GR 148180; (December, 2001) (Digest)

G.R. No. 148180; December 19, 2001
CATALINA VDA. DE RETUERTO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ANGELO P. BARZ AND MERLINDA BARZ, respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves Lot No. 896 in Mandaue, Cebu. Petitioners are the heirs of Panfilo Retuerto, who purchased a portion of this lot (Lot 896-A) from Juana Perez in 1929 and later from the Archbishop of Cebu in 1935. In 1937, a court in a land registration case declared Panfilo Retuerto the owner of Lot 896-A and ordered the issuance of a decree, but this was never implemented due to the outbreak of World War II. Meanwhile, Juana Perez’s heir, Pedro Barz (respondents’ predecessor), filed his own application for registration of the entire Lot 896 in 1966. The Retuerto spouses did not oppose this application. The court granted Pedro Barz’s application, issuing Decree No. N-110287 and Original Certificate of Title No. 521 in his name in 1968. Pedro Barz subsequently subdivided the lot and sold portions.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the respondents, as successors-in-interest to Pedro Barz, have a superior claim of ownership over the subject property, thereby entitling them to the remedy of quieting of title against the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling in favor of the respondents. The legal logic rests on the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of a Torrens title and the prohibition against its collateral attack. Pedro Barz obtained a clean certificate of title through a judicial decree in Land Registration Case No. N-529. The petitioners, despite Panfilo Retuerto’s earlier declared ownership in the 1937 proceeding, failed to file an opposition to Barz’s 1966 application. This omission was fatal. The title issued to Barz became conclusive and binding upon the expiration of the one-year period to reopen the decree.
The petitioners’ claim, raised for the first time as a defense in the respondents’ 1989 action for quieting of title, constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on Barz’s title. Under Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree (P.D. 1529), a certificate of title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose, such as an action for reconveyance based on fraud. No such direct action was ever filed by the petitioners. Consequently, the respondents’ Torrens title prevails, and they are entitled to have their ownership quieted against the petitioners’ adverse claim. The Court emphasized that the policy of the Torrens system is to ensure the stability of land titles.