518 Phil. 8
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
NOTE: This lot is covered portion of Lot 2271 that which is overlapped by Lot 10, Psu-80886 Lot 2276, that which is overlapped by Lot 2, Psu-56007 which is also Lot 6, Psu-80886; Lot 2270, portion of that which is overlapped by Lot 7, Psu-56007 and the whole Lot 8, Psu-56007.On August 11, 1995, the above-named petitioners filed their opposition to LRC Case No. M-228 alleging that as per Survey Plan Psu-31086, respondents’ property partly overlaps their lot. As early as April 28, 1989, this lot was registered in their names under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-9182 of the Registry of Deeds of Las Piñas City.
The incontrovertibility of a title prevents a land registration court from acquiring jurisdiction over a land that is applied for registration if that land is already decreed and registered under the Torrens System.The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Order dated March 4, 1996 (Annex “A,” Petition) is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Instead, the respondent Judge is directed to DISMISS without prejudice LRC M-228.Petitioners then filed their motion for partial reconsideration praying that LRC Case No. M-228 be dismissed with prejudice and to declare that the right of respondents to file any action for reconveyance of the property has prescribed.
SO ORDERED.
IN REFUSING TO DECLARE THE DISMISSAL OF LRC M-228 TO BE WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT ANY ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE TO HAVE LONG AGO PRESCRIBED, THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED THE ISSUE NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND PERTINENT JURISPRUDENCE, IN THAT –Petitioners contend that the dismissal of a subsequent application for original registration of title already covered by a Torrens title should be with prejudice; that an action for annulment of title or reconveyance of the property involved has prescribed; and that respondents’ application for registration (LRC Case No. M-228) is a collateral attack against petitioners’ land titles.I.
HAVING ALREADY FOUND THAT THE LAND WAS TITLED, THE COURT OF APPEALS’ REFUSAL TO DISMISS THE LAND REGISTRATION CASE WITH PREJUDICE CONTRAVENES THE DOCTRINES THAT A) DECREES OF REGISTRATION ARE IN REM, B) TITLED LANDS CANNOT BE DECREED AGAIN AND C) THERE CAN BE NO COLLATERAL ATTACK ON TITLES.II.
HAVING FOUND THAT THE DECREES FROM WHICH PETITIONERS’ TITLE IS DERIVED, WERE ISSUED IN 1966, THE COURT OF APPEALS’ REFUSAL TO DECLARE AS ALREADY PRESCRIBED, ANY DIRECT ATTACK OR ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE CONTRAVENES SECTION 32 OF PD 1529 AND THE DOCTRINES IN CARO VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND SALVATIERRA VS. COURT OF APPEALS.
Sec. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. – Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem, and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens System.Pursuant to the above provisions, the Regional Trial Court (formerly Court of First Instance) has the authority to act, not only on applications for original registration of title to land, but also on all petitions filed after the original registration of title. Thus, it has the authority and power to hear and determine all questions arising from such applications or petitions.[8]
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. x x x
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 cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Underscoring ours)Respondents’ application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack against petitioners’ title not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well settled that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.[9] Hence, whether or not respondents have the right to claim title over the property in question is beyond the province of the instant proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. It has been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the “mirador su casa” to avoid the possibility of losing his land.[10]
It must be noted that petitioners failed to rebut the LRA report and only alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate was spurious, without offering any proof to substantiate this claim. TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued under the Torrens System, enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity. As we declared in an earlier case (Reyes and Nadres vs. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791), “(t)he very purpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration.” The application for registration of the petitioners in this case would, under the circumstances, appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is not allowed under Section 48 of P.D. 1529. (underscoring ours)Corollarily, Section 32 of the same law states:
Sec. 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. – The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase “innocent purchaser for value” or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.A decree of registration that has become final shall be deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually contested and determined, but also upon all matters that might be litigated or decided in the land registration proceedings.[12]
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. (underscoring ours)
Puno, (Chairman), Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.