Berboso vs. Cabral

A certificate of title issued under the Torrens system pursuant to an emancipation patent becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from issuance and may not be attacked collaterally; an action that seeks to cancel the underlying emancipation patent after title has become indefeasible is an impermissible collateral attack. Additionally, a party alleging a prohibited transfer of awarded land bears the burden of proving the sale with original, authenticated documentary evidence; a mere photocopy of a private document is inadmissible hearsay absent proof of its due execution and unavailability of the original.

Alejandro Berboso was awarded a 23,426-square-meter agricultural parcel in Meycauayan, Bulacan, under Presidential Decree No. 27. A Certificate of Land Transfer issued in 1981, replaced by two emancipation patents in 1987. Upon full compliance, Transfer Certificates of Title were issued in Alejandro’s name in 1992. Respondent Victoria Cabral, the original landowner or a person asserting an interest, first sought cancellation of the patents in 1993, challenging the validity of their issuance. That challenge was dismissed with finality by the Supreme Court in 1999. Alejandro died in 1994; his heirs, including petitioner Esperanza Berboso, executed an extrajudicial settlement in 1996 and obtained new TCTs in their names. Respondent then filed a second cancellation petition in 1999, based on an alleged prohibited sale by the heirs during the statutory prohibitory period.

• The Land Award and Title: A 23,426-square-meter land in Barangay Saluysoy, Meycauayan, Bulacan was awarded to Alejandro Berboso on September 11, 1981, pursuant to P.D. No. 27, evidenced by CLT No. 0-056450. The CLT was replaced by EP No. 445829 (22,426 sq m) and EP No. 445830 (1,000 sq m) on July 27, 1987. After full compliance with grant requirements, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. EP-046 and TCT No. EP-047 in Alejandro’s name on November 17, 1992, canceling the EPs.
• Death of Alejandro and Transfer to Heirs: Alejandro died in 1994. His heirs — Esperanza Vda. de Berboso, Juan Berboso, Benita Berboso Gonzales, Adelina Berboso Villegas, and Rolando Berboso — executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate. On April 15, 1996, TCT Nos. EP-046 and EP-047 were cancelled, and TCT Nos. 263885(M) and 263886(M) were issued in the names of the heirs.
• First Cancellation Petition: Respondent Victoria Cabral filed her first petition to cancel the EPs on September 8, 1993, before the PARAB, challenging the validity of their issuance. The PARAB affirmed the EPs; the DARAB and the Court of Appeals upheld the validity. The Supreme Court in G.R. No. 135317 dismissed respondent’s petition on December 9, 1998, and denied the motion for reconsideration with finality on March 17, 1999.
• Second Cancellation Petition: While the motion for reconsideration in the first case was pending, respondent filed a second petition for cancellation on February 26, 1999, before the PARAB. She alleged that petitioner sold a portion of the subject land to a certain Rosa Fernando within the prohibitory period under DAR rules, praying for cancellation of EP Nos. 445829 and 445830. Petitioner specifically denied any sale to Fernando.
• The Alleged Sale and Evidence Offered: Respondent relied on a “Kasunduan” dated December 17, 1994, to prove the sale. The document was presented only as a photocopy; the original was not produced. It was not notarized and was not authenticated by any witness. Neither Rosa Fernando, a party to the purported agreement, nor any other witness testified to confirm the execution, authenticity, or contents of the document.
• PARAB, DARAB, and CA Dispositions: The PARAB granted the second petition in a Decision dated December 20, 2000, ordering cancellation of the EPs, vacation of the land, and re-allocation to qualified beneficiaries. The DARAB reversed and dismissed the petition on August 30, 2006, in DARAB Case No. 12283. The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100831 reversed the DARAB and reinstated the PARAB’s order on May 7, 2012, leading to the present petition.

• Res Judicata and Forum Shopping: Petitioner maintained that the second petition raised issues already resolved with finality by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 135317, involving the same land, same parties, same cause of action, and same reliefs. The filing of the second petition while a motion for reconsideration was pending in the first case constituted forum shopping; the elements of litis pendentia were present, and the final judgment in the first case operated as res judicata.
• Collateral Attack on Torrens Title: Petitioner argued that the cancellation petition was an impermissible collateral attack on TCT Nos. 263885(M) and 263886(M) issued in the heirs’ names, in violation of Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529. The certificates of title had become indefeasible and could only be challenged in a direct proceeding.
• Lack of Jurisdiction and Non-joinder of Parties: Petitioner contended that the PARAB lacked jurisdiction to act on a petition to cancel emancipation patents that had already been cancelled and replaced by Torrens titles, and that the petition was filed after the death of the original grantee without impleading the registered heirs.
• Commencement of Prohibitory Period: Petitioner raised the issue of when the ten-year prohibitory period under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 begins to run — from the date of award or from the issuance of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award or emancipation patent — asserting that no violation occurred within the applicable period.
• Evidentiary Weight: Petitioner asserted that the final decision of a competent court resolves the matter with greater weight than the PARAB’s findings based on unverified, unidentified, and photocopied private documents whose originals were never presented.

• Prohibited Sale: Respondent alleged that petitioner sold a portion of the land to Rosa Fernando within the prohibitory period, in violation of the agrarian laws and regulations governing land transfer restrictions. The sale was purportedly evidenced by the “Kasunduan” dated December 17, 1994.
• Propriety of Second Petition: Respondent’s position, implied by the filing of the second petition, was that the new ground — prohibited sale — was distinct from the validity-of-issuance issue raised in the first petition, and therefore the second petition was not barred by prior judgment.

• Res Judicata and Forum Shopping: Whether the second petition for cancellation was barred by res judicata, litis pendentia, or the rule against forum shopping given the final dismissal of the first cancellation petition in G.R. No. 135317.
• Proof of Prohibited Sale: Whether respondent proved by competent evidence that petitioner sold a portion of the subject land to Rosa Fernando in violation of the statutory prohibition on transfer.
• Collateral Attack on Torrens Title: Whether the petition to cancel emancipation patents constituted a collateral attack on the indefeasible certificates of title issued in favor of petitioner and her children.

• Res Judicata and Forum Shopping: The principle of res judicata did not apply. The first petition was grounded on the invalidity of the issuance of the emancipation patents, while the second petition was premised on the alleged violation of the prohibition on sale. There was no identity of causes of action between the two proceedings. Consequently, the final decision in G.R. No. 135317 could not bar the second petition. Forum shopping and litis pendentia were likewise absent because the required elements — identity of parties, rights asserted, reliefs sought, and such identity of the two preceding particulars that any judgment in one would constitute res judicata in the other — were not fully satisfied.
• Proof of Prohibited Sale: Respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged sale. The proponent of an affirmative allegation bears the burden of proof. The “Kasunduan” was a private document offered only as a photocopy. Under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced; secondary evidence is admissible only upon proof of the original’s execution or existence, its loss or unavailability not due to bad faith, and its contents. Respondent offered no proof that the original existed, nor any explanation for the absence of the original, nor any authentic document or witness testimony to establish its contents. Moreover, the private document was not authenticated as required by Rule 132, Section 20 of the Rules of Court; no one attested to its due execution or genuineness, and none of the recognized exceptions to authentication applied. The photocopy was therefore hearsay and inadmissible.
• Collateral Attack on Torrens Title: The petition to cancel the emancipation patents was an impermissible collateral attack on TCT Nos. 263885(M) and 263886(M). Under Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529, a Torrens title cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose. Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents possess the same indefeasible character as other Torrens titles; they become incontrovertible upon expiration of one year from the issuance of the order for the patent. The titles of the heirs, having attained indefeasibility, were binding on the whole world unless annulled in a direct proceeding. The cancellation petition, seeking a different relief but incidentally assailing the titles, constituted an indirect attack.

• Res Judicata — Identity of Causes of Action — For res judicata to bar a subsequent action, there must be, among other requisites, identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action between the first and second cases. Where the first action challenges the validity of the issuance of emancipation patents and the second is based on an alleged prohibited transfer, the causes of action are distinct, and the prior final judgment does not operate as res judicata.
• Forum Shopping and Litis Pendentia — The elements of litis pendentia are: (a) identity of parties or representation of same interests; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, founded on the same facts; and (c) such identity of the two preceding particulars that any judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. Absent identity of causes of action, forum shopping is not established.
• Best Evidence Rule — The contents of a document must be proved by the production of the original document itself. Secondary evidence is admissible only upon satisfactory proof of: (1) the execution or existence of the original; (2) its loss, destruction, or non-production in court; and (3) the unavailability not being due to bad faith on the part of the offeror. A mere photocopy, unsupported by such predicates, is inadmissible.
• Authentication of Private Documents — A private document, before being received in evidence, must be authenticated by anyone who saw its execution or writing, or by evidence of genuineness of signature or handwriting, unless excused: (a) when the document is an ancient one; (b) when genuineness and authenticity have not been specifically denied under oath; (c) when genuineness and authenticity have been admitted; or (d) when the document is not offered as genuine.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Titles and Collateral Attack — A certificate of title issued under P.D. No. 1529 cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding. An attack is indirect or collateral when made in an action seeking a different relief. Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents acquire the same protection and become indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year from the issuance of the order for the patent. A petition to cancel the underlying emancipation patent, where the corresponding Torrens title has become indefeasible, constitutes a prohibited collateral attack.

• “In determining whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping, the most important factor to consider is whether the elements of litis pendentia concur, namely: a) there is identity of parties, or at least such parties who represent the same interests in both actions; b) there is identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and, c) that the identity with respect to the two preceding particulars in the two cases is such that any judgment that may be rendered in the pending case, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other case.”
• “Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents acquire the same protection accorded to other titles, and become indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands so titled may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding; nor can they be decreed to other individuals.”
• “A Torrens title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. When the Court says direct attack, it means that the object of an 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 the judgment or proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof.”
• “The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it. Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.”

• Daswani v. Banco de Oro Universal Bank, et al., G.R. No. 190983, July 29, 2015 — Cited for the elements of litis pendentia and the test for forum shopping; followed.
• Club Filipino Inc., et al. v. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 168406, January 14, 2015 — Cited for the elements of res judicata; followed and distinguished on the ground of no identity of causes of action.
• Dantis v. Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. 191696, April 10, 2013 — Cited for the best evidence rule and the predicates for secondary evidence; applied to exclude the photocopied “Kasunduan.”
• Otero v. Tan, G.R. No. 200134, August 15, 2012 — Cited for the requirement of authentication of private documents and the recognized exceptions; applied to exclude the unauthenticated “Kasunduan.”
• Bumagat, et al. v. Arribay, G.R. No. 194818, June 9, 2014 — Cited for the rule that certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents are indefeasible and incontrovertible after one year; applied to hold that the cancellation petition constituted a collateral attack.
• Hortizuela v. Tagufa, et al., G.R. No. 205867, February 23, 2015 — Cited for the definition of direct versus collateral attack on Torrens titles; followed.
• Cagatao v. Almonte, et al., G.R. No. 174004, October 9, 2013 — Cited for the rule that titles issued under the Land Registration Act are indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless nullified in a direct proceeding; applied.

• Presidential Decree No. 27 — Decreeing the emancipation of tenants and transferring land ownership; basis for the original award of the subject land to Alejandro Berboso.
• Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law; applied to bar the petition for cancellation as an impermissible collateral attack on the heirs’ Torrens titles.
• Sections 3 and 5, Rule 130, Rules of Court — The best evidence rule requiring production of the original document and enumerating exceptions when secondary evidence may be admitted; applied to exclude the photocopy of the “Kasunduan.”
• Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Requirement of authentication of private documents before admission in evidence; applied to exclude the unauthenticated “Kasunduan.”

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires (designated Fifth Member per Special Order No. 2461). Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza was on official leave.