OovLim

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:

The subject of controversy is Lot No. 943 of the Balamban Cadastre in Cebu City,
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO9969(O20449), over which the
contendingpartiesinthisactionforquietingoftitle,initiatedbyrespondentVicenteN.Lim
(Lim) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City, assert exclusive ownership, to the
exclusionoftheother.InitsdecisiondatedJuly30,1996,1[1]theRTCfavoredLim,andordered
thecancellationofOCTNo.RO9969(O20449)andtheissuanceofanewcertificateoftitlein
thenameofLuisaNarviosLim(Luisa),Limsdeceasedmotherandpredecessorininterest.
Onappeal(CAGRCVNo.57823),theCourtofAppeals(CA)affirmedtheRTConJanuary28,
2002.2[2] Itlaterdeniedthepetitioners motionforreconsideration throughthe resolutiondated
June17,2002.3[3]

Hence,thisappealviapetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

Antecedents

OnOctober23,1992,LimfiledintheRTCinCebuCityapetitionforthereconstitution
oftheownersduplicatecopyofOCTNo.RO9969(O20449),allegingthatsaidOCThadbeen
lostduringWorldWarIIbyhismother,Luisa;4[4]thatLotNo.943oftheBalambanCadastrein
CebuCitycoveredbysaidOCThadbeensoldin1937to Luisa bySpousesDiegoOoand
EstefaniaApas(SpousesOo),thelotsregisteredowners;andthatalthoughthedeedevidencing
thesalehadbeenlostwithoutbeingregistered,AntonioOo(Antonio),theonlylegitimateheirof

1
2
3
4

SpousesOo,hadexecutedonApril23,1961infavorofLuisaanotarizeddocumentdenominated
asconfirmationofsale,5[5]whichwasdulyfiledintheProvincialAssessorsOfficeofCebu.

ZosimoOoandpetitionerTeofistoOo(Oos)opposedLimspetition,contendingthatthey
hadthecertificateoftitleintheirpossessionasthesuccessorsininterestofSpousesOo.

OnaccountoftheOosopposition,anduponorderoftheRTC,Limconvertedthepetition
forreconstitutionintoacomplaintforquietingoftitle, 6[6] averringadditionallythatheandhis
predecessorininteresthadbeeninactualpossessionofthepropertysince1937,cultivatingand
developingit,enjoyingitsfruits,andpayingthetaxescorrespondingtoit.Heprayed,interalia,
thattheOosbeorderedtosurrenderthereconstitutedownersduplicatecopyofOCTNo.RO
9969(O20449),andthatsaidOCTbecancelledandanewcertificateoftitlebeissuedinthe
nameofLuisainlieuofsaidOCT.

Intheiranswer,7[7] theOosclaimedthattheirpredecessorsininterest,SpousesOo,neversold
LotNo.943toLuisa;andthatthe confirmationofsale purportedlyexecutedbyAntoniowas
fabricated,hissignaturethereonnotbeingauthentic.

RTCRuling

OnJuly30,1996,aftertrial,theRTCrendereditsdecision,8[8]viz:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedquieting
plaintiff'stitletoLotNo.943oftheBalamban(Cebu)Cadastre,anddirectingthe
RegisterofDeedsofCebu

(1) ToregistertheaforestatedApril23,1961ConfirmationofSaleofLot
No. 943 of the Balamban, Cebu Cadastre by Antonio Oo in favor of Luisa
NarviosLim;

5
6
7
8

(2) TocanceltheoriginalcertificateoftitlecoveringthesaidLotNo.943
oftheBalamban,CebuCadastre;and,

(3) ToissueinthenameofLuisaNarviosLim,anewduplicatecertificate
oftitleNo.RO9969(O20449)oftheRegisterofDeedsofCebu,whichshall
containamemorandumofthefactthatitisissuedinplaceofthelostduplicate
certificateoftitle,andshallinallrespectsbeentitledtolikefaithandcreditas
theoriginalcertificate,andshallberegardedassuchforallpurposesofthis
decree,pursuanttothelastparagraphofSection109,PresidentialDecreeNo.
1529.

Withoutspecialpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.9[9]
TheRTCfoundthattheLimshadbeeninpeacefulpossessionofthelandsince1937;thattheir
possessionhadneverbeendisturbedbytheOos,exceptontwooccasionsin1993whentheOos
seizedtheharvestedcoprafromtheLimscaretaker;thattheLimshadsincedeclaredthelotin
their name for taxation purposes, and had paid the taxes corresponding to the lot; that the
signatureofAntonioontheconfirmationofsalewasgenuine,therebygivingmoreweighttothe
testimonyofthenotarypublicwhohadnotarizedthedocumentandaffirmativelytestifiedthat
AntonioandLuisahadbothappearedbeforehimtoacknowledgetheinstrumentastruethanto
thetestimonyoftheexpertwitnesswhoattestedthatAntoniossignaturewasaforgery.

CARuling

On appeal, the Oos maintained that the confirmation of sale was spurious; that the
property,beingatitledone,couldnotbeacquiredbytheLimsthroughprescription;thattheir
(theOos)actiontoclaimthepropertycouldnotbebarredbylaches;andthattheactioninstituted
bytheLimsconstitutedacollateralattackagainsttheirregisteredtitle.

TheCAaffirmedtheRTC,however,andfoundthatSpousesOohadsoldLotNo.943to
Luisa;andthatsuchsalehadbeenconfirmedbytheirsonAntonio.TheCAruledthattheaction
for quieting of title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and that the Lims
undisturbed possession had given them a continuing right to seek the aid of the courts to
determinethenatureoftheadverseclaimofathirdpartyanditseffectontheirowntitle.

Nonetheless,theCAcorrectedtheRTC,byorderingthattheOfficeoftheRegisterof
DeedsofCebuCityissueanewduplicatecertificateoftitleinthenameofLuisa,consideringthat
theownersduplicatewasstillintactinthepossessionoftheOos.

ThedecreeoftheCAdecisionwasasfollows:

WHEREFORE,theappealisDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.However,the
dispositiveportionofthedecisionappealedfromisCORRECTEDasfollows:

(1) Within five (5) days from finality of the decision, defendants
appellantsaredirectedtopresenttheowner'sduplicatecopyofOCT
No.RO9969(O20449)totheRegisterofDeedswhoshallthereupon
registertheConfirmationofSaleofLotNo.943,BalambanCadastre,
Cebu,executedonApril23,1961byAntonioOoinfavorofLuisa
NarviosLim,andissueanewtransfercertificateoftitletoandinthe
nameofthelatteruponcancellationoftheoutstandingoriginaland
owner'sduplicatecertificateoftitle.

(2) In the event defendantsappellants neglect or refuse to present the

owner'scopyofthetitletotheRegisterofDeedsashereindirected,the
saidtitle,byforceofthisdecision,shallbedeemedannulled,andthe
RegisterofDeedsshallmakeamemorandumofsuchfactintherecord
andinthenewtransfercertificateoftitletobeissuedtoLuisaNarvios
Lim.

(3) Defendantsappellantsshallpaythecosts.

SOORDERED.10[10]

TheCAdeniedtheOosmotionforreconsideration11[11]onJune17,2002.12[12]

Hence,thisappeal.
Issues

10
11
12

Thepetitionersraisethefollowingissues:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Whether or not the validity of the OCT could be collaterally attacked

throughanordinarycivilactiontoquiettitle;
Whether or not the ownership over registered land could be lost by
prescription,laches,oradversepossession;
WhetherornottherewasadeedofsaleexecutedbySpousesOoinfavorof
LuisaandwhetherornotsaiddeedwaslostduringWorldWarII;
Whetherornotthe confirmationofsale executedbyAntonioinfavorof
Luisaexisted;and

5.

WhetherornotthesignaturepurportedlyofAntoniointhatconfirmationof
salewasgenuine.

RulingoftheCourt

Thepetitionhasnomerit.

A.
Actionforcancellationoftitle
isnotanattackonthetitle

Thepetitionerscontendthatthisactionforquietingoftitleshouldbedisallowedbecause
it constituted a collateral attack on OCT No. RO9969(O20449), citing Section 48 of
PresidentialDecreeNo.1529,viz:

Section48.Certificatenotsubjecttocollateralattack.Acertificateoftitle
shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or
cancelledexceptinadirectproceedinginaccordancewithlaw.

Thepetitionerscontentionisnotwelltaken.
Anactionorproceedingisdeemedanattackonatitlewhenitsobjectiveistonullifythe
title,therebychallengingthejudgmentpursuanttowhichthetitlewasdecreed. 13[13]Theattack
isdirectwhentheobjectiveistoannulorsetasidesuchjudgment,orenjoinitsenforcement.On
theotherhand,theattackisindirectorcollateralwhen,inanactiontoobtainadifferentrelief,an
attackonthejudgmentisneverthelessmadeasanincidentthereof. 14[14]

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt, or
uncertainty affecting title to real property.15[15] Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
propertyoranyinterestinrealpropertybyreasonofanyinstrument,record,claim,encumbrance,
orproceedingthatisapparentlyvalidoreffective,butis,intruthandinfact,invalid,ineffective,
voidable,orunenforceable,andmaybeprejudicialtosaid title,anactionmaybebroughtto
removesuchcloudortoquietthe title.16[16] Insuchaction,thecompetentcourtistaskedto
determinetherespectiverightsofthecomplainantandtheotherclaimants,notonlytoplace
thingsintheirproperplaces,andtomaketheclaimant,whohasnorightstosaidimmovable,
respectandnotdisturbtheonesoentitled,butalsoforthebenefitofboth,sothatwhoeverhas
the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter
fearlesslyintroducetheimprovementshemaydesire,aswellasuse,andevenabusetheproperty
ashedeemsfit.17[17]

Limscomplaintpertinentlyalleged:

18. If indeed, the genuine original of the Owner's Duplicate of the

ReconstitutedOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.RO9699(O20449)forLot943,
BalambanCadastrexxxisinDefendant's(Oos)possession,thenVNLsubmits
thefollowingPROPOSITIONS:
xxx
18.2. Therefore, the Original of Owners Duplicate Certificate (which
Respondents[DefendantsOos]claimintheirOppositionisintheirpossession)
mustbesurrenderedtoVNLuponorderofthisCourt,aftertheCourtshallhave
determinedVNL'smother'sacquisitionoftheattributesofownershipoversaid
Lot 943, in this action, in accordance with Section 107, P.D. 1529, Property
RegistrationDecreexxx
xxx

13
14
15
16
17

[t]hatOCT20449becancelledandnewtitleforLot943beissueddirectlyin
favorofLUISANARVIOS,tocompletehertitletosaidLot; 18[18]

Theavermentsreadilyshowthattheactionwasneitheradirectnoracollateralattackon
OCTNo.RO9969(O20449),forLimwasassertingonlythattheexistingtitleregisteredinthe
nameofthepetitionerspredecessorshadbecomeinoperativeduetotheconveyanceinfavorof
Limsmother,andresultantlyshouldbecancelled.LimdidnottherebyassailthevalidityofOCT
No.RO9969(O20449),orchallengethejudgmentbywhichthetitleofthelotinvolvedhad
beendecreed.Inotherwords,theactionsoughttheremovalofacloudfromLimstitle,andthe
confirmationofLimsownershipoverthedisputedpropertyasthesuccessorininterestofLuisa.

B.
Prescriptionwasnotrelevant

Thepetitionersassertthatthelot,beingtitledinthenameoftheirpredecessorsininterest,could
notbeacquiredbyprescriptionoradversepossession.

Theassertionisunwarranted.

Prescription,ingeneral,isamodeofacquiringorlosingownershipandotherrealrights
through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. 19[19]
However,prescriptionwasnotrelevanttothedeterminationofthedisputeherein,considering
thatLimdidnotbasehisrightofownershiponanadversepossessionoveracertainperiod.He
insistedherein,instead,thattitletothelandhadbeenvoluntarilytransferredbytheregistered
ownersthemselvestoLuisa,hispredecessorininterest.

Limshowedthathismotherhadderivedajusttitletothepropertybyvirtueofsale;thatfromthe
timeLuisahadacquiredthepropertyin1937,shehadtakenoveritspossessionintheconceptof
anowner,andhadperformedherobligationbypayingrealpropertytaxesontheproperty,as
evidencedbytaxdeclarationsissuedinhername; 20[20]andthatinviewofthedeliveryofthe
property, coupledwithLuisas actual occupationof it, all that remained to be done was the
issuanceofanewtransfercertificateoftitleinhername.

C.
Forgery,beingaquestionoffact,
couldnotbedealtwithnow

The petitioners submit that Lims evidence did not preponderantly show that the
ownershipofthelothadbeentransferredtoLuisa;andthatboththetrialandtheappellatecourts
disregardedtheirshowingthatAntoniossignatureontheconfirmationofsalewasaforgery.

18
19
20


Clearly,thepetitionersherebyseekareviewoftheevaluationandappreciationofthe
evidencepresentedbytheparties.

The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence,
becausetheCourtisnotatrieroffacts. 21[21]Althoughthisruleadmitsofcertainexceptions,viz:
(1)whentheconclusionisafindinggroundedentirelyonspeculation,surmises,orconjecture;(2)
whentheinferencemadeismanifestlymistaken;(3)wherethereisagraveabuseofdiscretion;
(4)whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts;(5)whenthefindingsoffactare
conflicting;(6)whentheCourtofAppeals,inmakingitsfindings,wentbeyondtheissuesofthe
case,andthefindingsarecontrarytotheadmissionsofbothappellantandappellee;(7)whenthe
findingsoftheCourtofAppealsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt;(8)whenthefindingsof
factareconclusionswithoutspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased;(9)whenthefactsset
forthin thepetitionas well in thepetitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents;and,(10)whenthefindingsoffactoftheCourtofAppealsarepremisedonthe
supposedabsenceofevidenceandarecontradictedbytheevidenceonrecord, 22[22]itdoesnot
appearnowthatanyoftheexceptionsispresentherein.Wethusapplytherulewithouthesitation,
andrejecttheappealforthatreason.

Itisemphasized,too,thattheCAupheldtheconclusionarrivedatbytheRTCthatthe
signatureofAntoniohadnotbeensimulatedorforged.TheCAruledthatthetestimonyofthe
notarypublicwhohadnotarizedtheconfirmationofsaletotheeffectthatAntonioandLuisahad
appearedbeforehimprevailedoverthatofthepetitionersexpertwitness.Theconcurrenceof
theirconclusiononthegenuinenessofAntoniossignaturenowbindstheCourt. 23[23]

In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a
preponderanceofevidence. Preponderanceofevidence istheweight,credit,andvalueofthe
aggregateevidenceoneitherside,andisusuallyconsideredtobesynonymouswiththeterm
greaterweightoftheevidence or greaterweightofthecredibleevidence. Preponderanceof
evidenceisaphrasethatmeans,inthelastanalysis,probabilityofthetruth. 24[24]Itisevidence
thatismoreconvincingtothecourtasworthyofbeliefthanthatwhichisofferedinopposition
thereto.

21
22
23
24

Lim successfully discharged his burden of proof as the plaintiff. He established by

preponderant evidence that he had a superior right and title to the property. In contrast, the
petitionersdidnotpresentanyproofoftheirbettertitleotherthantheircopyofthereconstituted
certificateoftitle.Suchproofwasnotenough,becausetheregistrationofapieceoflandunder
theTorrenssystemdidnotcreateorvesttitle,suchregistrationnotbeingamodeofacquiring
ownership.Thepetitionersneedtoberemindedthatacertificateoftitleismerelyanevidenceof
ownership or title over the particular property described therein. Its issuance in favor of a
particularpersondoesnotforeclosethepossibilitythattherealpropertymaybecoownedwith
personsnotnamedinthecertificate,orthatitmaybeheldintrustforanotherpersonbythe
registeredowner.25[25]

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewon certiorari isdenied,andthedecisiondated

January28,2002isaffirmed.

Thepetitionersareorderedtopaythecostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.

25