AIZADEL M. RUIN ATTY.

DIAZ
JD II-A PROPERTY AND LAND LAW

HEIRS OF CULLADO V. GUTIERREZ

G.R. NO. 212938
JULY 30, 2019

FACTS:

A “Katibayan ng Origunal na Titulo” covering a parcel of land was issued in favor of Dominic Gutierrez in the
year of 1995. After two years, due to the fact that Dominic was still a minor, his father Dominador Gutierrez
filed before the RTC an action for recovery of ownership, possession with damages with prayer for preliminary
injunction against Alfredo Cullado (Alfredo), and claims that Alfredo had been squatting on the said land since
1977 and despite repeated demands, Alfredo refused to vacate.

In his Answer, Alfredo averred that he was in actual, continuous, adverse possession of the land. He also asked
for the reconveyance of the property and claimed that Dominic and Dominador obtained the title through fraud.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Alfredo died and was substituted by his heirs. The RTC ruled in favor
the Heirs of Cullado and ordered Dominic to reconvey the property in favor of their Heirs.

In 2011, Dominic filed a petition for relief from judgment and blamed his counsel for being negligent, hence,
the belated appeals. The RTC denied such a petition for being filed out of time. In the same year, Dominic filed
a petition for annulment of judgment on the grounf of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction in the CA. The CA
ruled in favor of Dominic and denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the Heirs of Cullado.

Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Heirs of Cullado has a better right to possession of the subject property.

Held:
No. SC upheld the CA’s decision, ruling that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction. The trial court’s ruling
on ownership and the order for reconveyance were beyond the jurisdiction and constituted a collateral attack on
Gutierrez’ Torrens title.

The SC notes that while the heirs of Cullado interposed the fraud purportedly committed by Dominic and his
father in the acquisition of Dominic’s OCT and pleaded their open, adverse and continuous possession and
cultivation of the subject land as “special and affirmative defense” such allegations are, in reality not affirmative
defenses. As defined, an affirmative defense is an allegations of a new matter which, while hypothetically
admitting the material allegations in the pleading of the claimant, would nevertheless prevent or bar recovery.

As a final note, the SC stressed that their ruling in the case is limited only to the issue of determining who
between the parties has a better right to possession. The adjudication is not a final and binding determination of
the issue of ownership. As such, this is not bar for the parties or even third persons to file an action for
determination of ownership.