Borbajo Vs Hidden View
Borbajo Vs Hidden View
Borbajo Vs Hidden View
The Torrens tile is indefeasible, it can only be attacked for fraud within one
(1) year from the issuance of the decree of registration in a direct not
collateral proceeding.
Facts:
Herein petitioner filed a complaint for injunction against the respondents ,
praying that the latter be enjoined from preventing the petitioner from
passing thru or otherwise making use of three (3) road lots inside Hidden
View Subdivision. Petitioner is one of the registered owner of the lots.
The homeowners of the Hidden View Subdivision learned that the petitioner
is developing two new properties at the back of the subdivision, and that
they have no right to use the road lots since it is already registered and in
the light of reports that petitioner had in fact purchased the entire Hidden
View from its owner/developer, they inquired from HLURB about the validity
of the registration of the subdivision road lots in the name of petitioner. The
homeowners also asked whether petitioner had the necessary documents for
the development of Hidden View II and ST Ville Properties. In reply, the
HLURB said that under the law, the owner/developer should have legal title
or right over the road lots and if the title is in the name of other persons,
there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the law. The HLURB
also pointed out that the Hidden View II and ST Ville Properties had not filed
an application for registration and license to sell.
This prompted petitioner to file an action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for damages and injunction against the homeowners association and some
homeowners. The RTC granted a Temporary Restraining Order and the Writ
of Preliminary Injunction allowing petitioner to continue using the roads.
After trial, the RTC made the injunction permanent subject to the right of
the homeowners to regulate the passage thereof of petitioner and the
general public. However, petitioner was also ordered to donate the road lots
to the city government.