Title
Caraan vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 140752
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2005
Registered owners of a property in Quezon City sued an occupant for illegal possession; SC upheld their Torrens title, denying the occupant's claim of acquisitive prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140752)

Background and Procedural History

On September 16, 1992, the Cosmes filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria with damages against Caraan in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, asserting their ownership of the property under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 214949. The Cosmes claimed that they had been paying realty taxes on the property and that Caraan illegally occupied it without their consent. The RTC ruled in favor of the Cosmes on August 9, 1995, ordering Caraan to vacate the property and pay damages. Caraan appealed this decision, which led the Court of Appeals (CA) to affirm the RTC decision with modifications on October 29, 1999, notably reducing the damages awarded.

Relevant Legal Issues

The primary legal issues include the validity of the Cosmes' TCT No. 214949, Caraan’s claim of ownership through adverse possession, and whether Caraan’s defense constitutes a valid challenge to the title. The Court emphasized that under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, a Torrens title is not subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered or canceled except through a direct proceeding.

Court of Appeals Findings

The CA upheld the presumption of ownership derived from the Cosmes' registered title, concluding that Caraan’s arguments regarding possession and the spurious nature of the title were insufficient. It emphasized that mere possession does not equate to ownership if the possessor does not hold a title or have a right to ownership under the law. The CA also ruled that Caraan could not rely on a residential permit from the Bureau of Forest Development as it did not grant any right to ownership over the land.

Petitioners' Arguments

Caraan and his heirs argued that the Cosmes' TCT was based on an invalid original certificate of title (OCT) No. 614, which had been declared null and void. They maintained that having occupied the property for over thirty years, they had a superior claim through prescription. However, the Court found that the petitioners’ assertions about the validity of the title were merely collateral attacks and therefore legally insufficient to invalidate the title held by the Cosmes.

Final Decision and Rationale

The Supreme Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and affirmed the CA’s decision. Citing established jurisprudence, the Court reinforced that a registered owner has the right to possess the property covered by the title. Furthermore, the claim of adverse possession b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.