Case Digest: Gabriel Jr. et al vs Crisologo, G.R. No. 204626, June 9, 2014

CASE TITLE:  Gabriel Jr. et al vs Crisologo
GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 204626               June 9, 2014
PONENTE: Mendoza, J.
CASE WITH THE SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: MTCC - Complaint for recovery of possession RTC - Appeal CA - Appeal
FACTS: Carmeling Crisologo, represented by her attorney-in-fact Pedro Isican, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership with Damages against Juliet B. Pulkera, Paul P. Gabriel, Ireneo C. Calwag, and Thomas L. Tingga-an before the MTCC. Carmeling Crisologo claimed ownership of two parcels of land (2,000 sq. meters total) covered by TCT Nos. T-13935 and T-13936, supported by an Assessment of Real Property and updated realty tax payments. In 2006, Crisologo discovered that petitioners Juliet B. Pulkera, Paul P. Gabriel, Ireneo C. Calwag, and Thomas L. Tingga-an unlawfully entered, occupied, and constructed houses on her properties without her consent. Upon discovery, Crisologo’s representatives demanded the petitioners to vacate.  The petitioners promised to buy the land at ₱3,500 per sq. meter but failed to do so and refused to vacate despite several demands. Crisologo, represented by her attorney-in-fact Pedro Isican, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and/or Ownership with Damages. MTCC: Ruled in favor of Crisologo, ordering the petitioners to vacate and demolish their structures. Petitioners’ defense questioning the titles was a prohibited collateral attack. RTC: Reversed the MTCC decision, ruling that the petitioners' assertion of the TCTs’ invalidity was valid, citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Republic v. Marcos. CA: Set aside the RTC decision and reinstated the MTCC ruling in favor of Crisologo. Crisologo's possession was established through her acquisition and subsequent issuance of certificates of title, payment of realty taxes since 1969, appointment of Isican as administrator, and offer to sell the lots to petitioners.
ISSUE: Who between petitioners and respondent Crisologo have a better right of possession over the subject parcels of land.
ARGUMENTS/LEGAL BASES
PETITIONER	RESPONDENTS
Petitioners argue that Carmeling Crisologo failed to provide documentary or testimonial evidence proving her acquisition of the subject properties through sale or any other legal means, relying solely on titles issued in her name without a deed of sale. They contend that even if a sale occurred, the validity of the titles was nullified by Supreme Court decisions in Republic v. Marcos and Presidential Decree No. 1271, which rendered the titles ineffective as sources of legal rights. Crisologo allegedly never took actual possession of the properties after the purported 1967 sale, appointing an administrator only in 2006. The petitioners assert that tax declarations and receipts for tax payments are insufficient to prove ownership or possession without actual occupancy. They argue against Crisologo's claim of possession, citing the absence of encumbrances on the titles, lack of transactions over 40 years, non-validation of titles by the Register of Deeds, absence of witnesses proving her intention to possess, unreliability of documents issued only in 2008, lack of improvements by her, and the assertion of laches due to her failure to validate titles promptly.	Crisologo opposes the petition mainly on technical grounds. First, she argues that the supposed representatives of the petitioners who filed this petition and signed the certification on non-forum shopping have no authority to do so. Hence, they have no standing to prosecute because they are not the real parties in interest.  Second, she claims that the petitioners failed to furnish the CA a copy of their motion for extension of time to file this petition for review.
PREVAILING PARTY:  Crisologo
DECISION/DOCTRINE: After a careful review of the records, the Court holds that Crisologo has a better right of possession over the subject parcels of land. Accion Publiciana: its nature and purpose Also known as accion plenaria de posesion, accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty. The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership. When parties, however, raise the issue of ownership, the court may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to possess the property. This adjudication, nonetheless, is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the same parties involving title to the property. The adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of ownership.  In her complaint, Crisologo prayed that she be declared in prior actual possession of the properties in dispute and that petitioners vacate the same and demolish their houses therein. She alleged, among others, that she was the registered owner of the subject parcels of land and that petitioners unlawfully entered her properties by stealth, force and without her prior consent and knowledge. Clearly, she primarily wanted to recover possession of the subject parcels of land from petitioners. Hence, the case is an accion publiciana. Nonetheless, the petitioners have raised the issue of ownership in their pleadings. They mainly argue that Crisologo’s titles on the subject properties are void and that they have been in open, actual, exclusive, notorious, uninterrupted and continuous possession over the subject properties in good faith. The nullity of the decrees of registration and certificates of titles in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271 is not absolute Although Section 1 of P.D. No. 1271 invalidated decrees of registration and certificates of title within the Baguio Town site Reservation Case No. 1, GLRO Record No. 211, the nullity, however, is not that sweeping. The said provision expressly states that "all certificates of titles issued on or before July 31, 1973 shall be considered valid and the lands covered by them shall be deemed to have been conveyed in fee simple to the registered owners" upon 1) showing proof that the land covered by the subject title is not within any government, public or quasi-public reservation, forest, military or otherwise, as certified by appropriating government agencies; and 2) compliance by the titleholder with the payment to the Republic of the Philippines of the correct assessed value of the land within the required period. In the case at bench, the records show that the subject parcels of land were registered on August 24, 1967. The titles are, thus, considered valid although subject to the conditions set. But whether or not Crisologo complied with the said conditions would not matter because, this would be a collateral attack on her registered titles, as would be discussed later. At any rate, petitioners, as private individuals, are not the proper parties to question the status of the respondent’s registered titles. Section 6 of P.D. No. 127114 expressly states that the "Solicitor General shall institute such actions or suits as may be necessary to recover possession of lands covered by all void titles not validated under this Decree." The respondent’s certificates of title give her the better right to possess the subject parcels of land It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. Thus, in Arambulo v. Gungab, this Court declared that the "age-old rule is that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof." The records show that TCT No. T-1393517 and TCT No. T-1393618 bear the name of Carmeling P. Crisologo, as the registered owner. Petitioners do not dispute the fact that she has a Torrens title over the subject parcels of land. The respondent’s Torrens certificates of title are immune from a collateral attack. As a holder of a Torrens certificate of title, the law protects Crisologo from a collateral attack on the same. Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides that a certificate of title cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. Thus: 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 canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. This rule has been applied in innumerable cases, one of which was Francisco Madrid v. Spouses Mapoy,  where it was written: Registration of land under the Torrens system, aside from perfecting the title and rendering it indefeasible after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders the title immune from collateral attack. A collateral attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a different relief and as an incident of the present action, an attack is made against the judgment granting the title. This manner of attack is to be distinguished from a direct attack against a judgment granting the title, through an action whose main objective is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not yet implemented, or to seek recovery if the property titled under the judgment had been disposed of. To permit a collateral attack on respondents-plaintiffs' title is to water down the integrity and guaranteed legal indefeasibility of a Torrens title. The petitioners-defendants' attack on the validity of respondents-plaintiffs' title, by claiming that fraud attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title. It is an attack incidental to their quest to defend their possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana," not in a direct action whose main objective is to impugn the validity of the judgment granting the title. This is the attack that possession of a Torrens Title specifically guards against; hence, we cannot entertain, much less accord credit to, the petitioners-defendants' claim of fraud to impugn the validity of the respondents-plaintiffs' title to their property. As the lawful possessor. the respondent has the right to eject the petitioners The Court agrees with the CA that the only question that needs to be resolved in this suit to recover possession is who between the parties is entitled to the physical or material possession of the subject parcels of land. Therefore, the foremost relevant issue that needs to be determined here is simply possession, not ownership. The testimonial and documentary evidence on record prove that Crisologo has a preferred claim of possession over that of petitioners. It cannot be denied that she bought the subject properties from the previous owner in 1967, which was why the transfer certificates of title were subsequently issued in her name. Records further show that she has been paying the realty taxes on the said properties since 1969. She likewise appointed Isican as administrator of the disputed lands. More importantly, there is no question that she offered to sell to petitioners the portions of the subject properties occupied by them. Hence, she deserves to be respected and restored to her lawful possession as provided in Article 539 of the New Civil Code.  WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.