Alternate collateral attack

This is another case reiterating the rule that a Certificate of Title is not subject to collateral attack.

The case originated from a complaint for damages with a prayer for preliminary injunction filed by the spouses de Santos against RDC and its president Mr. Co. The complaint alleged that the spouses were the registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 50,000 square meters covered and described in Original Certificate of Title No. P-691 issued by the Register of Deeds of Marikina on March 26, 1992; that they had been continuously paying the real estate taxes on the property; that sometime in January 1997, RDC and Co started putting up a barbed wire fence that destroyed their farmhouse and resulted in the cutting of their bamboos and other trees; that as a consequence of the illegal and wrongful acts of RDC and Co, they suffered actual, moral and exemplary damages and expenses.

In answer to the complaint RDC and Co alleged that RDC was the owner of the land being fenced as evidenced by TCT No. 236044 which was issued by the Register of Deeds on March 5, 1993. By fencing the property in order to determine its metes and bounds they were just exercising their rights of ownership over the property. They further maintained that the spouses failed to establish the metes and bounds of the property which was claimed to have been usurped by them. Thus a counterclaim for damages was likewise interposed against the spouses.

After a relocation survey conducted upon joint motion of the parties, the trial court dismissed the complaint since according to the report of the survey team, the land claimed by the spouses was covered by the title under the name of RDC. The trial court ordered the dismissal without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate action for correction or alteration of the technical description of the property covered by OCT No. P-691. Was the trial court correct?

The Supreme Court said that the pivotal issue between the parties in the trial court is whether or not, as claimed by the spouses in their complaint, the subject property is a portion of the property covered by OCT P-691; or as claimed by RDC and Co, whether said property is a portion of the property covered by TCT No. 236044. The resolution of the issue is thus not dependent on the report of the survey team. The resolution of the issue will involve the alteration, correction or modification of either OCT No. P-691 in the name of the spouses or TCT No. 236044 in the name of RDC. If the subject property is found to be a portion of the Property covered by OCT No. P-691 but is included in the technical description of the property covered by TCT No. 236044, the latter would have to be corrected. On the other hand, if the subject property is found to be a portion of the property covered by TCT No. 236044 but is included in the property covered by OCT No. P-691, then the latter title must be rectified. However, the rectification of either title may be made only via a direct action filed for the said purpose, conformably with Section 48 of Act No. 496 which provides that "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".

The action of the spouses against RDC and Co is one for the recovery of possession of the subject property and damages. However such action is not a direct, but a collateral attack of TCT No. 236044. Neither did RDC and Co directly attack OCT No. P-691 in their answer to the complaint. Although they averred that the subject property is covered by TCT No. 236044 issued in the name of RDC, and as such they are entitled to the possession thereof to the exclusion of the spouses, such allegation does not constitute a direct attack on OCT No. P-691, but is likewise a collateral attack thereon. Thus the dismissal of the complaint should have been ordered on that ground (De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp. G.R. 158002, February 28, 2005. 452 SCRA 564).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]