Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gregorio Araneta Vs RTC

    Uploaded by

    Michelle
    131 views2 pages
    This case discusses the Torrens system of land registration and the rules regarding collateral and direct attacks on land titles. The court ruled that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's title to land that was secured through a forged compromise agreement. While the original case was for specific performance, the cancellation of the title was not a collateral attack because the title's source - the forged compromise agreement - had already been declared null and void. As the title was based on fraud, it was not indefeasible under the Torrens system. The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction to invalidate the irregularly issued title and order the issuance of a new title.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Gregorio Araneta vs RTC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses the Torrens system of land registration and the rules regarding collateral and direct attacks on land titles. The court ruled that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's title to land that was secured through a forged compromise agreement. While the original case was for specific performance, the cancellation of the title was not a collateral attack because the title's source - the forged compromise agreement - had already been declared null and void. As the title was based on fraud, it was not indefeasible under the Torrens system. The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction to invalidate the irregularly issued title and order the issuance of a new title.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    131 views2 pages

    Gregorio Araneta Vs RTC

    Uploaded by

    Michelle
    This case discusses the Torrens system of land registration and the rules regarding collateral and direct attacks on land titles. The court ruled that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to cancel the petitioner's title to land that was secured through a forged compromise agreement. While the original case was for specific performance, the cancellation of the title was not a collateral attack because the title's source - the forged compromise agreement - had already been declared null and void. As the title was based on fraud, it was not indefeasible under the Torrens system. The trial court properly exercised jurisdiction to invalidate the irregularly issued title and order the issuance of a new title.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION VS.

    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.

    You might also like