Oño Vs Lim

G.R. No.
154270, March
09, 2010
TEOFISTO
OO,
PRECY
O.
NAMBATAC,
VICTORIA
O.
MANUGAS
AND
POLOR
O.
CONSOLACION,
PETITIONERS,
VS.
VICENTE
N.
LIM,
RESPONDENT.
Facts:
On October 23, 1992, Lim filed in the RTC in
Cebu City a petition for the reconstitution of
the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. RO9969-(O-20449), alleging that said OCT had
been lost during World War II by his mother,
Luisa; that Lot No. 943 of the Balamban
Cadastre in Cebu City covered by said OCT
had been sold in 1937 to Luisa by Spouses
Diego Oo and Estefania Apas (Spouses Oo),
the lot's registered owners; and that although
the deed evidencing the sale had been lost
without being registered, Antonio Oo
(Antonio), the only legitimate heir of Spouses

Oo, had executed on April 23, 1961 in favor
of Luisa a notarized document denominated
as confirmation of sale, which was duly filed
in the Provincial Assessor's Office of Cebu.
Zosimo Oo and petitioner Teofisto Oo
(Oos) opposed Lim's petition, contending
that they had the certificate of title in their
possession as the successors-in-interest of
Spouses Oo.
On account of the Oos' opposition, and upon
order of the RTC, Lim converted the petition
for reconstitution into a complaint for
quieting of title, averring additionally that he
and his predecessor-in-interest had been in
actual possession of the property since 1937,
cultivating and developing it, enjoying its
fruits, and paying the taxes corresponding to
it. He prayed, inter alia, that the Oos be
ordered to surrender the reconstituted
owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969(O- 20449), and that said OCT be cancelled
and a new certificate of title be issued in the
name of Luisa in lieu of said OCT.
The RTC found that the Lims had been in
peaceful possession of the land since 1937;

that their possession had never been
disturbed by the Oos, except on two
occasions in 1993 when the Oos seized the
harvested copra from the Lims' caretaker;
that the Lims had since declared the lot in
their name for taxation purposes, and had
paid the taxes corresponding to the lot; that
the signature of Antonio on the confirmation
of sale was genuine, thereby giving more
weight to the testimony of the notary public
who had notarized the document and
affirmatively testified that Antonio and Luisa
had
both
appeared
before
him
to
acknowledge the instrument as true than to
the testimony of the expert witness who
attested that Antonio's signature was a
forgery.
On appeal, the Oos maintained that the
confirmation of sale was spurious; that the
property, being a titled one, could not be
acquired by the Lims through prescription;
that their (the Oos) action to claim the
property could not be barred by laches; and
that the action instituted by the Lims
constituted a collateral attack against their
registered title.
The CA affirmed the RTC, however, and found

that Spouses Oo had sold Lot No. 943 to
Luisa; and that such sale had been confirmed
by their son Antonio. The CA ruled that the
action for quieting of title was not a
collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and
that the Lims' undisturbed possession had
given them a continuing right to seek the aid
of the courts to determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect
on their own title.
Issue:
Whether or not the validity of the OCT could
be collaterally attacked through an ordinary
civil action to quiet title;
Ruling:
An action or proceeding is deemed an attack
on a title when its objective is to nullify the
title, thereby challenging the judgment
pursuant to which the title was decreed. The

attack is direct when the objective 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 is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for
the removal of any cloud, doubt, or
uncertainty affecting title to real property.
Whenever there is a cloud on title to real
property or any interest in real property by
reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance,
or
proceeding
that
is
apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove
such cloud or to quiet the title. In such
action, the competent court is tasked to
determine the respective rights of the
complainant and the other claimants, not
only to place things in their proper places,
and to make the claimant, who has no rights
to said immovable, respect and not disturb
the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of

both, so that whoever has the right will see
every cloud of doubt over the property
dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly
introduce the improvements he may desire,
as well as use, and even abuse the property
as he deems fit.
The averments readily show that the action
was neither a direct nor a collateral attack on
OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449), for Lim was
asserting only that the existing title
registered in the name of the petitioners'
predecessors had become inoperative due to
the conveyance in favor of Lim's mother, and
resultantly should be cancelled. Lim did not
thereby assail the validity of OCT No. RO9969-(O- 20449), or challenge the judgment
by which the title of the lot involved had been
decreed. In other words, the action sought
the removal of a cloud from Lim's title, and
the confirmation of Lim's ownership over the
disputed property as the successor-in-interest
of Luisa.

Oño Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oño Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oño Vs Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

(Antonio), the only legitimate heir of Spouses

peaceful possession of the land since 1937;

The CA affirmed the RTC, however, and found

pursuant to which the title was decreed. The

the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of

You might also like