ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 154270 : March 9, 2010 TEOFISTO OÑO, PRECY O. NAMBATAC, VICTORIA O. MANUGAS and POLOR O. CONSOLACION, Petitioners, v. VICENTE N. LIM, Respondent. D E C I S I O N BERSAMIN, J.: The subject of controversy is Lot No. 943 of the Balamban Cadastre in Cebu City, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-9969-(O-20449), over which the contending parties in this action for quieting of title, initiated by respondent Vicente N. Lim (Lim) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City, assert exclusive ownership, to the exclusion of the other. In its decisiondated July 30, 1996, On appeal (CA-GR CV No. 57823), the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC on January 28, 2002. Hence, this appeal via petition for review on certiorari. Antecedents On October 23, 1992, Lim filed in the RTC in Cebu City a petition for the reconstitution of the owners duplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), alleging that said OCT had been lost during World War II by his mother, Luisa; Zosimo Oño and petitioner Teofisto Oño (Oños) opposed Lims petition, contending that they had the certificate of title in their possession as the successors-in-interest of Spouses Oño.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary On account of the Oños opposition, and upon order of the RTC, Lim converted the petition for reconstitution into a complaint for quieting of title, In their answer, RTC Ruling On July 30, 1996, after trial, the RTC rendered its decision, WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered quieting plaintiff's title to Lot No. 943 of the Balamban (Cebu) Cadastre, and directing the Register of Deeds of Cebu
Without special pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. The RTC found that the Lims had been in peaceful possession of the land since 1937; that their possession had never been disturbed by the Oños, except on two occasions in 1993 when the Oños seized the harvested copra from the Lims caretaker; that the Lims had since declared the lot in their name for taxation purposes, and had paid the taxes corresponding to the lot; that the signature of Antonio on the confirmation of sale was genuine, thereby giving more weight to the testimony of the notary public who had notarized the document and affirmatively testified that Antonio and Luisa had both appeared before him to acknowledge the instrument as true than to the testimony of the expert witness who attested that Antonios signature was a forgery. CA Ruling On appeal, the Oños maintained that the confirmation of sale was spurious; that the property, being a titled one, could not be acquired by the Lims through prescription; that their (the Oños) action to claim the property could not be barred by laches; and that the action instituted by the Lims constituted a collateral attack against their registered title.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The CA affirmed the RTC, however, and found that Spouses Oño had sold Lot No. 943 to Luisa; and that such sale had been confirmed by their son Antonio. The CA ruled that the action for quieting of title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and that the Lims undisturbed possession had given them a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on their own title.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Nonetheless, the CA corrected the RTC, by ordering that the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cebu City issue a new duplicate certificate of title in the name of Luisa, considering that the owners duplicate was still intact in the possession of the Oños.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The decree of the CA decision was as follows: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, the dispositive portion of the decision appealed from is CORRECTED as follows:
SO ORDERED. The CA denied the Oños motion for reconsideration Hence, this appeal. Issues The petitioners raise the following issues:
Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit. A. Action for cancellation of title is not an attack on the title The petitioners contend that this action for quieting of title should be disallowed because it constituted a collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), citing Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, viz: Section 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.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The petitioners contention is not well taken.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. Lims complaint pertinently alleged: 18. If indeed, the genuine original of the Owner's Duplicate of the Reconstituted Original Certificate of Title No. RO-9699 (O-20449) for Lot 943, Balamban Cadastre xxx is in Defendant's (Oños) possession, then VNL submits the following PROPOSITIONS: xxx 18.2. Therefore, the Original of Owners Duplicate Certificate (which Respondents [Defendants Oños] claim in their Opposition is in their possession) must be surrendered to VNL upon order of this Court, after the Court shall have determined VNL's mother's acquisition of the attributes of ownership over said Lot 943, in this action, in accordance with Section 107, P.D. 1529, Property Registration Decree xxx xxx t]hat OCT 20449 be cancelled and new title for Lot 943 be issued directly in favor of LUISA NARVIOS, to complete her title to said Lot; The averments readily show that the action was neither a direct nor a collateral attack on OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), for Lim was asserting only that the existing title registered in the name of the petitioners predecessors had become inoperative due to the conveyance in favor of Lims mother, and resultantly should be cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the validity of OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), or challenge the judgment by which the title of the lot involved had been decreed. In other words, the action sought the removal of a cloud from Lims title, and the confirmation of Lims ownership over the disputed property as the successor-in-interest of Luisa. B. Prescription was not relevant The petitioners assert that the lot, being titled in the name of their predecessors-in-interest, could not be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The assertion is unwarranted.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. Lim showed that his mother had derived a just title to the property by virtue of sale; that from the time Luisa had acquired the property in 1937, she had taken over its possession in the concept of an owner, and had performed her obligation by paying real property taxes on the property, as evidenced by tax declarations issued in her name; C. Forgery, being a question of fact, could not be dealt with now The petitioners submit that Lims evidence did not preponderantly show that the ownership of the lot had been transferred to Luisa; and that both the trial and the appellate courts disregarded their showing that Antonios signature on the confirmation of sale was a forgery.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary Clearly, the petitioners hereby seek a review of the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, because the Court is not a trier of facts. It is emphasized, too, that the CA upheld the conclusion arrived at by the RTC that the signature of Antonio had not been simulated or forged. The CA ruled that the testimony of the notary public who had notarized the confirmation of sale to the effect that Antonio and Luisa had appeared before him prevailed over that of the petitioners expert witness. The concurrence of their conclusion on the genuineness of Antonios signature now binds the Court. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side, and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that means, in the last analysis, probability of the truth. Lim successfully discharged his burden of proof as the plaintiff. He established by preponderant evidence that he had a superior right and title to the property. In contrast, the petitioners did not present any proof of their better title other than their copy of the reconstituted certificate of title. Such proof was not enough, because the registration of a piece of land under the Torrens system did not create or vest title, such registration not being a mode of acquiring ownership. The petitioners need to be reminded that a certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the registered owner. WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is denied, and the decision dated January 28, 2002 is affirmed.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary The petitioners are ordered to pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN WE CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. REYNATO S. PUNO cralaw Endnotes:
|
|