Romero v. Singson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Consolacion and Rosario Domingo, and respondent Engracia Singson, are siblings. Their parents, Macario and Felicidad Domingo, owned a 223-square meter property. Macario died in 1981, and Felicidad in 1997. On June 7, 2006, a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12575 was issued in respondent Engracia's name, based on a notarized Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006, purportedly executed by their deceased parents. Engracia then demanded that her siblings vacate the property. Procedural History: Petitioners and their siblings filed a complaint for annulment of TCT 12575 and the deed of sale, reconveyance, and damages, alleging forgery. Subsequently, Engracia filed an unlawful detainer suit against her siblings before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). The MeTC ruled in favor of Engracia, ordering the siblings to vacate and pay rent. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially affirmed the MeTC decision but later reversed it on reconsideration, dismissing Engracia's complaint and ruling that the siblings, as co-owners and heirs, could not be ejected. The RTC found the deed of sale void due to the vendors' prior deaths. Engracia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC decision, holding that Engracia, as the holder of a more recent Torrens title, had a better right to possession and that the validity of her title could not be collaterally attacked. The Petition: Petitioners Consolacion D. Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the CA decision. They argued that the MeTC should have dismissed the ejectment complaint for failure to comply with the condition precedent of earnest efforts toward compromise, as the parties are siblings. They also contended that their cause of action was intertwined with the issue of ownership, rendering the MeTC without jurisdiction for an unlawful detainer case. Furthermore, they argued that the CA erred in not upholding the award of damages and in ruling that their defense of forgery constituted a collateral attack on respondent's title.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the unlawful detainer case, considering the validity of the deed of sale and Torrens title. Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer case, given the intertwined issue of ownership and the nature of the challenge to the respondent's title as a collateral attack. Whether the deed of sale, purportedly executed by deceased parents, is valid and can serve as a basis for ejectment, and the effect of forgery on the Torrens title. Whether the petitioners, as co-owners and heirs, can be ejected from the property, considering their rights and the respondent's claim of ownership. Whether the procedural issue regarding the failure to exert earnest efforts toward a compromise has merit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's Order dated December 11, 2009, which dismissed the unlawful detainer case. The Court held that the deed of sale was null and void due to forgery, as the purported vendors were already deceased at the time of its execution. Consequently, the respondent's Torrens title, derived from this void sale, was also ineffective, and she acquired no right to the property. As heirs of the original owners, the petitioners and respondent are co-owners, and the petitioners, who are in possession, cannot be ejected.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the deed of sale and Torrens title: The Court found that the Absolute Deed of Sale dated June 6, 2006, was null and void because the purported vendors, Macario and Felicidad Domingo, were already deceased at the time of its execution (Macario died in 1981, Felicidad in 1997). A forged deed of sale produces no civil effect and is equivalent to nothing. Consequently, the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 12575 issued in the respondent's name, based on this void deed, was also ineffective. The Court emphasized that a Torrens title obtained through fraud or forgery does not vest title in the holder, and the registered owner in such a case holds the property as a mere trustee for the rightful owners. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not serve as a shield for fraud. On the issue of jurisdiction and collateral attack: The Court clarified that while an unlawful detainer case generally involves only the issue of physical possession, the issue of ownership may be resolved provisionally to determine possession. However, in this case, the petitioners' defense that the respondent's title was obtained through a forged deed of sale was not a collateral attack but a direct challenge to the validity of the title, which is permissible. An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and can be attacked directly or collaterally. Since the deed of sale was void ab initio, the title derived from it was also void, and the respondent could not claim superior right to possession based on it. On the validity of the deed of sale, purportedly executed by deceased parents, is valid and can serve as a basis for ejectment, and the effect of forgery on the Torrens title: The Court held that the petitioners, as compulsory heirs of Macario and Felicidad Domingo, are co-owners of the subject property by succession. Their possession of the property, where they resided since birth, was premised on their right as co-owners, not merely by the respondent's tolerance. Since the respondent's claim of ownership was based on a void deed and title, she had no right to eject the petitioners, who are rightful co-owners. The Court cited Article 487 of the Civil Code, which allows any co-owner to bring an action in ejectment, but noted that in this case, it was the respondent claiming exclusive ownership and attempting to eject other co-owners. On the petitioners, as co-owners and heirs, can be ejected from the property, considering their rights and the respondent's claim of ownership: The Court held that the petitioners, as compulsory heirs of Macario and Felicidad Domingo, are co-owners of the subject property by succession. Their possession of the property, where they resided since birth, was premised on their right as co-owners, not merely by the respondent's tolerance. Since the respondent's claim of ownership was based on a void deed and title, she had no right to eject the petitioners, who are rightful co-owners. The Court cited Article 487 of the Civil Code, which allows any co-owner to bring an action in ejectment, but noted that in this case, it was the respondent claiming exclusive ownership and attempting to eject other co-owners. On the procedural issue of compromise efforts: The Court found the procedural issue regarding the failure to exert earnest efforts toward a compromise to be without merit. While Article 151 of the Family Code and Article 222 of the Civil Code require such efforts for suits between family members, the failure to comply is not a jurisdictional defect and is deemed waived if not raised by the opposing party in a motion to dismiss. In this case, the respondent did not file a motion to dismiss on this ground.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Torrens title obtained through a forged deed of sale is null and void and produces no civil effect. Consequently, the registered owner under such a void title acquires no right or title to the property and cannot use the title as a shield for fraud or to eject rightful possessors, especially when the possessors are co-owners by succession. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply when the title itself is tainted with nullity from its inception due to forgery, and in such cases, the registered owner holds the property as a mere trustee for the rightful owners.