G.R. No. L-33952 March 9, 1987
ORTIGAS & COMPANY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, vs. HON. VIVENCIO M. RUIZ, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Branch XV), et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ortigas & Company is the registered owner of a large parcel of land in Pasig, Rizal, derived from the Mandaloyon Estate, with possession traceable to 1862. A prior class suit, Civil Case No. 7-M (10339), was filed against Ortigas by other claimants seeking to nullify its titles. That case resulted in an adverse decision for Ortigas, which appealed, and the Court of Appeals enjoined the trial court from further proceedings pending its resolution. Subsequently, a new class suit, Civil Case No. 678-M (15043), was filed by respondent Inocencio Bernardo and others, making identical claims to a different portion of the same estate, seeking to annul Ortigas’s titles for alleged lack of publication and fraud.
Upon an urgent ex-parte motion by the respondents in the new case, the respondent Judge issued a restraining order on August 13, 1971, prohibiting Ortigas from fencing the land, constructing improvements, or otherwise exercising possessory rights. Ortigas filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the restraining order, primarily because the action was barred by laches and the claims were a collateral attack on a Torrens title.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the restraining order and in taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 678-M (15043).

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the restraining order, and ordered the dismissal of Civil Case No. 678-M (15043). The Court ruled that the action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on Ortigas’s Torrens certificates of title, which are incontrovertible and indefeasible. A Torrens title cannot be challenged collaterally in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance or claim of ownership; the proper remedy is a direct proceeding for its annulment.
Furthermore, the Court held the respondents’ claim was barred by laches. Ortigas and its predecessors-in-interest had been in continuous, open possession of the property for over a century. The respondents’ failure to assert their alleged rights for an inordinate length of time—spanning decades—rendered their action stale and inequitable. The Court cited jurisprudence establishing that inaction for such an extended period, even exceeding 50 years, is fatal to a cause of action for recovery of possession. While the petition initially sought only to annul the interlocutory order, the Supreme Court, invoking its authority to resolve controversies conclusively to avoid protracted litigation, proceeded to dismiss the entire case on its merits. The Court found sufficient basis to determine that the respondents’ claims were without legal foundation, thereby dispensing with the need to remand the case for further trial.