This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the Court of Appeals correctly relied on the transfer certificate of title in the name of the respondent.[10] As registered owner, respondent had the right to the possession of the property, which is one of the attributes of his ownership thereof. Petitioners' argument that respondent is not the true owner of the land is a collateral attack on his title, which is not allowed. Respondent's title can only be challenged in a direct action, for it is well settled that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Having obtained a valid title over the subject lot, respondent is entitled to protection against indirect attacks against his title.[11] | |||||