A Torrens Title is indefeasible.

Borbajo vs Hidden View Subdivision

GR No. 152440
J. Puno

The Torrens tile is indefeasible, it can only be attacked for fraud within one
(1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration in a direct not
collateral proceeding.

Facts:
Herein petitioner filed a complaint for injunction against the respondents ,
praying that the latter be enjoined from preventing the petitioner from
passing thru or otherwise making use of three (3) road lots inside Hidden
View Subdivision. Petitioner is one of the registered owner of the lots.
The homeowners of the Hidden View Subdivision learned that the petitioner
is developing two new properties at the back of the subdivision, and that
they have no right to use the road lots since it is already registered and in
the light of reports that petitioner had in fact purchased the entire Hidden
View from its owner/developer, they inquired from HLURB about the validity
of the registration of the subdivision road lots in the name of petitioner. The
homeowners also asked whether petitioner had the necessary documents for
the development of Hidden View II and ST Ville Properties. In reply, the
HLURB said that under the law, the owner/developer should have legal title
or right over the road lots and if the title is in the name of other persons,
there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the law. The HLURB
also pointed out that the Hidden View II and ST Ville Properties had not filed
an application for registration and license to sell.

So the homeowners caused the construction of a guardhouse at the entrance

of Hidden View Subdivision I and hired the services of a security guard to
prevent unauthorized persons and construction vehicles from passing
through their subdivision. Such move affected not only the residents of the
new subdivisions developed by petitioner but also petitioner herself since her
trucks and equipment used in the housing projects could not pass through
the roads anymore.

This prompted petitioner to file an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for damages and injunction against the homeowners association and some
homeowners. The RTC granted a Temporary Restraining Order and the Writ
of Preliminary Injunction allowing petitioner to continue using the roads.
After trial, the RTC made the injunction permanent subject to the right of
the homeowners to regulate the passage thereof of petitioner and the
general public. However, petitioner was also ordered to donate the road lots
to the city government.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision.

Issue:
Whether respondents may legally prevent Borbajo from using and passing
through the three (3) road lots within Hidden View Subdivision.
Ruling:

No. It is a settled rule that a Torrens Title cannot be collaterally

attacked. Whether the title was procured by fraud or falsification
can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.
The title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered,
modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding. The
certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. As
registered co-owner of the road lots, Lucy is entitled to avail of all
attributes of ownership under the Civil Code – the right to use,
abuse and dispose of the property and the right to its fruits (Art.
428 and 486). Therefore, the homeowners cannot close the road
lots to prevent Lucy from using the same. As long as the titles are
not annulled in a direct proceeding, Lucy remains a co-owner and
therefore her right to use the road lots subsists. The titles in the
name of Lucy still have value in law and evidentiary weight until
such annulment. So Lucy is entitled to the injunctive relief subject
to the outcome of a direct action asking for the annulment of said
titles.