G.R. No. 121038 . July 22, 1999.
TEOTIMO EDUARTE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINGO BELDA and ESTELITA ANA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Domingo Belda and Estelita Ana are the registered owners of Lot No. 118, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-4991 issued on October 5, 1962. Petitioner Teotimo Eduarte has been in actual possession of Lot No. 118 since 1942. An investigation by the Bureau of Lands revealed that petitioner occupied Lot No. 118, while respondents occupied the adjacent Lot No. 138. The Director of Lands, in an Order dated March 26, 1968, amended petitioner’s homestead application to cover Lot No. 118. However, neither the Director of Lands nor petitioner initiated a suit to cancel the free patent and title issued to respondents. On December 10, 1986, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioner, alleging he entered the lot by force, threats, and intimidation in August 1985. In his answer, petitioner asserted he was the rightful owner, that respondents’ title was erroneously issued, and sought reconveyance. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondents, which the Court of Appeals affirmed but modified to remand the case for determination of petitioner’s rights as a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner can, in an ordinary civil action for recovery of possession filed by the registered owners, assail the validity of their title.
2. Whether private respondents’ right to recover possession has been barred by laches.

RULING

1. No. A certificate of title is evidence of an indefeasible title and becomes incontrovertible after one year from the issuance of the decree of registration. It can only be attacked on the ground of fraud within that one-year period through a direct proceeding, not collaterally. Petitioner’s allegations in his answer, challenging the validity of the title issued to respondents, constitute an impermissible collateral attack under Section 48 of P.D. 1529. His remedy was a direct action, not a defense in an action for recovery of possession.
2. No. An action by a registered owner to recover possession based on a Torrens title is not barred by laches. The principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title prevails, and laches cannot defeat the registered owner’s right to recover possession. The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial court’s decision ordering petitioner to vacate the land, subject to the determination of his rights as a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code upon remand.