SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517, September 18, 2013
HILARIA BAGAYAS, Petitioner, v. ROGELIO BAGAYAS, FELICIDAD BAGAYAS, ROSALINA BAGAYAS, MICHAEL BAGAYAS, AND MARIEL BAGAYAS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
[1] Whether or not [petitioner] is an adopted child of the late spouses Maximino Bagayas and Eligia Clemente;With respect to the first issue, the RTC declared petitioner to be an adopted child of Maximino and Eligia on the strength of the order of adoption, which it considered as more reliable than the oral testimonies of respondents denying the fact of adoption.18 On the issue of the validity of the questioned deed of absolute sale, the RTC ruled that Eligia's signature thereon was a mere surplusage, as the subject lands belonged exclusively to Maximino who could alienate the same without the consent of his wife.19cralaw virtualaw library
[2] Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 7, 1974 is valid;
[3] Whether or not plaintiff can ask for partition of the subject properties assuming that she is an adopted child of the late spouses Maximino Bagayas and Eligia Clemente and assuming further that the subject deed of sale is invalid; and
[4] Is the prevailing party entitled to damages?17
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be [sic] Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner [sic] of other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the [sic] Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that x x x new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; x x x; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant of any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. x x x.To substantiate her “interest” in the subject lands, petitioner capitalized on the finding of the RTC in its Decision dated March 24, 2008 that she is the adopted child of Maximino and Eligia, and that the signature of the latter in the deed of absolute sale transferring the subject lands to Rogelio and Orlando was falsified.29cralaw virtualaw library
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The first phase of a partition and/or accounting suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not a co-ownership in fact exists, and a partition is proper (i.e., not otherwise legally proscribed) and may be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in the property. This phase may end with a declaration that plaintiff is not entitled to have a partition either because a co-ownership does not exist, or partition is legally prohibited. It may end, on the other hand, with an adjudgment that a co-ownership does in truth exist, partition is proper in the premises and an accounting of rents and profits received by the defendant from the real estate in question is in order. In the latter case, the parties may, if they are able to agree, make partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon. In either case – i.e., either the action is dismissed or partition and/or accounting is decreed – the order is a final one, and may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby.38 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)In dismissing Civil Case No. 04-42, the RTC declared that petitioner could not ask for the partition of the subject lands, even though she is an adopted child, because “she was not able to prove any of the instances that would invalidate the deed of absolute sale”39 purportedly executed by Maximino and Eligia. This conclusion came about as a consequence of the RTC’s finding that, since the subject lands belonged exclusively to Maximino, there was no need to secure the consent of his wife who was long dead before the sale took place. For this reason, the forgery of Eligia's signature on the questioned deed was held to be inconsequential. However, on reconsideration, the RTC declared that it committed a mistake in holding the subject lands as exclusive properties of Maximino “since there was already an admission [by] the defendants during the pre-trial conference that the subject properties are the conjugal properties of the spouses Maximino Bagayas and Eligia Clemente.”40 Nonetheless, the RTC sustained its dismissal of Civil Case No. 04-42 on the ground that it constituted a collateral attack upon the title of Rogelio and Orlando.
There is no dispute that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked, but that rule is not material to the case at bar. What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and not the title itself. The certificate referred to is that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership which is, more often than not, represented by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses title with the certificate of title. 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.42 (Emphases supplied)Thus, the RTC erroneously dismissed petitioner’s petition for annulment of sale on the ground that it constituted a collateral attack since she was actually assailing Rogelio and Orlando’s title to the subject lands and not any Torrens certificate of title over the same.
It is a well-known doctrine that the issue as to whether [the certificate of] title was procured by falsification or fraud can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. A Torrens title can be attacked only for fraud, within one year after the date of the issuance of the decree of registration. Such attack must be direct, and not by a collateral proceeding. The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding. The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.47 (Citations omitted)Contrary to the foregoing characterization, Section 108 of PD 1529 explicitly states that said provision “shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration.” In fact, based on settled jurisprudence, Section 108 of PD 1529 is limited only to seven instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.48 Hence, the same cannot be said to constitute an attack on a certificate of title as defined by case law. That said, the Court proceeds to resolve the issue as to whether or not the dismissal of petitioner’s twin petitions for the amendment of TCT Nos. 375657 and 375658 was proper.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 9-33.cralawnad
2 Id. at 36-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Jose S. Vallo.cralawnad
3 Id. at 18. Erroneously appearing as January 6, 2008. See footnote 1 of the Petition.cralawnad
4 Id. at 48.cralawnad
5 Id. at 49-55.cralawnad
6 Deceased. Survived by wife, respondent Rosalina, and children, respondents Michael and Mariel.cralawnad
7Rollo, pp. 51-52.cralawnad
8 Id. at 61-62
9 Id. at 62.cralawnad
10 Id. at 85. Including the dorsal portion.cralawnad
11 Id. at 93. Including the dorsal portion.cralawnad
12 Id. at 57-59.cralawnad
13 Id. at 59.cralawnad
14 There is no copy of the deed of extrajudicial succession in the records.cralawnad
15Rollo, p. 57.cralawnad
16 Id. at 56-63.cralawnad
17 Id. at 60.cralawnad
18 Id. at 61.cralawnad
19 Id. at 61-62.cralawnad
20 Id. at 62.cralawnad
21 Id. at 64-74. Dated April 13, 2008.cralawnad
22 Id. at 75-77.cralawnad
23 Id. at 76.cralawnad
24 541 Phil. 93 (2007).cralawnad
25Rollo, p. 77.cralawnad
26 Id. at 78-83 (for LRC No. 08-34) and 86-91 (for LRC No. 08-35).cralawnad
27 See id. at 83 and 91.cralawnad
28 “AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.”
29Rollo, pp. 87-88.cralawnad
30 Id. at 36-47. See Resolutions dated January 6, 2008 (supposed to be January 6, 2009).cralawnad
31 Id. at 40 and 46.cralawnad
32 Id. at 39-41 and 45-47.cralawnad
33 Id. at 107-114. Dated January 10, 2009.cralawnad
34 Id. at 110-112.cralawnad
35 Id. at 48.cralawnad
36Dapar v. Biascan, G.R. No. 141880, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 179, 197.cralawnad
37 G.R. No. 69260, December 22, 1989, 180 SCRA 576.cralawnad
38 Id. at 584-585.cralawnad
39Rollo, p. 62.cralawnad
40 Id. at 77.cralawnad
41 G.R. No. 165427, March 21, 2011, 645 SCRA 677.cralawnad
42 Id. at 689.cralawnad
43Rollo, p. 38.cralawnad
44 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. (Emphasis supplied)
45 See Jarantilla, Jr. v. Jarantilla, G.R. No. 154486, December 1, 2010, 636 SCRA 299, 319.cralawnad
46Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc., G. R. No. 152440, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 315.cralawnad
47 Id. at 325.cralawnad
48Paz v. Republic, G.R. No. 157367, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 74, 81.cralawnad
49Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA, G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 70, 78-79, citing Milagros Joaquino v. Lourdes Reyes, G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004, 434 SCRA 260, 274.cralawnad
50 G.R. No. 163530, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 66.cralawnad
51 Id. at 73.cralawnad
52 See City Government of Tagaytay v. Guerrero, G.R. Nos. 140743 & 140745, September 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 33, 58-59.