7/17/2019 235 PERSONS Bagayas vs Bagayas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/235-persons-bagayas-vs-bagayas 1/3

HILARIA BAGAYAS, Petitioner,vs.ROGELIO BAGAYAS, FELICIDAD BAGAYAS,ROSALINA BAGAYAS, MICHAEL BAGAYAS, and

MARIEL BAGAYAS, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 187308 & 187517 S!"#$% 18,013

TOPIC: AdoptionPONENTE: 

AUTHOR :

NOTES:

FACTS:1. On June 28, 2004, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale and partition before the RT, doc!eted

as ivil ase "o. 04#42, claimin$ that Ro$elio, %eli&cidad, Rosalina, 'ichael, and 'ariel, all surnamed(a$a)as *respondents+ intended to eclude her from inheritin$ from the estate of her le$all) adoptiveparents, 'aimino (a$a)as *'aimino+ and -li$ia lemente *-li$ia+, b) falsif)in$ a deed of absolute sale*deed of absolute sale+ purportedl) eecuted b) the deceased spouses *'aimino and -li$ia+ transferrin$to parcels of land *sub/ect lands+ re$istered in their names to their biolo$ical children, respondent Ro$elioand Orlando (a$a)as *Orlando+.aid deed, hich as supposedl) eecuted on October , 14, 8 bore the

si$nature of -li$ia ho could not have affied her si$nature thereon as she had lon$ been dead since 3u$us21, 11.() virtue of the same instrument, hoever, the (a$a)as brothers ere able to secure in their favorTT "os. 565 and 56 over the sub/ect lands.

2. Ro$elio claimed that after their parents had died, he and Orlando eecuted a document denominated as7eed of -tra /udicial uccession *deed of etra /udicial succession+ over the sub/ect lands toeffect thetransfer of titles thereof to their names. (efore the deed of etra /udicial succession could be re$istered,hoever, a deed of absolute sale transferrin$ the sub/ect lands to them as discovered from the old files of'aimino, hich the) used b) reason of convenience to ac9uire title to the said lands

. RT dismissed the case. RT held he as an adopted child4. The RT further held that, even thou$h petitioner is an adopted child, she could not as! for partition of the

sub/ect lands as she as not able to prove an) of the instances that ould invalidate the deed of absolutesale. 'oreover, the action for annulment of sale as improper as it constituted a collateral attac! on the titleof Ro$elio and Orlando.

5. it observed that the action for the declaration of nullit) of deed of sale is not the direct proceedin$ re9uired b)la to attac! a Torrens certificate of title

6. "o appeal as ta!en from the RT:s 7ecision dated 'arch 24, 2008or the Resolution dated June 1, 2008,thereb) alloin$ the same to lapse into finalit).

. ubse9uentl), hoever, petitioner filed, on 3u$ust 1, 2008, tin petitionsbefore the same RT, doc!eted as;R "os. 08#4 and 08#5, for the amendment of TT "os. 565 and 5658 to include her name andthose of her heirs and successors#in#interest as re$istered oners to the etent of one#third of the landscovered therein. The petitions ere anchored on ection 108 of Presidential 7ecree "o. *P7+ 152,otherise !non as the Propert) Re$istration 7ecree, hich provides as follos<

ection 108. 3mendment and alteration of certificates. "o erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon there$istration boo! after the entr) of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same

be =sic> Re$ister of 7eeds, ecept b) order of the proper ourt of %irst ?nstance. 3 re$istered oner =sic> of otherperson havin$ an interest in re$istered propert), or, in proper cases, the =sic> Re$ister of 7eeds ith the approval ofthe ommissioner of ;and Re$istration, ma) appl) b) petition to the court upon the $round that

8. ubse9uentl), hoever, petitioner filed, on 3u$ust 1, 2008, tin petitionsbefore the same RT, doc!eted as;R "os. 08#4 and 08#5, for the amendment of TT "os. 565 and 5658 to include her name andthose of her heirs and successors#in#interest as re$istered oners to the etent of one#third of the landscovered therein. The petitions ere anchored on ection 108 of Presidential 7ecree "o. *P7+152, otherise !non as the Propert) Re$istration 7ecree, hich provides as follos<

ection 108. 3mendment and alteration of certificates. "o erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon there$istration boo! after the entr) of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same

7/17/2019 235 PERSONS Bagayas vs Bagayas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/235-persons-bagayas-vs-bagayas 2/3

be =sic> Re$ister of 7eeds, ecept b) order of the proper ourt of %irst ?nstance. 3 re$istered oner =sic> of otherperson havin$ an interest in re$istered propert), or, in proper cases, the =sic> Re$ister of 7eeds ith the approval ofthe ommissioner of ;and Re$istration, ma) appl) b) petition to the court upon the $round that

.

ISSUE(S):1. hether or not the dismissal of the earlier complaint on the $round that it is in the

nature of a collateral attac! on the certificates of title constitutes a bar to a subse9uen

petition under ection 108 of P7 152.2. Whether she can be declared an heir in an ordinary civil case

HELD: 

RATIO:

1. ?n dismissin$ ivil ase "o. 04#42, the RT declared that petitioner could not as! for the partition of the sub/ectlands, even thou$h she is an adopted child, because she as not able to prove an) of the instances that ouldinvalidate the deed of absolute sale purportedl) eecuted b) 'aimino and -li$ia. This conclusion came about as aconse9uence of the RT:s findin$ that, since the sub/ect lands belon$ed eclusivel) to 'aimino, there as no needto secure the consent of his ife ho as lon$ dead before the sale too! place. %or this reason, the for$er) of-li$ia@s si$nature on the 9uestioned deed as held to be inconse9uential. Aoever, on reconsideration, the RT

declared that it committed a mista!e in holdin$ the sub/ect lands as eclusive properties of 'aimino since thereas alread) an admission b) the defendants durin$ the pre#trial conference that the sub/ect properties are thecon/u$al properties of the spouses 'aimino (a$a)as and -li$ia lemente."onetheless, the RT sustained itsdismissal of ivil ase "o. 04#42 on the $round that it constituted a collateral attac! upon the title of Ro$elio andOrlando.

2. the RT erroneousl) dismissed petitioner:s petition for annulment of sale on the $round that it constituted acollateral attac! since she as actuall) assailin$ Ro$elio and Orlando:s title to the sub/ect lands and not an) Torrenscertificate of title over the same.

. (e that as it ma), considerin$ that petitioner failed to appeal from the dismissal of ivil ase "o. 04#42, the /ud$ment therein is final and ma) no lon$er be revieed.

4. The crucial issue, therefore, to be resolved is the propriet) of the dismissal of ;R "os. 08#4 and 08#5 on the$round of res /udicata.

5. ?t must be pointed out that ;R "os. 08#4 and 08#5 pra)in$ that /ud$ment be rendered directin$ the Re$istr) of7eeds of Tarlac to include petitioner@s name, those of her heirs and successors#in#interest as re$istered oners tothe etent of one#third of the lands covered b) TT "os. 565and 5658, ere predicated on the theor)4 thatection 108 of P7 152 is a mode of directl) attac!in$ the certificates of title issued to the (a$a)as brothers. On thecontrar), hoever, the ourt observes that the amendment of TT "os. 565 and 5658 under ection 108 ofP7 152 is actuall) not the direct attac! on said certificates of title contemplated under ection 48 44 of the same la.Jurisprudence instructs that an action or proceedin$ is deemed to be an attac! on a certificate of title hen itsob/ective is to nullif) the same, thereb) challen$in$ the /ud$ment pursuant to hich the certificate of title as

decreedorollar) thereto, it is a ell#!non doctrine that the issue as to hether the certificate of title as procuredb) falsification or fraud can onl) be raised in an action epressl) instituted for such purpose. 3s eplicated in (orba/ov. Aidden Bie Aomeoners, ?nc.

6. ?n fact, based on settled /urisprudence, ection 108 of P7 152 is limited onl) to seven instances or situations,namel)< *a+ hen re$istered interests of an) description, hether vested, contin$ent, epectant, or inchoate, haveterminated and ceasedC *b+ hen ne interests have arisen or been created hich do not appear upon thecertificateC *c+ hen an) error, omission or mista!e as made in enterin$ a certificate or an) memorandum thereonor on an) duplicate certificateC *d+ hen the name of an) person on the certificate has been chan$edC *e+ hen there$istered oner has been married, or, re$istered as married, the marria$e has been terminated and no ri$ht orinterest of heirs or creditors ill thereb) be affectedC *f+ hen a corporation, hich oned re$istered land and hasbeen dissolved, has not conve)ed the same ithin three )ears after its dissolutionC and *$+ hen there is reasonable

7/17/2019 235 PERSONS Bagayas vs Bagayas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/235-persons-bagayas-vs-bagayas 3/3

$round for the amendment or alteration of title

. Petitioner claims that the determination of the RT in ivil ase "o.04#42 that she is an adopted child and that thsi$nature of her adoptive mother -li$ia in the deed of absolute sale transferrin$ the sub/ect land to Ro$elio andOrlando as for$ed amounts to a ne interest that should be reflected on the certificates of title of said land, orprovides a reasonable $round for the amendment thereof.

8. %irst. Dhile the RT ma) have made a definitive rulin$ on petitioner@s adoption, as ell as the for$er) of -li$ia@s

si$nature on the 9uestioned deed, no partition as decreed, as the action as, in fact, dismissed. onse9uentl), thedeclaration that petitioner is the le$all) adopted child of 'aimino and -li$ia did not amount to a declaration ofheirship and co#onership upon hich petitioner ma) institute an action for the amendment of the certificates of titlecoverin$ the sub/ect land. 'ore importantl), the ourt has consistentl) ruled that the trial court cannot ma!e adeclaration of heirship in an ordinar) civil action, for matters relatin$ to the ri$hts of filiation and heirship must beventilated in a special proceedin$ instituted precisel) for the purpose of determinin$ such ri$hts

econd. Petitioner cannot avail of the summar) proceedin$s under ection 108 of P7 152 because the presentcontrovers) involves not the amendment of the certificates of title issued in favor of Ro$elio and Orlando but thepartition of the estate of 'aimino and -li$ia ho are both deceased. 3s held in Philippine Beterans (an! v.BalenEuela,50 the prevailin$ rule is that proceedin$s under ection 108 of P7 152 are summar) in nature,contemplatin$ corrections or insertions of mista!es hich are onl) clerical but certainl) not controversial

issues.

51

Relief under said le$al provision can onl) be $ranted if there is unanimit) amon$ the parties, or hat there isno adverse claim or serious ob/ection on the part of an) part) in interest

?n fine, hile ;R "os. 08#4 and 08#5 are technicall) not barred b) the prior /ud$ment in ivil ase "o. 04#42 asthe) involve different causes of action, the dismissal of said petitions for the amendment of TT "os.565 and5658 is nonetheless proper for reasons discussed above. The remed) then of petitioner is to institute intestateproceedin$s for the settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses 'aimino and -li$ia.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):