Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIONISIO CARAAN v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 151240 2009-03-31	ANGELINE CATORES v. MARY D. AFIDCHAO NACHURA, J.
The petitioner posits that the resolution of the issue will involve the alteration, correction or modification of TCT No. T-27839 issued in the name of respondent. However, the rectification of the title may be made only through a proper action filed for that purpose. It should be borne in mind that Section 48, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, provides that "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. This was our pronouncement in De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation,[27] and in Caraan v. Court of Appeals,[28] we defined a collateral attack in this wise:When is an action an attack on a title? 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. The attack is direct when the object of an action or proceeding is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.[29]
	GR No. 163344 2009-03-20	VILLARICA PAWNSHOP AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Another reason why Civil Case No. 502-M-2002 should not be dismissed is that it is a direct action attacking the registered titles of the Gernale spouses over the properties in question, as opposed to petitioners' answer in Civil Case No. 438-M-2002 which would merely be considered a collateral and not a direct attack on the said titles. Settled is the rule that a certificate of title shall not be subject to a collateral attack; and it cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.[37] Hence, to dismiss Civil Case No. 502-M-2002 would, in effect, deprive petitioners of their right to attack respondent spouses' titles over the disputed properties and pray for their cancellation.
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
Further, the letter dated 2 January 1997 from the LMB stated that the copy of FLS-3168-D as verified from its microfilm file was the same as the copy sent by the Technical Records and Statistics Section of the National Capital Region Lands Management Sector.[54] The LMB, however, denied issuing such letter and stated that it was a forged document.[55] To amplify the forged nature of the document, the LMB sent a detailed explanation to prove that it did not come from its office.[56] In a letter to the administrator of the LRA, the hearing officer concluded that "it is evident that there is an attempt to mislead us into favorable action by submitting forged documents, hence it is recommended that this case [be] referred to the PARAC for investigation and filing of charges against perpetrators as envisioned by this office under your administration."[57]
	GR NO. 142938 2007-08-28	MIGUEL INGUSAN v. HEIRS OF AURELIANO I. REYES CORONA, J.
We agree with the CA that OCT No. P-6176 remains valid. The issue of the validity of title (e.g. whether or not it was issued fraudulently or in breach of trust) can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.[31] A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally. Section 48 of PD 1529[32] states:SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. The rationale behind the Torrens System is that the public should be able to rely on a registered title. The Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. In Fil-estate Management, Inc. v. Trono,[33] we explained:
	GR NO. 149516 2006-09-11	DANNY UGALE v. FEDERICO U. GOROSPE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The alleged registration caused by plaintiff over the property is null, void and ineffective, the same having been effected through fraud and without notice to the actual occupants of the property, even as the same was based on a null, void, ineffective, forged, fake and spurious documents.[23] Such defense is in the nature of a collateral attack which is not allowed by law as the issue of the validity of title, i.e. whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. [24]
	GR NOS. 162335 & 162605 2005-12-12	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title which, by itself, does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition. It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title , like the original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the land or estate covered thereby. (Emphasis in original) In a petition for reconstitution of title, the only relief sought is the issuance of a reconstituted title because the reconstituting officer's power is limited to granting or denying a reconstituted title. The reconstituting officer has no power to decide questions of ownership. A Torrens title, even a reconstituted title, is "evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein."[53] Certainly, the reconstituting officer in an administrative proceeding has no authority to deprive a third party of his property by cancelling his Torrens title to the property. In a petition for reconstitution, such third party is not even required to be impleaded as a respondent.