LAnt Titties

7/24/2019 LAnt Titties

1/86

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-63046 June 21, 1990

MARIANO TORRES Y CA!ARRIA, petitioner,vs.

TE ONORA"LE COURT O# APPEALS, #RANCISCO E. #ERNAN$E% &n' #E

#ERNAN$E%, ROSARIO MOTA CUE, ERNESTO ME$INA CUE &n' ()e NATIONAL

TREASURER, &* Cu*(o'+&n o ()e A**u&ne #un', respondents.

Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson, Azcuna & Bengzon for petitioner.

Albon, Serrano & Associates for private respondents.

T.J. Sua!ang & Associates for respondent "ernandezes.

ME$IAL$EA, J.:

This is a petition for revie of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R. No. %&&'(#Rentitled )#ariano Torres $ C%avarria v. "rancisco . "ernandez, et al., etc., ) hich reversedthe decision of the then !ourt of First Instance of Manila, *ranch +, b holdin- that it is therespondent Rosario Mota ho is le-all entitled to the disputed realties, bein- an innocentort-a-ee and later the hi-hest bidder hen the properties ere supposedl foreclosed,and not the petitioner Mariano Torres, the defrauded oner thereof/ and of the resolution ofthat !ourt denin- Torres0 otion for reconsideration.

The parcel of land located at the coer of 1ue2on *oulevard and Raon Street 3no$on2alo Street4, and the buildin- erected thereon 5non as )M. Torres *uildin-) is onedb Mariano Torres, the herein petitioner, as evidenced b Transfer !ertificate of Title No.67%&(#Manila issued in his nae. "s far as the records sho, Torres as and still is inpossession of the realties, holdin- safel to his oner0s duplicate certificate of title, and, atleast until 89+8, pain- the real estate ta:es due thereon, and collectin- rentals fro histenants occupin- the buildin-.

Soetie in 89%%, Francisco Fernande2, Torres0 brother#in#la, filed a petition ith the!ourt of First Instance of Manila, doc5eted as ;R! $;RO !ad. Rec. No. 877, here he,isrepresentin- to be the attorne#in#fact of Torres and falsel alle-in- that the a duplicatecop of T!T No. 67%&( as lost, succeeded in obtainin- a court order for the issuance ofanother cop of the certificate.

Once in possession thereof, Fernande2 for-ed a siulated deed of sale of the realties in hisfavor. rnesto !ue, and also to "n-ela Ferin, ho laterassi-ned her credit to the spouses !ue. The ort-a-es ere annotated at the bac5 of T!TNo. (%=8( and so as the deed of assi-nent.

Torres, ho up to this tie still had possession of his oner0s duplicate certificate of title andho as still collectin- rentals fro the occupants of the sub?ect buildin-, upon Teain- ofthe fraud coitted b Fernande2, caused, on March 8(, 89%(, the annotation on thelatter0s T!T a notice of adverse clai.


2/86

On March 7=, 89%(, Torres filed !ivil !ase No. +&'9' a-ainst Fernande2 to annul T!T No.(%=8( as ell as the proceedin-s in ;R! $;RO !ad. Rec. No. 877. On "pril &, 89%(, anotice of lis pendensas annotated at the bac5 of Fernande20 T!T.

In the eantie, Fernande2 failed to pa his various loans hich propted the !ues toinstitute an e:tra?udicial foreclosure of the ort-a-e.

On Februar 88, 89%9, Fernande2 filed !ivil !ase No. +6%'7 a-ainst the spouses !ue forthe annulent of the ort-a-e ith preliinar in?unction.

"fter the foreclosure as en?oined, the parties entered into an aicable settleent,approved b the court hereb it as stipulated that Fernande2 ac5noled-ed and

proised to pa his debt to the !ues for Five @undred Si:t#To Thousand Nine @undredFift#Five and &(A8== 3P6%&,966.&(4 Pesos on or before, March 7=, 89+=, hile the spousesbound theselves to e:ecute and deliver, ithin ten 38=4 das fro receipt of the suentioned such docuents as are necessar to release the ort-a-es in favor ofdefendants on plaintiffs0 propert.

*efore Fernande2 could pa his obli-ation under the settleent a-reeent, a decision asrendered in !ivil !ase No. +&'9' here it as declared that the proceedin-s held in ;R!$;RO !ad. Rec, No. 877 as void and that T!T No. (%=8(, issued in the nae ofFernande2, is ithout force and effect as T!T No. 67%&( in the nae of Torres is the trueand le-al evidence of onership of the sub?ect iovables. Fernande2 appealed fro this

decision to the !ourt of "ppeals here it as doc5eted as !"#$.R. No. '%7(%#R. The !ourtof "ppeals, on "pril &=, 89+9, affired the decision of the trial court. There bein- nothin- onthe records that ould indicate that the ?ud-ent of the appellate court as elevated here, itould appear that it had becoe final and e:ecutor.

*ut eanhile, prior to the !ourt of "ppeals0 decision entioned above, Fernande2 failed tocopl ith his obli-ation under the aicable settleent and hereupon the !ues appliedfor and ere -ranted a rit of e:ecution. The sub?ect realties ere then levied upon andsold at public auction here Rosario Mota as the hi-hest bidder.

On "u-ust 78, 89+8, the redeption period for the sub?ect iovables havin- lapsedithout Fernande2 nor Torres redeein- the properties, Rosario Mota as issued theSheriffs Deed of Sale. Thereafter, T!T No. (%=8( as canceled and T!T No. 8=6967 asissued in her nae.

On Deceber +, 89+8 Mota, throu-h her laer, notified the tenants occupin- )M. Torres*uildin-) that she is the ne oner thereof and henceforth, paent of their rentals shouldbe ade to her.

On Deceber 8+, 89+8 Torres filed a coplaint, hich later -ave rise to this petition, iththe !ourt of First Instance of Manila, doc5eted as !ivil !ase No. (6+67, a-ainst Fernande2and his spouse and the !ues to restrain the latter fro collectin- rentals and for thedeclaration as void T!T No. 8=6967. The !ues in turn filed a cross#clai a-ainst Fernande2spouses and a third part coplaint a-ainst the National Treasurer as the custodian of the"ssurance Fund.

Durin- the proceedin-, Mariano Torres, havin- died soetie in 89+', as substituted bhis ido. On Bune 7, 89++, the trial court rendered its decision declarin- T!T No. 8=6967in the nae of Rosario Mota nun and void as it upheld the validit of T!T No. 67%&( in thenae of Torres as the true evidence of title to the disputed realties, and at the sae tiedisissin- the !ue0s third part coplaint and cross clai.

The decision as revieed b the respondent court at the instance of the !ues hich, asaforeentioned, reversed the trial court in its decision dated Bul 7=, 89(& and theResolution of Banuar 8', 89(7. @ence, this petition.

There is nothin- on the records hich shos that Torres perfored an act or oissionhich could have ?eopardi2ed his peaceful doinion over his realties. The decision underrevie, hoever, in considerin- Mota an innocent ort-a-ee protected under Section 66 ofthe ;and Re-istration ;a, held that Torres as bound b the ort-a-e. Inevitabl, itpronounced that the foreclosure sale, here Mota as the hi-hest bidder, also bound Torresand concluded that the certificate of title issued in the nae of Mota prevails over that ofTorres0. "s correctl pointed out b Torres, hoever, his properties ere sold on e:ecution,and not on foreclosure sale, and hence, the purchaser thereof as bound b his notice ofadverse clai and lis pendensannotated at the bac5 of Fernande20 T!T. Moreover, even if


3/86


4/86

T!T No. (%=8(G The anser is obvious. "nd et, to all indications,the never bothered to loo5 into this fact about the M. Torres *uildin-.

::: ::: :::

"nother thin- that defendants Mota and Medina !ue ust haveinvesti-ated, as an prudent buer or ort-a-ee should beforeconsuatin- an transaction on real propert, in the atter ofpaent of ta:es on the propert. "fter all, the bi- value of thepropert in Euestion necessaril eans that even real estate ta:es onit alone ould involve bi- aounts of one, and if there are ta:arreara-es, an buer or subseEuent oner of the propert i- haveto coe face to face ith the ta: hen attachin- to the propertherever its oner a be. ... 3P. &6+, Record on "ppeal4

V>RS>D and the decisionof the then !ourt of First Instance, *ranch +, Manila in !ivil !ase No. (6+67 isR>INST"T>D.

SO ORD>R>D.

Narvasa 1C%airan2, Cruz and 3ancaco, JJ., concur.


5/86


*a-uio !it

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 1//41 A+ 20, 2010

#RANCISCO ALONSO, *u*(+(u(e' MERCE$ES !. ALONSO, TOMAS !. ALONSO

&n' ASUNCION !. ALONSO,Petitioners,vs.

CE"U COUNTRY CLU", INC.,Respondent,REPU"LIC O# TE PILIPPINES, ee*en(e' ()e O##ICE O# TE SOLICITOR

GENERAL,Public Respondent.

D > ! I S I O N

"ERSAMIN, J.:

* petition for revie on certiorari, the petitioners appeal the order dated Deceber &(,&==+ of the Re-ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4, *ranch &=, in !ebu !it, denin- the otion forissuance of !rit of e4ecution of the Office of the Solicitor $eneral 3OS$4 in behalf of the

$overnent, and the order dated "pril &', &==9, denin- their otion for reconsiderationfiled a-ainst the first order.

An(ee'en(*

The antecedent facts are those established inAlonso v. Cebu Countr Club,8hich follo.

Petitioner Francisco M. "lonso 3Francisco4 as the onl son and sole heir of the latespouses Toas N. "lonso and "suncion Medalle. Francisco died durin- the pendenc ofthis case,and as substituted b his le-al heirs, nael his survivin- spouse, Mercedes V."lonso, his son Toas V. "lonso 3Toas4 and his dau-hter "suncion V. "lonso.&

In 899&, Francisco discovered docuents shoin- that his father Toas N. "lonso hadacEuired ;ot No. +&+ of the *anilad Friar ;ands >state fro the $overnent in or about theear 8988/ that the ori-inal vendee of ;ot No. +&+ had assi-ned his sales certificate toToas N. "lonso, ho had been conseEuentl issued Patent No. 8'767/ and that on March&+, 89&%, the Director of ;ands had e:ecuted a final deed of sale in favor of Toas N."lonso, but the final deed of sale had not been re-istered ith the Re-ister of Deedsbecause of lac5 of reEuireents, li5e the approval of the final deed of sale b the Secretar

of "-riculture and Natural Resources, as reEuired b la.7

Francisco subseEuentl found that the certificate of title coverin- ;ot No. +&+#D#& of the*anilad Friar ;ands >state had been )adinistrativel reconstituted fro the onersduplicate) of Transfer !ertificate of Title 3T!T4 No. RT#878= in the nae of Jnited Service!ountr !lub, Inc., the predecessor of respondent !ebu !ountr !lub, Inc 3!ebu !ountr!lub4/ and that upon the order of the court that had heard the petition for reconstitution ofthe T!T, the nae of the re-istered oner in T!T No. RT#878= had been chan-ed to that of!ebu !ountr !lub/ and that the T!T stated that the reconstituted title as a transfer froT!T No. 8=&8.'

It is relevant to ention at this point that the current T!T coverin- ;ot +&+#D#& in the naeof !ebu !ountr !lub is T!T No. 9'9=6, hich as entered in the land records of !ebu

!it on "u-ust (, 89(6.6


6/86

On Ma +, 8997, the RT! decided in favor of !ebu !ountr !lub.

*oth parties appealed to the !ourt of "ppeals 3!"4, hich ultiatel affired the RT! onMarch 78, 899+. Thus, Francisco filed a otion for reconsideration,hich as denied onOctober &, 899+.(

Nothin- daunted, Francisco appealed to this !ourt 3$.R. No. 87=(+%4.

On Banuar 78, &==&, this !ourt decided $.R. No. 87=(+%, decreein-

R>FOR>, e D>NH the petition for revie. @oever, e S>T "SID> the decision ofthe !ourt of "ppeals and that of the Re-ional Trial !ourt, !ebu !it, *ranch =(.

IN ;I>J T@>R>OF, e DISMISS the coplaint and counterclai of the parties in !ivil!ases No. !>* 8&9&% of the trial court. state covered b Ori-inal !ertificate of Title Nos. &68, &7&, and &67 le-allbelon-s to the $overnent of the Philippines. 9

The petitioners sou-ht a reconsideration. On Deceber 6, &==7, hoever, the !ourt deniedtheir otion for reconsideration.8=@ence, the decision in $.R. No. 87=(+% becae final ande:ecutor.

In late &==', the $overnent, throu-h the OS$, filed in the RT! a otion for the issuanceof a rit of e:ecution.88!ebu !ountr !lub opposed the otion for the issuance of a rit ofe:ecution in due course.

;ater on, the proceedin-s on the OS$s otion for the issuance of a rit of e:ecution at theinstance of !ebu !ountr !lub in deference to the on#-oin- hearin-s bein- conducted bthe !oittee on Natural Resources of the @ouse of Representatives on a proposed bill toconfir the T!Ts and reconstituted titles coverin- the *anilad Friar ;ands >state in !ebu!it.8&The !on-ress ultiatel enacted a la to validate the T!Ts and reconstituted titles

coverin- the *anilad Friar ;ands >state in !ebu !it. This as Republic "ct No. 9''7,87

effective on Bul &+, &==+.

Thereafter, both !ebu !ountr !lub and the OS$ brou-ht the passa-e of R.". No. 9''7 tothe attention of the RT! for its consideration in resolvin- the OS$s otion for the issuanceof a rit of e:ecution.8' On Deceber &(, &==+, therefore, the RT! denied the OS$sotion for the issuance of a rit of e:ecution throu-h the first appealed order.86

The petitioners filed a otion for reconsideration dated Februar 8, &==(, Euestionin- thedenial of the OS$s otion for the issuance of a rit of e:ecution.8%

Jpon bein- directed b the RT! to coent on the petitioners otion for reconsideration,the OS$ anifested in ritin- that the $overnent as no lon-er see5in- the e:ecution ofthe decision in $.R. No. 87=(+%, sub?ect to its reservation to contest an other titles ithinthe *anilad Friar ;ands >state should clear evidence sho such titles as havin- beenobtained throu-h fraud.8+

"fter the filin- of the OS$s coent, the RT! issued the second appealed order, denin-the petitioners otion for reconsideration, -ivin- the folloin- reasons

8. The part ho had a direct interest in the e:ecution of the decision and thereconsideration of the denial of the otion for e:ecution as the $overnent,represented onl b the OS$/ hence, the petitioners had no le-al standin- to filethe otion for reconsideration, especiall that the ere not authori2ed b theOS$ for that purpose/

&. R.". No. 9''7 )confirs and declares as valid) all )e:istin-) T!Ts andreconstituted titles/ thereb, the State in effect aived and divested itself ofhatever title or onership over the *anilad Friar ;ands >state in favor of there-istered oners thereof, includin- ;ot +&+ D#&/ and

7. The situation of the parties had ateriall chan-ed, renderin- the enforceentof the final and e:ecutor ?ud-ent un?ust, ineEuitable, and ipossible, because!ebu !ountr !lub as no reco-ni2ed b the State itself as the absolute onerof ;ot +&+ D#&.8(

@ence, the petitioners appeal b petition for revie oncertiorari.

!ontentions of the Petitioners

The petitioners challen-e the orders dated Deceber &(, &==+ and "pril &9, &==9, because

8. R.". No. 9''7 did not iprove !ebu !ountr !lubs pli-ht, inasuch as R.".No. 9''7 presupposed first a sales certificate that lac5ed the reEuired si-nature,but !ebu !ountr !lub did not have such sales certificate. Moreover, thetitleholders ere in fact the oners of the lands covered b their respective titles,hich as not true ith !ebu !ountr !lub due to its bein- alread ad?ud-edith finalit to be not the oner of ;ot +&+#D#&. ;astl, !ebu !ountr !lubs titleas hopelessl defective, as found b the Supree !ourt itself/

&. The doctrine of la of the case barred the application of R.". No. 9''7 to!ebu !ountr !lub/
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt18


7/86

7. The RT!s declaration that R.". No. 9''7 confired !ebu !ountr !lub as theabsolute oner of ;ot +&+#D#& despite the prior and final ?ud-ent of theSupree !ourt that !ebu !ountr !lub as not the oner as unconstitutional,because it virtuall alloed the le-islative revie of the Supree !ourts decisionrendered a-ainst !ebu !ountr !lub/

'. The use of R.". No. 9''7 as a aiver on the part of the $overnent vis#K#vis!ebu !ountr !lub as not onl isplaced but donri-htl repu-nant to "ct88&=, the la -overnin- the le-al disposition and alienation of Friar ;ands/ and

6. The petitioners had the reEuisite standin- to Euestion the patent errors of theRT!, especiall in the face of the unhol conspirac beteen the OS$ and !ebu!ountr !lub, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the passa-e of R.". No.9''7 and D>NR Meorandu No. 8%, both of hich in fact ade theirpredecessor Toas N. "lonsos sales certificate and patent valid.89

I**ue*

The !ourt confronts and resolves the folloin- issues, to it

8.


8/86

Onl petitioner Toas V. "lonso has e:ecuted and si-ned the sorn certification a-ainstforu shoppin- attached to the petition. "lthou-h neither of his co#petitioners L Mercedes V."lonso and "suncion V. "lonso L has ?oined the certification, Toas did not present anritten e:press authori2ation in his favor authori2in- hi to si-n the certification in theirbehalf. The si-nin- of the certification b onl one of the petitioners could not be presuedto reflect the personal 5noled-e b his co#petitioners of the filin- or non#filin- of an siilar

action or clai.

&7

@ence, the failure of Mercedes and "suncion to si-n and e:ecute thecertification alon- ith Toas arranted the disissal of their petition.&'

". Pe(+(+one* &e no( oe &(+e* (o &e& &n' &**&+ ()e o'e o ()e RTC

The petitioners are relentless in insistin- that their clai to ;ot No. +&+#D#& of the *aniladFriar ;ands >state should be preferred to that of !ebu !ountr !lub, despite the final?ud-ent in $.R. No. 87=(+% bein- adverse to their clai. Their insistence raises the needto resolve once and for all hether or not the petitioners retained an le-al ri-ht to assertover ;ot No. +&+#D#& folloin- the $overnents anifest desistance fro the e:ecution ofthe ?ud-ent in $.R. No. 87=(+% a-ainst !ebu !ountr !lub.

The above#noted defects of the petition for revie notithstandin-, therefore, the !ourt has

no to address and resolve the stated issues on the sole basis of the results the !ourtearlier reached in $.R. No. 87=(+%. In this re-ard, hether or not the petitioners are theproper parties to brin- this appeal is decisive.

"fter careful consideration, the !ourt finds that the cause of the petitioners instantl fails.

In $.R. No. 87=(+%, the !ourt found that the petitioners did not validl acEuire onership of;ot No. +&+#D#&, and declared that ;ot No. +&+ D#& le-all belon-ed to the $overnent,thus

The second issue is hether the !ourt of "ppeals erred in rulin- that the !ebu !ountr!lub, Inc. is oner of ;ot No. +&+.

"dittedl, ne+()e e(+(+one* no ()e+ e'ee**o )&' &n (+(e (o ()e &n' +n8ue*(+on. The ost that petitioners could clai as that the Director of ;ands issued asales patent in the nae of Toas N. "lonso. T)e *&e* &(en(, hoever,&n' een ()eoe*on'+n5 'ee' o *&e:ee no( e5+*(ee' :+() ()e Re5+*(e o $ee'* &n' no

(+(e :&* ee +**ue' +n ()e n&e o ()e &((e. This is because there ere basicreEuireents not coplied ith, the ost iportant of hich as that ()e 'ee' o *&ee;eu(e' ()e $+e(o o L&n'* :&* no( &oe' ()e See(& o A5+u(ue

&n' N&(u& Re*oue*.@ence, ()e 'ee' o *&e :&* o+'. )"pproval b the Secretar of"-riculture and !oerce is indispensable for the validit of the sale.) Moreover, !ebu!ountr !lub, Inc. as in possession of the land since 8978, and had been pain- the realestate ta:es thereon based on ta: declarations in its nae ith the title nuber indicatedthereon. Ta: receipts and declarations of onership for ta:ation purposes are stron-

evidence of onership. This !ourt has ruled that althou-h ta: declarations or realt ta:paents are not conclusive evidence of onership, nevertheless, the are -ood indicia ofpossession in the concept of oner for no one in his ri-ht ind ill be pain- ta:es for apropert that is not in his actual or constructive possession.

Notithstandin- this fatal defect, the !ourt of "ppeals ruled that )there as substantial

copliance ith the reEuireent of "ct No. 88&= to validl conve title to said lot to ToasN. "lonso.)

On this point, the !ourt of "ppeals erred.

Jnder "ct No. 88&=, hich -overns the adinistration and disposition of friar lands, thepurchase b an actual and bona fide settler or occupant of an portion of friar land shall be)a-reed upon beteen the purchaser and the Director of ;ands, sub?ect to the approval ofthe Secretar of "-riculture and Natural Resources 1utatis utandis2.+

In his Meorandu filed on Ma &6, &==8, the Solicitor $eneral subitted to this !ourtcertified copies of Sale !ertificate No. +7', in favor of ;eoncio "lburo, and "ssi-nent ofSale !ertificate No. +7', in favor of Toas N. "lonso. !onspicuousl, both instruents do

not bear the si-nature of the Director of ;ands and the Secretar of the Interior. The alsodo not bear the approval of the Secretar of "-riculture and Natural Resources.

Onl recentl, in Jesus P. (iao v. Court of Appeals, the !ourt has ruled cate-oricall that&o& ()e See(& o A5+u(ue &n' Coee o ()e *&e o +& &n'* +*

+n'+*en*&e o +(* &+'+(, hence, the absence of such approval ade the sale nu&n' o+' &-+n+(+o. Necessaril, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such saleor assi-nent. Con*e8uen(, e(+(+one #&n+*o


9/86

in ;ot No. +&+#D#&. Otherise put, the are not the proper parties to assail the Euestionedorders of the RT!, because the stand to derive nothin- fro the e:ecution of the ?ud-enta-ainst !ebu !ountr !lub.

>ver action ust be prosecuted or defended in the nae of the real part in interest,unless otherise authori2ed b la or the rules. &%" real part in interest is one ho stands

to be benefited or in?ured b the ?ud-ent in the suit, or the part entitled to the avails of thesuit.&+)Interest) ithin the eanin- of the rule eans aterial interest, an interest in issueand to be affected b the decree, as distin-uished fro ere interest in the Euestioninvolved, or a ere incidental interest. The rule refers to a real or present substantialinterest, as distin-uished fro a ere e:pectanc/ or fro a future, contin-ent, subordinate,or conseEuential interest.&( One havin- no ri-ht or interest to protect cannot invo5e the?urisdiction of the court as a part#plaintiff in an action.&9

Thus, an appeal, li5e this one, is an action to be prosecuted b a part in interest before ahi-her court. In order for the appeal to prosper, the liti-ant ust of necessit continue tohold a real or present substantial interest that entitles hi to the avails of the suit on appeal.If he does not, the appeal, as to hi, is an e:ercise in futilit. So it is ith the petitioners

In contrast, the $overnent, bein- the le-al oner of ;ot No. +&+#D#&, is the onl partadversel affected b the denial, and is the proper part entitled to assail the denial. 7=

@oever, its anifest desistance fro the e:ecution of the decision effectivel barred anchallen-e a-ainst the denial, for its non#appeal rendered the denial final and iutable.

C. R.A. No. 9443 5+e* e(+(+one* no e5& +n(ee*( (o &**&+ ()e 'en+& o ()e o(+on

o e;eu(+on

Section 8 of R.". No. 9''7 provides

Section 8. A e;+*(+n5 T&n*e Ce(++&(e* o T+(e &n' Reon*(+(u(e' Ce(++&(e* oT+(e 'u +**ue' ()e Re5+*(e o $ee'* o Ceu Po+ne &n'=o Ceu C+(

oe+n5 &n o(+on o ()e "&n+&' #+& L&n'* E*(&(e, notithstandin- the lac5 of

si-natures andAor approval of the then Secretar of Interior 3later Secretar of "-ricultureand Natural Resources4 andAor the then !hief of the *ureau of Public ;ands 3later Directorof Public ;ands4 in the copies of the dul e:ecuted Sale !ertificates and "ssi-nents ofSale !ertificates, as the case a be, no on file ith the !ounit >nvironent andNatural Resources Office 3!>NRO4, !ebu !it, &e )ee 'e&e' &* &+' (+(e* &n'()e e5+*(ee' o:ne* eo5n+>e' &* &*ou(e o:ne* ()eeo.

The la e:pressl declares as valid )3a4ll e:istin- Transfer !ertificates of Title andReconstituted !ertificates of Title dul issued b the Re-ister of Deeds of !ebu ProvinceandAor !ebu !it coverin- an portion of the *anilad Friar ;ands >state,) and reco-ni2esthe re-istered oners as absolute oners. To benefit fro R.". No. 9''7, therefore, a

person ust hold as a condition precedent a dul issued Transfer !ertificate of Title or aReconstituted !ertificate of Title.

"lthou-h ;ot +&+#D#& as earlier declared to be oned b the $overnent in $.R. No.87=(+%, R.". No. 9''7 later validated !ebu !ountr !lubs re-istered onership due to itsholdin- of T!T No. RT#878= 3T#887684 in its on nae. "s the OS$ e:plained in its

anifestation in lieu of coent78 3filed in the RT! vis#K#vis the petitioners otion forreconsideration a-ainst the RT!s denial of the OS$s otion for issuance of a rit ofe:ecution4, the enactent of R.". No. 9''7 had )ooted the final and e:ecutor Decision ofthe Supree !ourt in )"lonso v. !ebu !ountr !lub, Inc.,) doc5eted as $.R. No. 87=(+%,hich declared the $overnent as the oner of ;ot +&+#D#& based on the absence ofsi-nature and approval of the then Secretar of Interior/) and that the decision in $.R. No.87=(+% had )ceased to have an practical effect) as the result of the enactent of R.". No.9''7, and had thereb becoe )acadeic.)7&

On the other hand, the petitioners could not benefit fro R.". No. 9''7 because of theirnon#copliance ith the e:press condition of holdin- an Transfer !ertificate of Title orReconstituted !ertificate of Title respectin- ;ot +&+#D#& or an portion thereof.5a!p%65

The appropriate recourse for the petitioners, if the persist in the belief that the T!T of !ebu!ountr !lub should be nullified, is to copel the OS$ throu-h the special civil action forandaus to coence the action to annul on the -round that !ebu !ountr !lub hadobtained its title to ;ot +&8+#D#& throu-h fraud. Het, that recourse is no lon-er availin-, forthe decision in $.R. No. 87=(+% e:plicitl found and declared that the reconstituted title of!ebu !ountr !lub had not been obtained throu-h fraud. Said the !ourt

On the Euestion that T!T No. RT#878= 3T#887684 bears the sae nuber as another title toanother land, :e &5ee :+() ()e Cou( o Ae&* ()&( ()ee +* no()+n5 &u'uen( :+()()e &( ()&( Ceu Coun( Cu, In.


10/86

'ee' o *&e o o()e o'e* o one&ne. Ceu Coun( Cu, In. :&* &'+((e'

+n o**e**+on o ()e &n' *+ne on5 eoe ()e Seon' o' &, o *+ne 1931. In

&(, ()e o+5+n& (+(e BTCT No. 1131D :&* +**ue' (o ()e Un+(e' Se+e Coun( Cu,

In. on Noee 19, 1931 &* & (&n*e o T&n*e Ce(++&(e o T+(e No. 1021.

Moe +o(&n(, Ceu Coun( Cu, In. &+' ()e e&( (&;e* on ()e &n' een

eoe ()e :&, &n' (&; 'e&&(+on* oe+n5 ()e oe( *)o:e' ()e nue o ()e

TCT o ()e &n'. Ceu Coun( Cu, In. o'ue' ee+(* *)o:+n5 e& e*(&(e (&;

&en(* *+ne 1949. On the other hand, petitioner failed to produce a sin-le receipt ofreal estate ta: paent ever ade b his father since the sales patent as issued to hisfather on March &', 89&%. < OF T@> FOR>$OIN$, the petition for revie on certiorari is denied for lac5 oferit.

The !ourt declares that !ebu !ountr !lub, Inc. is the e:clusive oner of ;ot No.+&+#D#&of the *anilad Friar ;ands >state, as confired b Republic "ct No. 9''7.

!osts of suit to be paid b the petitioners.

SO ORD>R>D.


Manila

S>!OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 16311/ A+ 2, 200

$ORIS CIONG"IAN-OLI!A, Petitioner,vs.

REPU"LIC O# TE PILIPPINES, TE $EPARTMENT O# EN!IRONMENT AN$

NATURAL RESOURCES AN$ TE REGISTER O# $EE$S O# CE"U CITY,Respondents.

$ E C I S I O N

UISUM"ING, J.:

This petition for certiorari assails 384 the Decision8 dated "u-ust +, &==7 of the !ourt of"ppeals in !"#$.R. !V. No. +''=9, reversin- the Decision&dated Deceber 87, &==8 ofthe Re-ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it, *ranch 8& in SP. Proc. No. 8=+'%#!>*, and 3&4 theResolution7dated March 8+, &==', denin- the otion for reconsideration.

The folloin- facts are undisputed.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_188471_2010.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt3


11/86

Petitioner Doris !hion-bian#Oliva is the re-istered oner of a parcel of land in Talaban,!ebu !it, as evidenced b Transfer !ertificate of Title 3T!T4 No. 6'66. 'This title ori-inatedfro Ori-inal !ertificate of Title 3O!T4 No. 8=%% fro a free patent -ranted on Septeber88, 89%9 under !oonealth "ct No. 8'8,6as aended. The free patent, O!T No. 8=%%,and T!T No. 6'66 contained the condition that a fort#eter le-al easeent fro the ban5of an river or strea shall be preserved as peranent tiberland.%

On October 8, &==8, petitioner filed a petition for reduction of le-al easeent doc5eted asSP. Proc. No. 8=+'%#!>* before the Re-ional Trial !ourt of !ebu !it, *ranch 8&.Petitioner alle-ed that the propert is residential as shon b the ta: declaration +and the!ertification(of the Office of the !it "ssessor. Thus, the applicable le-al easeent is onlthree eters pursuant to Departent of >nvironent and Natural Resources 3D>NR4"dinistrative Order No. 99#&8,9 and not fort eters, hich applies to tiberlands andforest lands. Petitioner also alle-ed that enforcin- the fort#eter le-al easeent ouldvirtuall deprive her of the use and en?oent of the propert since it consists onl of 8,===sEuare eters.

The D>NR countered that the propert is inalienable. It also claied that the applicanta-reed on the fort#eter le-al easeent hen the free patent as applied for.

The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner. It said that there is no lon-er an reason for thefort#eter le-al easeent because the propert had been transfored into residential landand the area here it is located has been reclassified as urban. "pplin- D>NR ".O. No.99#&8, the applicable le-al easeent is onl three eters. The decisions decretal portionstates

R>FOR>, preises considered, it is hereb ordered that the le-al encubrance offort 3'=4 eters for river ban5 protection annotated on Petitioners Transfer !ertificate ofTitle No. 6'66 be reduced to the applicable le-al easeent of three 374 eters inaccordance ith la.

"ccordin-l, the Re-ister of Deeds of !ebu !it is hereb directed to cancel the above le-alencubrance of fort 3'=4 eters annotated on Petitioners Transfer !ertificate of Title No.6'66 and in lieu thereof, annotate the applicable le-al encubrance of three 374 eters forriver ban5 protection.

SO ORD>R>D.8=

On appeal, the !ourt of "ppeals reversed the trial courts decision. It upheld the D>NRsclai that the propert as inalienable. "ccordin-l, a positive act of the -overnent asnecessar to declassif it fro forest land to alienable land. Declaration of the propert asresidential in the ta: declaration and reclassification of the area here it is located as urbanere insufficient bases to reclassif the propert. The falloof the appellate courts decisionreads

R>FOR>, preises considered, the Decision dated Deceber 87, &==8, of theRe-ional Trial !ourt, +th Budicial Re-ion, *ranch 8&, !ebu !it, in SP. PRO!. NO. 8=+'%#!>*, is hereb R>V>RS>D and S>T "SID>. No pronounceent as to costs.

SO ORD>R>D.88

The appellate court later denied petitioners otion for reconsideration.

Petitioner no raises the folloin- issues

I.

T@>R OR NOT P>TITION>RS ;OT !OV>R>D *H T@> ;>$"; >N!JM*R"N!> IS" PJ*;I! ;"NDA;"ND OF T@> PJ*;I! DOM"IN 3"ND T@JS, !"NNOT *>R>!;"SSIFI>D >!>PT *H T@> >>!JTIV> D>P"RTM>NT4 OF T@> $OV>RNM>NT,OR " PRIV"T> ;"ND.

II.

T@>R OR NOT T@> TRI"; !OJRT IS !ORR>!T IN T"IN$ BJDI!I"; NOTI!> OFT@> F"!T T@"T P>TITION>RS ;OT !OV>R>D *H T!T NO. 6'66 IS SITJ"T>D IN "NJR*"N "R>" "ND NOT IN " FOR>ST "R>", "ND IN T@JS !ON!;JDIN$ T@"T T@>;>$"; >"S>M>NT "PP;I!"*;> FOR RIV>R *"N PROT>!TION IS T@R>> 374M>T>RS "ND NOT FORTH 3'=4 M>T>RS.

III.

T@>R OR NOT S>!TION 9=3i4 OF !.". NO. 8'8 S FOR "JNIFORM >"S>M>NT OF FORTH 3'=4 M>T>RS FROM T@> *"N ON >"!@ SID> OF"NH RIV>R, "ND S>RV>S T@> S"ID '=#M>T>R PORTION "SP>RM"N>NT TIM*>R;"ND R>$"RD;>SS OF T@>R IT IS SITJ"T>D IN "

FOR>ST "R>" OR "N JR*"N "R>", IS STI;; "PP;I!"*;> TO ;OTS SITJ"T>D IN "NJR*"N "R>" IN T@> ;I$@T OF T@> PROVISIONS OF SJ*S>1J>NT ;>$IS;"TION,SP>!IFI!";;H S>!TION 68 OF P.D. NO. 8=%+.8&

Sipl stated, the issues are 384 Is the propert public or private landG and 3&4 Is theapplicable le-al easeent fort or three etersG

On the first issue, !.". No. 8'8, as aended, provides that lands of the public doain abe classified b the President, upon the recoendation of the Secretar of >nvironentand Natural Resources, into 384 alienable or disposable/ 3&4 tiber/ and 374 ineral lands.87

@oever, onl alienable or disposable lands a be disposed of throu-h an of the fors of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_163118_2007.html#fnt13


12/86

concession enuerated in the la.8'" free patent is one of such concessions86and once itis re-istered and the correspondin- certificate of title issued, the land covered b theceases to be part of the public doain and becoes private propert.8%

Veril, b the issuance of a free patent on Septeber 88, 89%9, and the subseEuentissuance of O!T No. 8=%% and T!T No. 6'66, the propert in this case had becoe private

land. It is inconsistent for an alienable land of the public doain to be covered b a freepatent and at the sae tie retain its character as public land.

On the second issue, Section 9=3i4 of !.". No. 8'8 reEuires that a fort#eter le-aleaseent fro the ban5 of an river or strea shall be preserved as peranent tiberland.More specificall, it provides

3i4 That the applicant a-rees that a strip fort eters ide startin- fro the ban5 on eachside of an river or strea that a be found on the land applied for, shall be dearcatedand preserved as peranent tiberland to be planted e:clusivel to trees of 5noneconoic value, and that he shall not a5e an clearin- thereon or utili2e the sae forordinar farin- purposes even after patent shall have been issued to hi or a contract oflease shall have been e:ecuted in his favor. 3>phasis supplied.4

To ipleent this, the D>NR proul-ated ".O. No. 99#&8 hich provides the -uidelines inthe processin-, verification, and approval of isolated and cadastral surves. Pertinent to thiscase are the folloin- provisions

&.8 Ori-inal Surves

&.8.a Public ;ands

"ll alienable and disposable 3" and D4 lands of the public doain shall be surveedpursuant to Section 8 Par. 384 of R.". 8&+7 C!.". No. 8'8, Section 9=3i4 hereb a strip offort 3'=4 eters ide startin- fro the ban5s on each side of an river or strea that abe found on the land shall be dearcated and preserved as peranent tiberland.

;i5eise, to be dearcated are public lands alon- the ban5s of rivers and streas and theshores of the seas and la5es throu-hout their entire len-th and ithin a 2one of three 374eters in urban areas, tent 3&=4 eters in a-ricultural areas and fort 3'=4 eters inforest area, alon- their ar-ins hich are sub?ect to the easeent for public use in theinterest of recreation, navi-ation, floata-e, fishin- and salva-e.

: : : :

&.7 Surve of Titled ;ands

&.7.8 "dinistrativel Titled ;ands

The provisions of ite &.8.a and &.8.b shall be observed as the above. @oever, henthese lands are to be subdivided, consolidated or consolidated#subdivided, the strip of three374 eters hich falls ithin urban areas shall be dearcated and ar5ed on the plan foreaseent and ban5 protection.

The purpose of these strips of land shall be noted in the technical description and annotatedin the title.

: : : :

Runnin- in parallel vein is the


13/86

ERE#ORE, the instant petition is $R"NT>D. The assailed Decision dated "u-ust +,&==7 and Resolution dated March 8+, &==' of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R. !V. No.+''=9 are R>V>RS>D, and the Decision dated Deceber 87, &==8 of the Re-ional Trial!ourt of !ebu !it, *ranch 8& in SP. Proc. No. 8=+'%#!>* is R>INST"T>D.

SO ORD>R>D.


Manila

#IRST $I!ISION

G.R. No. 1303/9 #eu& 11, 200/


14/86

TE PILIPPINE COTTON CORPORATION,petitioner#appellant,vs.

NARAIN$AS GAGOOMAL &n' ENGRACIO ANG,respondents#appellees,CINA "ANHING CORPORATION,intervenor#appellee.

$ECISION

A%CUNA, J.7

This is a petition for revie on certiorari8assailin- the Decision&of the !ourt of "ppeals 3!"4proul-ated on "u-ust &9, 899+ in !"#$.R. !V No. 6=77&.

The facts of record ould indicate that Pacific Mills, Inc. 3Pacific Mills4 ori-inall oned fiveparcels of land covered b Transfer !ertificates of Title 3T!T4 Nos. 87%%'=, 87%''8, &&&7+=and 87'&'9. These properties ere subseEuentl purchased b respondents on aninstallent basis fro Pacific Mills on Bul 89, 89+9.7

On Bune &7, 89(7, petitioner filed a collection case a-ainst Pacific Mills before the Re-ionalTrial !ourt 3RT!4 of Pasi-, *ranch 8%& on the -round of alle-ed failure to fulfill its obli-ationunder a contract of loan. "fter hearin-, the trial court issued a rit of preliinar attachentin favor of petitioner. Thereafter, on "u-ust 8+, 89(7, the rit of preliinar attachent asannotated on T!T Nos. 87%%'=, 87%''8, &&&7+= and 87'&'9.

On Deceber &+, 89(6, the RT! of Pasi- rendered a decision orderin- Pacific Mills to paits obli-ation under the loan a-reeent plus interest, penalt char-es, attornes fees andcosts of suit. On appeal, the !" affired the decision of the trial court. Not satisfied ith the?ud-ent of the appellate court, Pacific Mills filed a petition for revie before this !ourt.

Durin- the pendenc of the appeal or on Bune 88, 89((, the 1ue2on !it @all as ra2ed bfire thereb destroin- the records of the Re-istr of Deeds of 1ue2on !it, includin- theT!Ts of Pacific Mills.

Soetie in 899&, Pacific Mills filed a petition for reconstitution of the burned T!Ts throu-hadinistrative reconstitution, in accordance ith Republic "ct No. %+7&. ' On March &7,899&, the Re-istr of Deeds of 1ue2on !it issued to Pacific Mills the reconstituted T!Ts,nael No. RT#66+=& 3for T!T No. 87%%'=4, No. RT#66+=' 3for T!T No. 87'&'94, No. RT#66+=7 3for T!T No. 87%''84 and No. RT#66+=6 3for T!T No. &&&7+=4. @oever, theaforesaid alle-ed annotations of the preliinar attachent in favor of petitioner ere notincorporated in the reconstituted T!Ts, but annotated therein as the sale ade b PacificMills to respondents and their paent in full. On even date, the reconstituted T!Ts erecancelled in favor of the respondents. Respondents ere -iven the folloin- clean T!TNos. 6%%(763for RT#66+=74, 6%%('%3for RT#66+=&4, 6%%(6+3for RT#66+='4 and 6%%(%(3forRT#66+=64.

On Februar (, 8997, petitioner rote the Re-istr of Deeds of 1ue2on !it reEuestin- forthe annotation of the notice of lev, and, subseEuentl, the annotation of a favorabledecision of this !ourt rendered on "u-ust 7, 899&, on the ne T!Ts issued to respondents.

On Februar 8=, 8997, Sauel !. !leofe, the 1ue2on !it Re-ister of Deeds, inforedrespondents that the letter#reEuest for re#annotation of notice of lev had been entered in

the Priar >ntr *oo5 6+'AVolue &', and as5ed the to surrender their oners duplicatecopies of T!T Nos. 6%%(7 to 6%%(%.9

Iediatel upon receipt of the said letter, respondents verified the ori-inal copies of titlesin the possession of the Re-istr of Deeds and discovered that the folloin- annotationsere included at the bac5 of the titles )ReEuest for Re#"nnotation of Notice of ;ev) and);etter ReEuest for "nnotation of >ntr of Bud-ent of Supree !ourt.)

Thereafter, respondents filed on March 7, 8997, a Petition for the !ancellation of"nnotations in ;and Titles before the RT! of 1ue2on !it, *ranch 8==, doc5eted as !ivil!ase No. 1#%=6%3974. ;ater on, petitioner as ipleaded as an additional respondent,hile !hina *an5in- !orporation filed a coplaint#in#intervention for bein- a ort-a-ee ofthe real properties, to-ether ith all the iproveents thereon.

On March &9, 8996, the trial court rendered ?ud-ent in favor of respondents. Thedispositive portion of the decision reads

R>FOR>, preises above considered, there bein- no ?ustification for the1ue2on !it Re-ister of Deeds in a5in- the annotation on petitioners ori-inalT!T Nos. 6%%(7 3RT#66+=74, 6%%(' 3RT#66+=&4, 6%%(6 3RT#66+'(4 and 6%%(%3RT#66+=64, said respondent is hereb ordered to D>;>T> therefro the saidannotation )reEuest for annotation and the annotated Supree !ourt decisiona-ainst the Pacific Mills, Inc.) and to desist fro its reEuest for petitioners tosubit their oners duplicate of titles to annotate such reEuest of the Philippine!otton !orporation.

There bein- no ?usticiable issue in the coplaint#in#intervention, let theannotations of a ort-a-e e:ecuted b petitioners on Deceber 8(, 899& infavor of intervenor !hina *an5in- !orporation reain on petitioners sub?ectT!Ts.

SO ORD>R>D.8=

The trial court ratiocinated that

Jnder the circustances, respondent Cthe Re-istr of Deeds of 1ue2on !itshould and could have properl refused such reEuest instead of iediatel
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt10


15/86

annotatin- it. In the sae li-ht, )The Re-ister of Deeds a li5eise properlrefuse re-istration of an order attachent hen it appears that the title involvedis not in the nae of the defendant and there is no evidence subitted toindicate that the said defendant has an present or future interest in the propertcovered b the titles.) 3$otauco vs. Re-ister of Deeds of Taabas, 69 Phil. +6%,897' and $eonan-a vs. @od-es, 66 O.$. p. &(98, "pril &8, 896(4. 3Jnderscorin-Supplied488

Jnsatisfied ith the outcoe of the case, petitioner filed a notice of appealbefore the !", contendin- that

)T@> R>$IST>R OF D>>DS OF 1J>ON !ITH @"S T@> "JT@ORITH TOR>#"NNOT"T> T@> NOTI!> OF ;>VH "ND TO "NNOT"T> T@> >NTRH OFBJD$M>NT OF T@> SJPR>M> !OJRT ON TR"NSF>R !>RTIFI!"T>S OFTIT;> NOS. 6%%(7, 6%%(', 6%%(6 "ND 6%%(%, ";; ISSJ>D IN T@> N"M> OFT@> P>TITION>RS#"PP>;;>>S "S " R>SJ;T OF "N "DMINISTR"TIV>R>!ONSTITJTION OF TIT;>S.)8&

In its "u-ust &9, 899+ decision, the appellate court disissed the appeal

because the issue raised b the petitioner as a pure Euestion of la, over hichthe !" had no ?urisdiction.

@ence, this petition.

Petitioner presents the folloin- assi-nent of errors

FIRST >RROR

T@> ;OR !OJRT >RR>D IN NOT SJST"ININ$ T@> "JT@ORITH OF T@>1J>ON !ITH R>$IST>R OF D>>DS TO V";ID;H R>#"NNOT"T> T@>IN!JM*R"N!>A;I>NS "ND "NNOT"T> T@> SJPR>M> !OJRT D>!ISIONON T@> "DMINISTR"TIV>;H R>!ONSTITJT>D TR"NSF>R !>RTIFI!"T>S

OF TIT;>S 3T!Ts4 IN F"VOR OF P>TITION>R#"PP>;;"NT.

S>!OND >RROR

T@> ;OR !OJRT, IN !ONS>1J>N!> T@>R>OF, ;I> >RR>D INORD>RIN$ T@> 1J>ON !ITH R>$IST>R OF D>>DS TO D>;>T> T@>"NNOT"TION T@"T R>"DS )R>1J>ST FOR "NNOT"TION "ND T@>"NNOT"T>D SJPR>M> !OJRT D>!ISION "$"INST P"!IFI! MI;;S, IN!.),FROM P>TITION>RS ORI$IN"; T!T NOS. 9%%(7 Csic 3RT#66+=74, 6%%(' 3RT#66+=&4, 6%%(6 3RT#66+'(4 "ND 6%%(% 3RT#66+=64 "ND TO D>SIST FROMR>1J>STIN$ R>SPOND>NTSA"PP>;;>>S TO SJ*MIT T@>IR ORS

DJP;I!"T> OF TIT;>S FOR "NNOT"TION OF P>TITION>R P@I;IPPIN>!OTTON !ORPOR"TIONS R>1J>ST.87

Petitioner asserts that a cursor readin- of Section +8 of Presidential Decree No. 86&9shos that it is the inisterial dut of the Re-ister of Deeds, in the atter of an attachentor other liens in the nature of involuntar dealin- in re-istered land, to )send notice b ail

to a re-istered oner reEuestin- hi to produce his duplicate certificate so that aeorandu of attachent or other lien a be ade thereon.) This provision, accordin-to petitioner, actuall applies henever a rit of attachent has been issued b a court ofcopetent ?urisdiction after hearin- on the issuance of the said rit. The notice ofattachent not havin- been dissolved, it as inisterial on the part of the Re-ister ofDeeds to record the notice on the T!Ts he issued.

Petitioner ould persuade this !ourt that it is the inisterial dut of the Re-ister of Deeds torecord an encubrance or lien on respondents e:istin- T!Ts. It cites, as proof of itssupposition, Sections 8= and +8 of the Propert Re-istration Decree 3P.D. No. 86&94, hichare Euoted as follos

Section 8=. 3eneral functions of )egisters of 'eeds. Q The office of the Re-ister

of Deeds constitutes a public repositor of records of instruents affectin-re-istered or unre-istered lands and chattel ort-a-es in the province or citherein such office is situated.

It shall be the dut of the Re-ister of Deeds to iediatel re-ister an instruentpresented for re-istration dealin- ith real or personal propert hich copliesith all the reEuisites for re-istration. @e shall see to it that said instruent bearsthe proper docuentar and science staps and that the sae are properlcancelled. If the instruent is not re-istrable, he shall forthith den re-istrationthereof and infor the presentor of such denial in ritin-, statin- the -round orreason therefor, and advisin- hi of his ri-ht to appeal b consultain accordanceith Section 88+ of this Decree.

: : :
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt13


16/86

Section +8. Surrender of certificate in involuntar dealings.L If an attachent orother lien in the nature of involuntar dealin- in re-istered land is re-istered, andthe duplicate certificate is not presented at the tie of re-istration, the Re-ister ofDeeds, shall, ithin thirt#si: hours thereafter, send notice b ail to there-istered oner, statin- that such paper has been re-istered, and reEuestin-hi to send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a eorandu of theattachent or other lien a be ade thereon. If the oner ne-lects or refusesto copl ithin a reasonable tie, the Re-ister of Deeds shall report t%e atterto t%e court, and it shall, after notice, enter an order to the oner to produce hiscertificate at a tie and place naed therein, and a enforce the order bsuitable process. 3Jnderscorin- supplied4

The !ourt is not in accord ith the stance of petitioner. Section 8= of P.D. No. 86&9 erelinvolves the -eneral functions of the Re-ister of Deeds, hile Section +8 thereof relates toan attachent or lien in a re-istered land in hich the duplicate certificate as notpresented at the time of the registration of the said lien or attachment.

" special la specificall deals ith the procedure for the reconstitution of Torrenscertificates of title lost or destroed. Jnder Section ' of "ct No. &%8'

;iens and other encubrances affectin- a destroed or lost certificate of titleshall be reconstituted fro such of the sources hereunder enuerated as abe available, in the folloin- order

3a4 "nnotations or eoranda appearin- on the oners, co#oners,ort-a-ees or lessees duplicate/

3b4 Re-istered docuents on file in the re-istr of deeds, or authenticated copiesthereof shoin- that the ori-inals thereof had been re-istered/ and

3c4 An o()e 'ouen( :)+), +n ()e Fu'5en( o ()e ou(, +* *u++en(&n' oe &*+* for reconstitutin- the liens or encubrances affectin- the

propert covered b the lost or destroed certificate of title. 3Jnderscorin-supplied4

Furtherore, Sections ( and 88 of the sae "ct provide for the procedure for the notation ofan interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title, andatin- that apetition be filed before a court of copetent ?urisdiction

Section (.An person !%ose rig%t or interest !as dul noted in t%e original of acertificate of title, at t%e tie it !as lost or destroed, but does not appearso

noted on t%e reconstituted certificate of title , hich is sub?ect to the reservationprovided in the precedin- section, a, hile such reservation subsists, file apetition !it% t%e proper Court of "irst 0nstance for t%e annotation of suc% rig%t or

interest on said reconstituted certificate of title , and the court, after notice andhearin-, shall deterine the erits of the petition and render such ?ud-ent as?ustice and eEuit a reEuire. The petition shall state the nuber of thereconstituted certificate of title and the nature, as ell as a description, of theri-ht or interest claied. 3Jnderscorin- supplied4

: : :

Section 88. Petitions for reconstitution of registered interests, liens and ot%erencubrances, based on sources enuerated in sections 71b2 and8or 71c2 of t%is

Act, s%all be filed, b t%e interested part, !it% t%e proper Court of "irst 0nstance.

The petition shall be accopanied ith the necessar docuents and shall state,aon- other thin-s, the nuber of the certificate of title and the nature as ell asa description of the interest, lien or encubrance hich is to be reconstituted,and the court, after publication, in the anner stated in section nine of this "ct,and hearin- shall deterine the erits of the petition and render such ?ud-entas ?ustice and eEuit a reEuire. 3Jnderscorin- supplied4

!learl, therefore, it is not the inisterial function of the Re-ister of Deeds to record a ri-ht

or an interest that as not dul noted in the reconstituted certificate of title. "s a atter offact, this tas5 is not even ithin the abit of the Re-ister of Deeds ?ob as the responsibilitis lod-ed b la to the proper courts. The fore-oin- Euoted provisions of the la leave noEuestion nor an doubt that it is indeed the dut of the trial court to deterine the erits ofthe petition and render ?ud-ent as ?ustice and eEuit a reEuire.

This conclusion is bolstered b !hapter , 86Section 8=( of P.D. No. 86&9, hich provides

Sec. 8=(.Aendent and alteration of certificates. Q No e&*ue, &(e&(+on,o &en'en( *)& e &'e uon ()e e5+*(&(+on oo? &(e ()e en( o &

e(++&(e o (+(e o o & eo&n'u ()eeon &n' ()e &((e*(&(+on o ()e

*&e ()e Re5+*(e o $ee'*, e;e( o'e o ()e oe Cou( o #+*(

In*(&ne." re-istered oner or o()e e*on )&+n5 &n +n(ee*( +n e5+*(ee'oe(, o, +n oe &*e*, ()e Re5+*(e o $ee'* :+() ()e &o& o ()e

Co+**+one o L&n' Re5+*(&(+on, & & e(+(+on (o ()e ou(

uon ()e 5oun' ()&( ()e e5+*(ee' +n(ee*(* o &n 'e*+(+on, :)e()e

e*(e', on(+n5en(, e;e(&n( +n)o&(e &e&+n5 on ()e e(++&(e, haveterinated and ceased/ o ()&( ne: +n(ee*( no( &e&+n5 uon ()ee(++&(e )&e &+*en o een e&(e'@ o ()&( &n o+**+on o eo :&*&'e +n en(e+n5 ()e e(++&(e o &n eo&n'u ()eeon, o on &n

'u+&(e e(++&(e/ or that the nae of an person on the certificate has beenchan-ed/ or that the re-istered oner has arried, or, if re-istered as arried,that the arria-e has been terinated and no ri-ht or interest of heirs orcreditors ill thereb be affected, or that a corporation hich oned re-isteredland and has been dissolved has not et conveed the sae ithin three earsafter its dissolution/ or upon an other reasonable -round/ and the ou( &
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_130389_2008.html#fnt15


17/86

)e& &n' 'e(e+ne ()e e(+(+on &(e no(+e (o & &(+e* +n +n(ee*(, &n'

& o'e the entr or cancellation of a ne certificate, ()e en( o&ne&(+on o & eo&n'u uon & e(++&(e , or -rant an other reliefupon such ters and conditions, reEuirin- securit or bond if necessar, as ita consider proper Provided, %o!ever, That this section shall not be construedto -ive the court authorit to reopen the ?ud-ent or decree of re-istration, andthat no()+n5 *)& e 'one o o'ee' ()e ou( :)+) *)& +&+ ()e(+(e o o()e +n(ee*( o & u)&*e )o'+n5 & e(++&(e o &ue &n' +n

5oo' &+(), or his heirs and assi-ns, ithout his or their ritten consent.


18/86


Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 16293 Se(ee 26, 2006

REMEGIA Y. #ELICIANO, Su*(+(u(e' ()e e+* o REMEGIA Y. #ELICIANO, &*

ee*en(e' NILO Y. #ELICIANO,petitioners,vs.

SPOUSES AURELIO &n' LU% %AL$I!AR, respondents.

$ E C I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

*efore the !ourt is the petition for revie on certiorari filed b the @eirs of Ree-ia H.Feliciano 3as represented b Nilo H. Feliciano4 see5in- the reversal of the Decision 8datedBul 78, &==7 of the !ourt of "ppeals 3!"4 in !"#$.R. !V No. %%688 hich ordered thedisissal of the coplaint filed b Ree-ia H. Feliciano&for declaration of nullit of title andreconveance of propert. The assailed decision of the appellate court reversed and setaside that of the Re-ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4 of !a-aan de Oro !it, *ranch &6 in !ivil!ase No. 9'&7.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the present case are as follos

Ree-ia H. Feliciano filed a-ainst the spouses "urelio and ;u2 aldivar a coplaint fordeclaration of nullit of Transfer !ertificate of Title 3T!T4 No. T#8+997 and reconveance ofthe propert covered therein consistin- of &'7 sEuare eters of lot situated in !a-aan deOro !it. The said title is re-istered in the nae of "urelio aldivar.

In her coplaint, Ree-ia alle-ed that she as the re-istered oner of a parcel of landsituated in the District of ;apasan in !a-aan de Oro !it ith an area of ''' sEuareeters, covered b T!T No. T#(6=&. Soetie in 89+', "urelio, alle-edl throu-h fraud,as able to obtain T!T No. T#8+997 coverin- the &'7#sE# portion of Ree-ias lot asdescribed in her T!T No. T#(6=&.

"ccordin- to Ree-ia, the &'7#sE# portion 3sub?ect lot4 as ori-inall leased fro her bPio Dalan, "urelios father#in#la, for P6.== a onth, later increased to P8==.== a onth

in 89%=. She further alle-ed that she as -oin- to ort-a-e the sub?ect lot to I-nacio $il forP8==.==, hich, hoever, did not push throu-h because $il too5 bac5 the one ithoutreturnin- the receipt she had si-ned as evidence of the supposed ort-a-e contract.Thereafter, in 89+', "urelio filed ith the then !ourt of First Instance of Misais Oriental apetition for partial cancellation of T!T No. T#(6=&. It as alle-edl ade to appear thereinthat "urelio and his spouse ;u2 acEuired the sub?ect lot fro Dalan ho, in turn,purchased it fro $il. The petition as -ranted and T!T No. T#8+997 as issued in"urelios nae.

Ree-ia denied that she sold the sub?ect lot either to $il or Dalan. She li5eise ipu-nedas falsified the ?oint affidavit of confiration of sale that she and her uncle, Narciso;abunto-, purportedl e:ecuted before a notar public, here Ree-ia appears to have
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt2


19/86

confired the sale of the sub?ect propert to $il. She alle-ed that she never parted ith thecertificate of title and that it as never lost. "s proof that the sale of the sub?ect lot nevertranspired, Ree-ia pointed out that the transaction as not annotated on T!T No. T#(6=&.

In their anser, the spouses aldivar denied the aterial alle-ations in the coplaint andraised the affirative defense that "urelio is the absolute oner and possessor of the

sub?ect lot as evidenced b T!T No. 8+997 and Ta: Declaration No. &%(%' coverin- thesae. "urelio claied that he acEuired the sub?ect lot b purchase fro Dalan ho, inturn, bou-ht the sae fro $il on "pril ', 8968. $il alle-edl purchased the sub?ect lot froRee-ia and this sale as alle-edl confored and ratified b the latter and her uncle,Narciso ;abunto-, before a notar public on Deceber 7, 89%6.

"fter "urelio obtained a loan fro the $overnent Service Insurance Sste 3$SIS4, thespouses aldivar constructed their house on the sub?ect lot. The alle-ed that the and theirpredecessors#in#interest had been occupin- the said propert since 89'+ openl, publicl,adversel and continuousl or for over '8 ears alread. "urelio filed a petition for theissuance of a ne oners duplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=& because hen he as5edRee-ia about it, the latter claied that it had been lost.

"fter due trial, the RT! rendered ?ud-ent in favor of Ree-ia. It declared that T!T No.8+997 in the nae of "urelio as null and void for havin- been obtained throu-hisrepresentation, fraud or evident bad faith b claiin- in his affidavit that Ree-ias title3T!T No. T#(6=&4 had been lost, hen in fact it still e:isted.

The court a Euo e:plained that )the court that orders a title reconstituted hen the ori-inal isstill e:istin- has not acEuired ?urisdiction over the case. " ?ud-ent otherise final a beannulled not onl on e:trinsic fraud but also for lac5 of ?urisdiction.)7"urelios use of a falseaffidavit of loss, accordin- to the court a Euo, as siilar to the use durin- trial of a for-eddocuent or per?ured testion that prevented the adverse part, Ree-ia, fro presentin-her case full and fairl.

The RT! li5eise noted that no public instruent as presented in evidence conveancin-or transferrin- title to the sub?ect lot fro Ree-ia to Dalan, the alle-ed predecessor#in#

interest of the spouses aldivar. The onl evidence presented b the said spouses as a?oint affidavit of confiration of sale purportedl si-ned b Ree-ia and her uncle, thee:ecution of hich as denied b the latters children. The certificate of title of the spousesaldivar over the sub?ect propert as characteri2ed as irre-ular because it as issued in acalculated ove to deprive Ree-ia of doinical ri-hts over her on propert. Further, thespouses aldivar could not set up the defense of indefeasibilit of Torrens title since thisdefense does not e:tend to a transferor ho ta5es the certificate of title ith notice of a flatherein. Re-istration, thus, did not vest title in favor of the spouses/ neither could the relon their adverse or continuous possession over the sub?ect lot for over '8 ears, as thiscould not prevail over the title of the re-istered oner pursuant to Sections 6='and 686of"ct No. '9%, otherise 5non as The ;and Re-istration "ct.

The dispositive portion of the decision of the court a Euo reads

IN T@> ;I$@T OF T@> FOR>$OIN$, and b preponderance of evidence, ?ud-ent ishereb rendered cancelin- T!T T#8+997 and reconveance of &'7 sEuare eters the titleand possession of the sae, b vacatin- and turnin- over possession of the &'7 sEuareeters of the sub?ect propert to the plaintiff Creferrin- to Ree-ia hich is part of the land

absolutel oned b the plaintiff covered b CT!T T#(6=& and to solidaril pa the plaintiffFift Thousand Pesos 3P6=,===.==4 as oral daa-es/ Ten Thousand Pesos 3P8=,===.==4as e:eplar daa-es/ Fift Thousand Pesos 3P6=,===.==4 as attornes fees and TenThousand Pesos 3P8=,===.==4 e:penses for liti-ation to the plaintiff.

SO ORD>R>D.%

On appeal, the !" reversed the decision of the RT! and ruled in favor of the spousesaldivar. In holdin- that Ree-ia sold to $il a &'7 sE portion of the lot covered b T!TNo. T#(6=&, the appellate court -ave credence to >:hibit )6,) the deed of sale presented bthe spouses aldivar to prove the transaction. The !" li5eise found that $il thereafter soldthe sub?ect propert to Dalan ho too5 actual possession thereof. * a of a docuentdenoinated as ?oint affidavit of confiration of sale e:ecuted before notar public

Francisco Vele2 on Deceber 7, 89%6, Ree-ia and her uncle, Narciso ;abunto-,confired the sale b Ree-ia of the sub?ect lot to $il and its subseEuent conveance toDalan. Per >:hibit )%,) the !" li5eise found that Dalan had declared the sub?ect lot forta:ation purposes in his nae. In 89%6, Dalan sold the sae to the spouses aldivar ho,in turn, had it re-istered in their naes for ta:ation purposes be-innin- 89+'. "lso in thesae ear, "urelio filed ith the then !FI of Misais Oriental a petition for the issuance of ane oners duplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=&, alle-in- that the oners duplicate copas lost/ the !FI -ranted the petition on March &=, 89+'. Shortl, "urelio filed ith the sae!FI another petition, this tie for the partial cancellation of T!T No. T#(6=& and for theissuance of a ne certificate of title in "urelios nae coverin- the sub?ect lot. The !FIissued an order -rantin- the petition and, on the basis thereof, the Re-ister of Deeds of!a-aan de Oro !it issued T!T No. T#8+997 coverin- the sub?ect lot in "urelios nae.

*ased on the fore-oin- factual findin-s, the appellate court upheld the spouses aldivars

onership of the sub?ect lot. The !" stated that Ree-ias clai that she did not sell thesae to $il as belied b >:hibit )6,) a deed hich shoed that she transferred onershipthereof in favor of $il. The fact that the said transaction as not annotated on Ree-iastitle as not -iven si-nificance b the !" since the lac5 of annotation ould erel affectthe ri-hts of persons ho are not parties to the said contract. The !" also held that the ?ointaffidavit of confiration of sale e:ecuted b Ree-ia and Narciso ;abunto- before a notarpublic as a valid instruent, and carried the evidentiar ei-ht conferred upon it ithrespect to its due e:ecution.+Moreover, the !" found that the notar public 3"tt. FranciscoVele24 ho notari2ed the said docuent testified not onl to its due e:ecution andauthenticit but also to the truthfulness of its contents. The contradiction beteen thetestionies of the children of Narciso ;abunto- and the notar public 3"tt. Vele24,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt7


20/86

accordin- to the !", casts doubt on the credibilit of the forer as it as ostensible thattheir version of the stor as concocted.(

The !" further accorded in favor of the ?ud-e ho issued the order for the issuance of thene oners duplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=& the presuption of re-ularit in theperforance of his official dut. It noted that the sae as issued b the !FI after due

notice and hearin-.

Moreover, prescription and laches or estoppel had alread set in a-ainst Ree-ia. Theappellate court pointed out that T!T No. T#8+997 in the nae of "urelio as issued onSepteber 8=, 89+', hile Ree-ias coplaint for annulent and reconveance ofpropert as filed ore than 8+ ears thereafter or on "u-ust 8=, 899&. !onseEuentl,Ree-ias action as barred b prescription because an action for reconveance ust befiled ithin 8= ears fro the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as aconstructive notice.9The !" also noted that the spouses aldivar constructed their houseon the sub?ect lot soe tie in 89+'#89+6, includin- a 8foot fireall ade of hollobloc5s, and Ree-ia too5 no action to prevent the said construction.

The dispositive portion of the assailed !" decision reads

R>FOR>, fore-oin- preises considered, the Deceber 7, 8999 Decision of theRe-ional Trial !ourt of Misais Oriental, !a-aan de Oro !it, in !ivil !ase No. 9'&7, isR>V>RS>D and S>T "SID> and a ne one is entered DISMISSIN$ the said civil case.

SO ORD>R>D.8=

"PP>"; OF T@> R>SPOND>NTS 3D>F>ND"NTS#"P>;;"NTS4 MOTJ PROPIO OR >PJN$IN$ T@> *RI>F FOR D>F>ND"NTS#"PP>;;"NTS FROM R>!ORD FOR F"I;JR> TO FI;> T@> R>1JIR>D *RI>F FORT@> D>F>ND"NTS#"PP>;;"NTS ON TIM> *JT *>HOND T@> ;"ST "ND FIN";>T>ND>D P>RIOD S"ID *RI>F IN VIO;"TION TOSection + and section 8&, rule '' of the revised rules of court and in contradiction to therulin- enunciated in catalina ro:as, et al. vs. court of appeals, -.r. no. ;#+%6'9, deceber8=, 89(+.

*.

in denin- the otion for reconsideration hich as filed ithin the fifteen#da re-leentarperiod in violation to the rules of court.

c.

in rulin- that the court ho ordered the issuance of ne certificate of title despite e:istence

of oners duplicate cop that as never lost has ?urisdiction over the case.

d.

in concludin- that petitioners 3Plaintiff#appellee4 clai of onership over the sub?ect lot asbarred b estoppel or laches.

e.

in concludin- that the respondents 3defendants#appellants4 are the absolute oners of thesub?ect lot based on tct no. 8+997 issued to the.

f.

in obviatin- essential and relevant facts, had it been properl appreciated, ould aintainabsolute onership of petitioner 3plaintiff#appellee4 over the sub?ect lot as evidenced be:istin- tct no. t#(6=&.88

The !ourt finds the petition eritorious.

It should be recalled that respondent "urelio aldivar filed ith the then !FI of MisaisOriental a petition for issuance of a ne oners duplicate cop of T!T No.T#(6=&, alle-in-that the oners duplicate cop as lost. In the Order dated March &=, 89+', the said !FI-ranted the petition and conseEuentl, a ne oners duplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=&as issued.

@oever, as the trial court correctl held, the !FI hich -ranted respondent "ureliospetition for the issuance of a ne oners duplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=& did not acEuire?urisdiction to issue such order. It has been consistentl ruled that )hen the onersduplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of anotherperson, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered thedecision had no ?urisdiction. Reconstitution can validl be ade onl in case of loss of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt11


21/86

ori-inal certificate.)8&In such a case, the decision authori2in- the issuance of a ne onersduplicate certificate of title a be attac5ed an tie.87

The ne oners duplicate T!T No. T#(6=& issued b the !FI upon the petition filed brespondent "urelio is thus void. "s Ree-ia averred durin- her testion, the onersduplicate cop of T!T No. T#(6=& as never lost and as in her possession fro the tie it

as issued to her

1 " hile a-o, ou said that ou ere issued a title in 89%(, can ou tell the @onorable!ourt ho as in possession of the titleG

" I a the one in possession and I a the one 5eepin- the title.

1 >ven up to the presentG

" Hes, Sir.

1 n-lish in this ise

BOINT "FFID"VIT OF !ONFIRM"TION OF S";>8(

M>$I" H"P> D> F>;I!I"NO, both of le-al a-e,Filipino citi2ens and residents of ;apasan, !a-aan de Oro !it, Philippines, after bein-dul sorn accordin- to la, depose and sa

8. That the late FR"N!IS!O ;"*JNTO$ is our coon ancestor, the undersi-nedN"R!ISO ;"*JNTO$ bein- one of his sons and the undersi-ned R>M>$I" H"P> D>F>;I!I"NO bein- the dau-hter of the late >iliana ;abunto-, sister of Narciso ;abunto-/

&. That after his death, the late Francisco ;abunto- left behind a parcel of land 5non as;ot No. &8%% !#& of the !a-aan !adastre situated at ;apasan, !it of !a-aan de Oro,Philippines hich is bein- adinistered b the undersi-ned Narciso ;abunto- under Ta:Decl. No. &+%77/

7. That the entire !adastral ;ot No. &8%% !#& has been subdivided and apportioned aon-the heirs of the late Francisco ;abunto-, both of the undersi-ned affiants havin-participated and shared in the said propert, Ree-ia Hape de Feliciano havin- inheritedthe share of her other >iliana ;abunto-, sister of Narciso ;abunto-/

'. That on "pril ', 8968, Ree-ia Hape de Feliciano sold a portion of her share to oneI-nacio $il and hich portion is ore particularl described and bounded as follos

)On the North for 87 eters b "-ustin !abaraban/

On the South for 87 eters b "ntonio *aban-a/

On the >ast for 8( eters b !lotilde Hape/ and

On the


22/86

Oro !it and that since 89%= up to the present, the said Pio Dalan has been incontinuous, open, adverse and e:clusive possession of the propert acEuired b hi inconcept of oner/

%. That e hereb affir, ratif and confir the acEuisition of the above described portionacEuired b Pio Dalan inasuch as the sae is bein- used b hi as his residence and

fail hoe and e hereb reEuest the Office of the !it "ssessor to se-re-ate this portionfro our Ta: Decl. No. &+%77 and that a ne ta: declaration be issued in the nae of PIOD";M"N ebracin- the area acEuired and occupied b hi.

IN SS R>OF, e have hereunto affi:ed our si-natures on this 7rd da ofDeceber, 89%6 at !a-aan de Oro !it, Philippines.

3S$D.4 Narciso ;abunto- 3S$D.4Ree-ia Hape de Feliciano

N"R!ISO ;"*JNTO$ R>M>$I" H"P> D> F>;I!I"NO

"ffiant "ffiant

SJ*S!RI*>D S;>

Notar Public

@oever, based on Ree-ias testion, she could not read and understand >n-lish

!OJRT

!an ou read >n-lishG

" No, I cannot read and understand >n-lish.

"TTH. ;>$"SPI

1


23/86

Respondents clai that the had been occupin- the sub?ect lot since 89'+ openl,publicl, adversel and continuousl or for over '8 ears is unavailin-. In a lon- line ofcases,&&the !ourt has consistentl ruled that lands covered b a title cannot be acEuired bprescription or adverse possession. " clai of acEuisitive prescription is baseless hen theland involved is a re-istered land folloin- "rticle 88&% &7 of the !ivil !ode in relation toSection '% of "ct No. '9% or the ;and Re-istration "ct 3no Section '+&'of P.D. No 86&94

"ppellants clai of acEuisitive prescription is li5eise baseless. Jnder "rticle 88&% of the!ivil !ode, prescription of onership of lands re-istered under the ;and Re-istration "ctshall be -overned b special las. !orrelativel, "ct No. '9% provides that no title tore-istered land in dero-ation of that of the re-istered oner shall be acEuired b adversepossession. !onseEuentl, proof of possession b the defendants is both iaterial andinconseEuential.&6

Neither can the respondents spouses aldivar rel on the principle of indefeasibilit of T!TNo. 8++97 hich as issued on Septeber 8=, 89+' in favor of respondent "urelio. "s it is,the sub?ect lot is covered b to different titles T!T No. T#(6=& in Ree-ias naecoverin- an area of ''' sE includin- therein the sub?ect lot, and T!T No. 8++97 in thenae of respondent "urelio coverin- the sub?ect lot. "urelios title over the sub?ect lot hasnot becoe indefeasible, b virtue of the fact that T!T No. T#(6=& in the nae of Ree-ia

has reained valid. The folloin- disEuisition is apropos

The clai of indefeasibilit of the petitioners title under the Torrens land title sste ouldbe correct if previous valid title to the sae parcel of land did not e:ist. The respondent hada valid title : : : It never parted ith it/ it never handed or delivered to anone its onersduplicate of the transfer certificate of title/ it could not be char-ed ith ne-li-ence in the5eepin- of its duplicate certificate of title or ith an act hich could have brou-ht about theissuance of another certificate upon hich a purchaser in -ood faith and for value could rel.If the petitioners contention as to indefeasibilit of his title should be upheld, then re-isteredoners ithout the least fault on their part could be divested of their title and deprived oftheir propert. Such disastrous results hich ould sha5e and destro the stabilit of landtitles had not been foreseen b those ho had endoed ith indefeasibilit land titlesissued under the Torrens sste.&%

Ree-ias T!T No. T#(6=&, thus, prevails over respondent "urelios T!T No. 8++97,especiall considerin- that, as earlier opined, the latter as correctl nullified b the RT! asit eanated fro the ne oners duplicate T!T No. T#(6=&, hich in turn, respondent"urelio as able to procure throu-h fraudulent eans.

!ontrar to the appellate courts holdin-, laches has not set in a-ainst Ree-ia. She ereltolerated the occupation b the respondents of the sub?ect lot

1 Hou also stated in the direct that the defendants in this case, Mr. and Mrs. aldivar, ereissued a title over a portion of this land hich ou described a hile a-oG

"


24/86

1


25/86

propert at an tie as lon- as the possession as unauthori2ed or erel tolerated, if atall. This ri-ht is never barred b laches.&(

Nonetheless, the !ourt is not unindful of the fact that respondents had built their house onthe sub?ect lot and, despite 5noled-e thereof, Ree-ia did not lift a fin-er to prevent it."rticle '67 of the !ivil !ode is applicable to their case

"RT. '67. If there as bad faith, not onl on the part of the person ho built, planted orsoed on the land of another, but also on the part of the oner of such land, the ri-hts ofone and the other shall be the sae as thou-h both had acted in -ood faith.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landoner henever the act asdone ith his 5noled-e and ithout opposition on his part.

Jnder the circustances, respondents and Ree-ia are in utual bad faith and, as such,ould entitle the forer to the application of "rticle ''( of the !ivil !ode -overnin- buildersin -ood faith

"RT. ''(. The oner of the land on hich anthin- has been built, son or planted in -ood

faith, shall have the ri-ht to appropriate as his on the or5s, soin- or plantin-, afterpaent of the indenit provided for in "rticles 6'% &9and 6'(,7=or to obli-e the one hobuilt or planted to pa the price of the land, and the one ho soed, the proper rent.@oever, the builder or planter cannot be obli-ed to bu the land if its value is considerablore than that of the buildin- or trees. In such a case, he shall pa reasonable rent, if theoner of the land does not choose to appropriate the buildin- or trees after the properindenit. The parties shall a-ree upon the ters of the lease and in case of disa-reeent,the court shall fi: the ters thereof.

Folloin- the above provision, the oner of the land on hich anthin- has been built, sonor planted in -ood faith shall have the ri-ht to appropriate as his on the buildin-, plantin-or soin-, after paent to the builder, planter or soer of the necessar and usefule:penses, and in the proper case, e:penses for pure lu:ur or ere pleasure.78

The oner of the land a also obli-e the builder, planter or soer to purchase and pa theprice of the land. If the oner chooses to sell his land, the builder, planter or soer ustpurchase the land, otherise the oner a reove the iproveents thereon. Thebuilder, planter, or soer, hoever, is not obli-ed to purchase the land if its value isconsiderabl ore than the buildin-, plantin- or soin-. In such case, the builder, planter orsoer ust pa rent to the oner of the land. If the parties cannot coe to ters over theconditions of the lease, the court ust fi: the ters thereof. 7&

The ri-ht to choose beteen appropriatin- the iproveent or sellin- the land on hich theiproveent of the builder, planter or soer stands, is -iven to the oner of the land, 77

Ree-ia, in this case, ho is no substituted b petitioners as her heirs.

!onseEuentl, the petitioners are obli-ed to e:ercise either of the folloin- options 384 toappropriate the iproveents, includin- the house, built b the respondents on the sub?ectlot b pain- the indenit reEuired b la, or 3&4 sell the sub?ect lot to the respondents.Petitioners cannot refuse to e:ercise either option and copel respondents to reove theirhouse fro the land.7' In case petitioners choose to e:ercise the second option,respondents are not obli-ed to purchase the sub?ect lot if its value is considerabl ore thanthe iproveents thereon and in hich case, respondents ust pa rent to petitioners. If

the are unable to a-ree on the ters of the lease, the court shall fi: the ters thereof.

In li-ht of the fore-oin- disEuisition, the !ourt finds it unnecessar to resolve the proceduralissues raised b petitioners.

R>FOR>, the petition is $R"NT>D. The Decision dated Bul 78, &==7 and Resolutiondated Februar ', &==' of the !ourt of "ppeals in !"#$.R. !V No. %%688 are R>V>RS>Dand S>T "SID>. The Decision dated Deceber 7, 8999 of the Re-ional Trial !ourt of!a-aan de Oro !it, *ranch &6 in !ivil !ase No. 9'&7 is R>INST"T>D ith theMODIFI!"TION that petitioners are li5eise ordered to e:ercise the option under "rticle''( of the !ivil !ode.

SO ORD>R>D.

Panganiban, C.J., C%airperson, $nares9Santiago, Austria9#artinez, C%ico9Nazario, J.J.,

concur.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_162593_2006.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_16

Documents

LAnt Titties