G.R. No. L-46963 March 14, 1994
GLORIA A. FERRER, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIO BAUTISTA, MARIANO BALANAG, AND MAGDALENA DOMONDON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gloria A. Ferrer filed a complaint for Quieting of Title to Real Property (Civil Case No. A-514) against private respondents Mariano Balanag and Magdalena Domondon. The dispute involves a strip of land south of Lot 1980, Aringay, La Union. Petitioner claims ownership by accretion as the registered owner of the adjoining Lot 1980 (TCT No. T-3280). Private respondents assert ownership based on long occupation and a Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-168) issued pursuant to Free Patent No. 309504 dated January 24, 1966. Prior to this, petitioner had filed a complaint for reivindicacion (Civil Case No. A-86) against the same respondents, which was dismissed without prejudice on February 10, 1976, on the ground that the court could not annul the title issued by the Director of Lands via a collateral attack. Private respondents moved to dismiss Civil Case No. A-514 on grounds including lack of personality, bar by prior judgment, lack of cause of action, and that it constituted a collateral attack on the free patent and title. The trial court, through Judge Antonio Bautista, dismissed the complaint on December 7, 1976, ruling it was an untenable collateral attack on the indefeasible patent title. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 3, 1977, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for quieting of title on the grounds that it constituted a collateral attack on a free patent and title and that the petitioner lacked cause of action.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the trial court’s order of dismissal. The petition has merit. The disputed land, formed by accretion (alluvion) to petitioner’s registered Lot 1980, belongs to the petitioner as the owner of the adjoining land under Article 457 of the Civil Code. Since the land was already private property at the time the free patent was issued in 1966, the Director of Lands had no authority to grant it, rendering Free Patent No. 309504 and OCT No. P-168 null and void. A void title is susceptible to both direct and collateral attack and does not become incontrovertible. The action to declare its nullity does not prescribe. Furthermore, any prescriptive period for reconveyance was interrupted by the filing of Civil Case No. A-86 in 1965 and subsequently Civil Case No. A-514 in 1976. Private respondents could not acquire the land by acquisitive prescription as their adverse possession was interrupted by the receipt of summons in the pending cases. Given that the determinative facts are on record, the Supreme Court, to expedite justice, resolved the case on its merits instead of remanding it. Petitioner was declared the owner of the disputed parcel, and private respondents were ordered to reconvey the same to her.