Lee Tek Sheng vs CA case digest

Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 11540. 11540. !ul" 15# 1$$% Arciaga# Ana Ana Li&a '. '. Tek Sheng filed f iled a complaint against his father, Lee Tek Tek (ACTS)  After his mother's death Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng to partition the conjugal properties of his parents. Lee in his answer with counterclaim alleged that the four parcels of land registered solely in petitioner's name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT !"#! are conjugal properties. $t was registered in Leoncio%s name name only as a trustee since he was then the only &ilipino citien in the family. Accordingly, Accordingly, Lee Lee prayed for the dismissal of the partition case and for the reconeyance of the lots to its rightful owner ) the conjugal regime. To protect the interest of the conjugal regime during the pendency of the case, Lee caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on TCT !"#!. Leoncio moed for the cancellation of said annotation which was denied *y the trial court ruling that (a the notice was not for the purpose of molesting or harassing petitioner and (* also to keep the property within the power of the court pending litigation. Leoncio appealed to CA, *ut to no aail. Leoncio resort to the SC contending primarily that in the resolution of an incidental motion for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens (a it was improper to thresh out the issue of ownership of the disputed lots since ownership cannot *e passed upon in a partition case, otherwise, (* it would amount to a collateral attack of his title o*tained more than "! years ago. +e argues that his sole ownership as shown in the TCT would *e improperly assailed in a partition case and should *e done through a separate suit. n the contrary, priate respondent posits that eidence of ownership is admissi*le in a partition case as this is not a pro*ate or land registration proceedings where the court's jurisdiction is limited.

*SS+,) -. het hethe herr or not not the the not notic ice e of lis pendens on TCT !"#! would amount to a collateral attack to the Certificate of Title. ". hether hether the the denial denial of motion motion to cancel cancel the notic notice e of lis pendens is alid.

-,L) -. /o. The The court held held petitioner petitioner's 's claim claim is not legally legally tena*le tena*le.. There There is no dispute dispute that a Tor Torrens rens certificate of title cannot *e collaterally attacked, *ut that rule is not material to this case. The annotation of a notice of lis pendens does not in any case amount nor can it *e considered as e0uialent to a collateral attack of the certificate of title for a parcel of land. The concept of no collateral attack of title is *ased on Section 1! of 2.3. 2.3. -4"5 which states that6 Certificate Certificate not Subject to Collateral Collateral attack . ) A certificate of title shall not *e su*ject to collateral attack. $t cannot *e altered, modified, or cancelled e7cept in a direct d irect proceeding in accordance with law.

hat cannot *e collateral collaterally ly attacked is the certificat certificate e of title and not the title. title. The certificate certificate referred to is that document issued *y the 8egister of 3eeds known as the Transfer Certificate Certificate of 

Title (TCT. 9y title, the law refers to ownership which is represented *y that document. wnership is different from a certificate of title. The TCT is only the *est proof of ownership of a piece of land and cannot always *e considered as conclusie eidence of ownership. :ere issuance of the certificate of title in the name of any person does not foreclose the possi*ility that the real property may *e under co;ownership with persons not named in the certificate or that the registrant may only *e a trustee or that other parties may hae ac0uired interest su*se0uent to the issuance of the certificate of title. To repeat, registration is not the e0uialent of title, *ut is only the *est eidence thereof. $n this case petitioner's certificate of title is not *eing assailed *y priate respondent. hat the latter disputes is the former's claim of sole ownership. Thus, although petitioner's certificate of title may hae *ecome incontroerti*le one year after issuance, yet contrary to his argument, it does not *ar priate respondent from 0uestioning his ownership. 2.