GAMALIEL B. PALMA AND EDUARDO A. BELTRAN, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CEZAR C. PARALEJO, PAIRING JUDGE OF BR. 97, RTC, QUEZON CITY, HORTENSIA Z. YUSECO, AMIGO REALTY DEVE…

IRENEO B. ZIALCITA, JR., filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City a petition praying for the approval of the holographic will
purportedly executed by his half-sister Basilia Zialcita Vda. de Taningco on 24
February 1984.^[1]
The trial court appointed respondent Hortensia Z. Yuseco as temporary
administratrix for the payment of taxes and to effect necessary measures for
the preservation of the estate of the deceased.

Among other properties, the deceased left a house and lot located
at No. 65 Santo Tomas St., Galas, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 33181. When respondent Yuseco took steps to pay the
real estate taxes on the property, she discovered that it had already been sold
on 9 May 1988 by Paulino Taningco, husband of the deceased, to Ireneo B.
Zialcita, Jr., and TCT No. 383664 was issued in his name. In turn, the latter sold the property to
petitioners Gamaliel B. Palma and Eduardo A. Beltran for P1,000,000.00 through
a deed of absolute sale dated 9 June 1988 for which they were issued TCT No.
383686 and Tax Declaration No. 826 in their names. On 8 November 1989, the property was again sold, this time by
petitioners, to the Carmelite Theresian Missionaries, Inc., and TCT No.
PR-17857 and Tax Declaration No. C-030-00730 were issued in its name.

On 2 April 1990, respondent Yuseco filed before the trial court a
motion to declare void all the deeds of sale, tax declarations and transfer
certificates of title covering the property. When the motion was heard, the Carmelite Theresian Missionaries, Inc.,
appeared but petitioners did not. Respondent Yuseco presented a post office registry receipt showing that
she furnished petitioners a copy of her motion.

On 5 June 1990, the trial court issued the disputed order
nullifying the aforementioned documents based on the following findings: (a) the property cannot be the subject of
any transaction without the probate court’s approval; and, (b) the deed of sale
dated 9 May 1988 between Paulino Taningco and Ireneo B. Zialcita, Jr., is a
“clear forgery” because the latter himself declared before the trial
court that Paulino Taningco died in February 1984. The trial court even observed that Zialcita, Jr., upon order,
surrendered the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 33181 to the Register of
Deeds on 11 August 1987 which was later kept in its vault. However, the document was burned, together
with the records of the case, when fire razed the Quezon City Hall on 11 June
1988. The original of the title kept in
the Register of Deeds was likewise burned. This circumstance notwithstanding, Zialcita, Jr., was able to acquire
the property and transferred its ownership to petitioners.

In addition to granting the motion of respondent Yuseco, the
trial court directed the Offices of the Register of Deeds, the City Assessor
and the City Treasurer of Quezon City to expunge said documents and other
related papers from their records, and recommended the filing of the
corresponding criminal action against
Ireneo B. Zialcita, Jr., and petitioners Gamaliel B. Palma and Eduardo A.
Beltran.^[2]

On 22 June 1990, the trial court denied probate of the
holographic will of Basilia Zialcita Vda. de Taningco.^[3]
Zialcita, Jr., failed to establish the authenticity of the handwriting of the
testatrix by at least three witnesses as required under Art. 811 of the New
Civil Code, and for lack of mental capacity of the testatrix, oppositors having
established that she, at 90, was semi-invalid and suffering from “senile dementia” as of
the time the holographic will was executed.

Meanwhile, asserting that they came to know of the order of the
trial court of 5 June 1990 only on 3 July 1990 upon receipt of a subpoena from
the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal in I.S. No. 90-5059 wherein they
were sued as co-respondents by a certain Rev. Sr. Asuncion E. Cuiraneta,
petitioners filed on 24 September 1990 a motion for intervention and petition
for relief.

The trial court refused to take cognizance of the motion and
petition on the ground that it had lost jurisdiction over the case considering
that a petition for certiorari
and mandamus was already filed by Zialcita, Jr., with the Court of
Appeals assailing the order of the trial court of 5 June 1990.^[4]

On 3 April 1991, the Court of Appeals set aside the order of 5
June 1990 on the basis of the following established doctrines: (a) a trial court, acting as a probate
court, cannot adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be part of
the estate and which are equally claimed to belong to outside parties; and, (b)
Torrens titles cannot be attacked collaterally.^[5]

However, upon motion of respondent Yuseco for reconsideration,
respondent Court of Appeals rendered an amended decision dated 31 May 1991
reversing its previous decision and affirming the questioned order of the trial
court, after considering the following circumstances which it admittedly
overlooked: (a) the sales transactions
transpired in 1988 whereas Sp. Proc. No. Q-43599 was filed in 1984. Undoubtedly, subject property was part of
the estate of the deceased and therefore under the jurisdiction of the probate
court which, under settled jurisprudence, has the authority to approve any
disposition regarding properties under administration; and, (b) the trial
court’s challenged order of 5 June 1990 has become final and executory. It has already been fully executed because
subject property, with authority of the probate court, had been sold to
respondent Amigo Realty Development Corporation.^[6]
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied in the resolution of 5
August 1991.^[7]

In this petition, petitioners reiterate the issues raised before
respondent Court of Appeals: (a)
Petitioners are innocent purchasers for value; (b) P.D. 1529 prohibits
collateral attack on Torrens Titles; (c) The trial court acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction in determining the question of ownership of subject
property; and, (d) Petitioners were deprived of their property without notice
and hearing.

Petitioners claim that they purchased the property from its
registered owner, Ireneo B. Zialcita, Jr., whose certificate of title was
clean. They even verified his title
with the Register of Deeds and found the same to be genuine. Notwithstanding the express prohibition in
Sec. 48 of P.D. 1529, their certificate of
title was subjected to collateral attack.^[8] A probate court cannot adjudicate or
determine title to properties claimed to be part of the estate and which are
equally claimed to belong to third parties. Lastly, the trial court never issued any summons or notice to them in
connection with the questioned order.

We find for respondents. The Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in issuing its
assailed decision and resolution.

The main deterrent to the success of the present petition is the
fact that the order of the trial court of 5 June 1990 had been executed. As earlier mentioned, the subject property
was sold to respondent Amigo Realty Development Corporation with authority from
the trial court.^[9]
We have ruled that once a judgment has
been executed, it may no longer be amended, modified or altered.^[10] The case is deemed terminated once and for
all.^[11] The same ruling holds in the case of an
order which has been enforced.

In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised
by petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals dated 31 May 1991 and
its resolution dated 5 August 1991 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. and Quiason,
JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., (Chairman), on official leave.

Kapunan, J., no part.

^[1]
Sp. Proc. No. Q-43599.

^[2]
Annex “3,” Petition; Rollo, pp. 106-107.

^[3]
Annex “6,” Petition; Rollo, pp. 117-123.

^[4]
The appeal was dismissed by respondent court in the resolution of 5 February
1992 for failure of Zialcita, Jr., to file his brief within the reglementary
period. The entry of judgment was made
on 19 May 1992; Annex “7,” Comment; Rollo, p. 166.

^[5]
CA-G.R. SP No. 24074, penned by Associate Justice Luis L. Victor, ponente, and
Associate Justices Segundino G. Chua and Isaali S. Isnani concurring; Rollo,
pp. 39-46.

^[6]
Id., pp. 31-35.

^[7]
Id., p. 37.

^[8]
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 cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance
with law.

^[9]
Rollo, p. 35.

^[10]
Christian Literature Crusade v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 79106, 10 April 1989, 171 SCRA 712; Tan Hang v. Paredes, G.R. No. 73627, 29 January
1988, 157 SCRA 694.

^[11]
Alazas v. Salas, G.R. No. 83693, 4 December 1989, 179 SCRA 804.