GR 162733; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 162733 . April 12, 2005
ERASMO TAYAO, Petitioner, vs. ROSA D. MENDOZA and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Rosa D. Mendoza filed a complaint for recovery of possession against petitioner Erasmo Tayao before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan. Mendoza alleged she inherited a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RP-4176 and discovered Tayao occupying a 55-square-meter portion without paying rent. Tayao, in his Answer, claimed Mendoza’s title was void, alleging the property was residential-commercial and was obtained through fraud via a free patent, which only applies to agricultural land. He incorporated a third-party complaint against the Director of Lands seeking cancellation of the title.
The MTC ruled in favor of Mendoza, ordering Tayao to vacate and pay rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this on appeal, holding that the issue of the title’s validity should be threshed out in a proper action. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Tayao’s petition, ruling his challenge to the title in his Answer constituted an impermissible collateral attack under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in dismissing Tayao’s petition and in ruling that his challenge to the validity of OCT No. RP-4176 constituted a prohibited collateral attack.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court held that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked; its validity can only be questioned in a direct action expressly instituted for that purpose. Tayao’s defense in his Answer, which alleged fraud in the issuance of the free patent and sought the title’s cancellation, was precisely a collateral attack. The proper remedy for Tayao, if he believed the title was fraudulently issued, was to file a direct action for reconveyance or, more appropriately, for the Solicitor General to institute a reversion suit since the allegation was that the land was part of the public domain.
The Court further found no merit in Tayao’s claim that the title was void for including a portion of a national highway. This allegation, even if true, does not render the title void but merely affects the property’s physical area, which is a matter for a direct proceeding. Finally, the Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts that the land was private-agricultural, noting such findings are conclusive absent a showing they were grounded on speculations or grave abuse of discretion. Tayao’s failure to avail of the correct legal avenue to challenge the title was fatal to his cause.