Professional Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 144095 Digest
G.R. No. 144095 Digest
April 12, 2005 persons dealing with property registered under the Torrens
system.
SPOUSES HAYMATON S. GARINGAN AND JAYYARI
PAWAKI, Petitioners, Whether the Third Sharia District Court erred in not ruling that
vs. respondents have no cause of action against the petitioners in
HADJI MUNIB SAUPI GARINGAN, HADJA TERO SAUPI an action for partition as they are not co-owners of the subject
GARINGAN, and HADJA JEHADA SAUPI property, petitioners being the sole owners of the property. 7
GARINGAN,Respondents.
The Ruling of the Court
DECISION
The petition is meritorious.
CARPIO, J.:
The settlement of the issue of ownership is the first stage
Facts in an action for partition, and the action will not lie if the
claimant has no rightful interest in the property in
On 23 February 1993, Hadji Munib, et al. filed an action for dispute.8 In this case, Hadji Munib, et al. failed to prove their
Partition and Injunction with prayer for Preliminary Injunction right to the land in dispute.
against their sister Haymaton and her husband Jayyari Pawaki
also known as Djayari Moro. Hadji Munib, et al. alleged that The Derivative Title of Jayyari Pawaki
their grandfather Saupi Moro owned an agricultural lot, fully
planted with coconut and other fruit bearing trees, containing The land in dispute was originally registered in the name of
an area of 11.3365 hectares. Saupi Moro donated the land to Andaang Gani ("Andaang")
his daughter Insih Saupi ("Insih"), mother of Hadji Munib, et al.
and Haymaton. After the donation, Insih predeceased her Andaang died intestate on 29 August 1959. On 13 April 1960,
father and her interest over the land passed to her children Andaangs widow and sole heir, Cristeta Santiago vda. de Gani
Hadji Munib Saupi Garingan, Hadja Tero Saupi Garingan, Hadja ("Cristeta"), executed an Extrajudicial Settlement and
Jehada Saupi Garingan, and Haymaton Garingan. Sale10 adjudicating to herself the land in dispute and at the
same time selling it to Jikirum. On 31 August 1967 or seven
After the death of Saupi Moro in 1954, 5 Haymaton and Pawaki years after the sale, Cristeta caused the cancellation of OCT No.
took over the administration of the land. Later, Haymaton and P-793 and the issuance in her name of TCT No. T-1940.11 On
Pawaki declared the land, then still untitled, in their names for the same date, TCT No. T-1940 was cancelled and TCT No. T-
taxation. Haymaton and Pawaki refused to share with Hadji 194112 was issued in the name of Jikirum.
Munib, et al. the income from the sale of fruits from the land.
On 22 September 1969, Jikirum executed a Deed of Absolute
Haymaton and Pawaki, on the other hand, claimed that on 22 Sale13 in favor of Djayari Moro. On 10 June 1971, TCT No. T-
September 1969, Pawaki bought the land from Jikirum M. 1941 was cancelled and TCT No. T-259214 was issued in the
Adjaluddin ("Jikirum"). TCT No. T-2592 was issued in the name name of Djayari Moro also known as Jayyari Pawaki.
of Djayari Moro. Pawaki took possession of the land in the
concept of an owner in the same year. He declared the land for The Homestead Application of Andaang Gani
taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 1675.
The Letters of Patent was issued on 17 February 1955. The WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Sharia District Court, Third
brothers and sisters of Saupi Moro filed Civil Case No. 41 for Sharia Judicial District, Zamboanga City in Civil Case No. 13-3,
annulment of title only in July 1956, more than a year after the is SET ASIDE, and another one is entered DISMISSING the
issuance of the Letters of Patent. There is no evidence that complaint in Civil Case No. 13-3.
Saupi Moros children, who are his compulsory heirs,
intervened in the case. Insihs children who claim to have
succeeded to the rights of their mother also failed to intervene
in the case. Hadji Munib, et al. did not do anything to protect
their interest, not even after the records of Civil Case No. 41
were burned. Instead of availing of the remedy under
Section 38 of Act 496, Hadji Munib, et al. filed an action for
partition on 23 February 1993, which must fail because a
Torrens title is not susceptible to collateral attack. Thus:
"It is a rule in this jurisdiction that once a public land has been
brought under the Land Registration Act, the Torrens title
issued thereto is indefeasible. It is entitled to the same regard
as one issued in a judicial proceeding. The Torrens title is not
susceptible to collateral attack. The decree (or order of the
Director of Lands for the issuance of the patent in the case of a
homestead) may be reviewed under Sec. 38 of the Land
Registration Act by filing the appropriate petition within one
year from the issuance of the said decree or from the issuance
of the order for the issuance of the patent. Or an appeal may
be taken to the appellate court within the reglementary period
from the decision of the Court; and in the case of the
homestead, the administrative remedies may be pursued.
These are the methods of direct attack."30
In any event, Hadji Munib, et al. are not the proper parties to
file an action for reconveyance of the land in dispute.
Evidently, the land was not privately owned by Gani Moro from
whom Saupi Moro "acquired" it. The land in dispute was part of
the public domain before the issuance of OCT No. P-793. If it
were otherwise, there would be no need for Gani Moros son,
Andaang, to file a homestead application.
All lands that were not acquired from the Government, either
by purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain. An
exception to the rule would be any land that should have been
in the possession of an occupant and of his predecessors in
interest since time immemorial, for such possession would
justify presumption that the land had never been part of the
public domain or that it had been a private property even
before the Spanish conquest.31