Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado

“EUFROCINA RIVERA VS. ROLANDO VELASCO”, G.R. NO. 242837 (OCTOBER 5, 2022):

A COLLATERAL ATTACK AGAINST A TORRENS TITLE ALLEGING FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY IN THE ISSUANCE THEREOF CANNOT BE USED TO DEFEAT AN ACTION FOR EJECTMENT

The case stems from a three (3) parcels of land located in Rio Chico, General Tinio, Nueva Ecija containing an aggregate area of 27,076 square meters and registered under the name of petitioner Eufrocina Rivera under Original Certificates of Title (OCT) Nos. P-27012, P-27013 and P-27014. The subject properties were likewise declared for real estate taxation purposes in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner Rivera claims that she acquired the foregoing pieces of real property through separate Free Patent Applications before the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Upon approval, the corresponding Torrens titles were issued in her name. 

Upon discovering on June 21, 2014 that respondent Rolando Velasco, by means of strategy and stealth, possessed and occupied portion of her titled lands, to the extent of 6,397 square meters, by constructing a house thereon without her consent or permission; and after respondent refused to vacate and the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, petitioner Rivera filed a case for Ejectment. The Municipal Trial Court of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija favorably granted the Ejectment Complaint. The Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija dismissed the appeal. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the rulings of the MTC and the RTC and held that the Ejectment Complaint should be dismissed because the matter involves question of ownership. 

The Supreme Court held that the elements for forcible entry cases where one is deprived of prior physical possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth were duly proven, namely: (1) prior physical possession of the property; and (2) unlawful deprivation of it by the defendant through force, intimidation, strategy, threat or stealth. The Court also held that the case was timely filed since it was lodged within one year from discovery of the dispossession.

More importantly, the Supreme Court restated the doctrine that “a Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless and until it has been nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction.” The Court emphasized that Section 4855 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, also provides that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Hence, it is immune from collateral attacks. 

The Court also cited the case of Barcelo vs. Riparip, G.R. No. 250159 (April 26, 2021), wherein the Court held:

“The issuance of a certificate of title in favor of petitioners’ predecessor, pursuant to a free patent application, evidences ownership and from it, a right to the possession of the property follows. Well entrenched is the rule that a person who has a Torrens titles over the property is entitled to the possession thereof. 

The issue as to the validity of petitioners’ title is a collateral attack on the title and is not allowed in this forcible entry case. As it has been often said, a certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.”
In applying Barcelo in the instant case, the Supreme Court held that respondent Velasco’s allegation that petitioner’s free patent applications were improvidently granted by the DENR constitutes a collateral attack on petitioner’s titles which is barred under the Torrens system. Apart from her prayer for damages, all that petitioner asked from the MTC was that she be given the possession of the property in question. Having obtained three (3) valid Torrens titles over the subject properties, petitioner is entitled to protection from indirect attacks against the same.