Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gregorio Araneta Vs RTC
Gregorio Araneta Vs RTC
RTC KALOOKAN
G.R. No. 139672, March 4, 2009
TOPIC: Torrens System- Collateral Attack and Direct Attack; Indefeasible Titles under the
Torrens System
DOCTRINE: Collateral Attack and Direct Attack- An action or proceeding is deemed an attack
on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment
pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to
annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, it is indirect or
collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment
is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid and, hence, is the best
proof of ownership does not apply where the very certificate itself is faulty as to its purported
origin.
Indefeasible Titles under the Torrens System- Well settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a
title does not attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation.
FACTS: The Gonzales or Maysito estate in Malabon, Rizal was expropriated by the Republic of
the Philippines, with the understanding that the Government would resell the property to its
occupants. However, due to its failure and its instrumentality, PHHC, the occupants and tenants
of the estate filed a complaint to compel PHHC to sell to the tenants their respective occupied
portions of the Gonzales estate. The Gregorio Araneta University Foundation (GAUF) sought to
intervene in the case on the ground that 52 tenants of the property and Araneta institute of
Agriculture entered into a “Kasunduan” whereby the former conveyed to the latter priority rights
to purchase portion of the estate. In the basis of this “Kasunduan,” a compromise agreement was
duly approved by the court. Included in this compromise agreement are Lots 75 and 54 awarded
to Gregorio Bajamonde. Incidentally, it appears that on the basis of the “Kasunduan” and the
forged compromise. Araneta University was able to register in its name with the Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City TCT No. C-24153 for Lots 75 and 54 which had been awarded to
Gregorio Bajamonde. On the other hand, the compromise agreement between Araneta
University and the tenants was declared null and void for being a forgery and the partial decision
rendered in accordance therewith was likewise declared null and void and of no force and effect.
The lower court ordered the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City to cancel the title of GAUF and
to issue a new TCT over Lots 75 ad 54 in the name of Gregorio Bajamonte or heirs and ordered
the Clerk of Court to issue writ of possession in favor of Gregorio Bajamonte or heirs. GAUF
filed with the CA a petition for annulment of the joint Order alleging that the twin orders in
question were issued by the trial court without jurisdiction. The CA denied the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to issue the Joint Order which directed the
cancellation of the petitioner’s title over Lot 75 and 54 of the former Gonzales/Maysilo Estate
and ordered the issuance of new titles over the same lots in the name of the Heirs of Gregorio
Bajamonde.
HELD: No, the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue the Joint Order. An action or proceeding
is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title, and thus
challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the
object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the
other hand, it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a different relief,
an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.
Here, while it may be true that Civil Case No. C-760 was originally an action for specific
performance and damages, nonetheless the case cannot constitute a collateral attack on the
petitioner’s title which, to begin with, was irregularly and illegally issued. It bears stressing that
the source of GAUF’s title was the Compromise Agreement purportedly executed by Gregorio
Bajamonde, et al. This compromise was approved by trial court in Civil Case No. C-760 in its
Partial Decision. As petitioner’s own evidence shows, the subject property was conveyed to it in
compliance with and in satisfaction of the said Partial Decision in Civil Case No. C-760 and the
writ of execution issued in connection therewith. The same Compromise Agreement and Partial
Decision, however, were declared null and void in Civil Cases and likewise effectively
invalidated. The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid and hence, is
the best proof of ownership does not apply where the very certificate itself is faulty as to its
purported origin, as in the present case.
With the reality that the presumption of authenticity and regularity enjoyed by the petitioner’s
title has been overcome and overturned by the aforementioned decisions nullifying the aforesaid
Compromise Agreement from where the petitioner’s title sprung, that title can never be
indefeasible as its issuance was replete with badges of fraud and irregularities that rendered the
same nugatory. Well-settled is the rule of the indefeasibility of a title does not attach to titles
secured by fraud and misrepresentation. In view of these circumstances, it was as if no title at all
was ever issued in this case to the petitioner and therefore this is hardly the occasion to talk of
collateral attack against a title.