A Manlan-vs-Beltran

8/27/23, 9:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 924
*
G.R. No. 222530. October 16, 2019.
MR. and MRS. ERNESTO MANLAN, petitioners, vs. MR. and

MRS. RICARDO BELTRAN, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on

Certiorari; The Supreme Court (SC) is not a trier of facts and only
questions of law must be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court.—At the outset, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier
of facts and only questions of law must be raised in a petition filed under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, this Court accords finality on the
factual findings of the trial courts, especially when such findings are
affirmed by the appellate court, as in the case at bench. Although said rule
admits certain exceptions, none of which was proved here. Thus, this Court
is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already
considered in the proceedings before the trial court.
Civil Law; Sales; Double Sale; There is double sale when the same thi
ng is sold to different vendees by a single vendor. It only means that Article
1544 has no application in cases where the sales involved were initiated not
just by one (1) vendor but by several vendors.—In fine, there is double sale
when the same thing is sold to different vendees by a single vendor. It only
means that Article 1544 has no application in cases where the sales involved
were initiated not just by one vendor but by several vendors. Here,
petitioners and respondents acquired the subject property from different
transferors. The DOAS dated November 20, 1990 shows that all of the
original co-owners (except for Manuel and Serbio, who are already
deceased) sold the subject lot to respondents. On the other hand, the Receipt
and Promissory Note both dated May 5, 1983, reveal that only Manuel sold
the lot to petitioners. As found by the RTC and the CA, nothing on the
records shows that Manuel was duly authorized by the other co-owners to
sell the subject property in 1983. Evidently, there are two sets of vendors
who sold the subject land to two different vendees. Thus, this Court upholds
the findings of the trial court
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a34906f59d3996e10000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/18
620
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Manlan vs. Beltran
and the CA that the rule on double sale is not applicable in the instant
case.
Same; Contracts; A sale of a real property that is not consigned in a
public instrument is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties.—
Basic is the rule in civil law that the necessity of a public document for
contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property,
as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code, is only for convenience. It is
not essential for its validity or enforce-ability. In other words, the failure to
follow the proper form prescribed by Article 1358 of the Civil Code does
not render the acts or contracts invalid. Where a contract is not in the form
prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to observe that
form, once the contract has been perfected. In addition, it has been held,
time and again, that a sale of a real property that is not consigned in a public
instrument is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties. This is in
accordance with the time-honored principle that even a verbal contract of
sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties. Contracts are
obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all
the essential requisites for their validity are present.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; The document with a
defective notarization shall be treated as a private document and can be ex
amined under the parameters of Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
which provides that, before any private document offered as authentic is
received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved
either: (a) by anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by
evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.—
A defective notarization will merely strip the document of its public
character and reduce it to a private instrument. Consequently, when there is
a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing
evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly notarized document is
dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is
preponderance of evidence. The document with a defective notarization
shall be treated as a private document and can be examined under the
parameters of Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which provides
that, “before any private document offered as authentic is received in
evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) by
anyone who saw the document executed or writ-
621
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 621

Manlan vs. Beltran
ten; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand-

writing of the maker.”
Notarized Documents; Failure to Appear Before the Notary Public;
The nonappearance of the parties before the notary public who notarized
the document neither nullifies nor renders the parties’ transaction void ab
initio.—The nonappearance of the parties before the notary public who
notarized the document neither nullifies nor renders the parties’ transaction
void ab initio. The failure of the Orbetas to appear before the notary public
when they signed the questioned deed of sale does not nullify the parties’
transaction.
Civil Law; Land Titles and Deeds; Direct Attack; Counterclaims; For a
counterclaim to be considered a direct attack on the title, it must specifically
pray for annulment of the questioned title and reconveyance of ownership of
the subject property.—In DBP the counterclaim filed by private respondent
therein was specifically for reconveyance of land which was erroneously
registered in the name of another person; thus: x x x Having been the sole
occupant of the land in question, private respondent may seek reconveyance
of his property despite the lapse of more than 10 years. Nor is there any
obstacle to the determination of the validity of TCT No. 10101. It is true that
the indefeasibility of torrens titles cannot be collaterally attacked. In the
instant case, the original complaint is for recovery of possession filed by
petitioner against private respondent, not an original action filed by the
latter to question the validity of TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its
right. To rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is
tantamount to a collateral attack. However, it should not be overlooked that
private respondent filed a counterclaim against petitioner, claiming
ownership over the land and seeking damages. x x x From the extant
jurisprudence, there is no arguing that for a counterclaim to be considered a
direct attack on the title, it must specifically pray for annulment of the
questioned title and reconveyance of ownership of the subject property.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
622

Manlan vs. Beltran
INTING, J.:
1
Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
2
Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated April 29, 2015 and
3
Resolution dated December 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
4
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01395 which affirmed in toto the Decision dated
April 5, 2006 of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dumaguete
City.
The Antecedents
The present case involves the conflicting claims of two sets of

buyers over a parcel of land. One group avers of having bought the
property from one of its co-owners and building their house thereon
in good faith. Meanwhile, the other group claims of having bought
the same land from all the co-owners and registered it in good faith.
Specifically, the subject matter here is a 1,214-square-meter (sq.
m.) land situated in Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City forming
part of Lot 1366-E and originally owned in common by Serbio,
Anfiano, Engracia, Carmela, Manuel, Teresito, Corazon, Segundina,
and Leonardo, all surnamed Orbeta (collectively referred as “the
Orbetas”).
On May 5, 1983, Spouses Ernesto and Rosita Manlan
(petitioners) bought a 500-sq.-m. portion of the subject property
from Manuel Orbeta for P30,000.00. After receiving the ad-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 12-28.

2 Id., at pp. 127-136; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla and Marie Christine
Azcarraga Jacob.
3 Id., at pp. 143-144; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Renato C.
Francisco.
4 Id., at pp. 93-100; rendered by Presiding Judge Gerardo A. Paguio, Jr.
623
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 623

Manlan vs. Beltran
vance payment
5
of P15,000.00, Manuel Orbeta allowed petitioners to
occupy it.
On October 21, 1986, the Orbetas (except for Manuel Orbeta
who was already deceased; thus, represented by his wife Emiliana
Villamil Orbeta) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS)

conveying the 714-sq.-m. portion of the same property to Spouses
Ricardo and Zosima Beltran (respondents). On November 20, 1990,
6
respondents bought the remaining 500 sq. m. from the Orbetas, as
7
evidenced by another DOAS. Consequently, on January 28, 1991,
the subject property was registered in respondents’ name under
8
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 20152.
Thereafter, respondents demanded from petitioners to vacate the
property in dispute, but to no avail. Thus, they brought the matter to
the barangay lupon. When conciliation failed, respondents filed an
action for quieting of title and recovery of possession of the 500-sq.-
9
m. portion of the subject land.
10
In the Complaint, respondents claimed to be the absolute
owners of the subject property having bought it from the Orbetas.
11
In their Answer, petitioners alleged that they bought the 500-
sq.-m. portion of the disputed land from Serbio and Manuel Orbeta
in 1983.
As counterclaim, they contended that the DOAS dated November
20, 1990, executed by respondents and the Orbetas, was fictitious,
having been procured by means of falsification and insidious scheme
and machination because at the time it
_______________
5 Id., at p. 128.
6 Id.
7 Id., at pp. 63-64.
8 Id., at p. 36.
9 Id., at p. 129.
10 Id., at pp. 29-35.
11 Id., at pp. 40-45.
624

Manlan vs. Beltran
was notarized, one of the co-owners, Serbio, was already dead.

Accordingly, the deed could not be a source of respondents’ right
over the contested land.
Ruling of the RTC

12
In its April 5, 2006, Decision, the RTC ruled that respondents
had a better title over the subject property. The dispositive portion of
its decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered as follows:
A. The plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the 500[-]square-
meter portion of Lot 1366-E covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
13
No. 2015[2];
B. The defendants are declared to be builders or possessors in
good faith entitled to reimbursement of all improvements and
expenses, both necessary and useful, introduced into the
500[-]square-meter portion of Lot 1366-E with right of retention as
provided by Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code;
C. The defendants are ordered to vacate the 500[-] square-meter
portion of Lot 1366-E after reimbursement, as stated in paragraph B,
by the plaintiffs.
No costs.
14
SO ORDERED.
Although the RTC found that the notarization of the DOAS dated
November 20, 1990 was defective, it, nevertheless, ruled that the
defect did not affect the legality of the conveyance from the Orbetas
to respondents. Moreover, it ruled that petitioners could not
collaterally attack the validity of re-
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 93-100.

13 Id., at p. 36. The Transfer Certificate of Title number is 20152 and not 20153.
14 Id., at pp. 9-100.
625
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 625

Manlan vs. Beltran
spondents’ title. Thus, it upheld the transfer of rights from the

Orbetas to respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
15
On April 29, 2015, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision
affirming the RTC’s ruling, to wit:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing proffered, the instant appeal is

DENIED. The Decision dated April 5, 2006 of the RTC, Branch 40,
Dumaguete City is hereby AFFIRMED.
16
SO ORDERED.
The CA held that the rule on double sales under Article 1544 of
the New Civil Code does not apply here. It explained that there is
double sale only when the same property is validly sold by one
vendor to different vendees. It ruled that Lot 1366-E was not
transferred by a single vendor to several purchasers considering that
respondents bought the contested lot from the original co-owners,
the Orbetas; while petitioners bought the same contested property
17
from Manuel Orbeta.
Likewise, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling that respondents had
a better right over the subject property as they proved their valid
conveyance from all the co-owners of the property. It also upheld the
RTC’s findings that the defect in the notarization of the deed of sale
dated November 20, 1990 did not affect the transfer of rights from
the Orbetas to respondents. It ruled that a defective notarization,
simply means that the deed of sale should be treated as a private
document, which could be proved by anyone who saw the
document executed or written, or by evidence anent the genu-
_______________
15 Id., at pp. 127-137.

16 Id., at p. 136.
17 Id., at p. 132.
626

Manlan vs. Beltran
ineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Lastly, it found

that respondents were able to prove the authenticity and due
18
execution of the questioned deed of sale.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the RTC denied it for
19
lack of merit in the assailed Resolution dated December 4, 2015.
In the instant petition, petitioners argue that: (1) the rules on
double sale are applicable; (2) the CA erred in not considering that
respondents were in bad faith in purchasing the subject property; (3)
the DOAS dated November 20, 1990 is fraudulent as it was not
validly notarized; and (4) the defective notarization in the deed of
sale affected the validity of TCT No. 20152.
In a nutshell, petitioners raise the issue of whether the DOAS

20
dated November 20, 1990 is valid.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is unmeritorious.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that this Court is not a trier
of facts and only questions of law must be raised in a petition filed
21
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, this Court accords
finality on the factual findings of the trial courts, especially when
such findings are affirmed by the appellate court, as in the case at
22 23
bench. Although said rule admits certain exceptions, none of
which was proved here.
_______________
18 Id., at pp. 133-134.

19 Id., at pp. 143-144.
20 Id., at p. 19.
21 Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S. Mariano v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743,
March 12, 2018, 858 SCRA 179.
22 St. Mary’s Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., 582 Phil. 673, 679; 560
SCRA 704, 711 (2008).
23 As provided in Medina v. Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232; 191 SCRA 218, 223-
224 (1990), the following are the exceptions: (1)
627
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 627

Manlan vs. Beltran
Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over
again the evidence already considered in the proceedings before the
trial court.
More particularly, petitioners proffer factual issues such as
whether respondents were in bad faith when they bought the
property from the Orbetas and whether respondents fraudulently
executed the Deed of Sale dated November 20, 1990. These factual
matters are not within the province of this Court to look into, save
only in exceptional circumstances which are not present here. As
such, this Court gives credence to the factual evaluation made by the
trial court which was affirmed by the CA.
Based on the foregoing, the Court limits its discussion on the
following questions of law: (1) whether the rules on double sale
under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code are applicable; (3)
whether the defective notarization affects the legality of sale; and (3)
whether petitioners collaterally attacked the respondents’ Torrens
title.
_______________
When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case
and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The
findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they
are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact
of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record.
628

Manlan vs. Beltran
On whether the rules on double sale are applicable.

Petitioners insist that this is a plain case of double sale. They
argue that they bought in good faith the 500-sq.-m. portion of Lot
1366-E in 1983, while respondents bought the subject property only
in 1990. They stress that they have a better right over the property
following the24
rules on double sale under Article 1544 of the New
Civil Code.
We disagree.
Petitioners’ reliance on Article 1544 of the New Civil Code is
misplaced.
Article 1544 of the New Civil Code provides:
Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided
there is good faith.
25
In Cheng v. Genato, the Court enumerated the requisites in
order for Article 1544 to apply, viz.:
(a) The two (or more) sales transactions in issue must

pertain to exactly the same subject matter, and must be
valid sales transactions.
_______________
24 Rollo, p. 19.
25 360 Phil. 891; 300 SCRA 722 (1998). Italics omitted.
629
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 629

Manlan vs. Beltran
(b) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful
ownership of the subject matter must each represent
conflicting interests; and
(c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful
ownership of the subject matter must each have bought
26
from the very same seller.
In fine, there is double sale when the same thing is sold to

27
different vendees by a single vendor. It only means that Article
1544 has no application in cases where the sales involved were
28
initiated not just by one vendor but by several vendors.
Here, petitioners and respondents acquired the subject property
29
from different transferors. The DOAS dated November 20, 1990
shows that all of the original co-owners (except for Manuel and
Serbio, who are already deceased) sold the subject lot to
30
respondents. On the other hand, the Receipt and Promissory Note
both dated May 5, 1983, reveal that only Manuel sold the lot to
petitioners. As found by the RTC and the CA, nothing on the records
shows that Manuel was duly authorized by the other co-owners to
sell the subject property in 1983.
Evidently, there are two sets of vendors who sold the subject land
to two different vendees. Thus, this Court upholds the findings of the
trial court and the CA that the rule on double sale is not applicable in
the instant case.
_______________
26 Id., at p. 909; p. 739.

27 Heirs of Ciriaco Bayog-Ang v. Quinones, G.R. No. 205680, November 21,
2018, 886 SCRA 294.
28 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Tirol, 606 Phil. 641, 651; 588
SCRA 635, 644 (2009).
29 Rollo, pp. 63-64.
30 Id., at p. 46.
630

Manlan vs. Beltran
On whether the defective

notarization affects the
legality of the sale.
Petitioners maintain that the DOAS dated November 20, 1990

cannot be a source of rights for respondents because the notarization
was defective. They contend that when the deed of sale was
notarized, one of its signatories was already dead. In simple terms,
petitioners assail the deed of sale as it was obtained by respondents
through fraud.
Petitioners are mistaken.
Basic is the rule in civil law that the necessity of a public
document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over
31
immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil
Code, is only for convenience. It is not essential for its validity or
32
enforceability. In other words, the failure to follow the proper form
prescribed by Article 1358 of
_______________
31 Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission,
modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real
property or of an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the
conjugal partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its
object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should
prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public
document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must
appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action
are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405. (1280a)
32 Estreller v. Ysmael, 600 Phil. 292; 581 SCRA 247 (2009); see also Estate of
Pedro C. Gonzales v. Heirs of Marcos Perez, 620 Phil. 47; 605 SCRA 47 (2009).
631
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 631

Manlan vs. Beltran
33
the Civil Code does not render the acts or contracts invalid. Where
a contract is not in the form prescribed by law, the parties can
merely compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has
34
been perfected.
In addition, it has been held, time and again, that a sale of a real
property that is not consigned in a public instrument is, nevertheless,
35
valid and binding among the parties. This is in accordance with the
time-honored principle that even a verbal contract of sale of real
36
estate produces legal effects between the parties. Contracts are
obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into,
37
provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.
Following these principles, the defective notarization of the
DOAS dated November 20, 1990 does not affect the validity of the
transaction between the Orbetas and respondents. It has no effect on
the transfer of rights over the subject property from the Orbetas to
respondents.
A defective notarization will merely strip the document of its
38
public character and reduce it to a private instrument.
Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a
document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally
attached to a duly notarized document is dispensed with, and the
measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of
39
evidence. The document with a defective notarization shall be
treated as a private document and can be examined under the
parameters of Section 20, Rule 132 of
_______________
33 Peñalosa v. Santos, 416 Phil. 12, 29; 363 SCRA 545, 558-559 (2001).
34 Id.
35 Estate of Pedro C. Gonzales v. Heirs of Marcos Perez, supra note 32 at p. 61; p.
60.
36 Id.
37 CIVIL CODE, Article 1356.
38 Meneses v. Venturozo, 675 Phil. 641, 652; 659 SCRA 577, 586 (2011).
39 Id.
632

Manlan vs. Beltran
the Rules of Court which provides that, “before any private

document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either: (a) by anyone who
saw the document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the
40
genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker x x x.”
In the instant case, Ricardo Beltran (Ricardo) positively testified
that he personally went to the Orbetas and that he was actually
41
present when the Orbetas signed the contract. He likewise testified
that while the deed of sale was not signed by the Orbetas before the
notary public, they appeared before the latter and affirmed that their
42
signatures therein were authentic. Ricardo has personal knowledge
43
of the fact that the Orbetas signed the questioned deed of sale.
Beyond doubt, respondents proved, by preponderant evidence, that
they are the rightful owners of the subject property.
Moreover, the nonappearance of the parties before the notary
public who notarized the document neither nullifies nor renders the
44
parties’ transaction void ab initio. The failure of the Orbetas to
appear before the notary public when they signed the questioned
deed of sale does not nullify the parties’ transaction.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in
ruling that the DOAS dated November 20, 1990 is valid and
binding.
_______________
40 The Heirs of Victorino Sarili v. Lagrosa, 724 Phil. 608, 619; 713 SCRA 726,
736 (2014).
41 Rollo, p. 133.
42 Id., at p. 134.
43 Id.
44 Mallari v. Alsol, 519 Phil. 139, 149; 484 SCRA 148, 158-159 (2006).
633
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 633

Manlan vs. Beltran
On whether the petitioners

collaterally attacked the
respondents’ title.
45 46
Petitioners postulate that their counterclaim in the Answer
constitutes a direct attack on respondents’ title, which is allowed
under the rules.
Their claim holds no water.
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree, proscribes a collateral attack to a certificate of
title, viz.:
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.
47
In Sps. Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, this Court differentiated
a direct and collateral attack in this wise:
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the

action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct
when the object of the 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
48
the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. (Citations
omitted)
In the instant case, petitioners argue that respondents are not

innocent purchasers for value and were in bad faith in registering the
subject lot. Such claim is merely incidental to
_______________
45 Rollo, p. 43.
46 Id., at pp. 39-44.
47 507 Phil. 101; 470 SCRA 99 (2005).
48 Id., at p. 113; pp. 107-108.
634

Manlan vs. Beltran
the principal case of quieting of title and recovery of possession, and

thus, an indirect attack on respondents’ title.
49
Citing Sampaco v. Lantud (Sampaco) and Development Bank of
50
the Phils. v. CA and Carlos Cajes (DBP), petitioners insist that
their counterclaim is a direct attack against respondents’ title. After a
careful perusal, petitioners cannot invoke Sampaco and DBP in their
favor. Considering that the factual milieu in these cases is not on all
fours with the instant case. In Sampaco, therein petitioner filed a
counterclaim and prayed for the cancellation of respondent’s title
and reconveyance of the subject property; thus:
x x x Petitioner filed a counterclaim for actual and moral

damages, and attorney’s fees for the unfounded complaint and prayed
for its dismissal. He also sought the cancellation of respondent’s
51
OCT No. P-658 and the reconveyance of the subject parcel of land.
(Italics supplied)
Similarly, in DBP the counterclaim filed by private respondent

therein was specifically for reconveyance of land which was
erroneously registered in the name of another person; thus:
x x x Having been the sole occupant of the land in question,

private respondent may seek reconveyance of his property despite the
lapse of more than 10 years.
Nor is there any obstacle to the determination of the validity of TCT
No. 10101. It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens titles cannot be
collaterally attacked. In the instant case, the original complaint is for
recovery of possession filed by petitioner against private respondent,
not an original action filed by the latter to question the validity of
TCT No. 10101 on which petitioner bases its right. To
_______________
49 669 Phil. 304; 654 SCRA 36 (2011).

50 387 Phil. 283; 331 SCRA 267 (2000).
51 Sampaco v. Lantud, supra at p. 309; p. 40.
635
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 635

Manlan vs. Beltran
rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is

tantamount to a collateral attack. However, it should not be
overlooked that private respondent filed a counterclaim against petiti
52
oner, claiming ownership over the land and seeking damages.
(Italics supplied)
From the extant jurisprudence, there is no arguing that for a

counterclaim to be considered a direct attack on the title, it must
specifically pray for annulment of the questioned title and
reconveyance of ownership of the subject property.
After a careful scrutiny of petitioners’ counterclaim in this case,
this Court finds that they did not specifically ask for the
reconveyance of the subject property to them. Nothing in the
petitioners’ counterclaim indicates that they were praying for
reconveyance of Lot 1366-E. Instead, they merely repleaded their
53
allegations in the Answer.
54
Finally, in Co v. Court of Appeals, the Court through the pen of
Justice Florenz Regalado judiciously discussed matters relating to
counterclaim, thus:
Anent the issue on whether the counterclaim attacking the validity

of the Torrens title on the ground of fraud is a collateral attack, we
distinguish between the two remedies against a judgment or final
order. A direct attack against a judgment is made through an action o
r proceeding the main object of which is to annul, set aside, or enjoin
the enforcement of such judgment, if not yet carried into effect; or, if
the property has been disposed of, the aggrieved party may sue for
recovery. A collateral attack is made when, in another action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an
incident in said action. This is proper only when the judgment, on its
_______________
52 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, supra note 50 at p.

300; p. 286.
53 Rollo, p. 43.
54 274 Phil. 108; 196 SCRA 705 (1991).
636

Manlan vs. Beltran
face, is null and void, as where it is patent that the court which
rendered said judgment has no jurisdiction.
In their reply dated September 11, 1990, petitioners argue that the
issues of fraud and ownership raised in their so-called compulsory
counterclaim partake of the nature of an independent complaint
which they may pursue for the purpose of assailing the validity of the
transfer certificate of title of private respondents. That theory will not
prosper.
While a counterclaim may be filed with a subject matter or for a
relief different from those in the basic complaint in the case, it does
not follow that such counterclaim is in the nature of a separate and
independent action in itself. In fact, its allowance in the action is
subject to explicit conditions, as above set forth, particularly in its
required relation to the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.
Failing in that respect, it cannot even be entertained as a
counterclaim in the original case but must be filed and pursued as an
altogether different and original action.
It is evident that the objective of such claim is to nullify the title of
private respondents to the property in question, which thereby cha
llenges the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. This is
apparently a collateral attack which is not permitted under the p
rinciple of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well-settled that a
Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The issue on the validity
of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be
raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Hence,
whether or not petitioners have the right to claim ownership of the
land in question is beyond the province of the instant proceeding.
That should be threshed out in a proper action. The two proceedings
55
are distinct and should not be confused. (Citations omitted; Italics
supplied)
_______________
55 Id., at pp. 115-116; pp. 710-711.
637
VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 637

Manlan vs. Beltran
When confronted with respondents’ title, petitioners argue that

respondents procured it through fraudulent means because the
questioned deed of sale is fictitious. This Court, however, finds that
petitioners’ objective in alleging respondents’ bad faith in securing
the title is to annul and set aside the judgment pursuant to which
such title was decreed. Apparently, the attack on the proceeding
granting respondents’ title was made as an incident in the main
action for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Evidently,

petitioners’ action is a collateral attack on the respondents’ title,
which is prohibited under the rules.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
April 29, 2015 and the Resolution dated December 4, 2015 of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 01395 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr. and Hernando, JJ., concur.

Leonen, J., On Leave.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in

time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of a double
sale of immovable property. (Spring Homes Subdivision Co., Inc. vs.
Tablada, Jr., 815 SCRA 114 [2017])
Section 48 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree proscribes a collateral attack to a certificate of
title and allows only a direct attack thereof. (Berboso vs. Cabral,
830 SCRA 436 [2017])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

A Manlan-vs-Beltran

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Manlan-vs-Beltran

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

A Manlan-vs-Beltran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/27/23, 9:13 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 924

MR. and MRS. ERNESTO MANLAN, petitioners, vs. MR. and

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on

620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 621

ten; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or hand-

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The present case involves the conflicting claims of two sets of

1 Rollo, pp. 12-28.

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 623

Villamil Orbeta) executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS)

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

was notarized, one of the co-owners, Serbio, was already dead.

Ruling of the RTC

its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

12 Id., at pp. 93-100.

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 625

spondents’ title. Thus, it upheld the transfer of rights from the

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing proffered, the instant appeal is

15 Id., at pp. 127-137.

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker. Lastly, it found

In a nutshell, petitioners raise the issue of whether the DOAS

Ruling of the Court

The petition is unmeritorious.

18 Id., at pp. 133-134.

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 627

When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On whether the rules on double sale are applicable.

(a) The two (or more) sales transactions in issue must

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 629

In fine, there is double sale when the same thing is sold to

26 Id., at p. 909; p. 739.

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On whether the defective

Petitioners maintain that the DOAS dated November 20, 1990

31 Art. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 631

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Rules of Court which provides that, “before any private

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 633

On whether the petitioners

Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.—A certificate

An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the

In the instant case, petitioners argue that respondents are not

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the principal case of quieting of title and recovery of possession, and

x x x Petitioner filed a counterclaim for actual and moral

Similarly, in DBP the counterclaim filed by private respondent

x x x Having been the sole occupant of the land in question,

49 669 Phil. 304; 654 SCRA 36 (2011).

VOL. 924, OCTOBER 16, 2019 635

rule on the issue of validity in a case for recovery of possession is

From the extant jurisprudence, there is no arguing that for a

Anent the issue on whether the counterclaim attacking the validity