Photo from Unsplash | Tingey Injury Law Firm
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The settled rule is that, a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title may only be altered, modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding. (Section 48 of PD 1529, as cited in |Manotok IV v. Heirs of Barque, G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605, [December 12, 2005], 513 PHIL 455-511)
The settled rule is a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title may only be altered, modified or cancelled in a direct proceeding.
Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:
Section 48. Certificate not Subject to Collateral attack. — A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Emphasis supplied)
Jurisprudence provides that –
To allow the cancellation of title in an administrative reconstitution proceeding will permit an indirect attack on the certificate of title in violation of Section 48 of PD 1529.
In the case of Manotok IV v. Heirs of Barque, the Supreme Court ruled that:
The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it declared that Manotok, et al.s’ title is sham and spurious. The LRA itself acknowledged that only the RTC could declare a title fraudulently reconstituted. By ruling on the validity of Manotok, et al.’s title, the LRA assumed the function of the RTC. The LRA also preempted whatever decision the RTC may render on the matter.
The Register of Deeds, the LRA and the Court of Appeals have no jurisdiction to act on the petition for reconstitution filed by the Heirs of Barque in view of the existing Torrens title of Manotok, et al. No court, much less an administrative body, can entertain a petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed title if the land is already covered by a Torrens title in the name of another party, unless there is a final judgment first cancelling such Torrens title. The only exception is when the Torrens title has been issued for less than one year, which is not the situation in the present cases.
To allow such reconstitution is to allow a collateral attack on the existing Torrens title in violation of Section 48 of PD 1529. Such reconstitution will result in an anomalous situation where two Torrens title in the name of two different owners cover one property, a situation anathema to the very concept of stability and indefeasibility of a Torrens title.
In Alabang Development Corporation v. Valenzuela the Court ruled:
The Court stresses once more that lands already covered by duly issued existing Torrens Titles (which become incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from their issuance under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act) cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed by third parties without first securing by final judgment the cancellation of such existing titles. . . . The courts simply have no jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners. The very concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles covered under the Torrens System of registration rules out as anathema the issuance of two certificates of title over the same land to two different holders thereof. A fortiori, such proceedings for “reconstitution” without actual notice to the duly registered owners and holders of Torrens Titles to the land are null and void. Applicants, land officials and judges who disregard these basic and fundamental principles will be held duly accountable therefor. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has repeatedly reiterated this ruling in subsequent cases.
(Manotok IV v. Heirs of Barque, G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605, [December 12, 2005], 513 PHIL 455-511)
Read also: If there are two titles covering the same property, which title shall prevail?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.