Trinidad II vs. Palad
Trinidad II vs. Palad
TRINIDAD III, for himself and representing LEVY ONG Trinidad II vs. Palad
TRINIDAD and ROHMEL ONG TRINIDAD, MARY ANN
NEPOMUCENO TRINIDAD, for herself and assisting her
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
minor children JOAQUIN GERARD N. TRINIDAD IV,
resolution of the Court of Appeals.
JACOB GABRIEL N. TRINIDAD, and JERED GYAN N.
TRINIDAD, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES BONIFACIO PALAD
and FELICIDAD KAUSAPIN, respondents. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
311
VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 311 After trial, or on July 4, 2008, the RTC rendered its Decision,8
pronouncing as follows:
Trinidad II vs. Palad
No. T-47318 now registered in the names of the spouses
Bonifacio Palad and Felicidad Kausapin (Exhibit “A”).
This is a complaint for recovery of possession with
damages filed by the spouses Bonifacio Palad and In their complaint, the plaintiffs merely emphasized the
Felicidad Kausapin against Augusto Trinidad as the fact that as the registered owners of the parcel of land with
original defendant. In the course of the trial Augusto C. an area of eight (8) hectares including the
Trinidad died and his widow, Levy Ong Trinidad, and 2-hectare area in dispute, they are entitled to the
their children Rohmel Ong Trinidad, Augusto Ong possession of the disputed area which, despite their
Trinidad II, demands to the defendants to vacate, the defendants have
not vacated the area consisting of a well-developed
_______________ fishpond.
8 Rollo, pp. 29-34. For their part, the defendants posit as follows: During the
lifetime of Genaro Kausapin, the father of complainant
Felicidad Kausapin, Genaro Kausapin availed of the legal
services of Atty. Joaquin Trinidad in a land dispute
involving a 12-hectare property. For Atty. Trinidad’s
services, Genaro Kausapin and Atty. Trinidad executed on
312 October 4, 1977 a document denominated Kasulatan ng
Pagbabahagi whereby they partitioned between
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED themselves the 12-hectare property composed of Lot 13-
A, Lot 13-B and Lot 13-C of the Subdivision Plan, (LRC)
Trinidad II vs. Palad
PSD-254630 confirmed on December 19, 1976 by the
Land Registration Commission. As his share in the
Augusto Ong Trinidad III and Joaquin Trinidad III were partition Atty. Trinidad was given Lot 13-A (Exhibit “2”).
substituted as defendants.
In 1980 Atty. Trinidad gave to his son Augusto Trinidad
xxxx the five (5) hectares given to him by Genaro Kausapin as
attorney’s fee. Augusto Trinidad developed a 2-hectare
The land subject of this case is a 2-hectare portion of the portion of the five hectares into a fishpond spending huge
eight (8) hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title amount of money in the process.
xxxx had the land titled in their names on September 11,
1985.
By whichever mode the plaintiffs had come to title the 8-
hectare property including the 2-hectare portion in 4. It was when the plaintiffs had the land they
dispute, the Court, sifting through the evidence presented bought from Renato Ramos surveyed that they
by the parties, finds: found out that the fishpond developed by Augusto
Trinidad was embraced in the area of the [land]
Renato Ramos sold to them.
Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his Appellants are owners of the eight-hectare lot, including
possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be the two-hectare fishpond, by virtue of their Transfer
protected in or restored to said possession by the means Certificate of Title No. T-47318. Spouses Esmaquel v.
established by the laws and the Rules of Court. Coprada, explains why:
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry On the other hand, it is undisputed that the subject
may within ten days from the filing of the complaint present a property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for No. T-93542, registered in the name of the
forcible entry, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to petitioners. As against the respondent’s unproven
restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion claim that she acquired a portion of the property
within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. from the petitioners by virtue of an oral sale, the
Torrens title of petitioners must prevail.
Petitioners’ title over the subject property is
evidence of their ownership thereof. It is a
fundamental principle in land registration that
the certificate of title serves as evidence of an
317 indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name
VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 317 appears therein. Moreover, the age-old rule is
Trinidad II vs. Palad that the person who has a Torrens title over a
land is entitled to possession thereof.
As a rule, a certificate of title cannot be attacked is not to say of course that tax receipts are evidence
collaterally. At any rate, in Spouses Sarmiento, et al. v. of ownership, since they are not, albeit they are
Court of Appeals, et al., a counterclaim assailing a good indicia of possession in the concept of owner,
certificate of title is deemed a direct attack. x x x for no one would ordinarily be paying taxes for a
property not in his actual or at least constructive
xxxx possession. x x x
The burden of proof is on appellees to establish by clear Here, appellees offered no evidence, much less, clear and
and convincing evidence the ground or grounds for convincing evidence, that Spouses Palad’s transfer
certificate of title should be annulled. In fact, it is on
record that appellees’ documents pertain to Lot 13-A, but
they occupied Lot 13-C. As the trial court determined,
appellees’ only basis for claiming the fishpond was their
occupation thereof, though mistakenly and the absence of
318 the boundaries of Lots 13-A, 13-B and 13-C. But these
matters do not and cannot annul Spouses Palad’s transfer
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED certificate of title. They actually imply admission of
appellees’ intrusion into Lot 13-C under Transfer
Trinidad II vs. Palad
Certificate of Title No. T-47318 without any right to own
or possess it. Truth to tell, the trial court correctly did not
annulling a certificate of title. In Lasquite, et al. v. Victory set aside the transfer certificate of title. Hence, it remains
Hills: valid and binding with all its legal effects.
The established legal principle in actions for ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The
annulment or reconveyance of title is that a Decision dated July 4, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court,
party seeking it should establish not merely by a Branch 53, Lucena City, in Civil Case No. 92-71 is RE-
preponderance of evidence but by clear and
convincing evidence that the land sought to be
reconveyed is his. It is rather obvious from the
foregoing disquisition that respondent failed to
dispense such burden. Indeed, the records are
replete with proof that respondent declared the lots 319
comprising Lot No. 3050 for taxation purposes only
after it had instituted the present case in court. This
VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 319 1. In its ruling that the respondents have a better right of
Trinidad II vs. Palad possession over the disputed 2-hectare portion of the 8-
hectare property by the mere fact that said disputed
portion is covered by a certificate of title in their names;
VERSED AND SET ASIDE. Defendants-appellees Levy
Ong Trinidad, Joaquin Trinidad III, Augusto Trinidad II,
2. In its ruling that the petitioners offered no evidence that
Augusto Trinidad III and Rohmel Trinidad, their
spouses Palad’s transfer certificate of title should be
successors-in-interest, privies and heirs are ordered to
annulled, and therefore remains valid and binding with all
vacate the two-hectare fishpond occupied by them in
its legal effects, as it failed to consider evidence showing
Lot 13-C under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
otherwise;
47318. No costs.
3. In its ruling that the petitioners should vacate the 2-
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original)
hectare fishpond, as it failed to consider that the
respondents have no right or cause of action against the
petitioners to seek the latter’s ejectment from the property
in question.14
Petitioners filed their Motion for Reconsideration,12 which was
denied in the assailed August 24, 2012 Resolution. Hence, the
_______________
instant Petition.
11 Rollo, pp. 23-27.
In a January 27, 2014 Resolution,13 this Court resolved to give
due course to the Petition.
12 CA Rollo, pp. 107-115.
320
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Trinidad II vs. Palad Respondents’ Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments
In their Comment18 seeking denial of the Petition, respondents
argue that the CA correctly held that TCT T-47318 serves as
incontrovertible proof of their indefeasible title to
In their Petition and Reply15 seeking reversal of the assailed CA
dispositions and reinstatement of the RTC’s July 4, 2008
_______________
Decision dismissing Civil Case No. 92-71, petitioners
essentially argue that respondents may not claim ownership of
15 Id., at pp. 64-70.
the subject property just because it is embraced within their title,
TCT T-47318; that TCT T-47318 is null and void since it is the
16 Id., at p. 40.
result of a June 5, 1985 deed of extrajudicial settlement16 and
September 9, 1985 segregation agreement17 and not a sale
17 Id., at p. 41.
between respondents and Ramos; that since respondent
Felicidad was not an heir of one of the original owners of the
18 Id., at pp. 47-53.
property — Navarro — as erroneously stated in the deeds of
extrajudicial settlement and segregation agreement, said
documents are therefore null and void, and could not be the
bases for the issuance of TCT T-47318; that the subject property
was not included in the July 23, 1985 sale between respondents
and Ramos because its inclusion in TCT T-47318 was
321
discovered only after a survey was conducted after the sale; that
since respondents are not the owners of the subject property,
they have no cause of action against petitioners; and that in their VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 321
answer with counterclaim, they sought to annul TCT T-47318, Trinidad II vs. Palad
claiming that respondents secured same through Felicidad’s
claim that she is an heir of Navarro — thus, said allegation made the subject property, as well as their right to possession thereof;
through a valid counterclaim constitutes a direct attack upon the that petitioners’ claim that their title is void as it arose out of
validity of TCT T-47318 which is allowed by law. void agreements constitutes a prohibited collateral attack on
TCT T-47318; that the issue of validity or nullity of TCT T-
47318 cannot be raised, as said issue was not touched upon by
the RTC; that TCT T-47318 may not be annulled because ground that it was obtained through a simulated extrajudicial
petitioners’ supposed claim of ownership specifically refers to settlement agreement; and as far as this Court is concerned, the
Lot 13-A, while they wrongly occupied Lot 13-C, which is the fact is settled that respondents acquired the
subject of TCT T-47318; and that with the finding on record that
petitioners wrongly occupied Lot 13-C, they must be ordered to _______________
vacate the same and surrender possession to respondents who
are the registered owners thereof. 19 Id., at p. 9.
Our Ruling
322
The Court denies the Petition. 322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Trinidad II vs. Palad
The fact is undisputed that the subject two-hectare property lies
within Lot 13-C which is registered in the name of respondents
as TCT T-47318. property covered by TCT T-47318 by purchase from Ramos. If
indeed Felicidad was an heir of any of the original owners of the
property, then there would have been no need for her to purchase
The evidence on record also suggests that contrary to petitioners’
the same. Besides, the evidence further points to the fact that
claim, the subject property constitutes a portion of an eight-
Felicidad’s father Genaro was a mere tenant of the Ramos family
hectare parcel of land acquired by respondents from Ramos by
and could not have owned the property in question; and this is
purchase in 1985, and was not the result of a June 5, 1985 deed
precisely why, to own it, she had to purchase the same from
of extrajudicial settlement and September 9, 1985 segregation
Ramos.
agreement between the original owners and respondent
Felicidad. This is a finding of fact arrived at by both the RTC
and the CA — and this is admitted by petitioners in their The CA is therefore correct in its pronouncement — citing
Petition, which specifically adopted the findings of fact of the Spouses Esmaquel and Sordevilla v. Coprada20 — that TCT
RTC on this score.19 T-47318 constitutes evidence of respondents’ ownership over
the subject property, which lies within the area covered by said
By adopting the findings of fact of the trial court, petitioners are title; that TCT T-47318 serves as evidence of indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of respondents,
precluded from further arguing that TCT T-47318 is void on the
whose names appear therein; and that as registered owners, they
are entitled to possession of the subject property. As against VOL. 777, DECEMBER 9, 2015 323
possession claimed by the petitioners, respondents’ certificate of Trinidad II vs. Palad
title prevails. “[M]ere possession cannot defeat the title of a
holder of a registered [T]orrens title x x x.”21
which does not belong to him although he may have executed a
document awarding the same to Augusto. No one can give that
On the other hand, petitioners’ claim — their main defense in
which he does not own — nemo dat quod non habet. Finally,
the suit — is that their predecessor Augusto was the owner of
petitioners acknowledge that what Genaro supposedly gave
the subject property. But such claim rests on very shaky ground.
Augusto as the latter’s attorney’s fees was Lot 13-A, while it
First, they claim that the subject property was awarded as
turned out that what Augusto occupied was Lot 13-C, which is
attorney’s fees in 1977 to Augusto by Genaro. However, in
registered in respondents’ favor as TCT T-47318. Evidently,
seeking the annulment of respondents’ title, they claim at the
Augusto had no right over Lot 13-C which he wrongly occupied;
same time that the property was acquired by Felicidad through
consequently, petitioners, as Augusto’s successors-in-interest,
inheritance from Navarro, who happens to be the grandmother
have no viable defense to respondents’ claim in Civil Case No.
of Ramos.22 And yet, at the appeal stage before the CA, they
92-71.
adopt without question the RTC’s finding that the subject
property was purchased by Felicidad from Ramos. Such a
Indeed, the only reason why petitioners won their case in the
conflicting and flip-flopping stance deserves no serious
RTC is that in the court’s July 4, 2008 Decision it assumed and
consideration. Genaro may not dispose of the property
concluded that Genaro was the owner of the subject property
which he awarded to Augusto via the supposed October 4, 1977
_______________
“Kasulatan ng Pagbabahagi’’ between Genaro and Augusto -
when the evidence points to the fact that the property was
20 653 Phil. 96, 105; 638 SCRA 428, 438 (2010).
acquired by respondents through purchase from its original
owner, Ramos.
21 Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 462, 475; 253 SCRA
391, 401 (1996).
Thus, as the CA correctly held, petitioners are mere intruders
with respect to the subject property; they have no right to own
22 Rollo, p. 40.
or possess the same. On the other hand, as registered owners of
the subject property, respondents have the right to exercise all
attributes of ownership including possession which they cannot
do while petitioners remain there.
SO ORDERED.
324