GR 163566; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163566 ; February 19, 2008
RAYMUNDO and PERLA DE GUZMAN, petitioners, vs. PRAXIDES J. AGBAGALA, respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a dispute over properties originally owned by Carmen Javier, who died single and without compulsory heirs in 1984. In 1987, respondent Praxides Agbagala, Carmen’s sister, discovered a Deed of Donation dated January 25, 1977, purportedly executed by Carmen in favor of their niece, Madelene Javier Cruz. Respondent filed an action to nullify the donation, alleging it was forged, which was later confirmed by an NBI handwriting expert. The properties covered by the donation had been subsequently sold to various transferees, including petitioner spouses Raymundo and Perla de Guzman. Petitioners acquired their parcel through a Free Patent and were issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-30187 on December 11, 1987. Respondent filed an amended complaint in September 1988, seeking to annul the donation and all subsequent transfers, including petitioners’ title.
ISSUE
Whether OCT No. P-30187 issued to the petitioners can be nullified in the present action, considering the principle that a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the nullification of OCT No. P-30187. The Court held that the general rule on the incontrovertibility and non-collateral attack of a certificate of title admits of exceptions. A title originating from a void free patent is itself void ab initio and may be attacked at any time. The evidence conclusively established that the petitioners’ title derived from a void source—the forged Deed of Donation. Since the donation was declared null and void ab initio, Madelene had no valid title to transfer, and the Free Patent and subsequent OCT issued to the petitioners were consequently invalid. The Court further noted that at the time the amended complaint was filed in September 1988, less than one year had elapsed from the issuance of the decree of registration in December 1987. Therefore, the title was not yet indefeasible under Section 32 of P.D. 1529. The action, which directly sought the annulment of the source documents, constituted a direct, not a collateral, attack on the title. The defense of an indefeasible Torrens title cannot protect a holder whose title traces back to a fraudulent and void transaction.