A collateral attack, also called an indirect attack, is a 

challenge on the validity of a prior judgment

through a new case rather than by a direct appeal.

The easing of pandemic-induced restrictions had awakened many land disputes that were put on hold
during the lockdowns.

A surfeit of cases involving land ownership and/ or possession had suddenly erupted where neighbors,
relatives or strangers are at odds.

Ownership on one hand is different from possession on the other.

While ideally, the owner must enjoy possession as among the features of ownership; nonetheless,
another may enjoy possession independently from ownership, such as: a lessee (tenant), usufructuary,
or one who is granted by tolerance the temporary right to possession.

Ructions (Quarrel) usually happen when the possessor mounts a resistance against the owner. Here, the
owner must take possession back by proving his/ her ownership and the corresponding right to
possession.

What can the owner show as proof of ownership and entitlement to possession in order to expel the
possessor from the property?

One, the owner may prove ownership through a tax declaration in his/ her name, or some proof of
acquisition like a document of sale, donation or a deed of adjudication. However, if the possessor
challenges the validity of any of these documents or what they represent, courts can immediately
scrutinize them and rule on their validity or invalidity without much legal constraints because the
ownership rests on shaky documentary proof.

Or, second, the owner can show a Torrens title, if he/ she has one.

In the second scenario, it is tougher to attack the ownership because of the indefeasible nature of a
Torrens title.

As a rule under the Torrens Law (PD 1529), a Torrens title cannot be defeated as its validity can only be
challenged through a direct action for nullification of title or reconveyance as held in Sanson v Tapuz, et
al., G.R. No. 245914. June 16, 2021. While in Heirs of Leonarda Latoja v Heirs of Gavino Latoja et al. G.R.
No. 195500. March 17, 2021, it was explained that:  “The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title has
been carved in case law edicts. This means that a certificate of title registered under the Torrens System
serves as proof of an incontrovertible title over the property in favor of the individual whose name
appears on the title. With the emergence of the Torrens System, the integrity and conclusiveness of a
certificate of title may be guaranteed and preserved”.

And so a Torrens title may be challenged only through a “direct proceeding” called an action for
“reconveyance”. An action for reconveyance based on fraud is a direct attack on a Torrens title. It
follows that despite the finality accorded to a Torrens title, reconveyance may prosper as an equitable
remedy given to the rightful owner of a land that was erroneously registered in the name of another.

DIRECT ATTACK AGAINST A JUDGMENT OR FINAL ORDER DISTINGUISHED FROM A

COLLATERAL ATTACK. — Anent the issue on whether the counterclaim attacking the
validity of the Torrens title on the ground of fraud is a collateral attack, we distinguish
between the two remedies against a judgment or final order. A direct attack against a
judgment is made through an action or proceeding the main object of which is to annul,
set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment, if not yet carried into effect; or,
if the property has been disposed of, the aggrieved party may sue for recovery. A
collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack
on the judgment is made as an incident in said action. This is proper only when the
judgment, on its face, is null and void, as where it is patent (Obvious) that the court
which rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction.