* G.R. No.

150887 ALLEGATION of PLAINTIFF

FRANCISCO MADRID and EDGARDO BERNARDO vs.  Gregorio Miranda owned the properties by virtue of an
SPOUSES BONIFACIO MAPOY and FELICIDAD MARTINEZ oral sale made in his favor by the original owner,
Vivencio Antonio (Antonio).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND  That in 1948, Gregorio Miranda was Antonio’s

 The spouses Bonifacio and Felicidad Mapoy carpenter, and they had a verbal contract for Miranda
(respondents) are the absolute owners of two parcels to stay in, develop, fix and guard the properties; in
of land (the properties) known as Lot Nos. 79 and 80 1972, Antonio gave the properties to Gregorio Miranda
of Block No. 27 of the Rizal Park Subdivision, located in consideration of his more than twenty (20) years of
at No. 1400 Craig Street corner Maria Clara Street, loyal service.
Sampaloc, Manila, under Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) Nos. 130064 and 130065 of the Registry of  Petitioner Bernardo asserted ownership over the
Deeds of Manila. The properties have a combined portion he occupies based on an oral sale to him by
area of two-hundred seventy (270) square meters. Antonio.

 On April 4, 1988, the respondents-plaintiffs sought to  That Bernardo became a ward of Gregorio Miranda in
recover possession of the properties through 1965 when he was 10 years old and helped in the
an accion publiciana filed with the Regional Trial Court development of the properties; he helped construct a
(RTC) of Manila against petitioners. bodega and a house within the properties.

 Bernardo and Antonio met in 1975, and Antonio

ALLEGATION of DEFENDANT
promised that the bodega would be given to him in
 They acquired the properties from the spouses
gratitude for his work.
Procopio and Encarnacion Castelo under a Deed of
Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1978.
 Petitioner Madrid, for his part, claimed that he started
 They merely tolerated the petitioners’ continued occupying a portion of the properties in 1974, and
occupancy and possession until their possession constructed a house on this portion in 1989 with the
became illegal when demands to vacate the properties permission of Bernardo, the son of Gregorio Miranda.
were made.
 On the basis of the length of their claimed occupation
 Despite the demands, the petitioners continued to of the properties, the petitioners likewise invoked
occupy and unlawfully withhold possession of the Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1517 (PD 1517), also
properties from the respondents, to their damage and known as the Urban Land Reform Law, which provides
prejudice. that legitimate tenants of 10 year or more, who have
built their homes on these lands and who have
 Efforts to amicably settle the case proved futile, continuously resided thereon for the past ten years,
leaving the respondents no recourse but to file a shall not be dispossessed of their occupied lands and
complaint for ejectment which the lower court shall be allowed the right of first refusal to purchase
dismissed because the respondents should have filed these lands within a reasonable time and at reasonable
an accion publiciana. prices.

 Thus, they filed their complaint for accion publiciana,

praying for recovery of possession of the properties COURT RULING
and the payment of P1,000.00 as monthly rental for the (wala na nako gi digest)
use of the properties from January 1987 until the
petitioners-defendants vacate the properties, We resolve to deny the petition for lack of merit.
plus P50,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages,
and P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees. a. Accion Publiciana and Ownership

Accion publiciana, also known as accion plenaria de

posesion,[10] is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the
better right of possession of realty independently of
title.[11] It refers to an ejectment suit filed after the
expiration of one year from the accrual of the cause of
action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of entitled to all the attributes of ownership of the property,
the realty.[12] including possession, subject only to limits imposed by
law.[19] In the present case, the respondents-plaintiffs are
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is indisputably the holders of a certificate of title against
to recover possession only, not ownership.[13] However, which the petitioners-defendants’ claim of oral sale cannot
where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the courts prevail. As registered titleholders, they are entitled to
may pass upon the issue to determine who between or possession of the properties.
among the parties has the right to possess the property.
This adjudication, however, is not a final and binding c. Claim of Fraud – a Prohibited Collateral Attack
determination of the issue of ownership; it is only for the
purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the Registration of land under the Torrens system,
issue of ownership is inseparably linked to the issue of aside from perfecting the title and rendering it indefeasible
possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership, after the lapse of the period allowed by law, also renders
being provisional, is not a bar to an action between the the title immune from collateral attack.[20] A collateral
same parties involving title to the property.[14] The attack transpires when, in another action to obtain a
adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue of different relief and as an incident of the present action, an
ownership.[15] attack is made against the judgment granting the
title.[21] This manner of attack is to be distinguished from a
In the present case, both the petitioners- direct attack against a judgment granting the title, through
defendants and the respondents-plaintiffs raised the issue an action whose main objective is to annul, set aside, or
of ownership. The petitioners-defendants claim ownership enjoin the enforcement of such judgment if not yet
based on the oral sale to and occupation by Gregorio implemented, or to seek recovery if the property titled
Miranda, their predecessor-in-interest, since 1948. On the under the judgment had been disposed of.[22] To permit a
other hand, the respondents-plaintiffs claim that they are collateral attack on respondents-plaintiffs’ title is to water
the owners, and their ownership is evidenced by the TCTs down the integrity and guaranteed legal indefeasibility of a
in their names. Under this legal situation, resolution of Torrens title.[23]
these conflicting claims will depend on the weight of the
parties' respective evidence, i.e., whose evidence deserves The petitioners-defendants’ attack on the validity
more weight. of respondents-plaintiffs’ title, by claiming that fraud
attended its acquisition, is a collateral attack on the title. It
b. Findings of Fact Below – Final and Conclusive is an attack incidental to their quest to defend their
possession of the properties in an "accion publiciana," not
A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the in a direct action whose main objective is to impugn the
consideration of factual issues – an exercise that is not validity of the judgment granting the title.[24] This is the
appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners- attack that possession of a Torrens Title specifically guards
defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties may against; hence, we cannot entertain, much less accord
raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the Supreme credit to, the petitioners-defendants’ claim of fraud to
Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are not duty- impugn the validity of the respondents-plaintiffs’ title to
bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence introduced their property.
and considered in the tribunals below.[17] This is particularly
true where the CA has affirmed the trial court's factual
findings, as in the present case. These trial court findings, d. Claimed Protection under PD 1517
when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and are
not open for our review on appeal.[18] To qualify for protection under PD 1517 and avail of
the rights and privileges granted by the said decree, the
In the present case, both the RTC and the CA gave claimant must be: (1) a legitimate tenant of the land for ten
more weight to the certificate of title the respondents- (10) years or more; (2) must have built his home on the land
plaintiffs presented, and likewise found that the by contract; and, (3) has resided continuously for the last
petitioners-defendants' possession of the properties was ten (10) years. The “tenant” covered by PD 1517 is, as
merely upon the respondents-plaintiffs’ tolerance. We see defined under Section 3(f) thereof, "the rightful occupant
no reason to doubt or question the validity of these findings of land and its structures, but does not include those whose
and thus recognize their finality. presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the
benefit of contract, those who enter the land by force or
As a matter of law, a Torrens Certificate of Title is deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation."
evidence of indefeasible title of property in favor of the
person in whose name the title appears. The title holder is
 Stated differently, those whose possession or elaboration, explanation, and justification. The award
occupation of land is devoid of any legal authority or those stood there all by itself. We view this as a plain legal error
whose contracts of lease are already terminated, or had by the RTC that must be rectified.
already expired, or whose possession is under litigation are
not considered "tenants" under the decree. Conversely, Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates the
a legitimate tenant is one who is not a usurper or an instances justifying the grant of attorney’s fees; in all cases,
occupant by tolerance.[25] The petitioners-defendants the award must be reasonable, just and equitable.
whose occupation has been merely by the owner’s Attorney's fees as part of damages are not meant to enrich
tolerance obviously fall outside the coverage of PD 1517 and the winning party at the expense of the losing litigant. They
cannot seek its protection. are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit
because of the policy that no premium should be placed on
e. The Pre-Trial-based Objection the right to litigate.[30] The award of attorney's fees is the
exception rather than the general rule. Thus, findings
Without doubt, the petitioners-defendants, having reflecting the conditions imposed by Article 2208 are
been belatedly served summons and brought into the case, necessary to justify an award; attorney's fees mentioned
were entitled to a pre-trial as ordained by Section 2, Rule 18 only in the dispositive portion of the decision without any
of the Rules of Court. Unless substantial prejudice is shown, prior justification in the body of the decision is a baseless
however, the trial court’s failure to schedule a case for new award that must be struck down.[31]
trial does not render the proceedings illegal or void ab
initio.[26] Where, as in this case, the trial proceeded WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
without any objection on the part of the petitioners- here DENY the petition for lack of any reversible error, and
defendants by their failure to bring the matter to the consequently AFFIRM the decision of July 16, 2001 of the
attention of the RTC, the petitioners-defendants are Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47691, with
deemed to have effectively forfeited a procedural right the MODIFICATION that the attorney's fees awarded to
granted them under the Rules. Issues raised for the first respondents-plaintiffs are hereby DELETED. Costs against
time on appeal and not raised timely in the proceedings in the petitioners-defendants.
the lower court are barred by estoppel.[27] Points of law,
theories, issues and arguments not brought to the SO ORDERED.
attention of the trial court ought not to be considered by a
reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.[28] To consider the alleged facts and arguments
raised belatedly would amount to trampling on the basic
principles of fair play, justice, and due process.

In arriving at this conclusion, we considered, as the

CA did, that the petitioners-defendants anchored their right
to possess the property on the defenses raised by the
original defendant, Gregorio Miranda, their predecessor-in-
interest. While belatedly summoned, the petitioners-
defendants did not raise a substantial matter in their
answer differently from those propounded by Gregorio
Miranda; they merely echoed Miranda’s positions and
arguments. Thus, no prejudice could have resulted to the
petitioners-defendants, especially after they entered trial
and had the opportunity to fully ventilate their positions.

f. Attorney’s Fees

As a general rule, the appellate court may only pass

upon errors assigned by the parties. By way of exception,
even unassigned errors may be taken up by the court on
appeal if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's
jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not
specified, and (3) clerical errors.[29] In the present case, we
note that the award of attorney's fees appears only in the
dispositive portion of the RTC decision without any