Antonio Garcia, Et. Al. vs. Felipe Neri Esclito, Et. Al.,
G.R. No. 207210, March 21, 2022
Facts:
1. Sometime in 1979, petitioner Antonio Garcia purchased from Conchita Matute a 29-hectare parcel of land, through a deed of sale.
2. In 1998, he divided the land and donated portions of it to his children and grandchildren through deeds of transfer of rights.
3. Petitioners then filed with the DENR applications for the issuance of land titles pursuant to the DENR's Handog Titulo program.
4. On November 17-25, 1998, petitioners were issued their respective patents and thereafter certificates of title upon registration.
5. In 2003, respondents, who are holders of certificates of land ownership award (CLOA) issued by the DAR on December 19, 1998, filed a petition for the annulment/declaration of nullity of deed of sale and all the deeds, documents and proceedings relying thereon before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB.
6. Respondents alleged that the 1979 deed of sale was void for violating Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
a. According to respondents, since the 1979 Deed of Sale was not registered before the Registry of Deeds within three months from the effectivity of RA 6657, the sale was void. Consequently, all other deeds, documents, and proceedings relying thereon, including petitioners' certificates of title, are also void.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent can validly attack the validity of certificate of title issued in favor of the petitioner by questioning the validity of the Deed of sale which was the basis of the certificate of title
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that respondents' petition before the Provincial Adjudicator constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on petitioners' Torrens certificates of title.
Section 43 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, states that a certificate of title shall not be subject to a collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
A direct attack is an action whose main objective is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of a judgment pursuant to which a registration decree is issued, if the judgment has not yet been implemented, or if already implemented, to seek the recovery of the property. On the other hand, a collateral attack transpires when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack is incidentally made against the judgment.
A collateral attack is prohibited because the integrity of land titles and their indefeasibility are guaranteed by the Torrens system of registration. The Torrens system was adopted precisely to quiet titles to lands and to put a stop forever to any question of legality of the titles, except claims which were noted at the time of registration or which may arise subsequent thereto. By guaranteeing the integrity of land titles and their indefeasibility, the Torrens system gives the registered owners complete peace of mind.
Here, it is important to note that petitioners are holders of certificates of title registered under the Torrens system. Thus, their certificates can only be attacked directly.
Jurisprudence has recognized an attack on a deed of sale pursuant to which a certificate of title was issued as an impermissible collateral attack on the certificate of title.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment