De Guzman v. Agbagala
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Elias P. Javier and Maria Sison died leaving six children and 13 parcels of land. Their children inherited and divided the properties. Carmen Javier inherited five parcels. Carmen died single and without compulsory heirs, survived by her siblings. In mid-1987, respondent Praxides Javier Agbagala learned of a deed of donation dated January 25, 1977, purportedly executed by Carmen in favor of her niece, Madelene Javier Cruz. The deed was registered, and Madelene claimed ownership and received rentals. Respondent filed a civil case to nullify the deed of donation and subsequent transfers, including the land in Tampac, Aguilar, Pangasinan, which was acquired by petitioners spouses Raymundo and Perla de Guzman. Respondent claimed the deed of donation was forged, which was confirmed by an NBI handwriting expert. Petitioners claimed they acquired the land through a free patent issued on November 26, 1987, and subsequently registered Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-30187 in their name on December 11, 1987. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the deed of donation null and void ab initio, canceled subsequent deeds of sale, declared OCT No. P-30187 null and void, and ordered the properties to revert to Carmen's intestate estate. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether OCT No. P-30187 was correctly nullified considering it cannot be the subject of collateral attack. The Petition: Petitioners argue that OCT No. P-30187, issued in their name before the amended complaint was filed, can only be nullified in a direct proceeding. Respondent counters that the title was not yet indefeasible when the amended complaint was filed and that the doctrine of indefeasibility does not apply to a void ab initio free patent.
Issue(s)
Whether OCT No. P-30187 was correctly nullified despite being allegedly collaterally attacked. Whether the doctrine of indefeasibility of title applies to a free patent issued over private land.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The October 14, 2003 decision and April 20, 2004 resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether OCT No. P-30187 was correctly nullified despite being allegedly collaterally attacked: The Court held that while a certificate of title generally cannot be subjected to collateral attack, this principle does not apply when the patent and the title based thereon are null and void ab initio. An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to both direct and collateral attack. In this case, OCT No. P-30187 was registered based on a free patent that the RTC found was issued without authority. The petitioners falsely claimed the land was public land when it was private land inherited by Carmen. This finding was affirmed by the CA, and there is no reason to reverse it. Therefore, even though the attack on OCT No. P-30187 was collateral, it was correctly nullified because the underlying free patent was void ab initio. On whether the doctrine of indefeasibility of title applies to a free patent issued over private land: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a free patent issued over private land is null and void and produces no legal effects. Private ownership of land, evidenced by prima facie proof like a duly registered possessory information or clear showing of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession, is not affected by the issuance of a free patent. The Public Land law applies only to lands of the public domain. The Director of Lands lacks the authority to grant a free patent to lands that are no longer public but have passed to private ownership. Consequently, any certificate of title issued pursuant to such a void free patent is itself null and void. The principle of indefeasibility of title, which aims to protect the integrity and integrity of land titles under the Torrens System, does not shield titles that are fundamentally flawed from inception due to lack of authority in the issuing office.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of title issued based on a free patent that was null and void ab initio, such as one issued over private land, can be nullified even if the attack on the title is collateral.