Finally, granting that the title over the property would be nullified and the property be reconveyed to
Hortizuela, still the latter would be ineligible to own the same pursuant to Batas Pambansa (B.P.)
Blg. 223 which requires, among others, that an applicant for a free patent must be a Filipino citizen.
Hortizuela, by her own admission, is an American citizen who has been residing in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
The Court is not unmindful of the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title and Section 48 of P.D.
No. 1528 where it is provided that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. A
14
Torrens title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law. When the Court says direct attack, it means that the object of an action is to annul or set
aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral
when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or proceeding is
nevertheless made as an incident thereof. In its decision, the MCTC wrote:
15
Obviously, the bone of contention in this case are the deed of sale by and between Romulo Marquez
and Runsted Tagufa, the estranged husband of defendant Gregoria Tagufa, and OCT No. P-84609
registered in the name of Gregoria Tagufa who, according to the plaintiff, fraudulently caused the
titling of the same.
In their lamentations, plaintiff pointed out the following indicia of fraud committed by GregoriaTagufa
that would allegedly justify reconveyance:
First, Gregoria Tagufa made it appear in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of spouses
Leandro Tagufa and Remedios Talosig that she is an heir when, in truth, she is only a grand
daughter-in-law,
Second, she already knew when she applied for free patent that plaintiff was already the owner of
the land she was applying for;
Third, she already knew that when she applied for free patent that plaintiff’s parents were not
anymore the owners of the land as the same was mortgaged with the DBP; and
Fourth, defendant has never been in actual possession of the property when she applied for it.
All in all, plaintiff argued, Gregoria Tagufa never acquired any valid right or legal title over the
property.
Studying the merits of this case and removing all its superfluities, plaintiffs plainly question the title
generated in the name of defendant Gregoria Tagufa having been obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation. However, in the judicious analysis by this court, plaintiffs have resorted to a
wrong cause of action. 16
From the foregoing, it can be deduced that the MCTC was convinced that fraud was attendant in the
registration of the land but was not convinced that reconveyance was an accepted remedy. Contrary
to the pronouncements of the MCTC and the CA, however, the complaint of Hortizuela was not a
collateral attack on the title warranting dismissal. As a matter of fact, an action for reconveyance is a
recognized remedy, an action in personam, available to a person whose property has been
wrongfully registered under the Torrens system in another’s name. In an action for reconveyance,
the decree is not sought to be set aside. It does not seek to set aside the decree but, respecting it as
incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the
registered owner to the rightful owner. Reconveyance is always available as long as the property
has not passed to an innocent third person for value. There is no quibble that a certificate of title,
17
like in the case at bench, can only be questioned through a direct proceeding. The MCTC and the
CA, however, failed to take into account that in a complaint for reconveyance, the decree of
registration is respected as incontrovertible and is not being questioned. What is being sought is the
transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name to its rightful owner or
to the one with a better right. If the registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name
the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee, and the real owner is entitled to file an action for
reconveyance of the property. 18
The fact that Gregoria was able to secure a title in her name does not operate to vest ownership
upon her of the subject land. "Registration of a piece of land under the Torrens System does not
create or vest title, because it is not a mode of acquiring ownership. A certificate of title is merely an
evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. It cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner; nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of fraud;
neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. Its issuance in favor of a
particular person does not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be co-owned with
persons not named in the certificate, or that it may be held in trust for another person by the
registered owner." 19
Furthermore, respondents’ argument that the overriding reason why Hortizuela chose to file a
complaint for reconveyance and recovery of possession was that she failed to avail of the remedy
provided under Section 38 of Act 496 within the prescribed period of one (1) year, counted from the
issuance of the patent by the government, is weak. As was similarly held in Cervantes v. CA, with 20
the land obtained by respondent Gregoria through fraudulent machinations by means of which a free
patent and a title were issued in her name, she was deemed to have held it in trust for the benefit of
Hortizuela who was prejudiced by her actions. Article 1456 provides: ARTICLE 1456. If property is
acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
The remedy of reconveyance, based on Section 53 of P.D. No. 1529 and Article 1456, prescribes in
ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
The Court is not unaware of the rule that a fraudulently acquired free patent may only be assailed by
the government in an action for reversion pursuant to Section 101 of the Public Land Act. In 21
Sherwill Development Corporation v. Sitio Sto. Niño Residents Association, Inc., this Court pointed
22
out that:
