DOLORES CAMPOS VS. DOMINADOR ORTEGA

FACTS:

-Petitioner Dolores Campos, through her attorney-in-fact Salvador Pagunsan (Pagunsan), filed a case for specific performance with damages against respondents. The petition stated among others that Plaintiff and her husband Ernesto Campos, along with their family occupied the entire second level of a residential structure located at No. 208 F. Blumentritt Street, Mandaluyong City. The lot on which the structure itself is owned by Dominga Boloy from whom Plaintiff leased the building beginning in 1966.

-In 1977, under and pursuant to the Zonal Improvement Program (ZIP) of the then Metro Manila Commission, in coordination with the Local Government of Mandaluyong City, a census of the Hulo Estate, where plaintiff’s dwelling is located, was conducted wherein plantiff was among those censused and qualified as bona fide occupant. As a result, plantiff was assigned an identifying house tag number on August 20, 1977.

-In 1979, after the death of the owner Dominga Boloy, her daughter-in-law, Clarita Boloy managed the leased premises. In 1987, Walter Boloy stepped into the situation through counsel demanded from the plantiff and the family immediate vacation of the subject premises, with that, an ejectment case was filed with the MTC of Mandaluyong.

-After receiving the said decision, and after having verified her husband’s status as a bona fide occupant, plaintiff forthwith authorized her nephew Salvador Pagunsan to follow up with the NHA. Pursuant thereto, after learing that all bona fide occupants may be allowed to buy the structure if the owner had already died. Plantiff was given one month to exercise the option of buying the property denominated as Lot 17, Block 7 Phase III.

Plantiff acceded since the property they are occupying was Lot 18. As a result, it was awarded to herein respondents.

-Plaintiff questioned the award to respondents with the NHA, alleging that they are disqualified for not having been duly censused either as renters or sharers, and also the matter regarding the alteration the lot number actually being occupied by plaintiff.

-As a result of the bypassing of plaintiff’s rights, she was dislocated, has suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, wounded feelings and undue embarrassment, among others.

-Respondents countered that the complaint stated no cause of action, and that, if any, such cause of action is already barred by prior judgment. They noted petitioners admission in the verification that an action for recovery of possession was commenced against her by respondents before the RTC of Pasig, involving the same property and that it was resolved in the respondents favour, and that such decision was affirmed by the CA and became final and executor.

-The RTC ruled in favour of petitioner and declared the acquisition of rsepondents of the Lot 18 of the Hulo Estate void for being violative of the right of the plaintiff. Upon Appeal, the CA reversed the RTC. It ruled that the plaintiff had no vested right over the subject parcel of land and the residential structure standing thereon.

ISSUE/S:

-Whether or not the petitioner has vested right over the subject parcel of land?

-Whether or not the filing of an action for Specific Performance and or damages by Plaintiff would validly attack the Respondent’s Torrens Title over the subject lot?

HELD:

-No. Contrary to petitioner's position, the issuance of a tag number in her favor did not grant her irrefutable rights to the subject property. The assignment of a tag number was a mere expectant or contingent right and could not have ripened into a vested right in favor of petitioner. Her possession and occupancy of the said property could not be characterized as fixed and absolute. As such, petitioner cannot claim that she was deprived of her vested right. Neither does petitioner have a "cognizable" right respecting the lot in question. Notably, she readily admitted not exercising their option to buy Boloy’s property despite the knowledge that one of the requirements before an entitlement to an award of the government-owned lot is that they must own the subject house

-No. This is a collateral attack that is not permitted under the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title. Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, unequivocally states:

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.

A collateral attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a different relief and as an incident to the present action, an attack is made against the judgment granting the title while a direct attack (against a judgment granting the title) is an action whose main objective is to annul, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not yet implemented, or to seek recovery if the property titled under the judgment had been disposed of. The issue on the validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.

The appropriate legal remedy that petitioner should have availed is an action for reconveyance. Proof of actual fraud is not required as it may be filed even when no fraud intervened such as when there is mistake in including the land for registration.