Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 154270 March 9, 2010
TEOFISTO OO, PRECY O. NAMATAC, !ICTORIA O. MANUGAS a"# PO$OR O.
CONSO$ACION, Petitioners,
vs.
!ICENTE N. $IM, Respondent.
D ! I S I O N
ERSAMIN, J.:
The sub"ect of controvers# is $ot No. %&' of the (ala)ban !adastre in !ebu !it#, covered b# Ori*inal
!ertificate of Title +O!T, No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%,, over 1hich the contendin* parties in this action for 2uietin*
of title, initiated b# respondent Vicente N. $i) +$i), in the Re*ional Trial !ourt +RT!, in !ebu !it#, assert
e3clusive o1nership, to the e3clusion of the other. In its decision dated 4ul# '0, 5%%.,
5
the RT! favored $i),
and ordered the cancellation of O!T No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%, and the issuance of a ne1 certificate of title in the
na)e of $uisa Narvios-$i) +$uisa,, $i)6s deceased )other and predecessor-in-interest.
On appeal +!7-8R !V No. 9:;/',, the !ourt of 7ppeals +!7, affir)ed the RT! on 4anuar# /;, /00/.
/
It later
denied the petitioners6 motion for reconsideration throu*h the resolution dated 4une 5:, /00/.
'

<ence, this appeal via petition for revie1 on certiorari.
A"%&c&#&"%'
On October /', 5%%/, $i) filed in the RT! in !ebu !it# a petition for the reconstitution of the o1ner6s
duplicate cop# of O!T No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%,, alle*in* that said O!T had been lost durin* =orld =ar II b#
his )other, $uisa>
&
that $ot No. %&' of the (ala)ban !adastre in !ebu !it# covered b# said O!T had been sold
in 5%': to $uisa b# Spouses Die*o O?o and stefania 7pas +Spouses O?o,, the lot6s re*istered o1ners> and that
althou*h the deed evidencin* the sale had been lost 1ithout bein* re*istered, 7ntonio O?o +7ntonio,, the onl#
le*iti)ate heir of Spouses O?o, had e3ecuted on 7pril /', 5%.5 in favor of $uisa a notari@ed docu)ent
deno)inated as confirmation of sale,
9
1hich 1as dul# filed in the Provincial 7ssessor6s Office of !ebu.
Aosi)o O?o and petitioner Teofisto O?o +O?os, opposed $i)6s petition, contendin* that the# had the certificate
of title in their possession as the successors-in-interest of Spouses O?o.
On account of the O?os6 opposition, and upon order of the RT!, $i) converted the petition for reconstitution
into a co)plaint for 2uietin* of title,
.
averrin* additionall# that he and his predecessor-in-interest had been in
actual possession of the propert# since 5%':, cultivatin* and developin* it, en"o#in* its fruits, and pa#in* the
ta3es correspondin* to it. <e pra#ed, inter alia, that the O?os be ordered to surrender the reconstituted o1ner6s
duplicate cop# of O!T No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%,, and that said O!T be cancelled and a ne1 certificate of title
be issued in the na)e of $uisa in lieu of said O!T.
In their ans1er,
:
the O?os clai)ed that their predecessors-in-interest, Spouses O?o, never sold $ot No. %&' to
$uisa> and that the confirmation of sale purportedl# e3ecuted b# 7ntonio 1as fabricated, his si*nature thereon
not bein* authentic.
RTC R()*"+
On 4ul# '0, 5%%., after trial, the RT! rendered its decision,
;
vizB
=<RFOR, pre)ises considered, "ud*)ent is hereb# rendered 2uietin* plaintiffCs title to $ot No. %&' of the
(ala)ban +!ebu, !adastre, and directin* the Re*ister of Deeds of !ebu D
+5, To re*ister the aforestated 7pril /', 5%.5 !onfir)ation of Sale of $ot No. %&' of the (ala)ban,
!ebu !adastre b# 7ntonio O?o in favor of $uisa Narvios-$i)>
+/, To cancel the ori*inal certificate of title coverin* the said $ot No. %&' of the (ala)ban, !ebu
!adastre> and,
+', To issue in the na)e of $uisa Narvios-$i), a ne1 duplicate certificate of title No. RO-%%.% +O-
/0&&%, of the Re*ister of Deeds of !ebu, 1hich shall contain a )e)orandu) of the fact that it is issued
in place of the lost duplicate certificate of title, and shall in all respects be entitled to liEe faith and credit
as the ori*inal certificate, and shall be re*arded as such for all purposes of this decree, pursuant to the
last para*raph of Section 50%, Presidential Decree No. 59/%.
=ithout special pronounce)ent as to costs.
SO ORDRD.
%
The RT! found that the $i)s had been in peaceful possession of the land since 5%':> that their possession had
never been disturbed b# the O?os, e3cept on t1o occasions in 5%%' 1hen the O?os sei@ed the harvested copra
fro) the $i)s6 caretaEer> that the $i)s had since declared the lot in their na)e for ta3ation purposes, and had
paid the ta3es correspondin* to the lot> that the si*nature of 7ntonio on the confirmation of sale 1as *enuine,
thereb# *ivin* )ore 1ei*ht to the testi)on# of the notar# public 1ho had notari@ed the docu)ent and
affir)ativel# testified that 7ntonio and $uisa had both appeared before hi) to acEno1led*e the instru)ent as
true than to the testi)on# of the e3pert 1itness 1ho attested that 7ntonio6s si*nature 1as a for*er#.
CA R()*"+
On appeal, the O?os )aintained that the confirmation of sale 1as spurious> that the propert#, bein* a titled one,
could not be ac2uired b# the $i)s throu*h prescription> that their +the O?os, action to clai) the propert# could
not be barred b# laches> and that the action instituted b# the $i)s constituted a collateral attacE a*ainst their
re*istered title.1avvphi1
The !7 affir)ed the RT!, ho1ever, and found that Spouses O?o had sold $ot No. %&' to $uisa> and that such
sale had been confir)ed b# their son 7ntonio. The !7 ruled that the action for 2uietin* of title 1as not a
collateral, but a direct attacE on the title> and that the $i)s6 undisturbed possession had *iven the) a continuin*
ri*ht to seeE the aid of the courts to deter)ine the nature of the adverse clai) of a third part# and its effect on
their o1n title.
Nonetheless, the !7 corrected the RT!, b# orderin* that the Office of the Re*ister of Deeds of !ebu !it# issue
a ne1 duplicate certificate of title in the na)e of $uisa, considerin* that the o1ner6s duplicate 1as still intact in
the possession of the O?os.
The decree of the !7 decision 1as as follo1sB
=<RFOR, the appeal is DISMISSD for lacE of )erit. <o1ever, the dispositive portion of the decision
appealed fro) is !ORR!TD as follo1sB
+5, =ithin five +9, da#s fro) finalit# of the decision, defendants-appellants are directed to present the
o1nerCs duplicate cop# of O!T No. RO-%%.% +O-/0&&%, to the Re*ister of Deeds 1ho shall thereupon
re*ister the F!onfir)ation of SaleF of $ot No. %&', (ala)ban !adastre, !ebu, e3ecuted on 7pril /',
5%.5 b# 7ntonio O?o in favor of $uisa Narvios-$i), and issue a ne1 transfer certificate of title to and
in the na)e of the latter upon cancellation of the outstandin* ori*inal and o1nerCs duplicate certificate of
title.
+/, In the event defendants-appellants ne*lect or refuse to present the o1nerCs cop# of the title to the
Re*ister of Deeds as herein directed, the said title, b# force of this decision, shall be dee)ed annulled,
and the Re*ister of Deeds shall )aEe a )e)orandu) of such fact in the record and in the ne1 transfer
certificate of title to be issued to $uisa Narvios-$i).
+', Defendants-appellants shall pa# the costs.
SO ORDRD.
50
The !7 denied the O?os6 motion for reconsideration
55
on 4une 5:, /00/.
5/
<ence, this appeal.
I''(&'
The petitioners raise the follo1in* issuesB
5. =hether or not the validit# of the O!T could be collaterall# attacEed throu*h an ordinar# civil action
to 2uiet title>
/. =hether or not the o1nership over re*istered land could be lost b# prescription, laches, or adverse
possession>
'. =hether or not there 1as a deed of sale e3ecuted b# Spouses O?o in favor of $uisa and 1hether or
not said deed 1as lost durin* =orld =ar II>
&. =hether or not the confir)ation of sale e3ecuted b# 7ntonio in favor of $uisa e3isted> and
9. =hether or not the si*nature purportedl# of 7ntonio in that confirmation of sale 1as *enuine.
R()*"+ o, %h& Co(r%
The petition has no )erit.
7.
7ction for cancellation of title is not an attacE on the title
The petitioners contend that this action for 2uietin* of title should be disallo1ed because it constituted a
collateral attacE on O!T No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%,, citin* Section &; of Presidential Decree No. 59/%, vi@B
Section &;. !ertificate not sub"ect to collateral attacE.G 7 certificate of title shall not be sub"ect to collateral
attacE. It cannot be altered, )odified, or cancelled e3cept in a direct proceedin* in accordance 1ith la1.
The petitioners6 contention is not 1ell taEen.
7n action or proceedin* is dee)ed an attacE on a title 1hen its ob"ective is to nullif# the title, thereb#
challen*in* the "ud*)ent pursuant to 1hich the title 1as decreed.
5'
The attacE is direct 1hen the ob"ective is to
annul or set aside such "ud*)ent, or en"oin its enforce)ent. On the other hand, the attacE is indirect or collateral
1hen, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attacE on the "ud*)ent is nevertheless )ade as an incident
thereof.
5&

Huietin* of title is a co))on la1 re)ed# for the re)oval of an# cloud, doubt, or uncertaint# affectin* title to
real propert#.
59
=henever there is a cloud on title to real propert# or an# interest in real propert# b# reason of
an# instru)ent, record, clai), encu)brance, or proceedin* that is apparentl# valid or effective, but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and )a# be pre"udicial to said title, an action )a#
be brou*ht to re)ove such cloud or to 2uiet the title.
5.
In such action, the co)petent court is tasEed to deter)ine
the respective ri*hts of the co)plainant and the other clai)ants, not onl# to place thin*s in their proper places,
and to )aEe the clai)ant, 1ho has no ri*hts to said i))ovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but
also for the benefit of both, so that 1hoever has the ri*ht 1ill see ever# cloud of doubt over the propert#
dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessl# introduce the i)prove)ents he )a# desire, as 1ell as use, and even
abuse the propert# as he dee)s fit.
5:
$i)6s co)plaint pertinentl# alle*edB
5;. If indeed, the *enuine ori*inal of the O1nerCs Duplicate of the Reconstituted Ori*inal !ertificate of Title
No. RO-%.%% +O-/0&&%, for $ot %&', (ala)ban !adastre 333 is in DefendantCs +O?o6s, possession, then VN$
sub)its the follo1in* PROPOSITIONSB
333
5;./. Therefore, the Ori*inal of O1ner6s Duplicate !ertificate +1hich Respondents IDefendants O?osJ clai) in
their Opposition is in their possession, )ust be surrendered to VN$ upon order of this !ourt, after the !ourt
shall have deter)ined VN$Cs )otherCs ac2uisition of the attributes of o1nership over said $ot %&', in this
action, in accordance 1ith Section 50:, P.D. 59/%, Propert# Re*istration Decree 333
333
ItJhat O!T /0&&% be cancelled and ne1 title for $ot %&' be issued directl# in favor of $KIS7 N7RVIOS, to
co)plete her title to said $ot>
5;

The aver)ents readil# sho1 that the action 1as neither a direct nor a collateral attacE on O!T No. RO-%%.%-
+O-/0&&%,, for $i) 1as assertin* onl# that the e3istin* title re*istered in the na)e of the petitioners6
predecessors had beco)e inoperative due to the conve#ance in favor of $i)6s )other, and resultantl# should be
cancelled. $i) did not thereb# assail the validit# of O!T No. RO-%%.%-+O-/0&&%,, or challen*e the "ud*)ent
b# 1hich the title of the lot involved had been decreed. In other 1ords, the action sou*ht the re)oval of a cloud
fro) $i)6s title, and the confir)ation of $i)6s o1nership over the disputed propert# as the successor-in-
interest of $uisa.
(.
Prescription 1as not relevant
The petitioners assert that the lot, bein* titled in the na)e of their predecessors-in-interest, could not be
ac2uired b# prescription or adverse possession.
The assertion is un1arranted.
Prescription, in *eneral, is a )ode of ac2uirin* or losin* o1nership and other real ri*hts throu*h the lapse of
ti)e in the )anner and under the conditions laid do1n b# la1.
5%
<o1ever, prescription 1as not relevant to the
deter)ination of the dispute herein, considerin* that $i) did not base his ri*ht of o1nership on an adverse
possession over a certain period. <e insisted herein, instead, that title to the land had been voluntaril#
transferred b# the re*istered o1ners the)selves to $uisa, his predecessor-in-interest.
$i) sho1ed that his )other had derived a "ust title to the propert# b# virtue of sale> that fro) the ti)e $uisa
had ac2uired the propert# in 5%':, she had taEen over its possession in the concept of an o1ner, and had
perfor)ed her obli*ation b# pa#in* real propert# ta3es on the propert#, as evidenced b# ta3 declarations issued
in her na)e>
/0
and that in vie1 of the deliver# of the propert#, coupled 1ith $uisa6s actual occupation of it, all
that re)ained to be done 1as the issuance of a ne1 transfer certificate of title in her na)e.
!.
For*er#, bein* a 2uestion of fact, could not be dealt 1ith no1
The petitioners sub)it that $i)6s evidence did not preponderantl# sho1 that the o1nership of the lot had been
transferred to $uisa> and that both the trial and the appellate courts disre*arded their sho1in* that 7ntonio6s
si*nature on the confirmation of sale 1as a for*er#.
!learl#, the petitioners hereb# seeE a revie1 of the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence presented b# the
parties.
The !ourt cannot an#)ore revie1 the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, because the !ourt is not a
trier of facts.
/5
7lthou*h this rule ad)its of certain e3ceptions, vizB +5, 1hen the conclusion is a findin*
*rounded entirel# on speculation, sur)ises, or con"ecture> +/, 1hen the inference )ade is )anifestl# )istaEen>
+', 1here there is a *rave abuse of discretion> +&, 1hen the "ud*)ent is based on a )isapprehension of facts> +9,
1hen the findin*s of fact are conflictin*> +., 1hen the !ourt of 7ppeals, in )aEin* its findin*s, 1ent be#ond
the issues of the case, and the findin*s are contrar# to the ad)issions of both appellant and appellee> +:, 1hen
the findin*s of the !ourt of 7ppeals are contrar# to those of the trial court> +;, 1hen the findin*s of fact are
conclusions 1ithout specific evidence on 1hich the# are based> +%, 1hen the facts set forth in the petition as
1ell in the petitioners6 )ain and repl# briefs are not disputed b# the respondents> and, +50, 1hen the findin*s of
fact of the !ourt of 7ppeals are pre)ised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted b# the
evidence on record,
//
it does not appear no1 that an# of the e3ceptions is present herein. =e thus appl# the rule
1ithout hesitation, and re"ect the appeal for that reason.
It is e)phasi@ed, too, that the !7 upheld the conclusion arrived at b# the RT! that the si*nature of 7ntonio had
not been si)ulated or for*ed. The !7 ruled that the testi)on# of the notar# public 1ho had notari@ed the
confir)ation of sale to the effect that 7ntonio and $uisa had appeared before hi) prevailed over that of the
petitioners6 e3pert 1itness. The concurrence of their conclusion on the *enuineness of 7ntonio6s si*nature no1
binds the !ourt.
/'

In civil cases, the part# havin* the burden of proof )ust establish his case b# a preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of evidence is the 1ei*ht, credit, and value of the a**re*ate evidence on either side, and is
usuall# considered to be s#non#)ous 1ith the ter) *reater 1ei*ht of the evidence or *reater 1ei*ht of the
credible evidence. Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that )eans, in the last anal#sis, probabilit# of the
truth.
/&
It is evidence that is )ore convincin* to the court as 1orth# of belief than that 1hich is offered in
opposition thereto.
$i) successfull# dischar*ed his burden of proof as the plaintiff. <e established b# preponderant evidence that
he had a superior ri*ht and title to the propert#. In contrast, the petitioners did not present an# proof of their
better title other than their cop# of the reconstituted certificate of title. Such proof 1as not enou*h, because the
re*istration of a piece of land under the Torrens s#ste) did not create or vest title, such re*istration not bein* a
)ode of ac2uirin* o1nership. The petitioners need to be re)inded that a certificate of title is )erel# an
evidence of o1nership or title over the particular propert# described therein. Its issuance in favor of a particular
person does not foreclose the possibilit# that the real propert# )a# be co-o1ned 1ith persons not na)ed in the
certificate, or that it )a# be held in trust for another person b# the re*istered o1ner.
/9
=<RFOR, the petition for revie1 on certiorari is denied, and the decision dated 4anuar# /;, /00/ is
affir)ed.
The petitioners are ordered to pa# the costs of suit.
SO ORDRD.
$UCAS P. ERSAMIN
7ssociate 4ustice
= !ON!KRB
REYNATO S. PUNO
!hief 4ustice
!hairperson
CONC-ITA CARPIO MORA$ES
7ssociate 4ustice
TERESITA .. $EONAR/O0/E CASTRO
7ssociate 4ustice
MARTIN S. !I$$ARAMA, .R.
7ssociate 4ustice
! R T I F I ! 7 T I O N
Pursuant to Section 5', 7rticle VIII of the !onstitution, I certif# that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case 1as assi*ned to the 1riter of the opinion of the !ourt6s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
!hief 4ustice
Foo%"o%&'
5
Ori*inal Records, pp. 5:9-5;/.
/
!7 Rollo, pp. :5-;&. Penned b# 4ustice Os1aldo D. 7*caoili, 1ith 4ustice 4ose $. Sabio, 4r. and 4ustice
Ser*io $. Pesta?o concurrin*.
'
Id., p. 509.
&
Ori*inal Records, p.5:..
9
Id., pp. 5''-5'..
.
Id., pp. 5-5;.
:
Id., pp. &5-&;.
;
Supra, Note at 5.
%
Ori*inal Records, pp. 5;5-5;/.
50
!7 Rollo, pp. ;'-;&.
55
Id., pp. ;9-%0.
5/
Supra, Note at '.
5'
Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 8.R. No. 59/./:, Septe)ber 5., /009, &:0 S!R7 %%, 50:-50;, citin*
Malilin, Jr. v. Castillo, 8.R. No. 5'.;0', 4une 5., /000, ''' S!R7 ./;, .&0.
5&
Ibid.
59
Vitu*, !o)pendiu) of !ivil $a1 and 4urisprudence, 5%%' Rev. d., p. /%9.
5.
7rticle &:., !ivil !ode.
5:
Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 8.R. No. 509%0/, Februar# %, /000, '/9 S!R7 5':, 5&.-5&:.
5;
Ori*inal Records, pp. ;-50.
5%
!alicdan v. !enda?a, 8.R. No. 5990;0, Februar# 9, /00&, &// S!R7 /:/, /:%.
/0
Ori*inal Records, pp. 55&-5'5.
/5
!in o!ers Condominium Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 8.R. No. 5/'99/, Februar# /:, /00',
'%; S!R7 /0'.
//
Mamsar "nterprises A#ro$Industrial Corporation v. %arle& radin#, Inc., 8.R. No. 5&/:/%, Nove)ber
/%, /009, &:. S!R7 ':;, ';/.
/'
'a#uiat v. Court of Appeals, 8.R. No. 55;':9, October ', /00', &5/ S!R7 9%5, 9%9-9%..
/&
ncinas v. National (ooEstore, Inc., 8.R. No. 5./:0&, Nove)ber 5%, /00&, &&' S!R7 /%'.
/9
<eirs of !le)ent r)ac v. <eirs of Vicente r)ac, 8.R. No. 5&%.:%, Ma# '0, /00', &0' S!R7 /%5,
/%;.