Certificate of title

De Pedro vs Romasan development corporation

FACTS: Spouses de pedro were the registered owner of the land located at Rizal with 5! s"uare
meters covered #$ the %CT &o' T()*+ issued #$ the RD of ,ari!ina on march -).+**- and the
spouses continuousl$ pa$ing the real estate ta/es of the said propert$' 0an'+**1. the respondents
putting up #ar#ed(wire fence on the ad2acent propert$' 3n the course of construction. the farm
house of the petitioners was destro$ed and the #am#oos and other trees were cut' The complaint
alleged that the farm house and the #am#oos and other trees #uilt and planted therein were
owned #$ the respondents' The respondents also prevented and refused to allow the petitioners
to enter in the said propert$' The$ also threatened that the$ will clear the area #$ the use of a
#ulldozer' The complaint also alleged that petitioners incurred damages resulting from the
wrongful acts of the respondents'
Respondents filed an answer alleging that the$ owned the su#2ect land evidenced #$ TCT &%'
-4)55' 6$ fencing the propert$. respondents said that it is an act of e/ercising their right of
ownership' The respondents maintained that petitioners failed in esta#lishing the metes and
#ounds of the said propert$' The trial court issued an order granting the 2oint motion to have a
relocation surve$' 3t was found out that %CT overlaps TCT of parcel 7(+)-45+ of the defendant
#ut finds the land is not the actual area #eing claimed #$ the petitioner #ut another parcel namel$
7(+)58'
The overlapping of titles was #rought a#out #$ the dou#le issuance of title for 7(+)-45+ #ut the
descriptions of %CT descri#ing a land different from the actual occupation of the plaintiff was a
result of the defective surve$'
3SS9:: ;%& as claimed #$ the petitioners. the su#2ect propert$ is a portion of the propert$
covered #$ %CT or as claimed #$ the respondents whether the su#2ect propert$ is a portion of the
propert$ covered #$ the TCT'
7:<D: The resolution of the issue will involve the alteration. correction or modification either of
%CT under the name of petitioners or TCT under the name of respondents' 3f the su#2ect
propert$ is found to #e a portion of the propert$ covered #$ %CT #ut is included in the technical
description of propert$ covered #$ TCT. the latter would have to #e corrected' 3f the su#2ect
propert$ is found to #e a portion of the propert$ covered #$ TCT #ut is included in the propert$
covered #$ %CT. then the latter title must #e rectified' 6ut it ma$ #e made onl$ via an action or
direct proceeding'
3t has #een held that section 58: a certificate of title. once registered. should not thereafter #e
impugned. altered. changed. modified. enlarged or diminished e/cept in a direct proceeding
permitted #$ law' 6oth actions made #$ petitioners and respondents are not a direct attac! #ut
constitutes a collateral attac!' Certificate of title are indefeasi#le. unassaila#le and #inding
against the whole world including the government. the$ do not create or vest title' The$ merel$
confirm or record title alread$ e/isting and vested' The$ cannot #e used to protect the usurper
from the true owner' Certificate is not conclusive evidence of title'
S96S:=9:&T R:>3STRAT3%&
6ernales vs 7eirs of 0ulian Sam#aam
FACTS: 0ulian Sam#aam married to >uillerma was the registered owner of a propert$ located at
Caga$an De %ro' The respondents and petitioners ,$rna are the children of 0ulian' ,$rna as the
eldest and the present owner and possessor of the su#2ect propert$' Sometimes in +*15. 0ulian
was am#ushed and was hospitalized' April ++ he allegedl$ re"uested his children to gather to
ma!e his last two wishes' 7e wanted that his children shall redeem the mortgage propert$ from
,$rna and Patricio' 3n +*8-. A#salon one of 0ulian?s children. offered to redeem #ut refused #$
petitioners #ecause the$ were allegedl$ using the propert$ as tethering place for their cattle'
0an'+**+. respondents received information that the propert$ was alread$ transferred to ,$rna'
The$ secured a cop$ of deed of a#solute sale which #ore the signatures of their parents which
upon the findings of &63 were forged'
April +**4. respondents together with their mother >uillerma. filed a complaint for annulment of
deed of a#solute sale and cancellation of TCT no' T(+5-5 alleging that their parent?s signatures
were forged' The Trial court rendered a decision of cancelling the TCT and ordering another title
to #e issued in the name of 0ulian'
Petitioners went to CA and appealed the decision' CA affirmed the decision of the lower court'
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied'
3SS9:: ;%& the deed of a#solute of sale in authentic as to prove the ownership of the
petitioners over the su#2ect propert$'
7:<D: in the case at #ar. the issue raised #$ the petitioners is essentiall$ factual matters. the
determination is left to the court' ;ell(settled is that the rule that the SC is not a trier of facts'
3n this case. 0ulian never e/ecuted the assailed Deed of a#solute sale in favor of petitioner ,$rna
and such deed conve$s no ownership in favor of the appellants' Conclusions and findings of fact
#$ the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not #e distur#ed unless for
strong and cogent reasons #ecause trial court is in a #etter position to e/amine the real evidence.
as well as to o#serve the demeanor of the witnesses while testif$ing the case' The factual
findings of CA which are supported #$ su#stantial evidence are #inding. final and conclusive
upon the SC'
The Forged deed of a#solute sale is null and void and conve$s no title' ;ith the presentation of
the forged deed. even if accompanied #$ the owner?s duplicate certificate of title. the registered
owner did not there#$ lose his title and neither does the assignee in the forged deed ac"uires an$
right or title to the said propert$'
The fact that the assailed deed was not signed #$ 0ulian and the signatures of 0ulian and
>uillerma were forged per findings of &63. it can therefore #e inferred that the su#se"uent
issuance of TCT no' T(+5-5 has no #asis at all since the ownership was not conve$ed to
appellants #$ reason of the forged deed'