G.R. No. 187400, July 13, 2016.
FELICISIMO FERNANDEZ, SPOUSES DANILO and GENEROSA VITUG-LIGON, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ISAAC and CONCEPCION RONULO, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from an Order dated October 9, 1995, by DENR Regional Director Antonio G. Principe in DENR Case No. IV-5516, which cancelled Survey Plan Psu No. 04-008565 in the name of Tomas Fernandez (pursued by his son, petitioner Felicisimo Fernandez) because it included land respondents Spouses Isaac and Concepcion Ronulo claimed to have occupied since the 1950s. The DENR Secretary reversed this Order on May 28, 1999, in DENR Case No. 5102. The Office of the President (OP), in O.P. Case No. 00-1-9241, subsequently reversed the DENR Secretary’s Decision through a Resolution and Order dated March 24, 2004, and June 11, 2004, respectively. The Court of Appeals affirmed the OP’s rulings.
The antecedent facts show that in 1970, Tomas Fernandez filed a Free Patent Application for a 9,478-square-meter parcel of land in Nasugbu, Batangas. The Bureau of Lands approved the corresponding Survey Plan on April 24, 1984. In 1985, respondents requested an investigation, claiming the survey plan included 1,000 square meters they occupied. Initial investigations had conflicting findings. Ultimately, Regional Executive Director Principe issued the October 9, 1995, Order cancelling the survey plan, finding respondents had better preferential rights as actual occupants. This Order became final and executory, with a Certificate of Finality issued on March 5, 1996, though petitioner Fernandez had filed a notice of appeal with the DENR Secretary on March 4, 1996.
Meanwhile, the parties disposed of the property. Respondent Concepcion Ronulo executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights over the disputed lot in favor of Charlie Lim on October 20, 1995. Petitioner Fernandez sold the entire 9,478-square-meter property to Spouses Danilo and Generosa Vitug-Ligon (co-petitioners), who obtained TCT No. TP-1792 on October 31, 1995. Lim filed a forcible entry case against the spouses Ligon, which reached the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 139856). Separately, the spouses Ligon filed a successful quieting of title case against Lim, which also reached the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 183589).
In the administrative appeal (DENR Case No. 5102), the DENR Secretary reversed Director Principe’s Order on May 28, 1999, dismissing respondents’ protest as filed out of time and ruling that the Order was an impermissible collateral attack on the Ligons’ Torrens title. Respondents’ motions for reconsideration were denied. They appealed to the OP, which reversed the DENR Secretary, reinstating the cancellation of the survey plan. The CA affirmed the OP.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the OP and the CA erred in affirming the cancellation of Survey Plan Psu No. 04-008565 despite the existence of a Torrens title (TCT No. TP-1792) issued to the spouses Ligon.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the Petition. The Court ruled that the Torrens title issued to the spouses Ligon had become indefeasible and could no longer be subject to collateral attack through an administrative proceeding for the cancellation of the survey plan upon which it was based.
The Court held that once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. The Torrens title issued pursuant to the patent becomes as indefeasible as one issued in a judicial proceeding. An administrative order cancelling the survey plan, which is the basis of the patent and title, constitutes a collateral attack on the title, which is prohibited by law. A Torrens title can only be challenged in a direct proceeding for its cancellation or annulment. The Court found that the October 9, 1995, Order of Director Principe, which cancelled the survey plan, was issued after the patent was granted and the title was issued to Fernandez (and later to the Ligons). This Order was a collateral attack on the Ligons’ title. The DENR Secretary correctly reversed it. The OP and the CA erred in reinstating the cancellation order. The Court emphasized the conclusiveness and indefeasibility of a Torrens title, which serves to quiet title to the property.