BETTY B.

LACBAYAN
v
BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR.

G.R. No. 165427 March 21, 2011

PONENTE: VILLARAMA, JR., J

FACTS:

Betty Lacbayan and Bayani Samoy met through common

friend in 1978. Despite Samoy’s being already married, their
relationship developed until Lacbayan gave birth to Samoy’s
son. During their illicit relationship, they (together with 3
incorporators) were able to establish a manpower services
company. 5 parcels of land were also acquired during said
period & were registered in Lacbayan and Samoy’s names as
husband and wife. Lacbayan initially lived with her parents but
in 1983, she left her parents & resided in the property located in
Malvar. Then she and son transferred to property in Zobel, then
finally transferred to property in Don Enrique Heights.
Eventually, their relationship turned sour & decided to part
ways in 1991. So they both agreed to divide their properties &
terminate their business partnership by executing Partition
Agreement. Initially, Samoy agreed to Lacbayan’s proposal
that properties in Malvar and Don Enrique Heights will be
assigned to her while the 3 other will go to Samoy. However
when Lacbayan wanted additional demands to be included in
partition agreement, Samoy refused. 31 May ’99: Lacbayan
filed complaint for judicial partition, averring that she and
Samoy lived as husband and wife without benefit of marriage &
they worked together as business partners, acquiring real
properties amounting to P15.5M. 10 Feb 2000: RTC rendered
decision, dismissing complaint for lack of merit, giving weight to
Lacbayan’s own admission that the properties were acquired
not from her own personal funds but from the income of the
manpower services company which she owns a measly 3.33%
share. Lacbayan appealed to CA. CA likewise denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Torrens title over disputed properties

was collaterally attacked in the action for partition.

RULING:

Petition is bereft of merit. The determination as to the

existence of co-ownership is necessary in the resolution of an
action for partition. The first phase of a partition and/or accounting
suit is taken up with the determination of whether or not
a co-ownership in fact exists, and a partition is proper and may
be made by voluntary agreement of all the parties interested in
the property. The second phase
commences when it appears that "the parties are unable to agree u
pon the partition" directed by the
court. Anent issue of collateral attack: no dispute that a Torrens
certificate of title cannot be collaterally attack but this is not material
to the case at bar. What cannot be collaterally attack is the
certificate of title and not the title itself. The certificate referred to is
that document issued by the Register of Deeds known as the
TCT. In contrast, the title referred to by law means ownership,
which is, more often than not, represented by that document.
Ownership is different from a certificate of title, the latter only serving
as the best proof of ownership over a piece of land. The
certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive evidence
of ownership. In fact, mere issuance of the certificate of title in
the name of any person does not foreclose the possibility that
the real property may be under co-ownership with persons not
named in the certificate, or that the registrant may only be a trustee,
or that other parties may have acquired interest over the
property subsequent to the issuance of the certificate of
title. Samoy is not allowed by law to
waive whatever share his lawful spouse may have on the disputed
properties. Basic is the rule that rights may be waived, unless
the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, good
customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
by law.