, no such plan was presented in court.

DATU KIRAM SAMPACO v. HADJI SERAD MINGCA LANTUD