Ono vs.

Lim
G.R. No. 154270, March 9, 2010
Facts:
Vicente Lim filed an action in the RTC a petition for the reconstitution of the owners
duplicate copy of the OCT alleging it has been lost during the World War II by his
mother, Luisa. The land was sold to Luisa by the spouses Diego Ono and Estefania
Apas. The deed evidencing the sale had been lost without being registered. Antonio
Ono, the only legitimate heir of the spouses, executed a notarized confirmation of
sale in favor of Luisa. Zosimo Ono and Teofisto Ono opposed Lims petition
contending that they had the certificate of title in their possession as the
successors-in-interest of the Spouses Ono. Lim converted the petition for
reconstitution into a complaint for quieting of title, stating that he had been in the
actual possession of the property since 1937, cultivating and developing it, enjoying
its fruits, and paying the taxes of the land.
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Lim. RTC ordered the Register of Deeds of Cebu
to register the land in favor of Luisa Lim. The lower court found that Lim had been in
peaceful possession of the land since 1937; that the possession had never been
disturbed by Ono; that Lim declared the lot in their name for taxation purposes; that
Lim paid the tax related to it; and that the signature of Antonio Ono on confirmation
of sale document was genuine.
On the appeal, CA affirmed the decision of RTC. CA ruled that the action for quieting
of title was not a collateral, but a direct attack on the title; and that 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. The CA corrected the RTC, by ordering that the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Cebu City issue a new duplicate certificate of title in the name of Luisa,
considering that the owners duplicate was still intact in the possession of the Ono.
Issues:
1.
Whether or not the validity of the OCT could be collaterally attacked through
an ordinary civil action to quiet title;
2.
Whether or not the ownership over registered land could be lost by
prescription, laches, or adverse possession;
3.
Whether or not there was a deed of sale executed by Spouses Ono in favor of
Luisa and whether or not said deed was lost during World War II;
4.
Whether or not the confirmation of sale executed by Antonio in favor of Luisa
existed; and
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of Lim and declared that the petition has no merit.
Action for cancellation of title is not an attack on the title. 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. 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
Lims mother, and resultantly should be cancelled. Lim did not thereby assail the
validity of OCT or challenge the judgment by which the title of the lot involved had
been decreed.
Prescription was not relevant. Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or
losing ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and
under the conditions laid down by law. However, prescription was not relevant to
the determination of the dispute herein, considering that Lim did not base his right
of ownership on an adverse possession over a certain period. He insisted herein,
instead, that title to the land had been voluntarily transferred by the registered
owners themselves to Luisa, his predecessor-in-interest. Lim showed that his mother
had derived a just title to the property by virtue of sale; that from the time Luisa
had acquired the property in 1937, she had taken over its possession in the concept
of an owner, and had performed her obligation by paying real property taxes on the
property, as evidenced by tax declarations issued in her name; and that in view of
the delivery of the property, coupled with Luisas actual occupation of it, all that
remained to be done was the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in her
name.