G.R. No. L-27844 May 10, 1976
MELQUIADES DEMASIADO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. RAMON VELASCO, defendant-appellee, NATIVIDAD APLASCA, TARCILA MORALIDAD and LOLITA MORALIDAD, intervenors-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Melquiades Demasiado filed an action for recovery of possession against defendant-appellee Ramon Velasco over a southern portion of Lot 5169. Demasiado claimed ownership derived from a 1955 pacto de retro sale and a subsequent 1966 absolute deed of sale executed by his uncle, Ambrosio Demasiado. He alleged that Ambrosio had possessed the lot since purchasing it from a former judge in 1936, and that he himself had received shares of the harvest. Demasiado asserted that Velasco unlawfully entered and worked on the southern portion in 1963. The defendant, along with intervenors-appellants (heirs of the original registered owners), presented Original Certificate of Title No. 61801 issued in 1936, which showed Lot 5169 registered in the names of the Aplasca siblings, including Natividad. They claimed that only the northern half had been mortgaged to Ambrosio Demasiado, while the southern half, occupied by Velasco for his co-defendants, remained with the registered owners.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether Demasiado, claiming under unregistered deeds of sale, could recover possession of a portion of land against persons claiming under a valid and subsisting original certificate of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Demasiado’s complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of a Torrens certificate of title. The Court held that Exhibits B and C (the deeds of sale in Demasiado’s favor) could not be superior to the existing valid Original Certificate of Title (Exhibit 6) presented by the defendants. A certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack; any challenge to its validity must be made in a direct proceeding. Demasiado’s action for recovery of possession, which implicitly sought to negate the title of the registered owners, constituted an impermissible collateral attack. Furthermore, the Court deferred to the trial court’s factual finding that Demasiado failed to prove a clear right over the southern portion. Even assuming long possession, no title to registered land can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession against the registered owner under Section 46 of the Land Registration Act. Regarding the intervenors’ appeal on their right to redeem the northern portion, the Court found no basis to reverse the trial court’s finding that their right had expired, noting they failed to properly assign this as error.