Case Digest (G.R. No. 46963)
Facts:
Gloria A. Ferrer v. Hon. Antonio Bautista, Mariano Balanag, and Magdalena Domondon, G.R. No. L-46963, March 14, 1994, Supreme Court Third Division, Vitug, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Gloria A. Ferrer sued respondents Mariano Balanag and Magdalena Domondon in Branch III of the Court of First Instance of La Union by filing a complaint for quieting of title (Civil Case No. A-514) on 23 March 1976, claiming ownership by accretion of a strip of land immediately south of her Lot No. 1980 (TCT No. T-3280). Private respondents asserted ownership by long occupation and by virtue of Free Patent No. 309504 issued 24 January 1966 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-168 (OCT P-168), transcribed 8 February 1966.
Prior to A-514, petitioner had initiated Civil Case No. A-86 (reivindicacion) on 25 November 1956 against the same private respondents; that earlier claim was dismissed without prejudice by the trial court on 10 February 1976 on the ground that the court could not cancel or annul a decree and title issued by the Director of Lands by way of collateral attack. In response to A-514, respondents moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of personality, res judicata/prior judgment, failure to state a cause of action, and that A-514 constituted a collateral attack on the free patent and OCT.
The trial court (Court of First Instance, La Union, Branch III) dismissed petitioner’s complaint in an order dated 11 December 1976 (the record also shows an order entered 7 December 1976) on the ground that the action was in reality an indirect or collateral attack on the free patent and OCT, which, it held, had become indefeasible one year after registration; the court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 3 May 1977. Petitioner invoked this Court’s review; pursuant to a Resolution dated 19 August 1977 she was allowed to file the instant petition under Republic Act No. 5440 on questions of law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does petitioner have legal personality (standing) to prosecute Civil Case No. A-514?
- Did Civil Case No. A-514 state a valid cause of action or was it an impermissible collateral attack on Free Patent No. 309504 and OCT P-168?
- Was the free patent/OCT rendered indefeasible or otherwise immune from annulment by lapse of time or prescription so as to bar petitioner’s claim?
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the case and may this Court, instead of remanding, declare ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)