G.R. No. 202632 - ROBERTO STA. ANA DY, JOSE ALAINEO DY, AND ALTEZA A. DY FOR THEMSELVES AND AS HEIRS/SUBSTITUTES OF DECEASED- CHLOE ALINDOGAN DY, VS. BONIFACIO A. YU, SUSANA A. TAN, AND SOLEDAD ARQUILLA SUBSTITUTING DECEASED- ROSARIO ARQUILLA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the Recovery Case, and that Rosario be declared the owner of Lot 1519-A, as well as the residential house constructed thereon. [34] In a Decision [35] dated March 30, 1990, the RTC-Branch 24 dismissed Roberto's complaint for lack of merit and thereby declared Rosario as the lawful owner of Lot 1519-A. It held that while the donation of the subject portion by Dy Chiao in favor of Rosario was found to be void for failure to comply with the formalities provided under the Civil Code, the latter had, nonetheless, acquired ownership thereof by acquisitive prescription given her actual, public, and continued possession of Lot 1519-A in good faith and in the concept of an owner for more than ten (10) years. [36] The RTC-Branch 24 added that since the nature of Rosario's Answer-in-Intervention amounted to an action for reconveyance and the subject portion was found to have been fraudulently included and registered by Roberto, the latter was ordered to reconvey said portion to Rosario being its rightful owner and to further pay attorney's fees, as well as costs of suit. [37] Unfazed, Roberto filed an appeal [38] to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 27322 . [39] Pending resolution of the appeal, Roberto and his wife, herein petitioner Chloe Dy (Chloe), executed a Deed of Donation of Real Property [40] dated June 28, 1994 (June 28, 1994 Deed ofDonation) in favor of their children petitioners Jose Alaineo A. Dy (Jose) and Alteza A. Dy (Alteza) over Lot 1519. As a result, OCT No. 511 was cancelled and a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 26227 [41] was issued in favor of Jose and Alteza. On July 22, 1998, the CA rendered a Decision [42] in CA-G.R. CV No. 27322, reversing the March 30, 1990 Decision. It ruled that Rosario's defenses attacking the validity of OCT No. 511 on the ground of fraud amounted to a prohibited collateral attack on Roberto's title. It pointed out that if fraud attended the issuance of said title, the proper remedy was to institute a proceeding mainly for that purpose. [43] Rosario's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution [44] dated April 28, 1999, prompting her to elevate the matter to the Court via petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 138561. [45] However, the petition and her subsequent motion for reconsideration were both denied by the Court in Minute Resolutions dated June 30, 1999 [46] and September 8, 1999, [47] respectively, thereby upholding the validity of OCT No. 511. The foregoing attained finality and consequently recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment [48] of the Court. Second Case: Civil Case No. RTC '98-4073 (Reconveyance with Damages) Prior to the resolution of Rosario's motion for reconsideration in CA­G.R. CV No. 27322 (which is the appeal of the Recovery Case) or on August 3, 1998, Rosario filed a complaint [49] for reconveyance with damages against Roberto before the RTC-Branch 26 , docketed as Civil Case No. RTC '98-4073 (Reconv