Aguilar v. Alfaro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the recovery of possession of a 606-square meter parcel of land, Lot 83, located in Brgy. Buenavista, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. The petitioner, Asuncion Urieta Vda. de Aguilar, claims ownership based on Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-9354 issued to her deceased husband, Ignacio Aguilar, on May 16, 1977. She alleges that Ignacio had permitted her sister, Anastacia Urieta (mother of respondent Ederlina B. Alfaro), to temporarily occupy a portion of the land in 1968. Following Ignacio's death and the heirs' decision to partition the land, the petitioner demanded that the respondents vacate the premises, which they refused. Procedural History: The petitioner initiated an action for recovery of possession and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The respondents, in their defense, presented a notarized but unregistered deed of sale (Kasulatan sa Bilihan) dated April 17, 1973, purportedly from Ignacio and the petitioner to Anastacia, covering a 367.5-square meter portion of Lot 83. They also raised the defense of prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to vacate and denying their counterclaim for reconveyance, citing prescription and laches, and upholding the indefeasibility of the Torrens title. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, upholding the validity of the Kasulatan sa Bilihan and dismissing both the complaint and the counterclaim. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising the sole issue of whether the appellate court erred in upholding the validity and genuineness of the purported deed of sale despite the alleged vehement denial of the vendors. The petitioner argues that her signature and her husband's on the deed are forgeries and that the document itself is suspicious. She contends that her Torrens title is indefeasible and that the respondents' unregistered deed of sale cannot prevail. The respondents, in their comment, argue that the petition raises factual issues prohibited under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as it requires a re-examination of evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity and genuineness of the purported deed of sale despite the alleged forgery of the vendors' signatures, and whether a registered Torrens titleholder has a better right of possession over occupants claiming ownership based on a notarized but unregistered deed of sale executed prior to the Torrens title's issuance. Whether the respondents' claim of ownership over a portion of the property, based on the unregistered deed of sale, constitutes a collateral attack on the petitioner's Torrens title. Whether the respondents' counterclaim for reconveyance could be granted, considering the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to non-payment of docket fees. On the nature of Accion Publiciana.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's order for the respondents to vacate the premises.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the Kasulatan sa Bilihan versus the Torrens Title: The Court held that as against the petitioner's Torrens title, the respondents' notarized but unregistered Kasulatan sa Bilihan cannot confer a better right to possess. A Torrens title is conclusive evidence of ownership and entitles the titleholder to possession. Even if the unregistered deed enjoys a disputable presumption of authenticity, it cannot prevail over a registered Torrens title. The Court reiterated the age-old rule that the person with a Torrens title over a land is entitled to possession thereof. Furthermore, the Court noted several signs casting doubt on the genuineness of the Kasulatan, including its execution date coinciding with the buyer's death, the delay in asserting rights thereunder, the absence of the notary and witnesses, and the presumption of regularity in the issuance of the OCT. The Court ruled that the respondents' attack on the validity of petitioner's title by claiming ownership of a portion of the land even before the issuance of the OCT constitutes a collateral attack. On the nature of the respondents' claim as a collateral attack: Such an attack is impermissible under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), which states that a certificate of title cannot be subjected to collateral attack. A collateral attack is an attack incidental to another action, not a direct action to annul or set aside the title. On the RTC and CA's jurisdiction over the counterclaim: The Court found that both the trial court and the appellate court considered the respondents' counterclaim as a petition for reconveyance. As a permissive counterclaim, it required the payment of corresponding docket fees. The Court noted the absence of proof that respondents paid the required docket fees for their counterclaim. It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired not merely by the filing of the pleading but by the payment of the full amount of the prescribed docket fee. On the nature of Accion Publiciana: The Court clarified that accion publiciana is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. While the objective is to recover possession, courts may pass upon the issue of ownership if it is intrinsically linked to possession. However, any adjudication of ownership in such cases is provisional and not a bar to a subsequent action for determination of ownership.
Main Doctrine
A registered Torrens title confers a superior right to possession over an unregistered deed of sale, even if the latter is notarized. A collateral attack on a Torrens title is not permissible in an action for recovery of possession.