G.R. No. L-28591 October 31, 1969
MARIANO RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE G. PAGUIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mariano Ramirez filed an accion publiciana to eject respondent Jose G. Paguia from two parcels of land in Norzagaray, Bulacan. Ramirez based his claim on Homestead Patent No. 70988 and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 282-A issued in his name on June 22, 1944. He alleged Paguia illegally took possession in November 1958. Paguia, in his defense, claimed ownership through Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-27323, issued on January 29, 1960, based on OCT No. 01356 dated June 27, 1958. He asserted that he and his predecessors-in-interest had possessed the land since time immemorial, that Ramirez never held it, and that Ramirez’s title was secured through fraud. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan ruled in favor of Ramirez, declaring Paguia’s TCT null and void and ordering him to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring Ramirez’s patent and OCT null and void ab initio due to fraud and upholding Paguia’s title. Ramirez appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring Homestead Patent No. 70988 and OCT No. 282-A of Mariano Ramirez null and void ab initio and in upholding the title of Jose G. Paguia based on a collateral attack.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
1. A certificate of title fraudulently secured is not null and void ab initio unless the fraud consisted in misrepresenting that the land is part of the public domain when it is not. Here, the land was public domain; thus, Ramirez’s OCT was merely voidable, not void ab initio. It could only be annulled in a direct proceeding filed within one year from the entry of the patent (by June 22, 1945). No such proceeding was filed.
2. Paguia’s attack on Ramirez’s title in this accion publiciana was a collateral attack, which is not permitted by law. The validity of a Torrens title cannot be collaterally impeached.
3. Ramirez’s patent and title became indefeasible and incontrovertible one year after the entry of the patent, pursuant to Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act).
4. The findings of fact by the Director of Lands, approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and impliedly by the President in issuing the patent, are conclusive under Section 4 of the Public Land Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 141 ).
5. Any right of Paguia or his predecessors to contest the patent or seek reconveyance had prescribed. The one-year period for review expired in 1945, and the ten-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance based on implied trust expired on June 22, 1954. The present action was filed in 1960, well beyond both periods.
Therefore, OCT No. 282-A of Ramirez remains valid and indefeasible. Paguia was ordered to vacate the land and pay costs.