CASE 2014-PAUL P. GABRIEL, JR., IRENEO C.

CALWAG,
THOMAS L. TINGGA-AN, AND THE HEIRS OF .JULIET B.
PULKERA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS CARMELING
CRISOLOGO, RESPONDENT. (G.R. NO. 204626, 09 JUNE
2014, MENDOZA, J.) SUBJECT/S: ACCION PUBLICIANA;
RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LAND; TORRENS TITLE;
EJECTMENT; COLLATERAL AND DIRECT ATTACKS ON
TITLE. (BRIEF TITLE: GABRIEL ET AL VS CRISOLOGO)

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS ACTION PUBLICIANA?

IT IS AN ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE
THE BETTER RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY
INDEPENDENTLY OF TITLE.

IT IS ALSO KNOWN AS ACCION PLENARIA DE
POSESION.

AFTER ONE YEAR FROM ACCRUAL OF ACTION FOR
EJECTMENT (THAT IS: WHEN YOU CAN NO LONGER
FILE A SUMMARY EJECTMENT SUIT BECAUSE OF THE
LAPSE OF ONE YEAR) ACCION PUBLICIANA IS THE
REMEDY.

WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PLAINTIFF IN ACCION
PUBLICIANA?

TO RECOVER POSSESSION ONLY, NOT OWNERSHIP.

BUT CAN THE PARTIES RAISE THE ISSUE OF
OWNERSHIP?

YES AND THE COURT MAY PASS UPON SUCH ISSUE BUT
ONLY TO DETERMINE WHO BETWEEN THE PARTIES
HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS THE PROPERTY.

WHEN WILL THE COURT PASS UPON THE ISSUE ON
OWNERSHIP?

ONLY WHEN THE ISSUE ON OWNERSHIP IS
INSEPARABLY LINKED TO THE ISSUE OF POSSESSION.

BUT IS THE RULING ON OWNERSHIP FINAL AND
BINDING?

NO. IT IS ONLY PROVISIONAL. IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE.
IT IS NOT A BAR TO AN ACTION BETWEEN THE SAME
PARTIES INVOLVING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.

CRISOLOGO ASSERTS THAT SHE HAS TITLES TO
SUBJECT PROPERTIES. PETITIONERS ASSERT THAT HER
TITLES ARE VOID BECAUSE OF PD 1271 WHICH VOIDED
ALL TITLES IN THE BAGUIO TOWNSITE RESERVATION
WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED. IS
PETIONERS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO. BECAUSE PD1271 PROVIDES THAT ALL TITLES
ISSUED ON OR BEFORE JULY 31, 1973 SHALL BE
CONSIDERED VALID AND THE LANDS COVERED BY
THEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN CONVEYED IN
FEE SIMPLE TO THE REGISTERED OWNERS UPON:

1) SHOWING PROOF THAT THE LAND COVERED BY
THE SUBJECT TITLE IS NOT WITHIN ANY GOVERNMENT,
PUBLIC OR QUASI-PUBLIC RESERVATION, FOREST,
MILITARY OR OTHERWISE, AS CERTIFIED BY
APPROPRIATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES; AND

2) COMPLIANCE BY THE TITLE HOLDER WITH THE
PAYMENT TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES OF
THE CORRECT ASSESSED VALUE OF THE LAND WITHIN
THE REQUIRED PERIOD.

CRISOLOGO PURCHASED THE PROPERTIES IN 1967.

BUT PETITIONERS ARGUE THAT CRISOLOGO DID NOT
COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS. CAN PETITIONERS
USE SUCH ARGUMENT?

NO. PETITIONERS CANNOT USE SUCH ARGUMENT
BECAUSE BY DOING SO THEY ARE MAKING A
COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE TITLES. A COLLATERAL
ATTACK IS PROHIBITED.

ARE PETITIONERS THE PROPER PARTIES TO QUESTION
THE STATUS OF CRISOLOGOS TITLES?

NO. P.D. 1271 STATES THAT IT IS THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL WHO SHALL INSTITUTE SUCH ACTION.

IF CRISOLOGO HAS TITLES, WHY DOES SHE HAVE RIGHT
TO POSSESSION?

FIRST, HER TITLES ARE TORRENS TITLES AND A
TORRENS TITLE IS EVIDENCE OF INDEFEASIBLE TITLE TO
PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME
THE TITLE APPEARS.

SECOND, AS TITLE HOLDER SHE IS ENTITLED TO ALL
ATTRIBUTES OF OWNERSHIP INCLUDING POSSESSION.

WHY CANT A TORRENS TITLE NOT BE SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK?

BECAUSE IT IS PROVIDED BY LAW. SECTION 48 OF PD
1529 PROVIDES:

SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral
attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

CAN YOU CITE A CASE WHERE THIS PROVISION WAS
APPLIED?

FRANCISCO MADRID V. SPOUSES MAPOY (G.R. NO.
150887, AUGUST 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 14, 26-27).

IN THIS CASE THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT
REGISTRATION OF LAND UNDER THE TORRENS
SYSTEM, ASIDE FROM PERFECTING THE TITLE AND
RENDERING IT INDEFEASIBLE AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE
PERIOD ALLOWED BY LAW, ALSO RENDERS THE TITLE
IMMUNE FROM COLLATERAL ATTACK.

WHAT IS COLLATERAL ATTACK?

IT IS AN ATTACK ON A JUDGMENT GRANTING TITLE
BUT MADE IN ANOTHER ACTION TO OBTAIN A
DIFFERENT RELIEF, SUCH AS POSSESSION.

WHAT IS A DIRECT ATTACK?

IT IS AN ATTACK AGAINST A JUDGMENT GRANTING
THE TITLE, THROUGH AN ACTION WHOSE MAIN
OBJECTIVE IS TO ANNUL, SET ASIDE, OR ENJOIN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH JUDGMENT IF NOT YET
IMPLEMENTED, OR TO SEEK RECOVERY IF THE
PROPERTY TITLED UNDER THE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN
DISPOSED OF.

WHY IS COLLATERAL ATTACK NOT PERMITTED?

BECAUSE TO PERMIT A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A
TORRENS TITLE IS TO WATER DOWN THE INTEGRITY
AND GUARANTEED LEGAL INDEFEASIBILITY OF A
TORRENS TITLE.

WHY DOES CRISOLOGO HAVE A BETTER RIGHT OF
POSSESSION?

THE TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON
RECORD PROVE THAT CRISOLOGO HAS A PREFERRED
CLAIM OF POSSESSION OVER THAT OF PETITIONERS.

SHE BOUGHT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM THE
PREVIOUS OWNER IN 1967, WHICH WAS WHY THE
TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE WERE
SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED IN HER NAME.

RECORDS FURTHER SHOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN
PAYING THE REALTY TAXES ON THE SAID PROPERTIES
SINCE 1969.

SHE LIKEWISE APPOINTED ISICAN AS ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE DISPUTED LANDS.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT
SHE OFFERED TO SELL TO PETITIONERS THE PORTIONS
OF THE SUBJECT PROPE1IIES OCCUPIED BY THEM.

HENCE, SHE DESERVES TO BE RESPECTED AND
RESTORED TO HER LAWFUL POSSESSION AS PROVIDED
IN ARTICLE 539 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE
FILE BELOW.