G.R. No. 188484; December 6, 2010
SALUD GEPIGA VDA. DE SOCO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. FERMINA SOCO VDA. DE BARBON, Respondent.

FACTS

Ownership of Lot No. 2393 was adjudicated to Telesfora Tikling in a 1937 Decision by the CFI of Cebu. Due to WWII, no decree was issued until 1985, following a 1982 Order from the Mandaue City Court directing its issuance. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-7012 was issued in Telesfora’s name in 1986. The title was subsequently transferred to her sons and, eventually, to petitioner Juan Soco and then to his heirs, the petitioners.
In 1995, respondent Fermina Soco Vda. de Barbon filed a complaint for reconveyance, claiming a one-third share of the lot. She based her claim on a 1962 Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition she executed with the children of Cornelio Soco (Telesfora’s husband) and a 1948 Tax Declaration in the name of Basilio Soco. To challenge the petitioners’ title rooted in the 1937 Decision, respondent presented a police document examiner who testified that the decision appeared to have been prepared on different typewriters, suggesting it was spurious. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring her the owner of a portion and awarding damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent successfully established her claim of ownership to a portion of the land, thereby warranting the reconveyance of the property and the nullification of the petitioners’ Torrens title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and dismissed the complaint. The legal logic centers on the indefeasibility of a Torrens title and the insufficiency of the respondent’s evidence to overcome it. The Court held that the 1937 Decision, which was the basis for the original registration, must be presumed valid and regular. The expert testimony casting doubt on its physical preparation was deemed inconclusive and insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially since the decision’s authenticity had remained unchallenged for over half a century. The respondent’s alternative evidence—the 1962 Deed and the old Tax Declaration—were not conclusive proof of ownership and could not prevail over a Torrens title.
Crucially, the OCT issued in 1986 had already become indefeasible. An attack on a title based on fraud must be filed within one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. The respondent filed her action only in 1995, far beyond this one-year period. Therefore, her action for reconveyance, which was essentially a collateral attack on the title, was barred. The petitioners’ title, derived from a regularly issued OCT, was thus upheld as conclusive and indefeasible.