2012

CASE TITLE: Sps. Decaleng vs BISHOP OF THE MISSIONARY DISTRICT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OF
PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

GR # & DATE: UDK-13672. GR. No. 171209 June 27, 2012

TOPIC : Effects of Possession

FACTS: The Bishop of the Missionary District of the Philippine Islands of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as the Philippine Episcopal Church (PEC). The
PEC was previously comprised of five dioceses namely on of which Episcopal Diocese of Northern
Philippines (EDNP).
On February 18, 1992, PEC-EDNP filed before the RTC, a Complaint for Accion
Reinvindicatoria and Accion Publiciana against Ambrosio Decaleng and Fabian Lopez (Lopez).

PEC-EDNP alleged that it is the owner of two parcels of land commonly known as Ken-geka and
Ken-gedeng.

According to PEC-EDNP, the Ken-geka property is covered by Certificate of Title No., in the name
of The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
States (U.S. Episcopal Church). According to Certificate of Title No., the U.S. Episcopal Church acquired the
Ken-geka property by virtue of a sales patent.

PEC-EDNP asserted that the U.S. Episcopal Church donated the Ken-geka property, among other real
properties, to the PEC by virtue of a Deed of Donation . Around the second quarter of 1989, Ambrosio
Decaleng entered and cultivated a portion of of the Ken-geka property despite the protestations of PEC-
EDNP representatives.
PEC-EDNP averred that it and its predecessors-in-interest occupied the Ken-gedeng property
openly, adversely, continuously, and notoriously in en concepto de dueo . Ambrosio Decaleng, despite the
vehement objections and conciliatory attitude of PEC-EDNP, cut several matured pine trees within the
aforementioned portions of the Ken-gedeng property, removed the fence and two monuments found
therein, and cultivated and planted the same with plants of economic value. Ambrosio Decaleng made
matters worse by selling Portion 2 of the Ken-gedeng property to Fabian Lopez.

ISSUE: Whether the accion filed by PEC_EDNP may prosper

HELD: Yes, The original complaint filed by PEC-EDNP before the RTC is for accion
publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria (for recovery of possession and ownership) of the Ken-geka and
Ken-gedeng properties. In said complaint, PEC-EDNP alleged ownership of the Ken-geka property as
evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1. In their defense, the spouses Decaleng raised issues as to the
validity of Certificate of Title No. 1 (by asserting in their Answer that Certificate of Title No. 1 covered an
area much larger than that actually owned by PEC-EDNP), and as to the existence of Certificate of Title
No. 1 (by presenting Mountain Province Register of Deeds Dailay-Papas certification that Certificate of
Title No. 1 does not appear in the record of registered titles). Nevertheless, the spouses Decaleng only
sought the dismissal of the complaint of PEC-EDNP, plus the grant of their counterclaim for the payment
of moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and attorneys fees; and they conspicuously
did not pray for the annulment or cancellation of Certificate of Title No. 1.Evidently, the spouses Decalengs
2012

attack on the validity, as well as the existence of Certificate of Title No. 1 is only incidental to their defense
against the accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria instituted by PEC-EDNP, hence, merely
collateral.

The spouses Decaleng, in an effort to skirt the prohibition against collateral attack of certificates
of title, argue that they are not attacking the validity of Certificate of Title No. 1, but, rather, the existence
of such a certificate. The Court notes that the spouses Decaleng did not only put in issue the purported
non-existence of Certificate of Title No. 1, but also questioned the validity of the certificate itself