G.R. No. 154270 Case Digest

G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010

Teofisto Ono, etc.

vs Vicente Lim

Ponente: Bersamin

Facts:

1992, Lim filed in RTC Cebu a petition for reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT, alleging that the same OCT was lost during World War 2 by his mother, Luisa. This land was located in Balamban, Cebu which was sold to Luisa by spouses Ono. Although the deed evidencing the sale was lost, the only legitimate son of Ono had executed a notarized document in favor of Luisa denominated as confirmation of the sale which was duly filed in Provincial Assessor's Office of Cebu.

Now, Spouses Ono's successors-in-interest opposed Lim's petition contending that they had the certificate of title of the land.

Lim then converted the petition into a complaint for quieting of title, averring that they had been in actual possession of the property since 1973, cultivating and developing it, enjoying its fruits and paying taxes corresponding to it.

The other party claimed that the land was never sold to Luisa, and that the confirmation by the legitimate son was fabricated, the signature not being authentic.

RTC ruled in favor of Lim. CA affirmed the RTC. The CA ruled that the action for quieting of title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and that the Lims' undisturbed possession had given them a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on their own title.

The petitioners raise the following issues:

Whether or not the validity of the OCT could be collaterally attacked through an ordinary civil action to quiet title;

Whether or not the ownership over registered land could be lost by prescription, laches, or adverse possession;

Whether or not there was a deed of sale executed by Spouses Ono in favor of Luisa and whether or not said deed was lost during World War II;

Whether or not the confirmation of sale executed by Antonio in favor of Luisa existed; and

Whether or not the signature purportedly of Antonio in that confirmation of sale was genuine.

Held: Petition has no merit.

(1) Action for cancellation of title is not an attack on the title. The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.

(2) Prescription was not relevant. Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. However, prescription was not relevant to the determination of the dispute herein, considering that Lim did not base his right of ownership on an adverse possession over a certain period. He insisted herein, instead, that title to the land had been voluntarily transferred by the registered owners themselves to Luisa, his predecessor-in-interest.