Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court

Second Judicial Region
Alcala, Cagayan

FLORENCIA VISORIA UNIDA, CIVIL CASE NO. 120

Represented by ROMEL V.
UNIDA
Plaintiffs, For:

“ACCION PUBLICIANA”
-versus-

ELPIDIO VILORIA,
Defendant
x-----------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

The PLAINTIFFS, assisted by the Public Attorney’s Office

through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most
respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-
titled case and aver that:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Plaintiff seeks that the portion of a parcel of land covered by

Original Certificate Title No. P-27448 containing an area of 3.7566
hectares located at Carallangan, Alcala, Cagayan be returned to her
possession. The plaintiff found out after she caused a relocation
survey that the defendant occupies a portion of her land amounting
to 13,266 square meters. Due to Defendant’s possession thereat,
the former cannot claim possession which caused her prejudice to
the right of ownership and impede the exercise of her possessory
rights;

2. Defendant on the other hand alleged that his predecessors-in-

interest bought the subject lot from Francisco Ventura but the sale
was never registered, that they were declared as owners as
evidenced by the tax declarations they had presented in the name of
the defendant’s predecessors-in-interest and the same became the
basis of their possessory rights in the concept of an owner over the
land for a relatively long period of time of more than fifty (50) years;

3. Despite earnest and peaceful efforts of the Plaintiff, defendant

still refused to vacate the property. This led her to seek help from
the Barangay officials for mediation and/or conciliation in
accordance with law and even the Public Attorney’s Office the same
for mediation. However, the Defendant still persistently occupied
the land without heed to the serious and constant demand of the
Plaintiff which rendered it unattainable to reach an agreement;

4. Due to the foregoing failure to claim possession over the parcel

of land attributed to the repeated refusal of the Defendant to vacate,
Plaintiff was compelled to seek the services of a legal counsel to
commence the enforcement of this action under the wings of the
courts of law.

II. ISSUE OF THE CASE

Who between the parties has a better right of possession

of the property.

III. DISCUSSION

It is necessary to emphasize that the Plaintiff is the registered

owner of the parcel of land located at Carallangan, Alcala, Cagayan
under Original Certificate Title No. P-27448 containing an area of
3.7566 hectares. A copy of the said title was attached as “annex C”
and became part of the records of the case. Certainly, the
presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real property is a
conclusive evidence of ownership of the person whose name the
certificate of title is entitled to.

It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to

property in favor of the person in whose name the title appears 1. It is
conclusive evidence with respect to the ownership of the land described
therein2. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all the
attributes of ownership of the property, including possession 3. Thus,
in Arambulo v. Gungab4, the Court also declared that the age-old rule is
that the person who has a Torrens title over a land is entitled to
possession thereof.

__________________________________________
1.See Baloloy v. Hular, 481 Phil. 398, 410 (2004)
2. Carvajal v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 582, 594 (1997)
3. Supra note 1.
4. G.R. No. 156581, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 648.
 Furthermore, Article 428 of the New Civil Code enumerates the
rights of an owner. “The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of
a thing, without other limitations other than those established by
law. The owner has right of action against the holder and
possessor of the thing in order to recover it.” (emphasis
supplied)

It is undeniable that the certificate of title registered in the name

of the petitioner entitles the latter the right to exercise the
aforementioned rights, specifically, in this instant case, the right of
action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to
recover possession of the land.

The contention of the Defendant that they had been in

possession of the subject land for more than fifty (50) years now
and that they had been declared owners of the land as shown in the
series of tax declarations should not be given weight. With regard to
the tax declarations presented by respondents, petitioner asserts that it
has been the consistent ruling in a long line of cases that tax
declarations are not necessarily proof of ownership especially when the
property in dispute is already titled and registered in the proper Office of
Registry of Deeds.

On the other hand, their allegation that the defendant’s predecessor-

in-interest, Leon Viloria acquired the lot from Francisco Ventura before
1954 should be discredited considering that the defendant did not
produce any evidence other than the testimony of Elpidio Viloria to
confirm the existence and validity of the said sale. Since the Deed of
Sale which is the basis of ownership of the defendant was not produced
before the court for scrutiny, the presumption of its regularity and due
execution must necessarily be controverted, assuming that the Deed
was properly notarized.

In the present case, there is no dispute that petitioner is the holder of

a Torrens title over the entire under Original Certificate of Title No. P-
27448. Respondents have only their Tax Declarations and allegations of
unregistered sale between the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest and
Francisco Ventura to support their claim of ownership.

Even assuming only for the sake of discussion that the Deed of
Sale previously entered into was duly executed and is authentic, the
same cannot prevail over petitioners Torrens title considering that it
was unregistered.

The Honorable Court please appreciate that despite its alleged

execution of Deed of Sale even before the year 1954 respondents
brought up the sale only when petitioner asked them to vacate the
disputed premises. Prior thereto, they neither asserted their rights
thereunder nor registered the same with the proper Registry of Deeds,
indeed the respondents have abandoned their rights, if there is any, to
cause the registration of the same and fully exercise the rights of an
owner thereof.

In Pascual v. Coronel5 it has been reiterated, viz:

“Even if we sustain the petitioners arguments and rule that the deeds of sale are valid
contracts, it would still not bolster the petitioners case. In a number of cases, the Court
had upheld the registered owners superior right to possess the property. In Co v.
Militar, the Court was confronted with a similar issue of which between the certificate
of title and an unregistered deed of sale should be given more probative weight in
resolving the issue of who has the better right to possess. There, the Court held that
the court a quo correctly relied on the transfer certificate of title in the name of
petitioner, as opposed to the unregistered title in the name of respondents. The Court
stressed therein that the Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was
believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to
protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized.”

Moreover, in the defendant’s affirmative defense which

formed part of the latter’s answer, they alleged that the plaintiff’s
certificate of title was obtained through evident bad faith, gross
misrepresentation and deceit. This is a collateral attack on the
validity of petitioner’s title which cannot be allowed in the instant
case. It is an attack incidental to their quest to defend their
possession of the property in an accion publiciana, not in a direct
action whose main objective is to negate the validity of the
judgment granting the title.

This cannot be allowed. Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree

No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, a
certificate of title cannot be the subject of collateral attack. Thus:

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 canceled 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.6
__________________________________
5
(G.R. No. 159292, July 12, 2007).
6
Teoville Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferreira, G.R. No. 140086, June 8, 2005
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for

that this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered in favor of the
plaintiff and issue an order to the defendants and all other persons
claiming right over the subject land to vacate and surrender the
property covered by OCT P-27448 and order the defendant to pay
the costs of the suit and litigation expenses.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise
being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Tuguegarao City, Cagayan for Alcala, Cagayan. May 24,2017.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

Tuguegarao City District

By:

ATTY. JHOANNA MARIE M. ABEL

Counsel for the Plaintiff
Roll No. 66100
IBP Lifetime No. 16008;

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. VICTOR R. SALUD

Maharlika Highway, Carig Sur
Tuguegarao City