Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Baguio City FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

187677 April 17, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, vs. HON. ROSA SAMSON-TATAD, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City, and SPOUSES WILLIAM AND REBECCA GENATO, Respondents.
This is an appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 19 June 2009 assailing the Decision and 3 4 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A. G.R. SP No. 93227 which affirmed the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 105, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44595.The RTC barred petitioner from presenting evidence to prove its claim of ownership over the subject property, as the presentation thereof would constitute a collateral attack on private respondents' title. Facts: On July 5, 2001, petitioner DPWH filed a complaint to expropriate the parcels of land of Spouse Genato affected by the construction of EDSA-QUEZON AVENUE Flyover. It was found out by the DPWH-NCR that the parcels of land of Spouses Genato was a government land and of dubious title. However the petitioner was barred from presenting evidence that the parcels of land of Spouses Genato is of dubious title. It is the contention of respondents that by allowing petitioner to present adversarial evidence, the court is in effect allowing respondents Torrens title to be collaterally attacked an action prohibited by P. D. 1529. The basis of respondents is Sec. 48. of P.D 1529 which reads :
1 2

SECTION 48. Certificate Not Subject to Collateral Attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. ISSUE: Whether petitioner may be barred from presenting evidence to assail the validity of respondents Torrence title. The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Genato. RULING: No. SC ruled that petitioner may be allowed to present evidence to assert its ownership over the subject property, but for the sole purpose of determining who is entitled to just compensation. Here, the attempt of petitioner to present evidence cannot be characterized as an "attack." It must be emphasized that the objective of the case is to appropriate private property, and the contest on private respondents' title arose only as an incident to the issue of whom should be rightly compensated. Wherefore, petion for certiorari is granted. The decision of RTC branch 105 Quezon City is reversed. This case is REMANDED to the RTC to hear the issue of ownership for the purpose of just compensation.