G.R. No. L-40101. May 31, 1982.
FABIAN BORLAS, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SERGIO SANTOS and JULIANA ORTIZ, respondents.
FACTS
This is an unlawful detainer case originating from the Municipal Court of Navotas, Rizal. Private respondents Sergio Santos and Juliana Ortiz, spouses, alleged they are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Tangos, Navotas, covered by TCT No. 177436. They claimed that in June 1966, petitioner Fabian Borlas entered into a month-to-month verbal lease of the land at a rental of P10.00, occupied a house thereon, but stopped paying rent in December 1966 despite demands to pay and vacate.
Petitioner Borlas defended his possession, asserting he had occupied a foreshore area since 1955, acquiring it from Concordia Pascual. He filed a sales application with the Bureau of Lands in 1963, having previously held a permit from said bureau. He contended that the respondents’ Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 5279, issued in 1966 and later subdivided into several Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs), including TCT No. 177436, covered land within the vicinity of his occupation.
ISSUE
The core legal issue is whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that private respondents were in prior possession of the disputed land—a decisive element in unlawful detainer—based primarily on the existence of OCT No. 5279 issued in their name.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the respondent court’s finding of prior possession in favor of the private respondents was legally sound. The issuance of OCT No. 5279 in the name of the respondents constitutes indubitable evidence that they had been in possession of the land for at least thirty years prior to the registration proceedings, as required by law for original registration. This established prior possession sufficiently for purposes of the ejectment suit.
The petitioner’s argument that the cancellation of OCT No. 5279 undermined this basis was rejected. The Court noted that while the OCT was subdivided, the land described in TCT No. 177436 (the subject of the complaint) retained the same 555-square-meter area as the original OCT. Furthermore, OCT No. 5279 was subsequently restored by court order, confirming its continued validity. The petitioner’s claim of possession based on a Bureau of Lands permit and a denied sales application could not prevail over a Torrens title, which enjoys a presumption of validity and cannot be collaterally attacked in an unlawful detainer case. The proper recourse for challenging ownership is a direct action, not a detainer suit. Therefore, the prior possession of the titled owners was upheld.
