[G.R. No. 142518. April 4, 2001]

RICARDO ABI-ABI, et al. vs. OMARIAH MALAWANI, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 4 2001.

G.R. No. 142518 (Ricardo Abi-abi, et al. vs. Omariah Malawani, et al.)

Petitioners Ricardo Abi-Abi, et al., through this petition for review under Rule 45, seek to reverse and set aside the Decision, dated 29 October 1999, and the Resolution, dated 23 February 2000, of the Court of Appeals in C.A. OR CV No. 33991 which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur, Branch 11, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, respectively.

The factual milieu of this case is as follows:

In 1944, Lot No. 173 Ps-1356 (subject lot) located in Poblacion, Malabang, Lanao del Sur was being claimed by Du Song Why (represented by his widow, Ching Kuay), Mianang Moran (petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest), Pedro Jovillar, Francisco Tudias and Moises Bardesalar in Bureau of Lands Claim No. 67 (N). On 25 October 1947, the Director of Lands issued an order approving the application of Du Song Why and directing all the other claimants to immediately vacate the subject land and leave Ching Kuay in peaceful possession of the same. Despite this order, Mianang Moran did not vacate the land. Subsequently, however, the Director of Lands cancelled the application of Du Song Why on the ground that he applied for more than one lot.

On 28 March 1966, Hadji Fatima Marohombsar, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Omariah Malawani, et al., filed a sales application for the subject lot. The heirs of Mianang Moran contested said application. On 26 January 1967, the Acting Director of Lands, Vicente Valdellon, awarded the subject lot to Hadji Fatima Marohombsar and ordered that the application be entered as Miscellaneous Sales Entry No. V-12 196. As a consequence of the award, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. PAF-20 was issued to Hadji Fatima Marohombsar by the Register of Deeds of Lanao del Sur on 19 May 1967. Despite the award to Hadji Fatima Marohombsar, petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest continued to occupy the subject land. On 26 October 1979 Hadji Fatima Marohombsar sold the lot to her granddaughter, respondent Omariah Malawani. Accordingly, OCT No. PAF-20 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. TAF-1368 was issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of respondent Omariah Malawani. On several occasions, respondents asked petitioners, who now occupy the land as successors-in-interest of Mianang Moran, to vacate the land but the latter refused.

On 16 September 1982, respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages with preliminary injunction against petitioners. In their defense, petitioners claimed that they and their predecessor-in-interest, Mianang Moran, have been in possession of the land since 1951. As such, petitioners argued that despite the fact that they did not file any application for title to the said land, their continued occupation made them owners thereof. Furthermore, petitioners alleged that the award and subsequent titling of the subject land to Hadji Fatima Marohombsar is void since she never occupied the subject land, a requisite for the approval of a sales patent.

In its Decision, dated 3 July 1991, the trial court declared that petitioners’ illegal occupation of the subject land cannot defeat the registered title of respondents, TCT No. TAF-1368, under the Torrens system. With regard to petitioners’ claim that title to the subject land was awarded to Hadji Fatima Marohombsar through misrepresentation and fraud since she never occupied the same, the trial court brushed it aside and ruled that a torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked but must be directly attacked through an action instituted for that purpose. Accordingly, the trial court ordered petitioners to vacate said lot and restore possession thereof to respondents.

Undaunted, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA). In its Decision, dated 29 October 1999, the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court. On 4 January 2000, petitioners’ counsel received a copy of the aforementioned decision. On 21 January 2000, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision. In its Resolution, dated 23 February 2000, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for having been filed late and because the issues raised therein had already been passed upon and considered in its decision.

Hence, the present petition.

The instant petition must fail since the CA committed no reversible error in rendering the assailed decision and resolution. We quote with approval the CA’s disposition of the primary issue raised by petitioners in the instant case:

Appellants now contend that since they have prior possession and that they have been paying the corresponding taxes, they are the lawful owners of the lot; and that since the appellees and their predecessor-in-interest have never occupied the area, a requisite for the approval of the latter’s application for sales patent, their titles thereto are void.

The appellants’ contention is misplaced. The rule is well-settled that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered Torrens title to real property. A title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession. The certificate of title issued is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It is binding and conclusive upon the whole world. All persons must take notice and no one can plead ignorance of the registration. The best proof of ownership of a piece of land is this certificate of title. Tax declarations and tax receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownership or right of possession over a piece of land. They are merely indicia of a claim of ownership.

In arguing that since the appellees and their predecessor-in-interest have never been in possession of the lot, their titles thereto are void, the appellants are actually attacking the said titles collaterally. This cannot be done. The issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Hence, whether or not the appellants have the right to claim ownership of the lot in question is beyond the. province of the instant proceeding. ¹ Rollo, pp. 95-97.

A careful perusal of the instant petition shows that the issues to be resolved had already been correctly and exhaustively passed upon by the appellate court. There is clearly no reason in this case to deviate from the general rule that “findings of facts by the CA especially if it they affirm factual findings of the trial court will not be disturbed by the SC unless these findings are not supported by evidence. ² Bañas, Jr., vs. CA, 325 SCRA 259, 271 (2000).

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours.

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court