GR 130228; (July, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130228 ; July 27, 2004
BERNABE FOSTER-GALLEGO, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ROMEO and VIVIEN GALANG, VIVE REALTY CORPORATION, MUNICIPALITY OF PARAĂ‘AQUE, TREASURER OF PARAĂ‘AQUE, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PARAĂ‘AQUE, respondents.
FACTS
Vive Realty Corporation (VRC) acquired a parcel of land at a public auction for delinquent taxes and obtained a court order for the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in its name. VRC subsequently sold the property to spouses Romeo and Vivien Galang, who were issued a new transfer certificate of title. In 1989, the Galangs discovered that Lito Gallego had fenced the property. They filed a complaint for quieting of title against him. Lito Gallego claimed his brother, petitioner Bernabe Foster-Gallego, was the true owner.
Petitioner intervened, asserting ownership and arguing the tax sale was void due to lack of proper notice, as his address in the records was in the USA. He also filed a third-party complaint against VRC and the local government officials. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Galangs, declaring them the owners and ordering Lito Gallego to pay damages. It dismissed petitioner’s intervention and third-party complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of petitioner’s intervention and third-party complaint, thereby upholding the Galangs’ title acquired from the tax sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the conclusiveness and incontrovertibility of a certificate of title issued under the Torrens system and the proper remedy for challenging a tax sale. The court order in Civil Case No. 5801, which directed the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one to VRC, was a final judgment. Petitioner’s claim that the tax sale was void for lack of notice constitutes a collateral attack on that title, which is prohibited. A certificate of title cannot be impeached collaterally but only in a direct proceeding for that purpose.
Furthermore, petitioner’s remedy was an action for the annulment of the tax sale within the prescriptive period, which he failed to pursue. His intervention in the quieting of title case filed by the Galangs was improper because he sought affirmative relief to assert his own ownership, which would require a separate direct action. The Galangs, as innocent purchasers for value with a registered title, have a superior right. The trial court correctly quieted their title against the cloud created by petitioner’s unfounded claim.