G.R. No.

175485 July 27, 2011

CASIMIRO DEVELOPMENT V. MATEO
FACTS:
The subject of this case is a registered parcel of land located in Barrio Pulang Lupa, Las Pias ity, that
!as originally o!ned by "saias Lara, the respondent#s $aternal grandfather% &pon the death of "saias Lara
in 1'(0, the property passed on to his children% "n 1')2, the co*heirs effected the transfer of the full and
e+clusi,e o!nership to -elicidad Lara*.ateo, one of the children of "saias, under an agree$ent
deno$inated as Pagaayos Na Gawa Sa Labas Ng Hukuman% -elicidad had fi,e children, na$ely/ Laura,
respondent 0enato, esar, andido, Jr% and Leonardo% 1ith the agree$ent of the entire Lara*.ateo
fa$ily, a deed of sale co,ering the property !as e+ecuted in fa,or of Laura, !ho, in 1')7, applied for
land registration% 2fter the application !as granted, Original Cr!i"i#a! o" Ti!l $OCT% No. &'8& (a)
i))*+ in La*ra,) )ol na-.

"n due course, the property no! co,ered by 3T 4o% )(5) !as used as collateral to secure a
succession of loans% The first loan !as obtained fro$ Bacoor 0ural Ban6 7Bacoor Ban68 !hich !as
repaid by Laura% Laura later e+ecuted a deed of sale in fa,or of Pe, leading to the issuance of a ne! title
in the na$e of Pe, !ho in turn constituted a $ortgage on the property in fa,or of hina Ban6ing
orporation 7hina Ban68 as security for a loan% "n the end, hina Ban6 foreclosed the $ortgage, and
consolidated its o!nership of the property in 1'59 after Pe failed to redee$% Thus, TT 4o% 7''9278 T*
117:'*2 !as issued in the na$e of hina Ban6% 3n .arch :, 1''(, ; and hina Ban6 e+ecuted
a deed of absolute sale o,er the property% 0esultantly, on .arch 2', 1''(, ; !as issued TT 4o% T*
(:):0 in its o!n na$e% 3n June ), 1''1, ; brought an action for unla!ful detainer in the .eT in
Las Pias ity against the respondent#s siblings, na$ely/ esar, andido, Jr%, and Leonardo, and the other
occupants of the property% Therein, the defendants $aintained that the .eT did not ha,e jurisdiction
o,er the action because the land !as classified as agricultural< that the jurisdiction belonged to the
;epart$ent of 2grarian 0efor$ 2djudication Board 7;202B8% .eT ruled in fa,our of ;% The
0T resol,ed against ;, and held that the .eT had acted !ithout jurisdiction because the land,
being a fishpond, !as agricultural< hence, the dispute !as !ithin the e+clusi,e jurisdiction of the
;202B% 3n appeal, 2 found in fa,our of ;, declaring that the .eT had jurisdiction% This
decision beca$e final%

4onetheless, on June 2', 1'':, the respondent brought an action for =uieting of title,
recon,eyance of four*fifths of the land, and da$ages against ; and Laura in the 0T in Las Pias
ity% 3n .ay ', 2001, the 0T held in fa,or of ;% 2 affir$ed% The 2 ruled that the decree of
registration o,er the property is in#on!ro.r!i/l an+ no longr o0n !o r.i( or a!!a#1 a"!r !2
la0) o" on $1% 3ar fro$ entry of such decree of registration in fa,or of Laura%
">>&?/ 1@4 Laura#s title o,er the disputed property is indefeasible since she has ,alidly registered the
property under her na$e as e,idenced by a Torrens title
A?L;/ Bes, Laura#s title is indefeasible and hence, the transfer of title in the na$e of asi$iro
;e,elop$ent orporation is ,alid and subsisting%
The land in =uestion has been co,ered by a Torrens certificate of title 73T 4o% )(5) in the na$e of
Laura, and its deri,ati,e certificates8 before ; beca$e the registered o!ner by purchase fro$ hina
Ban6% "n all that ti$e, neither the respondent nor his siblings opposed the transactions causing the ,arious
transfers% "n fact, the respondent ad$itted in his co$plaint that the registration of the land in the na$e of
Laura alone had been !ith the 6no!ledge and upon the agree$ent of the entire Lara*.ateo fa$ily% I! i)
*n!2in1a/l4 !2r"or4 !2a! !2 r)0on+n!4 "*ll3 a(ar o" !2 5#l*)i. rgi)!ra!ion in 2r )i)!r
La*ra,) na-4 allo(+ -or !2an 67 3ar) !o 0a)) /"or a))r!ing 2i) #lai- o" o(nr)2i0 "or !2
"ir)! !i- through this case in $id*1'':% .a6ing it !orse for hi$ is that he did so only after ; had
co$$enced the eject$ent case against his o!n siblings%
T2r i) no +o*/! !2a! !2 lan+ in 8*)!ion4 al!2o*g2 on# a 0ar! o" !2 0*/li# +o-ain4 2a) alra+3
/n 0la#+ *n+r !2 Torrn) )3)!- o" lan+ rgi)!ra!ion% The Co,ern$ent is re=uired under the
Torrens syste$ of registration to issue an official certificate of title to attest to the fact that the person
na$ed in the certificate is the o!ner of the property therein described, subject to such liens and
encu$brances as thereon noted or !hat the la! !arrants or reser,es% T2 Torrn) )3)!- gi.) !2
rgi)!r+ o(nr #o-0l! 0a# o" -in+4 in or+r !2a! 2 (ill / )#*r+ in 2i) o(nr)2i0 a) long
a) 2 2a) no! .ol*n!aril3 +i)0o)+ o" an3 rig2! o.r !2 #o.r+ lan+. Bet, registration under the
Torrens syste$, not being a $ode of ac=uiring o!nership, does not create or ,est title% T2 Torrn)
#r!i"i#a! o" !i!l i) -rl3 an .i+n# o" o(nr)2i0 or !i!l in !2 0ar!i#*lar 0ro0r!3 +)#ri/+
!2rin. "n that sense, the issuance of the certificate of title to a particular person does not preclude the
possibility that persons not na$ed in the certificate $ay be co*o!ners of the real property therein
described !ith the person na$ed therein, or that the registered o!ner $ay be holding the property in trust
for another person%
The respondent#s suit is e+posed as being, in reality, a collateral attac6 on the title in the na$e of Laura,
and for that reason should not prosper% Rgi)!ra!ion o" lan+ *n+r !2 Torrn) S3)!-4 a)i+ "ro-
0r"#!ing !2 !i!l an+ rn+ring i! in+"a)i/l a"!r !2 la0) o" !2 0rio+ allo(+ /3 la(4 al)o
rn+r) !2 !i!l i--*n "ro- #olla!ral a!!a#1% 2 collateral attac6 occurs !hen, in another action to
obtain a different relief and as an incident of the present action, an attac6 is $ade against the judg$ent
granting the title% This $anner of attac6 is to be distinguished fro$ a direct attac6 against a judg$ent
granting the title, through an action !hose $ain objecti,e is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforce$ent
of such judg$ent if not yet i$ple$ented, or to see6 reco,ery if the property titled under the judg$ent had
been disposed of%