Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > May 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-40101 May 31, 1982 - FABIAN BORLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

199 Phil. 448:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-40101. May 31, 1982.]

FABIAN BORLAS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, SERGIO SANTOS and JULIANA ORTIZ, Respondents.

Eduardo Santos for Petitioner.

Cesar C. Cruz for Private Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Private respondents as the registered owners of a parcel of 555 square meters of land covered by TCT No. 177436 entered into a contract of lease with petitioner in June 1966. In December 1966, petitioner stopped paying rentals and refused to vacate the premises despite repeated demands. Thus, private respondents sued him for unlawful detainer. At the trial, petitioner adduced evidence showing that he had been in possession of the land in question where his house stands since 1955; that in 1963 he filed a sales application with the Bureau of Lands after having been granted a permit over the land; and that OCT No. 5259 covering the subject land which was issued to private respondents was cancelled, and TCT No. 177436 was later issued to said private respondents On the foregoing basis, petitioner claimed a better right to possession and questioned private respondents’ title over the land. The municipal court rendered a decision in favor of private respondents but was reversed by the Court of First Instance. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found for Private Respondents. Hence, this petition for review. The legal question posed is whether private respondents’ OCT No. 5279 is sufficient basis for conclusion that they were, as regards petitioner, in prior possession of the land in question.

The Supreme Court held that the issuance of OCT No. 5279 covering the same area described in TCT No. 177436 to private respondents indicates that they have been in possession of the land long before the issuance of the certificate of title, which is the vital requisite that entitled them to registration; and that said certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked in these proceedings.

Decision appealed affirmed and the petition dismissed.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; UNLAWFUL DETAINER; PRIOR POSSESSION; ESTABLISHED BY THE ISSUANCE OF ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE COVERING THE LAND IN QUESTION. — There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were in the prior possession of the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The fact that OCT No. 5279 was issued to the plaintiffs is indubitably evidence that they have been in possession of the land embraced therein for at least 30 years prior to the commencement of the registration proceedings which is the vital requisite that entitled them to registration.

2. CIVIL LAW; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED. — The certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked in these proceedings (Loo Soo v. Osorio, 89 Phil. 135).

3. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; UNLAWFUL DETAINER; QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP MUST BE RAISED IN THE PROPER ACTION. — The question of ownership of the land should be raised in the proper action by the real parties in interest.


D E C I S I O N


DE CASTRO, J.:


Originally filed in the Municipal Court of Navotas, Rizal, this unlawful detainer case was decided therein in favor of plaintiffs Sergio Santos and Juliana Ortiz, spouses, against Fabian Borlas, defendant, now the herein petitioner. This petition seeks a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals also in favor of the aforementioned plaintiffs now the private respondents herein, reversing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to which the decision of the Municipal Court of Navotas had earlier been appealed by herein petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals, being considered final and conclusive upon this Court, We quote from its decision, for a statement of said facts, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence of the plaintiffs is that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in Tangos, Navotas, Rizal embraced in TCT No. 177436 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal with an area of 555 square meters, more or less; that sometime in June 1966 the defendant and plaintiffs entered into a verbal contract of lease of the above-mentioned land on a month-to-month basis at a monthly rental of P10.00; that defendant entered upon the land and occupied a house which he allegedly bought from one Concordia Pascual; that defendant continued to pay the rental until December 1966 when he stopped doing so; and that despite repeated demands, oral and written, the defendant refused to vacate the premises in question."cralaw virtua1aw library

"The defendant adduced evidence that he is the possessor of a portion of 259 square meters foreshore area in Navotas, Rizal since 1955; that he acquired the land from one Concordia Pascual; that the possession of defendant was peaceful, continuous and adverse against all except the government; that on January 14, 1963 the defendant filed a sales application with the Bureau of Lands in order to formalize his ownership of the land he was occupying; that previous to the filing of this application, the defendant was given a permit by the Bureau of Lands over the land where his house and store is located; that on March 12, 1966 the plaintiff was able to secure OCT No. 5279 covering a parcel of land with an area of 555 square meters within the same vicinity where the defendant’s house and store are located; that thereafter OCT No. 5279 was cancelled and TCT No. 176788 covering a parcel of land with an area of 1,465 square meters, TCT No. 176789 covering a parcel of land with an area of 2,078 and TCT No. 177436 covering a parcel of land with an area of 555 square meters were issued to the plaintiffs; that later plaintiff sold the land covered by TCT Nos. 176788 and 176789 to one Jose Maronilla, and the plaintiffs retained an area of 555 square meters under TCT No. 177436.

"There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were in the prior possession of the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The fact that OCT No. 5279 was issued to the plaintiffs is indubitable evidence that they have been in possession of the land embraced therein for at least thirty years prior to the commencement of the registration proceedings.

"The complaint expressly alleges that the defendant occupied a portion of the land described in paragraph 2 thereof. Hence the identity of the land in question has been sufficiently established.

"That the defendant is a lessee of the plaintiffs was practically admitted by said defendant when he testified thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q In 1966, were you in occupation of the premises where the store previously owned by Mrs. Pascual was acquired by you?

"A Yes, sir.

"Q Was there anybody who may claim over the land or collect anything from you by way of rental?

"A No one was collecting from me, except Juliana Ortiz, who claims that this land was hers.

"The defendant does not claim to be the owner of the land in question. He bases his right to occupy said land on a permit issued to him by the Bureau of Lands. But the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint is covered by a Torrens Title which cannot be attacked collaterally in this unlawful detainer case. (Loo Soo v. Osorio, 89 Phil. 135) As long as the title is not set aside by a competent court it should be respected." 1

The legal question presented for resolution to this Court is whether respondent court is legally correct in basing its conclusion that private respondents were in prior possession of the land in question, the decisive issue in this unlawful detainer case, on private respondent’s OCT No. 5279 covering said land. To begin with, the error assigned bearing on the identity of the land, subject matter of this unlawful detainer case, is without merit. Petitioner himself, in questioning the finding of the respondent court that private respondents were in prior possession of the land described in the complaint based on the Torrens Certificate of Title of said respondents because the said certificate was later cancelled, impliedly admits that the land in question was properly identified. At any rate, this is a question of fact as to which respondent court’s finding must be deemed final.

Now, going back to the legal question as earlier defined, the pertinent finding of the respondent court is that portion of its decision which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were in the prior possession of the land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The fact that OCT No. 5279 was issued to the plaintiffs is indubitable evidence that they have been in possession of the land embraced therein for at least thirty years prior to the commencement of the registration proceedings. 2

Petitioner contends that OCT No. 5279 having been cancelled with the issuance of TCT No. 176788, TCT No. 176789 and TCT No. 177436, the above-quoted conclusion of respondent court would have no more legal basis. The alleged cancellation of OCT No. 5279 is premised on the fact that the aforementioned Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. 176788, 176789 and 177436 have been cancelled due to certain irregularities or anomalies in their issuance because of their greatly expanded areas. But it is not disputed that while private respondents sold the lands covered by TCT Nos. 176788 and 176789, they retained TCT No. 177436 covering the area of 555 square meters, the very same original area described in OCT No. 5279. Moreover, OCT No. 5279 was restored on application of the private owners, by the Court of First Instance of Rizal as shown by an order of Judge Serafin Salvador dated October 2, 1973. 3

It would appear, therefore, that the integrity of OCT No. 5279 has never been impaired and may properly serve as basis for the finding of respondent court that private respondents had been in prior possessions of the land in question. It has been also shown by private respondents 4 that the land covered by TCT No. 177436, the one mentioned in the complaint, bears exactly the same description as that covered by OCT No. 5279.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

It is, however, urged that petitioner’s evidence of possession consisting of his alleged acquisition of the land from one Concordia Pascual, after which he filed a sales application after having been in possession by virtue of a permit issued by the Bureau of Lands, should outweigh the mere circumstantial evidence which was what the respondent court considered in finding prior possession in favor of private respondents — OCT No. 5278. There is no merit in this contention of petitioner.

In the first place, petitioner’s sales application was denied. This must be due to the fact that the land was covered already by a Torrens Title — OCT No. 5278, in the name of private respondents — the issuance of which indicates that said respondents had been in possession of the land long before the issuance of the certificate of title, which is the vital requisite that entitled them to the registration of the land.

Secondly, as correctly observed by respondent court, the certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked in these proceedings. 5 Also impeccably correct is the observation of same court that the question of ownership of the land should be raised in the proper action by the real parties in interest.

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed decision, the same is hereby affirmed and the instant petition dismissed. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. pp. 1-3, Brief for Private Respondents; p. 76, Rollo.

2. p. 2, Id.

3 Annex A to Petitioner’s Brief; p. 74, Rollo.

4. pp. 10-11, Respondents’ Brief; p. 76, Rollo. .

5. Loo Soo v. Osorio, 89 Phil. 135.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. 2668-MJ May 22, 1982 - MARIANO B. LAUREL v. HERMENEGILDO C. CRUZ

    4199 Phil. 243

  • G.R. No. L-28245 May 22, 1982 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 245

  • G.R. No. L-29555 May 22, 1982 - ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION

    199 Phil. 256

  • G.R. No. L-29917 May 22, 1982 - FOREMOST ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 264

  • G.R. Nos. L-48376-85 May 22, 1982 - BALAGTAS REALTY CORPORATION v. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 267

  • G.R. No. L-54887 May 22, 1982 - GUILLERMA FLORDELIS, ET AL. v. FERMIN MAR, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 281

  • G.R. No. L-57535 May 24, 1982 - ZENITH INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FIDEL P. PURISIMA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 291

  • Adm. Case No. 133-J May 31, 1982 - BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION

    199 Phil. 295

  • Adm. Case No. 797 May 31, 1982 - LYDIA CABATU v. EDGARDO C. DOMINGO

    199 Phil. 324

  • Adm. Matter No. 2180-MJ May 31, 1982 - EPHRAIM MARIANO, ET AL. v. CRISOSTOMO GONZALES

    199 Phil. 326

  • Adm. Matter No. 2240-MJ May 31, 1982 - COSME S. ABIOG, ET AL. v. JOSE M. PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-25271 May 31, 1982 - REPARATIONS COMMISSION v. GUILLERMO SANTOS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 339

  • G.R. No. L-30028 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIO DOBLE, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 343

  • G.R. No. 31255 May 31, 1982 - MARCIAL A. EDILLON v. PIO B. FERANDOS

    199 Phil. 363

  • G.R. No. L-32734 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: CHUA TIONG KANG, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 366

  • G.R. No. L-33209 May 31, 1982 - JESUSA DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 367

  • G.R. No. L-33794 May 31, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 381

  • G.R. No. L-35105 May 31, 1982 - BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, INC. v. JUAN F. ECHIVERI

    199 Phil. 393

  • G.R. No. L-35136 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADO MONSALUD

    199 Phil. 398

  • G.R. No. L-36754 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO ABAYON, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 404

  • G.R. No. L-37074 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: BENITO LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-37243 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: ALFONSO P. BICHARA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 438

  • G.R. No. L-37477 May 31, 1982 - TORIBIO LESCANO v. JUAN A. BAES, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 440

  • G.R. No. L-39172 May 31, 1982 - SAMUEL DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 442

  • G.R. No. L-40101 May 31, 1982 - FABIAN BORLAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 448

  • G.R. No. L-46245 May 31, 1982 - MERALCO SECURITIES INDUSTRIAL CORP. v. CENTRAL BRD. OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 453

  • G.R. No. L-47334 May 31, 1982 - MIGUEL VIOLAGO, ET AL. v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 463

  • G.R. No. L-47943 May 31, 1982 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 465

  • G.R. No. L-50081 May 31, 1982 - SANTOS CODILLA v. FLORENCIA LOPEZ, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 471

  • G.R. No. L-50261 May 31, 1982 - IN RE: CECILIA LAVIDES, ET AL. v. CITY COURT OF LUCENA

    199 Phil. 478

  • G.R. No. L-50466 May 31, 1982 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 487

  • G.R. No. L-52038 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN ROYO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 493

  • G.R. No. L-52516 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO TALORONG

    199 Phil. 502

  • G.R. No. L-53672 May 31, 1982 - BATA INDUSTRIES, LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 506

  • G.R. No. L-54681 May 31, 1982 - LILIA B. BARRERA v. FRANCIS J. MILITANTE, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 511

  • G.R. No. L-55698 May 31, 1982 - ENGINEERING EQUIPMENT, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 517

  • G.R. No. L-55831 May 31, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT MEDRANO, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 520

  • G.R. No. L-57771 May 31, 1982 - QUIRINO CAVILI, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO VAMENTA, JR., ET AL.

    199 Phil. 528

  • G.R. No. L-58681 May 31, 1982 - ALFREDO P. MALIT v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    199 Phil. 532

  • G.R. No. L-59743 May 31, 1982 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS v. ETHELWOLDO R. OVEJERA, ET AL.

    199 Phil. 537