G.R. No. 205867 - MARIFLOR T. HORTIZUELA, REPRESENTED BY JOVIER TAGUFA, VS. GREGORIA TAGUFA, ROBERTO TAGUFA AND ROGELIO LUMABAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is hereby granted and the Decision dated August 31, 2010, is hereby REVERSED and judgment is hereby rendered as follows: Ordering the defendant Gregorio Tagufa to reconvey to the plaintiff Mariflor Tagufa Hortizuela the land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint; Ordering the defendants to vacate the same land and to surrender the peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff; Ordering the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the following amounts, jointly and severally: a) Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as Moral Damages; b) Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos as Attorneys Fees. SO DECIDED. [8] Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC. The reversal being unacceptable to them, respondents filed a petition for review before the CA questioning the RTC decision. This time, the case was disposed in their favor. According to the CA, although Hortizuela filed with the MCTC a complaint for reconveyance and recovery of possession of the subject lot, she was also questioning the validity of the Torrens title, Original Certificate of Title ( OCT ) No. P-846609. [9] The CA pointed out that this was in contravention of Section 48 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 which provides: Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.- A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law It cited the well-settled rule that a Torrens title could not be collaterally attacked; that the issue of whether or not the title was fraudulently issued, could only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose; and that an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession was not the direct action contemplated by law. [10] Hence, the dispositive portion of the CA decision reads in this wise: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Decision dated July 1, 2011 rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The present Complaint for reconveyance and recovery of possession with damages is DISMISSED . SO ORDERED . [11] Hortizuela filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in a Resolution, [12] dated January 25, 2013. Hence, this petition. ISSUE WHETHER OR NOT AN ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION CONSTITUTES AN INDIRECT OR COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBJECT CERTIFICATE OF TITLE WHICH IS PROSCRIBED BY LAW. Hortizuela claims that respondent Gregoria Tagufa ( Gregoria ), being the wife of Runsted, was certainly aware that the subject land was actually sold by Atty. Romulo Marquez ( Atty. Marquez ) to her (Hortizuela). Runsted, only acted as attorney-in-fact in the sale transaction. Thus, the action for reconveyance was not a collateral attack on the said title because Hortizuela was not seeking the nullification of the title, but rather the reconveyance of the property, covered by the sai