8/18/2019 GR 165838

1/3

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 165838 April 3, 2013

NEMESIO FIRAZA, SR., Petitioner,vs.SPOUSES CLAUIO !"# EUFRECENA UGA$, Respondents.

R S O ! " T I O N

RE$ES, J.:

 #ssailed in this petition$ for revie% on certiorari under Rule &' of the Rules of (ourt is the Decision) dated *anuar+ -, )--&of the (ourt of #ppeals (#/ in (.#. 0.R. SP No. 1&2', affir3in4 the Orders dated #u4ust )-, )--$ and *ul+ ), )--)& ofthe Re4ional Trial (ourt RT(/ of 5a+u4an, #4usan del Sur, 5ranch 1, %hich disallo%ed petitioner Ne3esio Fira6a, Sr.petitioner/ fro3 propoundin4 7uestions attac8in4 the validit+ of Spouses (laudio and ufrecena "4a+9s respondents/ landtitle durin4 the trial in (ivil (ase No. &&).

!i8e%ise assailed is the (# Resolution ' dated Septe3ber )&, )--& den+in4 reconsideration.

T%& A"'&(&"')

(ivil (ase No. &&) %as co33enced b+ a co3plaint for :uietin4 of Title filed b+ the respondents %ho alle4ed that the+ arethe re4istered o%ners of !ot No. );;1

8/18/2019 GR 165838

2/3

On #u4ust )-, )--$, the RT( issued an Order $ disallo%in4 an+ issue pertainin4 to the petitioner?s counterclai3 %hich inturn %as ad@ud4ed as a direct attac8 to the validit+ of the respondents? title, hence, prohibited, vi6A

 #fter an intant fro3 the records, the (ourt is of the opinion and so holds that the (ounterclai3is a direct attac8 on the validit+ of the title.

Proverbial it is that actions to nullit+ sicE Free Patents should be at the behest of the Director of !ands a+aban vs.

Republic, ') S(R# '1/.

 #lon4 this plain, since the counterclai3 is a direct attac8 on the validit+ of the title and the proper a4encies, li8e the !andMana4e3ent 5ureau of the DNR %ere not included, an+ issue presented to prove the ille4alit+ of the title, shall not beallo%ed.

SO ORDRD.$&

Chen his 3otion for reconsideration %as denied b+ the RT( in an Order $' dated *ul+ ), )--), the petitioner sou4ht recourse%ith the (# via a special civil action for certiorari.

In its herein assailed Decision$= dated *anuar+ -, )--&, the (# affir3ed the RT(?s @ud43ent albeit pre3ised on thedifferent findin4 that the petitioner?s counterclai3 %as a collateral attac8 to the validit+ of the respondent?s title. The (#statedA GtheE petitioner?s atte3pt to introduce evidence on the alle4ed fraud co33itted b+ the respondents in securin4 their

title to the sub@ect land constitutes a collateral attac8 on the title %hich is not allo%ed b+ la%.G $1

The petitioner 3oved for reconsideration but his 3otion %as denied in the (# Resolution$; dated Septe3ber )&, )--&hence, the present appeal 3oored on this le4al 7uestionA

Chether the petitioner?s counterclai3 constitutes a collateral attac8 of the respondents? land title and thus bars the for3erfro3 introducin4 evidence thereon in the latter?s civil action for 7uietin4 of titleH

T%& Co*r'+) R*li"

The appeal is i3pressed %ith 3erit.

Section &; of Presidential Decree No. $')2$2 or the Propert+ Re4istration Decree proscribes a collateral attac8 to a

certificate of title and allo%s onl+ a direct attac8 thereof, vi6A

Sec. &;. (ertificate not sub@ect to collateral attac8. # certificate of title shall not be sub@ect to collateral attac8. It cannot bealtered, 3odified or cancelled e>cept in a direct proceedin4s in accordance %ith la%.1âwphi1

In #ran4ote v. Ma4lunob,)- the (ourt, after distin4uishin4 bet%een direct and collateral attac8, classified a counterclai3under for3er, vi6A

The attac8 is considered direct %hen the ob@ect of an action is to annul or set aside such proceedin4, or en@oin itsenforce3ent. (onversel+, an attac8 is indirect or collateral %hen, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attac8 on theproceedin4 is nevertheless 3ade as an incident thereof. Such action to attac8 a certificate of title 3a+ be an ori4inal actionor a counterclai3, in %hich a certificate of title is assailed as void. )$ (itation o3itted and e3phasis supplied/

In the recent case of Sa3paco v. !antud,)) the (ourt applied the fore4oin4 distinction and held that a counterclai3,

specificall+ one for annul3ent of title and reconve+ance based on fraud, is a direct attac8 on the Torrens title upon %hich theco3plaint for 7uietin4 of title is pre3ised.) arlier in, Develop3ent 5an8 of the Philippines v. (#,)& the (ourt ruled si3ilarl+and e>plained thusA

Nor is there an+ obstacle to the deter3ination of the validit+ of T(T No. $-$-$. It is true that the indefeasibilit+ of torrens titlecannot be collaterall+ attac8ed. In the instant case, the ori4inal co3plaint is for recover+ of possession filed b+ petitionera4ainst private respondent, not an ori4inal action filed b+ the latter to 7uestion the validit+ of T(T No. $-$-$ on %hichpetitioner bases its ri4ht. To rule on the issue of validit+ in a case for recover+ of possession is tanta3ount to a collateralattac8. o%ever, it should not bEe overloo8ed that private respondent filed a counterclai3 a4ainst petitioner, clai3in4o%nership over the land and see8in4 da3a4es. ence, %e could rule on the 7uestion of the validit+ of T(T No. $-$-$ forthe counterclai3 can be considered a direct attac8 on the sa3e. > > >. )'

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165838_2013.html#fnt25

8/18/2019 GR 165838

3/3

The above pronounce3ents %ere based on the %ell