G.R. No. 154270; March 9, 2010
TEOFISTO OÑO, PRECY O. NAMBATAC, VICTORIA O. MANUGAS and POLOR O. CONSOLACION, Petitioners, vs. VICENTE N. LIM, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Vicente N. Lim filed a petition for reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-9969-(O-20449) covering Lot No. 943 of the Balamban Cadastre in Cebu City, alleging it was lost during World War II by his mother and predecessor-in-interest, Luisa Narvios-Lim. He claimed the lot was sold to Luisa by the registered owners, Spouses Diego Oño and Estefania Apas, in 1937, and that although the deed of sale was lost and unregistered, their heir, Antonio Oño, executed a notarized Confirmation of Sale in favor of Luisa on April 23, 1961. Petitioners Teofisto Oño and others, as successors-in-interest of Spouses Oño, opposed the petition, asserting possession of the certificate of title. Upon order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lim converted his petition into a complaint for quieting of title, alleging he and his predecessor had been in actual, continuous possession since 1937, cultivating the land, enjoying its fruits, and paying taxes. Petitioners countered that no sale to Luisa occurred and that the Confirmation of Sale was fabricated. The RTC ruled in favor of Lim, ordering the cancellation of the OCT and issuance of a new title in Luisa’s name, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) with a correction to the dispositive portion regarding the surrender of the owner’s duplicate copy.

ISSUE

1. Whether an action for quieting of title constitutes a collateral attack on a certificate of title.
2. Whether ownership over registered land can be lost by prescription, laches, or adverse possession.
3. Whether a deed of sale was executed by Spouses Oño in favor of Luisa and whether it was lost during World War II.
4. Whether the Confirmation of Sale executed by Antonio Oño existed.
5. Whether the signature of Antonio Oño on the Confirmation of Sale was genuine.

RULING

1. The action for quieting of title was not a collateral attack on the certificate of title. An attack is direct when it seeks to annul the judgment decreeing the title, and collateral when such an attack is made incidentally in an action for different relief. The complaint sought to remove a cloud on Lim’s title by asserting that the existing OCT had become inoperative due to the conveyance to his mother, not to invalidate the OCT itself or challenge the judgment behind it.
2. Prescription was not relevant to the resolution of the case. The core issue was the existence of a valid sale and its confirmation, not acquisition through prescription. The Court found sufficient evidence of the sale and confirmation, establishing Lim’s superior title.
3. & 4. & 5. The Court found sufficient evidence that Spouses Oño sold the lot to Luisa in 1937 and that the deed was lost during the war. The existence and genuineness of the Confirmation of Sale were upheld. The RTC and CA gave more weight to the testimony of the notary public who notarized the document and affirmed the parties’ appearance than to the testimony of an expert witness who claimed the signature was forged. Furthermore, the long, peaceful, and continuous possession of the property by Lim and his predecessor since 1937, coupled with their payment of taxes, supported the validity of the sale and confirmation.
The petition was denied. The CA decision was affirmed, ordering the petitioners to present the owner’s duplicate copy of the OCT for cancellation and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in the name of Luisa Narvios-Lim. The Court emphasized that a certificate of title is merely evidence of ownership and does not foreclose the possibility of co-ownership or a trust.