DBP VS ACTING REGISTER OF DEEDS OF

NUEVA ECIJA

RULING

GR No. 7671 June 23, 1988

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, registrantappellant, vs.
THE ACTING REGISTER DEEDS OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondentappellee.

ISSUE 1: Registration attaches to the mere making of

the entry: the instrument subject of a primary entry
"... shall be regarded as registered from the time so
noted ...,"

FACTS

This is without regard to the subsequent step of annotating a

memorandum of the instrument on the certificate of title to
which it refers.

On June 13, 1980, DBP sought to register 2 parcels of

land covered by TCTs both in the names of sps
Bautista.

It presented to the RoD Nueva Ecija, a sheriff's

certificate of sale in its favor. Apparently, it acquired
the lands as the highest bidder at an extrajudicial
foreclosure sale.

The transaction was entered as Entry No. 8191

in the Registry's Primary Entry Book and DBP paid
the requisite registration fees on the same day.

The sale could not, however, be annotated on the

covering certificates of title because the originals of
those certificates were found to be missing from the
files of the Registry, where they were supposed to be
kept, and could not be located.

On the advice of the RoD, DBP instituted proceedings

in the (CFI NE) to reconstitute said certificates.
Reconstitution ordered (June 15, 1982) For reasons
not apparent on the record, the certificates of title
were reconstituted only on June 19,1984.

June 25, 1984, DBP sought annotation on the

reconstituted titles of the certificate of sale on the
basis of E8191. The Acting Register of Deeds, being
in doubt of the proper action to take on the
solicitation, took the matter to the Commissioner of
Land Registration by consulta raising two questions:
(a) whether the certificate of sale could be
registered using the old Entry No. 8191 made in
1980 notwithstanding the fact that the original
copies of the reconstituted certificates of title
were issued only on June 19, 1984; and
(b) In the affirmative, whether he could sign the
proposed annotation, having assumed his duties
only in July 1982. 5

RESOLUTION ON THE CONSULTA

ISSUE 1: that E8191 had been rendered "...

ineffective due to the impossibility of accomplishing
registration at the time the document was entered
because of the non-availability of the certificates of
title involved.
For said certificate of sale to be admitted for
registration, there is a need for it to be re-entered
now that the titles have been reconstituted upon
payment of new entry fees,"

ISSUE 2: had been rendered moot and academic by

the answer to the first.

Appears to be based on Section 56 of PD No. 1529,

particularly: to: the Register's act of making a primary entry
as " ... a preliminary process in registration ...," = a primary
entry not annotated on the certificate of title to which the
instrument subject of said entry refers is without any effect
ISSUE
WON DPB may still seek annotation on the reconstituted titles
on the basis of the same entry made 4 years ago (E8191).
YES.

At the very least, it gives such entry from the moment of its
making the effect of putting the whole world on notice of the
existence the instrument on entered.
the annotation, "... when made ... shall bear the same
date ..." as the entry,
It may be said that this contemplates unspecified intervals of
time occurring between the making of a primary entry and
that of the corresponding annotation on the certificate of title
without robbing the entry of the effect of being equivalent to
registration.
Annotation must therefore
immediately or in short order

not

necessarily

be

entered

The 4-year
hiatus between primary entry and
proposed annotation in this case has not been of DBP's
making.
DBP was under no necessity to present the owner's duplicates
of the certificates of title affected for purposes of primary
entry, since the transaction sought to be recorded was an
involuntary transaction.
It was the mortgagee of the lands covered by those titles that
must have. It is usual in mortgage transactions that the
owner's duplicates of the encumbered titles are yielded into
the custody of the mortgagee until the mortgage is
discharged.
Moreover, the certificates of title were reconstituted from the
owner's duplicates. It is to be presumed that said duplicates
were presented by DBP, the petitioner in the reconstitution
proceedings.
DBP complied with all that was required of it for
purposes of both primary entry and annotation of the
certificate of sale.
The requisite registration fees were fully paid and that the
certificate of sale was registrable on its face.
If anyone was responsible for failure of annotation, it was the
Register of Deeds who was chargeable with the keeping and
custody of those documents.
It does not, therefore, make sense to require DBP to repeat
the process of primary entry, paying anew the entry fees as
the appealed resolution disposes, in order to procure
annotation which through no fault on its part, had to be
deferred until the originals of the certificates of title were
found or reconstituted.
Current doctrine: Whether the transaction entered is a
voluntary or an involuntary one, entry alone produces
the effect of registration, so long as the registrant has
complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry
and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a
duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
Therefore, without necessarily holding that annotation of a
primary entry on the original of the certificate of title may be
deferred indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of
said entry, in the particular situation here obtaining,

annotation of the disputed entry on the reconstituted originals

of the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper
and justified.

WON the Sorianos should be allowed to redeem the property

and that the said property is part of the conjugal assets of the
spouses? NO

To hold said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed

resolution, amounts to declaring that it did not, and does not,
protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or
transactions made, thereafter which are adverse to or in
derogation of the rights created or conveyed by the
transaction thus entered.

RULING
Article 160 of the Civil Code which provides that All property
of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or to the wife.

ISSUE 2: Yes. No part of the function about to be

performed is exclusive to the incumbent of the office at
the time entry was made or is forbidden to any of his
successors
He would only be making a memorandum of an instrument
and of its entry based on or reciting details which are already
of indubitable record and, pursuant to the express command
of the law, giving said memorandum the same date as the
entry.

PONCE DE LEON v REHABILITATED CORP

G.R. No. L-24571 December 18, 1970
JOSE L. PONCE DE LEON, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION, defendant-appellant
and third-party defendant-appellant, ROSALINA SORIANO,
TEOFILA SORIANO and REV. FR. EUGENIO R. SORIANO, thirdparty plaintiffs-appellants.

FACTS

In 1945, Jose Ponce De Leon and Francisco Soriano

obtained a loan from PNB Manila. It mortgaged a
parcel of land situated at Paranaque as a security for
the loan. Such property is covered by OCT in the
name of Francisco Soriano, married to Tomasa
Rodriguez.

Another loan was applied by Ponce De Leon from the

Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC) in the
amount of P800, 000. He offered certain parcels of
land for security and this included the land subject of
mortgage in the PNB which is owned by Soriano.

The application
was
subsequently approved.
However, at the time Francisco Soriano signed the
mortgage deed, his spouse Tomasa Rodriguez was
already dead leaving as her heirs, her children. None
of whom signed the mortgage deed or the
promissory note.

Eventually, the loan was not paid and RFC

extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgaged properties.
The Sheriff sold the land of Soriano to RFC.

Francisco seeks to recover the land prior tot the

expiration of 1-year redemption period. The offer to
redeem the property for P14,000 was rejected and
they were told to participate in the public sale of the
land. RFC proceeded to public sale of the property in
the view of the inability of Ponce De Leon or Soriano
to legally redeem the properties.

ISSUE

The present action involves contention on the part of

Sorianos that the mortgage in favor of the RFC and
promissory note signed by Francisco Soriano lacked
the latters consent and was without consideration
and that the same is null and void as to him and his
children. This is because the subject lot allegedly
belongs to the conjugal partnership of the Francisco
and his wife.

This provision must be construed in relation to Articles 153 to

159 of the Civil Code which enumerated the properties
acquired during the marriage that will constitute the conjugal
partnership.
It was ruled, the party who invokes this presumption must
first prove that the property in controversy was acquired
during the marriage. In other words, proof of acquisition
during coverture is a condition sine qua non for the operation
of the presumption in favor of conjugal partnership.
In this case, it was proven that Francisco exclusively owns the
land. His firs cousin testified that he acquired the properties
from his parents long before he got married.
Also, her daughter testified that Franciso was born and
raised in said property and that it was also shown that in a
conference before the execution of the promissory note,
Francisco assured the mortgagee that the property was his
separate property.
Had the property been acquired by them during their
coverture, it would have been registered, in the name not of
Francisco Soriano, married to Tomasa Rodriguez but of the
spouses Francisco Soriano and Tomasa Rodriguez.

GUARANTEED HOMES, INC. VS VALDEZ

G.R. No. 171531 January 30, 2009

FACTS

Respondents, who are the descendants of Pablo

Pascua
(Pablo),
filed
a
complaint
seeking
reconveyance of a parcel of land (23.7229 has)
situated in Cabitaugan, Subic, Zambales and covered
by OCT in the name of Pablo. In the alternative,
prayer for damages.

Annotations and attachments

a. The OCT.
The
OCT
had
several
annotations
in
the
memorandum of encumbrances which showed that
the property had already been sold by Pablo during
his lifetime to Alejandria Marquinez and Restituto
Morales.
b. 3 TCTs,
c. the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and
Confirmation of Sales executed by Cipriano Pascua,
Sr. and
d. the Deed of Sale with Mortgage between spouses
Rodolfo and GH
ALLEGATIONS

That Pablo died intestate sometime in June 1945 and

was survived by his four children, one of whom was
the deceased Cipriano

On 13 February 1967, Cipriano executed a document

denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole
Heir and Confirmation of Sales wherein he declared
himself as the only heir of Pablo and confirmed the
sales made by Pablo during his lifetime, including the
alleged sale of the disputed property to spouses
Rodolfo.

that on February 14 1967, TCT was issued in

the name of Cipriano without its OCT having

been cancelled. However, the TCT was not

signed by the RoD.

On the same day, a TCT was issued in the name

of the spouses Rodolfo and Ciprianos TCT was
thereby cancelled.

Subsequently, the spouses Rodolfo sold the

disputed property to GH by virtue of a Deed of
Sale with Mortgage. Consequently, TCT was
cancelled and TCT was issued in the name of
GH

Jorge Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano, filed on 24 January

1997 a petition before the RTC, for the issuance of a
new owners duplicate of the OCT. denied - held that
GH was already the owner of the land, noting
that the failure to annotate the subsequent
transfer of the property to it at the back of OCT
No. 404 did not affect its title to the property.
GH MTD that the action is barred by the Statute of
Limitations, more than 28 years having elapsed from
the issuance of TCT up to the filing of the complaint,
and that the complaint states no cause of action as it
is an IPfV, it having relied on the clean title of the
spouses Rodolfo.
Heirs of Cipriano denied knowledge of the existence
of the EJ settlement allegedly executed by Cipriano
and as well as the document transferring ownership
of the property.

OSGs averment

That the 6-year period fixed in S102 of PD 1529 for

the filing of an action against the Assurance Fund
had long prescribed since the transfer of
ownership over the property was registered
through the issuance of TCT in favor of GH as
early as 1969.

No cause of action against the Assurance Fund since

they were not actually deprived of ownership over
the property, as they could have recovered the
property had it not been for their inaction for over 28
years.
RULING OF THE RTC
Granted GHs MTD. Applied the doctrine that an action to
quiet title prescribes where the plaintiff is not in possession of
the property. That the heirs had never claimed nor established
that they have been in possession of the property and that
they did not present any evidence to show that GH has not
been in possession of the property either,
-

Prescriptive period for reconveyance of a fraudulently

registered real property is 10 years reckoned from
the date of the issuance of the title = more than 28
yrs from the issuance of the TCT (5 November 1969 ); the action for reconveyance (21 November 1997)
had already prescribed (also for the assurance
fund:6yrs)
that even a registered owner of property may be
barred from recovering possession of property by
virtue of laches.
That GH had the right to rely on TCT in the name of
spouses Rodolfo, GH not obliged to go beyond the
title considering that there were no circumstances
surrounding the sale sufficient to put it into inquiry.

RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

Reversed. that the averments in respondents complaint
before the RTC make out a case for quieting of title which has
not prescribed. No need to prove possession over the property

since GH hypothetically admitted the truth of the allegations

in the complaint. Laches had not set in as well. GH is also not
an IPfV.
ISSUE:
WON the ownership of the property was transferred by the
issuance of the TCT (although there was no annotation on the
OCT) YES
RULING:
RULE: the act of registration is the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned. * Otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of
the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to
insure would entirely be futile and nugatory.
Thus, where there is nothing in the certificate of title to
indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or
any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to
explore farther than what the Torrens title upon its face
indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that
may subsequently defeat his right thereto. A person dealing
with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to
rely on, the title of his PII.
The complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242
in the name of the spouses Rodolfo (GHs PII) or any
circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that
petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would impel
it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo.
Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT was
expressly cancelled by the TCT (Ciprianos). The
alleged non-signature by the RoD does not affect the
validity of TCT(Ciprianos)
since RoD signed TCT in favor of sps Rodolfo and issued both
titles on the same day. (presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty).
TCT registered in the name of Cipriano was certified to be on
file with the RoD.
The purchaser is not bound by the original certificate
but only by the certificate of title of the person from
whom he had purchased the property
It is enough that GH had examined the latest certificate of title
which in this case was issued in the name of the immediate
transferor, the spouses Rodolfo..[38]
As to the EJ Settlement Case law: is that although
generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and
conveys no title, there are instances when such a
fraudulent document may become the root of a valid
title
One such instance is where the certificate of title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and
while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to
an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to
rely upon what appeared in the certificate
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the extrajudicial
settlement was a forgery, the Court still has to uphold the title
of GH. While the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and
Confirmation of Sales executed by Cipriano alone despite the
existence of the other heirs of Pablo, is not binding on such
other heirs, nevertheless, it has operative effect under Section
44 of the PD 1529:
SEC. 44. Statutory Liens Affecting Title. Every registered owner
receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of
registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered
land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall
hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted
on said certificate and any of the following encumbrances
which may be subsisting, namely:

RE: respondents claims that the EJ Settlement was not

registered and that OCT was not cancelled by the RoD.
Unmeritorious. The RoD Zambales certified that the EJS was
recorded on 14 February 1967, per Entry No. 18590. This is in
compliance with Section 56 of Act No. 496 the applicable law
at the time of registration,:
Sec. 56. Each register of deeds shall keep an entry book in
which he shall enter in the order of their reception all deeds
and other voluntary instruments, and all copies of writs and
other process filed with him relating to registered land. He shall
note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and minute of
reception of all instruments, in the order in which they are
received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time so
noted, and the memorandum of each instrument when made
on the certificate of title to which it refers shall bear the same
date. [Emphasis supplied]

Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world.

Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order,
judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall
be, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register
of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time
of such registering, filing or entering
RE: case for QoT.
Unmeritorous. OCT had already been cancelled. Respondents
have no title to anchor their complaint on.[
Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint which specified
that the respondents were in possession of the property. They
merely alleged that the occupants or possessors are others
not defendant Spouses Rodolfowho could be anybody, and
that the property is in actual possession of a number of the
Pascua heirswho could either be the respondents or the heirs
of Cipriano.
PROPER REMEDY OF THE HEIRS OF PABLO: Action for
reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust within
ten (10) years from the date of registration of the deed or the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property.
The legal relationship between Cipriano and the other heirs of
Pablo is governed by Article 1456 CC if a property is acquired
through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force
of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit
of the person from whom the property comes.
GH is an innocent purchaser for value; hence, no cause
of action for cancellation of title will lie against it
Respondents claim against the Assurance Fund also
cannot prosper. Section 101 of P.D. No. 1529 clearly
provides that the Assurance Fund shall not be liable for any
loss, damage or deprivation of any right or interest in land
which may have been caused by a breach of trust, whether
express, implied or constructive.
Even assuming arguendo that they are entitled to claim
against the Assurance Fund, the respondents claim has
already prescribed since any action for compensation against
the Assurance Fund must be brought within a period of six (6)
years from the time the right to bring such action first
occurred, which in this case was in 1967.

GOLLOY VS CA
G.R. No. L-47491 May 4, 1989
GALICANO GOLLOY, petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS,
JOSE
VALDEZ, JR.,
CONSOLACION VALDEZ, LOURDES VALDEZ, SOLEDAD VALDEZ
and BENNY MADRIAGA, respondents.

FACTS

Golloy, for more than 20 years, has been the

registered owner and in possession of a parcel of
land (41,545-sqm) covered by TCT.
The Southwest portion of this land is bounded by
Valdezs land which is covered by CoT.
Sometime in February, 1966, Valdezs subdivided
their land among themselves.
In the course of the subdivision, private respondents
caused to be placed 2 monuments inside the
Southwest, portion of Golloys land.
Hence, Golloy filed (CFI Tarlac) an action to quiet
title.

VALDEZS ALLEGATION

that they never encroached upon the landholding of

Golloy and nothing has been placed on his land
which would create any cloud thereon;

that they merely subdivided their own land according

to their title and therefore there was nothing for
Golloy to quiet or remove cloud on his title.

Pre-trial: Agreed that a public surveyor of the Bureau

of Lands be appointed to relocate the disputed area
inasmuch as the only issue in dispute referred
ultimately to the question of the boundaries of their
respective lots. Ordered.

SURVEYOR: that there are overlappings on the

boundaries of the 2 lands due to the defect in the
survey on Golloys land. That Valdezs land prevails
over Golloys land since the former was surveyed and
titled ahead. .

RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

In favor of Valdezs.
Golloys MFR was denied.
CA AFFIRMED THE TC DECISION.
MFR denied.
ISSUE
Who between the two title holders is entitled to the land in
dispute? GOLLOY
RULING
It must be stated that Valdezs and their predecessor(s) never
possessed, much less, claimed the overlapped portions.
Golloy has been always in possession of the same in the
concept of an owner, and his possession was disturbed only in
February, 1966, when Valdezs caused to be placed 2
monuments inside his land.
As per survey:

Valdezs land was surveyed on March 11, 1913 and

originally titled and registered on March 1, 1918 in
the name of Dominga Balanga.

Golloys land is Lot-A of Subdivision plan, a portion of

land described in OCT No. 126; surveyed on March
18, 1918 and subsequently titled and registered in
the name of Agustin Golloy.
There are facts which could only be construed to mean
that Dominga Balanga, never believed that she has a
right and legal claim to the overlapped portion.
The said lands, having been surveyed and thereafter
registered, it follows that monuments were placed therein to
indicate their respective boundaries. It is hardly persuasive
that Dominga Balanga, believing that she has a rightful claim
to the overlapped portions, did not make any move to
question the placement of the monuments.

There appears to be no evidence to support claims of

repeated demands against Golloy to refrain from cultivating
the contested portion, much less an action filed in court to
enforce such demands.
Valdezs, if they have any right at all to the overlapped
portion, are guilty of laches The long inaction and
delay of the title holder in assertings right over the
disputed lot bars him from recovering the same.
Golloy and his predecessor(s) have been in continuous
possession in the concept of an owner, for almost 50 years
(from August 15, 1919, when the property was registered February, 1966, placing of monuments).
The foregoing conclusion does not necessarily wreak
havoc on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title.
RULE: mere possession of certificate of title under the Torrens
System is not conclusive as to the holder's true ownership of
all the property described therein for he does not by virtue of
said certificate alone become the owner of the land illegally
included.

CATORES VS AFIDCHAO

G.R. No. 151240

March 31, 2009
ANGELINE CATORES, Petitioner, vs.
MARY D. AFIDCHAO, Respondent.

FACTS

Mary D. Afidchao is the registered owner of a parcel

of land with (8,383 sqm) Sto. Tomas, Barangay
Dontogan, Baguio City and covered by TCT.
The said parcel of land was purchased by Afidchao
from its previous registered owners, spouses Balinsat
on August 29, 1977.
Immediately thereafter, she declared the property for
tax purposes in her name and paid religiously the
realty taxes thereon.
Sometime in June 1984, Angeline Catores occupied
and entered a portion of the subject property by
building
her
house
thereon
and
making
improvements therein such as levellings, riprapping,
planting trees, fencing, etc.
Thus, Afidchao filed a case for Forcible Entry
against Catores MTC dismissed the complaint
(without waiting for the result of the relocation
survey )on the ground that the real issue is one of
legal possession and that the remedy is accion
publiciana, adding that an administrative action like
a verification relocation survey might resolve the
matter.

The survey confirmed Afidchaos allegation that

Catores encroached on her titled property. Hence,
Afidchao required Catores to vacate the portion
illegally occupied and to remove the improvements
made thereon, which the latter refused.

Afidchao a complaint for Accion Publiciana against

defendant filedt-appellant.

CATORES DEFENSE

inter alia, that she has been in possession of the land

in question as early as 1977;

that the land in question is not within the property of

anybody, including the Afidchao; and

that her possession of the land in question is with

color of title
RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT

in favor of Afidchao, giving great weight to the survey

findings. That as between Afidchao who had a title and a tax
declaration over the subject property, who paid the taxes due
thereon, and acquired the same by purchase from the original
registered landowners, and Catores who had no title or tax
declaration, and was not shown to have acquired any title
from the Sunrise Village Association, preponderance of
evidence was in favor of Afidchao.
Catores MFR denied.
THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
CA Affirmed. That there is evidence to support the allegation
of discrepancy in the technical description of the plaintiffappellees title. But this does not mean that the property
covered by the title cannot be concretely located as to
warrant the dismissal of the case.
The title is just an evidence of ownership but it does not vest
ownership. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that other than
the title itself, the actual location of a given property can still
be identified by referring to the control map of the Bureau of
Lands and/or by relocating the same using at least three
existing monuments which are verified to be correct. (MFR
Denied)
CATORES AVERMENTS BEFORE THE SC

that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence, not

only of ownership of the land referred to but also of
the lands location, metes and bounds;

that per testimony of Quiaoit, there was a

discrepancy in the tie line as appearing in the
technical description of respondent's title; that such
discrepancy would mean the failure to locate
Afidchaos property with precision and exactitude,
fatal to the identification of the property, and
consequently, to Afidchaos cause; that in foreign
jurisdictions, the certificate of title does not vest in
the registered owner the title over the property in
respect to which a wrong description was made

that the resolution of the issue will involve the

alteration, correction or modification of TCT No. T27839 issued in the name of Afidchao.
ISSUE
WON the petition may prosper. NO
RULING
The rectification of the title may be made only through
a proper action filed for that purpose.
SEC 48 PD 1529: "a certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack."
It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct
proceeding filed in accordance with law. (De Pedro v. Romasan
Development Corporation)
Q: When is an action an attack on a title?
A: (Caraan v. CA) It is when the object of the action or
proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed.
a.DIRECT ATTACK: When the object of an action or
proceeding is to annul or set aside such judgment, or
enjoin its enforcement.
b.INDIRECT OR COLLATERAL ATTACK: When, in an
action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the
judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.
In the action for recovery filed by Afidchao in the trial
court, Catores Answer did not directly impugn the
validity of Afidchao's title. Rather, she alleged that the
area which she occupied was not within the titled property of
Afidchao. Thus, her petition in the instant case is replete with

claims of errors in the technical description as appearing in

the title of Afidchao and even in that of her PII.
However, these allegations constitute a collateral
attack against respondents title, which cannot be
allowed in an accion publiciana. In sum, the defenses and
grounds raised by petitioner ascribe errors in Afidchaos title
that would require a review of the registration decree made in
Afidchaos favor Unfortunately for the Catores, this cannot be
done in the present action which is simply for recovery of
possession.
As the registered owner is entitled to the possession of the
property from the time the title thereof was issued in her favor
and preponderance of evidence being in favor of Afidchao,
there can be no other conclusion but that Afidchao should be
placed in possession thereof.