View full case

JOSEPHINE WEE v. FELICIDAD GONZALEZ

FACTS:

Respondent Felicidad Gonzales, married to Leopoldo Mardo, was granted a registered Free Patent No. (IV-2) 15284, dated April 26, 1979, covering Lot No. 8348, situated in Puting Kahoy, Silang, Cavite. On February 1, 1993, respondent allegedly conveyed a portion of Lot No. 8348 known as Lot No. 8348-B to petitioner Josephine Wee through a Deed of Absolute Sale. However, respondent refused to vacate and turn over the property, claiming that the alleged sale was falsified. Petitioner filed an Application for Original Registration of a parcel of land on December 22, 1994, which was later amended to cover Lot 8348-B. Respondent filed an Opposition to the Amended Application, claiming to be the true owner of the land and alleging that petitioner's deed of sale was surreptitious. The motion to dismiss filed by respondent was denied by the RTC. Petitioner completed her presentation of evidence and filed a formal offer, which was admitted by the RTC. During the pendency of the case, respondent managed to register the land in her name under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OP-1840. Petitioner filed a Notice of Lis Pendens, and a motion for reconveyance was filed but denied by the RTC. The RTC granted the application of petitioner, but the CA reversed and set aside the decision, stating that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of possession and occupation. Petitioner filed a petition for review, challenging the CA decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the applicant has complied with the requirement of open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land under Sec. 14(1) of P.D. 1529.

  2. Whether the land, which is already registered under OCT No. OP-1840, can be ordered to be registered in the applicant's name.

  3. Whether the petitioner's allegations of fraud and misrepresentation serve as a direct or collateral attack on the certificate of title.

  4. Whether the petitioner's claim of fraudulent alienation can be entertained in the current proceeding.

  5. Whether the petitioner has the remedy of filing a separate proceeding for specific performance or reconveyance.

  6. Whether or not the respondent clerk of court committed dishonesty and grave misconduct.

  7. Whether or not the respondent clerk of court should be dismissed from service.

RULING:

  1. The Court agreed with the CA's denial of the application for original registration. The applicant failed to establish open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the subject land and therefore, did not meet the requirement under Sec. 14(1) of P.D. 1529.

  2. Once a land is registered and a corresponding certificate of title is issued, it ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property. The Director of Lands has no control or jurisdiction over it. In this case, the land is already registered under OCT No. OP-1840, and therefore, it cannot be ordered to be registered in the applicant's name. A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land that has already been decreed in another earlier land registration case.

  3. The petitioner's allegations of fraud and misrepresentation serve as collateral attacks on the certificate of title. The court ruled that such attacks must be made in a separate proceeding expressly instituted for that purpose.

  4. The claim of fraudulent alienation raised by the petitioner is an indirect or collateral attack, which cannot be entertained in the current proceeding. The court held that an attack is indirect or collateral when it is made as an incident in an action seeking a different relief.

  5. The petitioner has the remedy of filing a separate proceeding for specific performance or reconveyance. The court stated that the petitioner can file an action to compel the respondent to comply with the alleged deed of sale or an action to reconvey the property. Reconveyance is available to a person whose property has been wrongfully registered under the Torrens system.

  6. Yes, the respondent clerk of court committed dishonesty and grave misconduct. Based on the records, the respondent has been found guilty of collecting fees higher than those authorized by law and of pocketing the said excess fees for personal gain. Such acts constitute serious misconduct and dishonesty, which are considered grave offenses under the rules governing public officials and employees.

  7. Yes, the respondent clerk of court should be dismissed from service. Considering the gravity of the offenses committed and the position of trust he holds, the penalty of dismissal is deemed appropriate and necessary to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and preserve public confidence in the courts.

PRINCIPLES:

  • To qualify for registration of title under Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529, the applicant must establish that the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain, that the applicant and their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the same, and that it is under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier.

  • Once a patent for public land is registered and a corresponding certificate of title is issued, it becomes a veritable Torrens title and is as indefeasible as a Torrens title upon the expiration of one (1) year from its issuance. The land then becomes private property and the Director of Lands has no control or jurisdiction over it.

  • A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land that has already been decreed in another earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void.

  • A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally. The validity of a title can only be assailed in an action specifically instituted for that purpose.

  • The title represented by the certificate of title cannot be changed, altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding.

  • An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title.

  • After one year from the registration of a title, it becomes incontrovertible and is no longer open to review.

  • Registration under the Torrens system does not create or vest title; it is merely evidence of ownership or title.

  • Ownership is different from a certificate of title.

  • The remedy of reconveyance is available in cases of registration procured by fraud, to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner.

  • Dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses under the rules governing public officials and employees.

  • Public officials and employees should act with integrity and uphold the highest ethical standards in the performance of their duties.

  • The penalty of dismissal is appropriate for offenses involving dishonesty and grave misconduct, especially when committed by public officials holding positions of trust.