MELCHOR BOJANGIN, JR., PETITIONER, VS. VICTORIANO ENCARNACION, RESPONDENT.

Bojangin versus Encarnacion

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Melchor Bojangin, Junior against Victoriano Encarnacion, arising from an action for ejectment, damages, with injunction and prayer for a restraining order. Encarnacion sued Bojangin to recover possession of two parcels of land registered in his name, alleging that Bojangin had occupied a portion of the property through his tolerance, which tolerance he had since withdrawn. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a possessory action and an attack on a Torrens title: it teaches that a defendant in an unlawful detainer case cannot defeat the registered owner's right to possession by collaterally assailing the certificate of title, and that the municipal trial court retains jurisdiction even where the question of ownership is raised.

Procedural History

Encarnacion filed the complaint for ejectment, damages, with injunction and prayer for a restraining order before the Municipal Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela. On October 24, 2001, the Municipal Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of Encarnacion, ordering Bojangin to vacate the portions of the parcels of land covered by the transfer certificates of title, to pay attorney's fees of five thousand pesos, and to pay rentals of five hundred pesos per month from February 2001 until the portion occupied is surrendered, with costs against him.

Bojangin appealed to the Regional Trial Court stationed in Cauayan City, Isabela. On July 26, 2002, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in toto, finding no reversible error. Bojangin moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied in an order dated September 30, 2002.

Bojangin then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for review, asking that the decision of the Regional Trial Court be reversed and set aside, relying on the sole ground that the trial court erred in affirming in toto the findings of the court below and in not dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Facts

The subject of the controversy is two parcels of land with a combined area of 707 square meters, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-206050 and T-206051 issued by the Register of Deeds of Isabela in the name of Encarnacion. These titles were derived from Original Certificate of Title No. P-62724, also issued in the name of Encarnacion.

Tracing the ownership of the property before subdivision, Encarnacion averred that Rogelio Valiente was the original owner and sold the property to Nicasio Mallapitan on January 18, 1982. Nicasio Mallapitan then sold it on March 21, 1985 to Victoriano Magpantay, the father-in-law of Encarnacion. On April 11, 1995, Victoriano Magpantay's wife Anita waived her rights and interest over the properties in favor of Encarnacion. On the basis of the waiver of rights, Encarnacion filed his public land application before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office of Cauayan, Isabela, averring that he and his father-in-law had been in actual possession of the property since 1985 and that he had been paying the real taxes thereon.

According to Encarnacion, in the latter part of 1985, Bojangin entered a portion of the properties without permission and had been occupying it since then without any consideration and, for a while, upon their tolerance. Encarnacion made a demand on Bojangin on February 1, 2001 to vacate the premises, but he refused. The matter was referred to the barangay authorities in District 1, Cauayan, Isabela, but no settlement was reached, and a Barangay Certification to File Action was issued. A demand letter sent through a lawyer was likewise ignored. Bojangin, while admitting that the titles were issued in the name of Encarnacion, attacked their validity, claiming that their issuance was tainted with vices and defects, that the free patent application was supported by perjured and falsified documents, and that the Deed of Sale was disowned by Rogelio Valiente, the original seller. He also filed a protest with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in Cauayan, Isabela.

Issues

• Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint for unlawful detainer, despite the defendant raising the question of ownership of the litigated property.
• Whether or not the courts below erred in holding that Encarnacion has a better right to the possession of the subject lots, notwithstanding Bojangin's attack on the validity of the certificates of title.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision verbatim; it applies the settled rules on unlawful detainer, on the one-year prescriptive period for filing the action, and on the indefeasibility of a Torrens certificate of title, which cannot be the subject of a collateral attack. These rules bear on the case because they determine both the jurisdiction of the municipal trial court and the weight to be given to Encarnacion's registered title in a possessory action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and that the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the case. The complaint alleged that Encarnacion is the titled owner of lots, portions of which are in the possession of Bojangin through his tolerance, which tolerance has since been withdrawn, and that Bojangin refused to vacate, so that Encarnacion sued him within the year from his last demand on February 1, 2001. Assuming the truth of these allegations, they show the elements of unlawful withholding of property constitutive of unlawful detainer, and they conferred initiatory jurisdiction on the court because the case was filed within the one-year prescriptive period. The Court stressed that it does not matter that Bojangin raised ownership as a principal issue, because the courts are not divested of jurisdiction over such cases even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.

On the second issue, the Court found sufficient basis for the judgment of the courts below. Tacking his possession of the properties with that of his predecessors-in-interest and considering the titles issued in his name, Encarnacion well proved his superior right as against Bojangin. Once the title is registered under the Land Registration Law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession. Being the registered owner, Encarnacion acquired and has a better right to the possession of the subject lot. While Bojangin is assailing the titles issued in his favor, Encarnacion in the meantime still enjoys his plenary rights as owner of the properties unless and until these titles are declared a nullity by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Court further held that the alleged invalidity of Encarnacion's title is not a hindrance to his recovery of possession from Bojangin, because a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack. Hence, the issue of whether a title was procured by falsification or fraud should be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. Where a property covered by a Torrens title is involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of such title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder thereof should be considered the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified in an appropriate ordinary action.

Doctrine

• A complaint alleging that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the property, that the defendant occupied a portion through the plaintiff's tolerance, that the tolerance was withdrawn, and that the defendant refused to vacate within one year from the last demand, states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and confers jurisdiction on the municipal trial court.
• The municipal trial court is not divested of jurisdiction over an ejectment case even if the defendant raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership.
• The registered owner under the Land Registration Law can rest secure on his ownership and possession, and has a better right to possession than a mere occupant, unless and until his title is declared a nullity by a court of competent jurisdiction.
• A certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack; the issue of whether a title was procured by falsification or fraud must be raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.
• The presumptive conclusiveness of a Torrens title should be given due weight, and in the absence of strong compelling evidence to the contrary, the holder is considered the owner of the property in controversy until his title is nullified in an appropriate ordinary action.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied due course to and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, which had affirmed in toto the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court in favor of Encarnacion.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack, so the registered owner keeps his plenary rights and his right to possession until the title is nullified in an action expressly instituted for the purpose. Examiners use this case to test jurisdiction in ejectment despite the defendant's claim of ownership, and the rule that fraud or falsification in procuring a Torrens title must be raised in a direct action, not as a defense in unlawful detainer.