BETTY B.

LACBAYAN, Petitioner, vs
BAYANI S. SAMOY, JR., Respondent

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.

COURT’S 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 upon 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.

Disposition: The petition is DENIED. The September 14, 2004 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67596 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Respondent Bayani S. Samoy, Jr. is hereby declared the sole
owner of the disputed properties, without prejudice to any claim his legal wife may
have filed or may file against him. The award of P100,000.00 as attorneys fees in
respondents favor is DELETED.