This case is before us on petition for review by certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.   The principal facts are set forth in said decision, from which  we  quote:

"In the Court of  First  Instance of Tarlac, Asuncion  Lim  filed an action  against  Roque  Velasco for the recovery of two parcels of land, lots 2525 and  2632 of the Cadastral Survey of Paniqui, described  in detail in her  complaint, on the  ground that she is the registered  owner thereof,  as evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 6912 (for Lot  No. 2525)  and 6909 (for Lot No. 2632). Defendant duly filed his answer.

"The case was heard on September 14, 1951, at the trial plaintiff appeared  with her counsel; defendant did not. appear, although his counsel Atty.  Ludivico  Arciaga,  appeared.   Plaintiff adduced  her evidence,  according to  which it appears  that Lot  No.  2525  was originally registered as the conjugal property  of the Chinese spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong Uy, as shown by Original Certificate of Title No.  19634,  issued in accordance with the decision of January 10, 1924 in Cadastral Case  No. 29, G.L.R.O. Record  No. 279  (Exhibit E, first sheet), while Lot  No. 2632 was registered as the  conjugal property of the same spouses, as evidenced  by Original  Certificate of Title No. 1881& issued by virtue of the decision of  April 2, 1934, in Cadastral  Case No.  27,  G.L.R.O. Record  No.  369 (Exhibit E, second sheet).  In 1926,  Ong Uy died intestate in  China; on November  7, 1927, her husband  Lim  Tiongco died intestate in  Paniqui, Tarlac. On  December 20,  1848, plaintiff Asuncion Lim, who claims to be their daughter, executed a document of  declaration of heirship and  extra judicial succession, Exhibit D, and  adjudicated  to herself as supposed lone  heir of the spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong  Uy the two  parcels of land in question. Upon the registration of Exhibit D, Original Certificates  of Title Nos. 19634  and  18816 were cancelled, and,  in  their place, Transfer Certificates of Title  Nos, 6912 (Exhibit A) and 6909 (Exhibit  B), respectively, were issued in  the name of Asuncion Lim.

"From plaintiff's evidence it further appears that in  1942, defendant  Roque Velasco,  claiming the  ownership  of the  aforesaid two parcels  of  land, took possession thereof against plaintiff's consent and since that time had been excluding plaintiff from the possession and  enjoyment of the same.

"On September 20, 1951, the lower court rendered judgment ordering defendant to vacate the two parcels of land  in question and to deliver their possession to plaintiff, and to  pay to  the latter the owner's share  in  the products of  the  land  during  his possession thereof.  On October 8, 1951, defendant filed  a  motion  for  reconsideration, which the court denied for lack of merit.  On November 26,1951, upon motion of plaintiff,  the court issued an order for the issuance  of  a  writ of  execution.

"On December  5,  1951,  defendant, through a different counsel, Atty. Teotimo  Duque,  filed a  petition  for  relief  from judgment, which  plaintiff  opposed.   The hearing  of said  petition for relief from judgment was scheduled  for February 9, 1952.  On December 5, 1952, plaintiff,  through  counsel,  asked that the continuation of the hearing  on the petition, scheduled  for December 15, 1952, be postponed to some other date.   The  Court denied plaintiff's motion.

"On December 17, 1952, the court set aside its judgment of September 20, 1951 and ordered the case included in its January calendar for hearing on the merits.  With leave of court, defendant  Roque Velasco, on  January 7,  1953, filed a third-party complaint against Juan Fernando, alleging that  after the two  parcels of  land were delivered to plaintiff in accordance with the court's  decision of September 20, 1951, said Juan Fernando, in connivance with plaintiff and  with full knowledge of the litigation involving  said lots, took possession of Lot  No. 2632, on the  pretention that he purchased it from plaintiff.  Third-party defendant Juan Fernando duly answered Roque  Velasco's  third-party complaint.

"On  June 29, 1953, Agustina Fernando, Maria Fernando,  Fausta Fernando  and  Cornelia Fernando,  through  their  counsel,  filed  a motion for intervention, which defendant Roque  Velasco vigorously opposed.  On August 4, 1953, the court  denied the motion for intervention  on the ground that the intervenor's alleged interests are amply  represented  by  their  father Juan  Fernando,  third-party defendant herein.   Intervenors moved for the reconsideration  of the court's order, alleging  that third-party defendant Juan Fernando should not  have been brought  into  the  case,  because he  is not the real  party  in interest,  inasmuch as it  was they, intervenors, and not said Juan  Fernando, who  bought Lot  No. 2632  from plaintiff Asuncion Lim.  The court  denied intervenors' motion  on  the ground that  inasmuch as  their alleged right over lot No. 2632 was derived from plaintiff Asuncion Lim, said right is therefore  subject to the result of the case between Asuncion Lim and Roque Velaseo.

"From the evidence presented by defendant  at the trial, it appears that  in 1923, he began working as tenant of  Eduardo Butac on the two  parcels of land  aforementioned.  In  1928, he  purchased from Eduardo  Butac  a portion of 8,794 square meters of Lot No. 2632 (Exhibit 9).  The portion he bought is indicated in the  subdivision plan (Exhibit 10) as Lot No. 2632-A.  From 1928 up to September 20, 1951, when  the two parcels of land in question were delivered to plaintiff Asuncion Lim by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the lower court,  defendant Roque Velasco had been in the continuous, uninterrupted, open an adverse possession of the same, as owner of the portion indicated as Lot No. 2632-A and as tenant of Eduardo Butac  of the rest of  Lot No.  2632 and of the whole of Lot 2525.  With respect to plaintiffs claim that  she is the only daughter of the spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong Uy, defendant presented evidence to show that she is not daughter of said  spouses but that she is the legitimate daughter of Julian Capistani and Ambrosia Bautista, and therefore does  not have any successional right to the two parcels of land in question.

"On April 29, 1954,  the  lower court rendered its decision,  dismissing both the complaint of Asuncion  Lim against Roque Velasco and the  third-party complaint against  Juan  Fernando, declaring defendant entitled to the possession of the lands in  question, requiring the receiver to  render an accounting of his receivership of the two lots and ordering plaintiff Asuncion Lim to account to the defendant for all the products she had obtained from the lots in question from the time the  sheriff delivered  their possession to her up  to the time the receiver was appointed."

On appeal taken by Asuncion Lim and Agustina,  Maria, Fausta and Cornelia, all surnamed  Fernando, the Court of Appeals, in due course,  affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance.   Hence, the present petition, filed by said appellants, for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The main  question for determination in  this  appeal is whether plaintiff Asuncion Lim is entitled to divest defendant Roque Velasco of his possession of  the land in question.   The former asserts  that she is,  upon the  ground that  she is the registered owner of said land, as evidence by Transfer  Certificates of  Titles Nos.  6912 and  6909, issued  in her  name.   Upon the other hand, the latter maintains that she is not:  (1) because he owns part  of Lot No. 2632, and the rest thereof, as well as Lot  No. 2525, belong to Eduardo Butac and  (2)  because, at any rate, said transfer certificates  of title were improperly  issued in the name of Asuncion Lim, for she is neither a daughter nor an heir  of the original registered owners, the spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong Uy.

As indicated above, Roque Velasco claims to have taken possession of the lots in question in 1923, when he allegedly began working  thereon as tenant of Eduardo Butac; that in 1928, the latter sold to  him a portion of Lot No. 2632 (indicated in the Subdivision Plan, Exhibit 10, as Lot No.  2632-A)  of about 8,794  square meters; and that, thereafter, he held said portion of 8,794 square meters, as owner thereof, and remained in possession of the rest of Lot No. 2632 as well as  of the entire  Lot No. 2525, as tenant  of Eduardo Butac,  until he  (Roque)  was ousted therefrom by the sheriff in obedience to the writ of execution  issued pursuant to the order of November 29, 1951;

Upon the  other hand, it is not disputed that Lots Nos. 2525 and  2632 were originally registered in the name of the spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong Uy, in whose favor Original Certificates of Titles Nos. 19634 and  18816,  were issued, pursuant  to  final decisions rendered on January 10, 1924 and April 2, 1934, respectively,  in Cadastral Case No. 29, G.L.R.O.  Record No.  279, and  Cadastral  Case  No. 27, G.L.R.O. Record  No.  369, from whom Asuncion Lim claims to have derived her title, as daughter and sole heir of said spouses, upon their demise.  Considering that said original certificates of title are now incontestable, and that the alleged title of Roque Velasco and Eduardo Butac is not derived from, but antagonistic to, and  (if Velasco's pretense were true) older than, that of the aforementioned spouses, it becomes obvious that Velasco's claim to the effect that he owns  part of Lot No. 2632, and  that the  remaining portion thereof, as well as Lot No. 2525 belong to Eduardo Butac (who has not even tried to intervene in  this case and  establish his  alleged  title  in and  to said  lots) is barred by the decisions in the land registered cases above mentioned and, hence, absolutely untenable.

It is urged, however, by Roque Velasco and the Court of Appeals, as  well as the court of  origin sustained his pretense that Asuncion Lim is not entitled to the possession of the  land in question, because she  is  neither  a daughter, nor an heir, of  said original registered owners, the spouses Lim Tiongco and Ong Uy.  On the other hand, Asuncion Lim  impugns the  right  of Roque  Velasco to question her  relationship  with said  spouses,  upon  the ground that they are strangers to him.   His reply to  this objection and  the theory  underlying  such  reply  was adopted by the  Court of Appeals is that, as possessor of said land, he is entitled to hold it as against Asuncion Lim, unless she proves her right thereto, and  that she has no such right, for  the reason already adverted to.

At the outset, it should be noted that the rights  of "possessors," regulated in Title V of Book II of the Civil Code of the Philippines,  entitled "Possession", are those of possessors as owners, not those of persons who hold lands as tenants of another.  According to Velasco's theory, he does not hold the land in question as owner, except as to a portion of Lot No. 2632 of about 8,794 square meters.   The rest thereof and the totality of Lot  No. 2525  belong to Eduardo Butac,  whose tenant Velasco claims to be.   Hence, he may not  invoke the rights of a  "possessor" in  the technical sense of the term as regards said Lot No. 2525 and  the rest of Lot No. 2632.

Independently of the foregoing, the existence of Transfer Certificates  of  Title Nos.  6912  and 6909,  admittedly covering Lots Nos. 2525 and 2632, in the name of Asuncion Lim, suffices to establish her title to said lots and her right, as owner thereof, to its possession.  The issue whether or not she obtained said transfer certificates  of title  illegally of fraudulently as contended by Velasco by  pretending to be a daughter and heir of Mr. and Mrs. Tiongco, is  one which  may raised  only  by those whose  rights as  heirs, assigns or  privies to said  original owners may have been injured  in consequence  of  said   illegality  or  fraud. Strangers, or persons whose rights are not derived from said original owners, have no right to assail  the validity of said transfer certificates of title or the regularity of the issuance thereof.  No wrong, of any kind whatsoever, has been done to them, and, hence, they have no cause of action, or right to vindicate, in connection therewith.

Wherefore, the  judgment appealed  from  is hereby reversed, and  another  one shall  be entered  declaring that Asuncion Lim and her successors in interest  are entitled to the possession of the land in dispute and to  the owner's share  in the  products thereof,  and sentencing Roque Velasco  to pay to them  the value of said share in the aforementioned products,  while he was in  possession of said land,  and, accordingly,  let the  record of this  case be remanded to the court  of  origin  for  the  corresponding liquidation  and accounting by  Roque Velasco  and  the receiver,  with  costs  against said  defendant.   It  is so ordered.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and  Endencia, JJ., concur.