SPOUSES AURORA N. DE PEDRO and ELPIDIO DE PEDRO, petitioners, vs.

ROMASAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MANUEL KO,respondents.

D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals Decision
[1]
in CA-G.R.
CV No. !"#" $ate$ Nove%&er #'( #))#( as well as its Resolution $ate$ April 11( #))* $en+in,
the %otion for reconsi$eration thereof. The assaile$ $ecision affir%e$ the trial courts or$er
$is%issin, the petitioners co%plaint for $a%a,es.
This case procee$e$ fro% the followin, antece$ents-
.n Dece%&er 1( 1''/( petitioner spouses Aurora an$ 0lpi$io $e 1e$ro file$ a Co%plaint for
Da%a,es with 1ra+er for 1reli%inar+ 2n3unction a,ainst respon$ents Ro%asan Develop%ent
Corporation an$ 4anuel 5o. The co%plaint state$( inter alia( that the spouses De 1e$ro were
the re,istere$ owners of a parcel of lan$ in 6aran,a+ 7an 2si$ro( now 6aran,a+ 2narawan(
Antipolo( Ri8al( with an area of 9)())) s:uare %eters( covere$ an$ $escri&e$ in .ri,inal
Certificate of Title ;.CT< No. 1-'1( issue$ &+ the Re,ister of Dee$s of 4ari=ina Cit+( 4etro
4anila on 4arch #( 1''#> that the+ ha$ &een continuousl+ pa+in, the real estate ta?es on the
sai$ propert+> that so%eti%e in @anuar+ 1''/( the respon$ents starte$ puttin, up a &ar&e$-wire
fence on the peri%eter of the a$3acent propert+> an$ that in the course of such construction( the
petitioners far% house was $estro+e$ an$ &a%&oos an$ other trees were cut.
[#]
The co%plaint further alle,e$ that the respon$ents %a$e clai%s that the petitioners far%
house an$ the trees were &uilt an$ plante$ on a portion of the a$3acent propert+ owne$ &+ the
respon$ents. The respon$ents then prevente$ an$ refuse$ to allow the petitioners an$ their
fa%ilies to enter the propert+( throu,h securit+ ,uar$s. The respon$ents( li=ewise( threatene$ to
clear the trees an$ scrape the area owne$ &+ the petitioners with the use of a &ull$o8er. The
petitioners also alle,e$ that as a conse:uence of the ille,al an$ wron,ful acts of the respon$ents(
the+ suffere$ actual $a%a,es an$ incurre$ e?penses> as such( the+ were entitle$ to %oral an$
e?e%plar+ $a%a,es( an$ e?penses of liti,ation an$ attorne+s fees.
[*]
.n @une 1( 1''!( the respon$ents file$ their Answer to the co%plaint( alle,in, therein that
the respon$ent corporation was the owner of the lan$ as evi$ence$ &+ Transfer Certificate of
Title ;TCT< No. #*)"" which was issue$ &+ the Re,ister of Dee$s on 4arch 9( 1''*. 6+
fencin, the propert+ in or$er to $eter%ine its %etes an$ &oun$s( the respon$ent corporation
%erel+ e?ercise$ its ri,hts of ownership over the propert+. The respon$ents further %aintaine$
that the petitioners faile$ to esta&lish the %etes an$ &oun$s of the propert+ which was clai%e$ to
have &een usurpe$ &+ the%. A counterclai% for $a%a,es was( li=ewise( interpose$ a,ainst the
petitioners.
.n 7epte%&er 1!( 1''!( the trial court issue$ an .r$er ,rantin, the 3oint %otion of the
parties to have a relocation surve+ on the propert+ in or$er to verif+ its location.
["]
The surve+
tea% consiste$ of Ro&ert 1an,+arihan( Chief of the Depart%ent of 0nviron%ent an$ Natural
Resources ;D0NR<( Re,ion 2V( 7urve+s Division as Chair%an of the 7urve+ Tea%>
[9]
0n,r.
Avelino A. 7an 6uenaventura( representin, the petitioners> an$ 0n,r. 1atricio Ca&alo(
representin, the respon$ents.
.n @anuar+ *)( 1'''( the surve+ tea% issue$ a Report on the relocation surve+ with the
followin, reco%%en$ation-
BC0R0D.R0( this Co%%ission fin$s that .CT No. 1-'1 of the plaintiff overlaps TCT No.
#*)"" of parcel C-1#*"1 of the $efen$ant &ut fin$s on the contrar+ that this lan$ is not the
actual area that is &ein, clai%e$ an$ occupie$ &+ the plaintiff &ut another parcel instea$( na%el+
C-1"))!. The overlappin, of titles was &rou,ht a&out &+ the $ou&le issuance of title for C-
1#*"1 &ut the technical $escriptions of .CT No. 1-'1 $escri&in, a lan$ $ifferent fro% the
actual occupation of the plaintiff was a result of the $efective surve+.
[]
The surve+ tea% %a$e the followin, fin$in,s- ;1< TCT No. #*)"" ori,inate$ fro% .CT
No. "*! in the na%e of 4arcelino 7antos( which was &ase$ on a Co%estea$ 1atent. The sai$
.CT was( in turn( &ase$ on 1lan C-1#*"1 surve+e$ on 4arch !( 1'*9 an$ approve$ on @une
*)( 1'*/> ;#< un$er the Ca$astral 4ap 7heet of the Lungsod Silangan Ca$astre or C4 1"-*! N.(
1#1-1# 0 on file with the Recor$s Division of the D0NR( Re,ion 2V( C-1#*"1( the lan$
covere$ &+ the sai$ .CT was reflecte$ as Aot 1)"99> ;*< .CT No. 1-'1( un$er the na%e of
petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro( was &ase$ on 1lan Ca$. )"-))'/-*-D which was a su&$ivision
surve+ of Aot 1)"99 of the Lungsod Silangan Ca$astre> ;"< Aot 1)"99 was su&$ivi$e$ into Aots
1)"99-A to 1)"99-G> ;9< Aot 1)"99-G was the su&3ect of the petitioners application for a Dree
1atent> an$ ;< the lan$ occupie$ &+ petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro is actuall+ a portion of Aot
1)"9"EC-1"))! ori,inall+ re,istere$ on @ul+ #( 1'9 un$er .CT No. "! &ase$ on Co%estea$
1atent No. ''"!) un$er the na%e of 2si$ro 6enite8.
[/]
The surve+ tea% further $eclare$ that-
The nature of this case( however( is one of overlappin, titles even if the erroneous technical
$escriptions rectifie$ &ecause even while it %a+ not fall insi$e the title$ C-1#*"1( the lot of
4rs. $e 1e$ro( et al. ,iven the correct $escription of the &oun$ar+( falls insi$e another title$
parcel un$er C-1"))!. 6oth C-1#*"1 an$ C-1"))! are presentl+ re,istere$ in the na%e of
Ro%asan Develop%ent Corporation( the $efen$ant.
The ,rantin, of Dree 1atent to 4rs. $e 1e$ro( et al. over a previousl+ title$ propert+ is
unwarrante$ or can &e unwittin,l+ an act resultin, in $ou&le titlin, &+ the C0NR.( D0NR in
Antipolo Cit+.
[!]
6ase$ on the report( the respon$ents file$ a 4anifestationE4otion to Dis%iss( averrin, that
there was no le,al or factual &asis for the co%plaint as shown &+ the fin$in,s of the surve+ tea%>
hence( the petitioners ha$ no cause of action a,ainst the%.
[']
The petitioners $i$ not file an+
opposition to the %otion. Thus( on Dece%&er ##( 1'''( the trial court issue$ an .r$er ,rantin,
the %otion an$ or$erin, the $is%issal of the co%plaint on the ,roun$ that the petitioners ha$ no
cause of action.
[1)]
The petitioners file$ a %otion for reconsi$eration of the or$er( conten$in, that ;1< the
fin$in,s an$ conclusions of the surve+ tea% were unrelia&le> ;#< the chair%an of the tea% was
facin, cri%inal an$ a$%inistrative char,es in connection with the perfor%ance of his $uties> ;*<
the technical $escription of the propert+ containe$ in .CT No. 1-'1 was conclusive an$ shoul$
prevail over the fin$in,s of the tea%> an$ ;"< the petitioners ha$ a cause of action for $a%a,es
a,ainst the respon$ents. Accor$in, to the petitioners( it was pre%ature for the court to $is%iss
the co%plaint without affor$in, the% the ri,ht to a$$uce their evi$ence on their clai% for
$a%a,es.
[11]
The petitioners appen$e$ to their %otion the counter-affi$avit of @esus 1a%pellona( Deput+
Aan$ 2nspector( .ffice of the Co%%unit+ 0nviron%ent an$ Natural Resources .ffice in
Antipolo Cit+. 1a%pellona alle,e$ that su&se:uent to the application for a free patent file$ &+
petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro over Aots 1)"99-D an$ 1)"99-G( he con$ucte$ the re:uire$ ocular
inspections to $eter%ine the truth of her clai% of actual possession over the properties su&3ect of
her application. Ce foun$ out that she was in actual( pu&lic( a$verse an$ continuous possession
of the lots applie$ for &+ her( an$ that the+ were with several i%prove%ents( li=e petitioner
Aurora $e 1e$ros house an$ several fruit-&earin, trees with an avera,e a,e of #) to #9 +ears. Ce
averre$ that( as evi$ence of her ownership an$ possession over the lots( petitioner Aurora $e
1e$ro also su&%itte$ an 0?tra3u$icial 1artition with Baiver of Ri,hts $ate$ 4a+ 1)( 1''1(
e?ecute$ &+ the heirs of 4arcelino 7antos( an$ an Affi$avit of Baiver of Ri,hts $ate$ @une (
1''1( which she herself e?ecute$. 1a%pellona $eclare$ that there was no overlappin, of clai%s
or ri,hts over the su&3ect lot &ase$ on a certification fro% the Aan$s 4ana,e%ent 6ureau of the
D0NR in 4anila( an$ that there was no e?istin, recor$ of a previous Co%estea$ Application
applie$ for &+ 4arcelino 7antos. Ce asserte$ that he secure$ another Certification $ate$ @anuar+
1/( 1''1 to the effect that Aot No. 1)"99( 4ca$-9!9 locate$ in 7an 2si$ro( Antipolo( Ri8al( was
not covere$ &+ an+ pu&lic lan$ application an$ there was no recor$ of the alle,e$ Co%estea$
Application 1#*"1 un$er the na%e of 4arcelino 7antos. 1a%pellona( li=ewise( alle,e$ that
Respon$ent Corporation was the ninth ;'
th
< transferee fro% the alle,e$ ori,inal re,istere$ owner(
4arcelino 7antos( in whose favor .CT No. "*! Co%estea$ 1atent was issue$ on Au,ust *)(
1'*/.
[1#]
Also appen$e$ to the sai$ %otion for reconsi$eration were Certifications fro% the Aan$s
4ana,e%ent 6ureau( statin, that 1lan C-1"))! was not availa&le on file $espite $ili,ent efforts
in locatin, the sa%e( an$ that C-1"))! was not liste$ in the 0D1 listin,> an$ Certifications
fro% the Re,ister of Dee$s of Ri8al an$ 4ari=ina Cit+ that .CT No. "! issue$ on @ul+ #( 1'9
was not a%on, the recor$s on file with the%.
[1*]
The respon$ents oppose$ the petitioners %otion( clai%in, that the petitioners faile$ to
oppose the appoint%ent of the chair%an of the tea% &efore the relocation surve+. 4oreover(
since accor$in, to the report( the lan$ clai%e$ &+ the petitioners was covere$ &+ the title un$er
the na%e of respon$ent corporation( the petitioners clai% for $a%a,es ha$ no le, to stan$ on.
[1"]
.n @ul+ 11( #)))( the trial court issue$ an .r$er $en+in, the petitioners %otion for
reconsi$eration( Fwithout pre3u$iceG to the filin, of an appropriate action for the correction or
alteration of the technical $escription of the propert+ covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1.
[19]
The petitioners appeale$ the or$er to the Court of Appeals ;CA<. .n Nove%&er #'( #))#(
the CA ren$ere$ a Decision affir%in, the assaile$ or$ers. The CA rule$ that the result of the
relocation surve+ has the presu%ption of re,ularit+( such that it %ust &e respecte$ a&sent an+
clear showin, that it ha$ &een irre,ularl+ con$ucte$ &+ the surve+ tea%. The CA hel$ that the
petitioners ha$ ever+ opportunit+ to :uestion an$ o&3ect to the co%position of the surve+ tea%
&efore the trial court> since the+ faile$ to $o so( the+ cannot now &e allowe$ to $o the sa%e on
appeal. Accor$in, to the CA( it coul$ not ta=e 3u$icial notice of the alle,e$ cases file$ a,ainst
the chair%an of the surve+ tea% since this was not one of the %atters which the courts coul$ ta=e
3u$icial notice of( whether %an$ator+ or $irector+.
[1]
Dinall+( the CA rule$ that the respon$ents coul$ not &e a$3u$,e$ lia&le for the $a%a,es
alle,e$l+ sustaine$ &+ the petitioners as a conse:uence of a vali$ an$ 3ustifie$ e?ercise of
ownership over the $ispute$ propert+. The CA reiterate$ the trial courts hol$in, that the
petitioners were not &arre$ fro% filin, the appropriate action where the+ %a+ see= to correct
whatever %ista=e or irre,ularit+ that their title ha$.
[1/]
.n April 11( #))*( the CA issue$ a Resolution $en+in, the %otion for reconsi$eration file$
&+ the petitioners> hence( this petition for review.
The petitioners rel+ upon the followin, ,roun$s in support of their petition-
2. TC0 C.N.RA6A0 C.HRT .D A110AA7 GRAV0AI 0RR0D AND D0C2D0D
TC0 277H07 2N TC0 2N7TANT CA70 2N A 4ANN0R C.NTRARI T.
07TA6A27C0D AAB AND @HR271RHD0NC0 6I C.AD2NG TCAT TC0
2N7TANT CA70 27 A 7241A0 CA70 D.R DA4AG07.
22. TC0 C.N.RA6A0 C.HRT .D A110AA7 GRAV0AI 0RR0D AND D0C2D0D
TC0 277H07 2N TC0 2N7TANT CA70 2N A 4ANN0R C.NTRARI T.
07TA6A27C0D AAB AND @HR271RHD0NC0 6I C.AD2NG TCAT TC0
R07HAT7 .D TC0 1R2.R R0A.CAT2.N 7HRV0I [email protected] TC0
1R07H41T2.N .D R0GHAAR2TI TC0R06I D271.770772NG
10T2T2.N0R7 .D TC02R .BN0R7C21 .V0R TC0 D271HT0D 1R.10RTI
D0712T0 CA0AR AND C.NV2NC2NG 0V2D0NC0 TCAT-
A. TC0 T2TA0 .D 10T2T2.N0R AHR.RA N. D0 10DR. 27 VAA2D AND
2ND0D0A726A0> AND
6. TC0 T2TA0 .D R071.ND0NT R.4A7AN D0V0A.140NT
C.R1.RAT2.N 27 D0D0CT2V0.
222. TC0 C.N.RA6A0 C.HRT .D A110AA7 GRAV0AI 0RR0D AND
D0C2D0D TC0 277H07 2N TC0 2N7TANT CA70 2N A 4ANN0R C.NTRARI
T. 07TA6A27C0D AAB AND @HR271RHD0NC0 2N N.T RHA2NG TCAT
10T2T2.N0R7 CAD 600N D01R2V0D .D TC02R C.N7T2THT2.NAA R2GCT
T. C.HN70A.
[1!]
The petitioners %aintain that petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro is the re,istere$ owner of the
su&3ect propert+ as evi$ence$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1( an$ that this title is conclusive of their
ownership over the sa%e.
[1']
The+ aver that their title cannot &e the su&3ect of a collateral attac=.
[#)]
The petitioners conten$ that in contrast to their title( the title of the respon$ents is $efective.
This can &e ,leane$ fro% the certifications issue$ &+ the Aan$s 4ana,e%ent 6ureau attestin, to
the fact that 7urve+ 1lan C-1"))!( un$er the na%e of the respon$ents $oes not e?ist an$ that its
verification is not liste$ in the 0D1 listin,( as well as the certifications fro% the Re,ister of
Dee$s of Ri8al an$ 4ari=ina that .CT No. "!( upon which the respon$ents title was alle,e$l+
&ase$( $oes not e?ist.
[#1]
The petitioners further posit that the relocation surve+ report cannot prevail over the
technical $escription of the propert+ in their title. The+ li=ewise assail the relocation surve+
report &+ alle,in, that 1an,+arihan( the chair%an of the surve+ tea%( is the respon$ent in a
nu%&er of cri%inal an$ a$%inistrative cases relatin, to the perfor%ance of his $uties.
[##]
The petitioners also clai% that the CA %ischaracteri8e$ their co%plaint as a co%plaint for
$a%a,es. The+ su&%it that their co%plaint is not a si%ple case for $a%a,es &ut one for the
recover+ of possession over the $ispute$ propert+ on the stren,th of their ownership over the
sa%e. The+ &la%e the a%&i,uit+ of the co%plaint on the ina$e:uacies of their for%er counsel.
[#*]
Dinall+( the petitioners assert that the+ were $eprive$ of their ri,ht to $ue process &ecause
their previous counsel $i$ not a$e:uatel+ $efen$ the%. The+ aver that their ri,hts were
pre3u$ice$ &+ their for%er counsels ne,li,ence> hence( such ne,li,ent acts shoul$ not &e
&in$in, on the%.
[#"]
.n the other han$( the respon$ents su&%it that the petitioners are now in estoppel to assail
the veracit+ an$ vali$it+ of the relocation surve+ report since the+ activel+ participate$ in its
preparation.
[#9]
The+ assert that the surve+ report is entitle$ to full faith an$ cre$ence as it was
prepare$ an$ %a$e &+ co%petent persons who were appointe$ &+ the trial court( represente$ the
parties( an$ were :ualifie$ to e?act a report &ase$ on their e?pertise.
[#]
The+ %aintain that the
petitioners o&3ection to the appoint%ent of 1an,+arihan as chair%an of the surve+ tea% is a
%ere afterthou,ht an$ the+ shoul$ have o&3ecte$ to it fro% the ver+ start.
[#/]
The respon$ents aver that since the surve+ report reveale$ that there was error in the
technical $escription of the petitioners propert+ an$ that it was the petitioners who usurpe$ the
respon$ents propert+( the clai% for $a%a,es can no lon,er &e sustaine$.
[#!]
The private
respon$ents also assert that the fact that the plan an$ the verification of the surve+ plan of C-
1"))! $o not e?ist in the recor$s of the Re,ister of Dee$s is not sufficient proof that their title
is $efective.
[#']
Durther( the respon$ents su&%it that the $is%issal of the co%plaint was not $ue to the
ne,li,ence of the petitioners for%er counsel &ut was &ase$ on the result of the surve+( the
con$uct of which was a,ree$ upon &+ the parties. 0ven if the for%er counsel of the petitioners
%a$e a %ista=e on how to procee$ with the case( such %ista=e is not so ,ross an$ is still &in$in,
on the client.
[*)]
The respon$ents a$$e$ that the failure to oppose the 4anifestationE4otion to
Dis%iss was not solel+ the for%er counsels fault( since at the ti%e the new counsel entere$ his
appearance( such %otion ha$ not +et &een resolve$ &+ the trial court an$ the new counsel ha$
still a%ple ti%e to oppose it.
[*1]
The pivotal issue &etween the parties in the trial court is whether or not( as clai%e$ &+ the
petitioners in their co%plaint( the su&3ect propert+ is a portion of the propert+ covere$ &+ .CT
No. 1-'1> or( as clai%e$ &+ the respon$ents in their answer to the co%plaint( whether the
su&3ect propert+ is a portion of the propert+ covere$ &+ TCT No. #*)""( which appears to &e a
portion of that propert+ ori,inall+ re,istere$ in 1'*/ as ,leane$ fro% TCT No. #*)"".
2n contrast to the opposite clai%s of the parties( the 7urve+ Tea% foun$ that the su&3ect
propert+( which is part of the lot actuall+ occupie$ &+ the petitioners( is a portion of Aot
1)"9"EC-1"))! which was ori,inall+ covere$ &+ .CT No. "! issue$ to 2si$ro 6enite8(
whereas the technical $escription of Aot 1)"99-G covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1 was erroneous for
&ein, the result of a $efective surve+.
The resolution of the issue will involve the alteration( correction or %o$ification either of
.CT No. 1-'1 un$er the na%e of petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro( or TCT No. #*)"" un$er the
na%e of respon$ent corporation. 2f the su&3ect propert+ is foun$ to &e a portion of the propert+
covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1 &ut is inclu$e$ in the technical $escription of the propert+ covere$
&+ TCT No. #*)""( the latter woul$ have to &e correcte$. .n the other han$( if the su&3ect
propert+ is foun$ to &e a portion of the propert+ covere$ &+ TCT No. #*)"" &ut is inclu$e$ in
the propert+ covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1( then the latter title %ust &e rectifie$. Cowever( the
rectification of either title %a+ &e %a$e onl+ via an action file$ for the sai$ purpose(
[*#]
confor%a&l+ with 7ection "! of Act No. "'( which provi$es-
70C. "!. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. J A certificate of title shall not &e su&3ect to
collateral attac=. 2t cannot &e altere$( %o$ifie$( or cancelle$ except in a direct proceeding in
accor$ance with law.
2t has &een hel$ that a certificate of title( once re,istere$( shoul$ not thereafter &e i%pu,ne$(
altere$( chan,e$( %o$ifie$( enlar,e$ or $i%inishe$ e?cept in a $irect procee$in, per%itte$ &+
law.
[**]
The resolution of the issue is( thus( not $epen$ent on the report of the surve+ tea% file$ in
the trial court.
The action of the petitioners a,ainst the respon$ents( &ase$ on the %aterial alle,ations of the
co%plaint( is one for recover+ of possession of the su&3ect propert+ an$ $a%a,es. Cowever(
such action is not a $irect( &ut a collateral attac= of TCT No. #*)"".
[*"]
Neither $i$ the
respon$ents $irectl+ attac= .CT No. 1-'1 in their answer to the co%plaint. Althou,h the
respon$ents averre$ in sai$ answer( &+ wa+ of special an$ affir%ative $efenses( that the su&3ect
propert+ is covere$ &+ TCT No. #*)"" issue$ in the na%e of the respon$ent corporation( an$ as
such the+ sai$ respon$ent is entitle$ to the possession thereof to the e?clusion of the petitioners(
such alle,ation $oes not constitute a $irect attac= on .CT No. 1-'1( &ut is li=ewise a collateral
attac= thereon. 2n$ee$( in Ybanez v. Intermediate Appellate Court(
[*9]
we hel$ that-
2t was erroneous for petitioners to :uestion the Torrens .ri,inal Certificate of Title issue$ to
private respon$ent over Aot No. '! in Civil Case No. /1( an or$inar+ civil action for recover+
of possession file$ &+ the re,istere$ owner of the sai$ lot( &+ invo=in, as affir%ative $efense in
their answer the .r$er of the 6ureau of Aan$s( $ate$ @ul+ 1'( 1'/!( issue$ pursuant to the
investi,ator+ power of the Director of Aan$s un$er 7ection '1 of 1u&lic Aan$ Aaw ;C.A. 1"1 as
a%en$e$<. 7uch a $efense parta=es of the nature of a collateral attac= a,ainst a certificate of title
&rou,ht un$er the operation of the Torrens s+ste% of re,istration pursuant to 7ection 1## of the
Aan$ Re,istration Act( now 7ection 1)* of 1.D. 1#9'. The case law on the %atter $oes not
allow a collateral attac= on the Torrens certificate of title on the ,roun$ of actual frau$. The rule
now fin$s e?pression in 7ection "! of 1.D. 19#' otherwise =nown as the 1ropert+ Re,istration
Decree.
[*]
Thus( the court a quo ha$ no 3uris$iction to resolve the $ecisive issue raise$ &+ the parties in
the trial court> hence( it &ehoove$ the trial court to or$er the $is%issal of the co%plaint on that
,roun$.
The petitioners anchor their clai% of lawful possession of the su&3ect propert+ on their
alle,ation that sai$ propert+ is a portion of the propert+ covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1 in the na%e
of petitioner Aurora $e 1e$ro. The petitioners were &ur$ene$ to prove not onl+ their ownership
over the propert+ covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1 &ut also that the su&3ect propert+ is a portion of the
propert+ covere$ &+ the sai$ title an$( if the+ fail to $o so( the co%plaint %ust &e $is%isse$.
Be a,ree with the petitioners that( ,enerall+( a certificate of title shall &e conclusive as to all
%atters containe$ therein an$ conclusive evi$ence of the ownership of the lan$ referre$ to
therein. Cowever( it &ears stressin, that while certificates of title are in$efeasi&le( unassaila&le
an$ &in$in, a,ainst the whole worl$( inclu$in, the ,overn%ent itself( the+ $o not create or vest
title.
[*/]
!e" merel" confirm or record title alread" existing and vested. !e" cannot be used to
protect a usurper from t!e true o#ner$ nor can t!e" be used as a s!ield for t!e commission of
fraud% neit!er do t!e" permit one to enric! !imself at t!e expense of ot!ers.
[*!]
As we ha$ the occasion to state in &etropolitan 'ater#orks and Se#erage S"stem v. Court
of Appeals-
[*']
2t %ust &e o&serve$ that the title of petitioner 4B77 was a transfer fro% TCT No. *'9/ which
was $erive$ fro% .CT No. ''" re,istere$ on 4a+ *( 1'1/. Hpon the other han$( private
respon$ents title was $erive$ fro% the sa%e .CT No. ''" &ut $ate$ April 1'( 1'1/. Bhere two
certificates ;of title< purport to inclu$e the sa%e lan$( the earlier in $ate prevails. ? ? ?. 2n
successive re,istrations( where %ore than one certificate is issue$ in respect of a particular estate
or interest in lan$( the person clai%in, un$er the prior certificate is entitle$ to the estate or
interest> an$ the person is $ee%e$ to hol$ un$er the prior certificate who is the hol$er of( or
whose clai% is $erive$( $irectl+ or in$irectl+( fro% the person who was the hol$er of the earliest
certificate issue$ in respect thereof. Cence( in point of priorit+ issuance( private respon$ents
title prevails over that of petitioner 4B77.
Aastl+( a certificate is not conclusive evi$ence of title if it is shown that the sa%e lan$ ha$
alrea$+ &een re,istere$ an$ an earlier certificate for the sa%e is in e?istence. 7ince the lan$ in
:uestion has alrea$+ &een re,istere$ un$er .CT No. ''" $ate$ April 1'( 1'1/( the su&se:uent
re,istration of the sa%e lan$ on 4a+ *( 1'1/ is null an$ voi$.
[")]
Bhile it is true that the petitioners clai%e$ $a%a,es a,ainst the respon$ents on account of
the latters alle,e$ trespass on the su&3ect propert+ an$ the alle,e$ $estruction of the petitioners
propert+( the resolution &+ the court a quo of the clai% for $a%a,es a,ainst the petitioners is
rivete$ to its resolution of the issue of whether the su&3ect propert+ is a portion of the petitioners
propert+ covere$ &+ .CT No. 1-'1 or the respon$ents propert+ covere$ &+ TCT No. #*)"".
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING( the petition is D0N20D for lac= of %erit. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. !"#" affir%in, the assaile$ .r$ers of the
Re,ional Trial Court is ADD2R40D. The co%plaint is D2742770D without pre3u$ice. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
A $irect attac= on a 3u$,%ent or $ecree is an atte%pt( for sufficient cause( to have it
annulle$( reverse$( vacate$( correcte$( $eclare$ voi$( or en3oine$( in a procee$in, institute$ for
that specific purpose( such as an appeal( writ of error( &ill of review( or in3unction to restrain its
e?ecution> $istin,uishe$ fro% a collateral attac=( which is an atte%pt to i%peach the vali$it+ or
&in$in, force of the 3u$,%ent or $ecree as a si$e issue or in a procee$in, institute$ for so%e
other purpose.
G.R. No. 1*#/1> @anuar+ 19( #)1)
Spouss Pa!"#$#o and M%"na &"na's (s. H#"s o) Ju'#an Sa*+aa*
DACT7- @ulian 7a%&aan ;@ulian<( %arrie$ to Guiller%a 7aarenas-7a%&aan ;Guiller%a<( was the
re,istere$ owner of a propert+ locate$ at 6ulua( Ca,a+an $e .ro Cit+. The respon$ents herein
an$ the petitioner 4+rna 6ernales ;4+rna< are the chil$ren of @ulian an$ Guiller%a. 4+rna(
who is the el$est of the si&lin,s( is the present owner an$ possessor of the propert+ in :uestion.
7o%eti%e in 1'/9( @ulian was a%&ushe$ at 4era+on( Tala=a$( 6u=i$non( an$ was hospitali8e$
$ue to a ,unshot woun$. .n April 11( 1'/9( @ulian alle,e$l+ re:ueste$ his chil$ren to ,ather so
that he coul$ %a=e his last two wishes. @ulians first wish was for the chil$ren to re$ee% the
su&3ect propert+ which was %ort,a,e$ to 4+rna an$ her hus&an$ 1atricio 6ernales ;1atricio<(
while his secon$ wish was for his re%ains not to &e &rou,ht to the house of 4+rna at Na8areth(
Ca,a+an $e .ro Cit+. Thus( in 1'!#( respon$ent A&salon 7a%&aan ;A&salon<( one of @ulians
chil$ren( offere$ to re$ee% the propert+ &ut the petitioners refuse$ &ecause the+ were alle,e$l+
usin, the propert+ as tetherin, place for their cattle. 2n @anuar+ 1''1( respon$ents receive$
infor%ation that the propert+ covere$ &+ TCT No. T-1"#)# was alrea$+ transferre$ to
petitioners na%e. Bhereupon( the+ secure$ a cop+ of the Dee$ of A&solute 7ale $ate$
Dece%&er /( 1'/) which &ore the si,natures of their parents an$ ha$ it e?a%ine$ &+ the National
6ureau of 2nvesti,ation ;N62<. The result of the e?a%ination reveale$ that the si,natures of their
parents( @ulian an$ Guiller%a( were for,e$.
1rocee$in,s &efore the Re,ional Trial Court
Thus( on April 1*( 1''*( the respon$ents( to,ether with their %other Guiller%a( file$ a
Co%plaint for Annul%ent of Dee$ of A&solute 7ale an$ Cancellation of Transfer Certificate
of Title No.T-1"#)" with Da%a,es an$ Brit of 1reli%inar+ 2n3unction a,ainst herein petitioners.
The+ alle,e$ that in spite of the for,e$ si,nature of their parents( the petitioners were a&le to
re,ister the Dee$ of A&solute 7ale with the Re,istr+ of Dee$s of Ca,a+an $e .ro Cit+ an$
secure TCT No. T-1"#)" on 4arch !( 1'/#. The+ pra+e$ for an in3unctive relief in or$er to
prevent the petitioners fro% sellin,( $isposin,( or %ort,a,in, sai$ propert+. The+ further pra+e$
that ;i< the Dee$ of A&solute 7ale an$ TCT No. T-1"#)" &e annulle$> ;ii< the+ &e $eclare$ the
a&solute owners of the propert+> ;iii< all $ocu%ents e?ecute$( %a$e an$ entere$ into relative to
the sai$ title &e $eclare$ voi$> an$( ;iv< the petitioners &e or$ere$ to pa+ the%1*))())).)) as
%oral an$ e?e%plar+ $a%a,es( an$ 19)())).)) as attorne+s fees plus11())).)) as appearance
fee. .n 4a+ ( 1''#( petitioners file$ their Answer( alle,in, that the su&3ect propert+ ;Aot No.
9'"/-A< use$ to &e a portion of Aot No. 9'"/( which was ori,inall+ owne$ &+ Clo$ual$o
7a%&aan ;Clo$ual$o< an$ Gliceria Dacer ;Gliceria<.After the $eath of Clo$ual$o an$ Gliceria in
1'"'( their heirs( na%el+( Alicia Aa,o( wife of 1e$ro Gacusan> 6ernar$o Aa,o ;sin,le<> Gloria
Aa,o( wife of @i%%+ An,co> Dionesia Aa,o( %arrie$to 1aulino Hnat> 1r+s&etero 7a%&aan(
%arrie$ to Rosario Kara,osa> @uanito 7a%&aan(%arrie$ to Renerio Galos> Aeo 7a%&aan( %arrie$
to A$eloisa Ta%&ulian> Renato 7a%&aan(%arrie$ to A$elina A&lon> Ai$a 7a%&aan ;sin,le<>
@ulian 7a%&aan( %arrie$ to Guiller%a7aarenas> 1a8 7a%&aan( wife of Rufinito Aa,o> an$(
6ernie 7a%&aan( %arrie$ to Alicia 7a&uero( e?ecute$ an 0?tra @u$icial 7ettle%ent an$ 7ale
$ate$ April 1)( 1'/) involvin, the a&ove%entione$ lan$ covere$ &+ .ri,inal Certificate of Title
;.CT< No. /'#1.2t appears( however( that @uanito( Ai$a an$ Renato sol$ their share to a certain
Do%in,o 0&arrat ;0&arrat<. Cence( a portion of the propert+ &elon,e$ to @ulian while another
portion &elon,e$ to 0&arrat. 2n view of the co-ownership &etween 0&arrat an$ @ulian( the for%er
an$ the latter e?ecute$ a Dee$ of 1artition $ate$ 7epte%&er !( 1'/) where&+ Aot No. 9'"/ was
$ivi$e$. The eastern half with an area of *("* s:uare %eters was assi,ne$ to @ulian( while the
western half with the sa%e area went to 0&arrat.
1etitioners clai%e$ that @ulian su&se:uentl+ sol$ his share to the% &+ virtue of a Dee$
of A&solute 7ale $ate$ Dece%&er /( 1'/).Thereafter( on Dece%&er 1)( 1'/)( 0&arrat an$
1atricio e?ecute$ an A,ree%ent wherein 0&arrat ac=nowle$,e$ that petitioners are the owners of
the 1! coconut trees plante$ in 0&arrats propert+ an$ even %a$e @ulian as a witness to the sai$
A,ree%ent
..n @ul+ #/( 1''#( petitioners file$ a 4otion for 1ro$uction an$ 2nspection of Docu%ent to
co%pel respon$ents to pro$uce an$ per%it the% to inspect an$ to cop+ or photo,raph the Dee$
of A&solute 7ale su&3ect %atter of sai$ e?a%ination. Thereafter( the trial court issue$ an .r$er
$ate$ Au,ust 1"( 1''# ,rantin, the %otion an$ $irectin, the Re,ional .ffice of the N62 to &rin,
the $ocu%ent to court so that the sa%e %a+ &e properl+ e?a%ine$. .n Au,ust 11( 1''#(
Guiller%a $ie$ in Ca,a+an $e .ro Cit+ an$ was accor$in,l+ $roppe$ as co-plaintiff. After trial
on the %erits( the trial court ren$ere$ its Decision $ate$ Au,ust #( #))1rulin, in favor of the
respon$ents.
1rocee$in,s &efore the Court of Appeals
1etitioners( alle,in, a%on, others that the trial court erre$ in fin$in, that the si,nature of @ulian
on the assaile$ $ocu%ent was a for,er+( went to the CA &+ wa+ of or$inar+ appeal. .n Au,ust
#)( #))*( the CA ren$ere$ a Decision affir%in, the fin$in,s of the trial court. 1etitioners file$ a
4otion for Reconsi$eration which was $enie$ &+ the CA.
RHA2NG- 1etition is $enie$.
The core issue to &e resolve$ in the present controvers+ is the authenticit+ of the Dee$
of A&solute 7ale which is a :uestion of fact rather than of law. 2n 4anila 6a+ Clu& Corporation
v .Courts of appeals we hel$ that for a :uestion to &e one of law( it %ust involve no e?a%ination
of the pro&ative value of the evi$ence presente$ &+ the liti,ants or an+ of the%. There is a
:uestion of law when the $ou&t or $ifference arises as to what the law is pertainin, to a certain
state of facts. .n the other han$( there is a :uestion of fact when the $ou&t arises as to the truth
or the falsit+ of alle,e$ facts.
2n the case at &ench( the issues raise$ &+ the petitioners are essentiall+ factual %atters( the
$eter%ination of which is &est left to the courts &elow. Bell-settle$ is the rule that the 7upre%e
Court is not a trier of facts. Dactual fin$in,s of the lower courts are entitle$ to ,reat wei,ht an$
respect on appeal( an$ in fact accor$e$ finalit+ when supporte$ &+ su&stantial evi$ence on the
recor$. 7u&stantial evi$ence is %ore than a %ere scintilla of evi$ence. 2t is that a%ount of
relevant evi$ence that a reasona&le %in$ %i,ht accept as a$e:uate to support a conclusion( even
if other %in$s( e:uall+ reasona&le( %i,ht conceiva&l+ opine otherwise. 6ut to erase an+ $ou&t
on the correctness of the assaile$ rulin,( we have carefull+ peruse$ the recor$s an$( nonetheless(
arrive$ at the sa%e conclusion. Be fin$ that there is su&stantial evi$ence on recor$ to support
the Court of Appeals an$ trial courts conclusion that the si,natures of @ulian an$ Guiller%a in the
Dee$ of A&solute 7ale were for,e$.
The trial court an$ the CA further conclu$e$ ? ? ? 2f such was the case( we are in a :uer+ wh+
the si,nature of GH2AA0R4A %ust have to &e for,e$ when her consent( as spouse of @HA2AN(
is not necessar+ to the e?ecution of the Dee$ of A&solute 7aleL The answer to this is si%ple-
@HA2AN never e?ecute$ the assaile$ Dee$ of A&solute 7ale in favor of 4IRNA an$ such $ee$
conve+s no ownership in favor of the appellants. Conclusions an$ fin$in,s of fact &+ the trial
court are entitle$ to ,reat wei,ht on appeal an$ shoul$ not &e $istur&e$ unless for stron, an$
co,ent reasons &ecause the trial court is in a &etter position to e?a%ine real evi$ence( as well as
to o&serve the $e%eanor of the witnesses while testif+in, in the case. The fact that the CA
a$opte$ the fin$in,s of fact of the trial court %a=es the sa%e &in$in, upon this court.
( we hel$ that factual fin$in,s of the CA which are supporte$ &+ su&stantial evi$ence are
&in$in,( final an$ conclusive upon the 7upre%e Court. A $eparture fro% this rule %a+ &e
warrante$ where the fin$in,s of fact of the CA are contrar+ to the fin$in,s an$ conclusions of
the trial court( or when the sa%e is unsupporte$ &+ the evi$ence on recor$. There is no ,roun$ to
appl+ the e?ception in the instant case( however( &ecause the fin$in,s an$ conclusions of the CA
are in full accor$ with those of the trial court. The for,e$ Dee$ of A&solute 7ale is null an$
conve+s no title. 2t is si,nificant to stress that the %ain thrust in the case at &ench is the re,ularit+
an$ vali$it+ of the assaile$ $ee$ of a&solute sale $ate$ Dece%&er /( 1'/) ;Recor$ p. */"(0?hi&it
M*N< alle,e$l+ e?ecute$ &+ @HA2AN in favor of the appellants. As such( we %ust not confuse the
issue at han$ &+ averrin, that other $ocu%ents shoul$ &e consi$ere$ in $eter%inin, the vali$it+
of the $ee$ of a&solute sale. The reason is si%ple- the vali$ e?ecution of the Dee$ of A&solute
7ale will conve+ an$ transfer ownership in favor of appellants title &ase$ on the rule that &+ the
contract of sale one of the contractin, parties o&li,ates hi%self to transfer ownership of an$ to
$eliver a $eter%inate thin,( an$ the other to pa+ there for a su% certain in %one+ or its
e:uivalent ;Coronel v s. Cour t of Appals(#* 7CRA 19<.
Be hol$ that with the presentation of the for,e$ $ee$( even if acco%panie$ &+ the owners
$uplicate certificate of title( the re,istere$ owner $i$ not there&+ lose his title( an$ neither $oes
the assi,nee in the for,e$ $ee$ ac:uire an+ ri,ht or title to the sai$ propert+.
The fact that the assaile$ Dee$ was not si,ne$ &+ @HA2AN an$ the si,natures of @HA2AN an$
GH2AA0R4A were for,e$ per fin$in,s of the N62 7enior Docu%ent 0?a%iner( it can therefore
&e inferre$ that the su&se:uent issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1"#)" has no &asis
at all since ownership was not conve+e$ to appellants &+ reason of the for,e$ Dee$.
2n a$$ition( as to the issue that the A,ree%ent $ate$ Dece%&er 1)( 1'/) ;Recor$ p.*/9( 0?hi&it
M"N< e?ecute$ &etween D.42NG. an$ 1ATR2C2. were e?clu$e$( we &elieve there is no nee$ to
$elve on the sai$ A,ree%ent since the sa%e will not in an+ wa+ ,ive 3ustification to the
for,er+ co%%itte$ in the Dee$ of A&solute 7ale. As e?plaine$ &+ the court a :uo( to which we
concur( appellee shoul$ not &e faulte$ &ecause the+ are not law+ers( an$ as such the+ %a+ not &e
a&le to appreciate the le,al lo,ic &etween 0?hi&its M*N an$ M"N