8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

1/16

Before us for resolution are three petitions for review on certiorari: [1]

1. G.R. No. 123346

The petition in this case was filed by Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation against CLT Real

Development Corporation assailing the Decision[2]dated September 28, 1995 and Resolution dated January 8, 1996 of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45255;

2. G.R. No. 134385

The petition was filed by Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. against Jose B. Dimson (now deceased), represented by h

surviving spouse and children, and the Registry of Deeds of Malabon, challenging the Joint Decision[3]dated May 30, 1997 anResolution dated July 16, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41883 and CA-G.R. SP No. 34819; and

3. G.R. No. 148767

The petition here was filed by Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc. against CLT Realty Development Corporati

questioning the Decision[4]of the Court of Appeals dated March 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52549.

On March 6, 2002, these petitions were consolidated[5] as the issue involved is the validity of the parties titles ovportions of land known as the Maysilo Estate located at Caloocan City and Malabon, Metro Manila, covered by Original Certificate

Title OCT) No. 994 o

f the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City. It is this sameOCT No. 994

from which the titles of the parties wepurportedly derived.

We shall state the antecedents of these cases separately considering their peculiar circumstances.

1. G.R. No. 123346

(Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation, petitioners, vs. CLT Realty Development

Corporation

, respondents)

On August 10, 1992,CLT Realty Development Corporation

(CLT Realty

) filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12Caloocan City a complaint for annulment of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT), recovery of possession, and damages again

Manotok Realty, Inc. andManotok Estate Corporation (Manotok Corporations) and the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City, docketas Civil Case No. C-15539.

The complaint alleges inter alia that CLT Realty(plaintiff) is the registered owner of Lot 26of the Maysilo Estate locat

in Caloocan City, covered by TCT No. T-177013of the Registry of Deeds of said city; that this TCT was originally derived from OCNo. 994;that on December 10, 1988, CLT Realty acquired Lot 26 from its former registered owner, Estelita I. Hipolito, by virtue oDeed of Sale with Real Estate Mortgage; that she, in turn, purchased the same lot from

Jose B. Dimson

; that Manotok Corporatio

(defendants) illegally took possession of 20 parcels of land (covered by 20 separate titles[6]) within said Lot 26 owned by C

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

2/16

Realty; that based on the technical descriptions of Manotok Corporations titles, their property overlapor embrace Lot 26 of CL

Realty; and that the titles of Manotok Corporations constitute a cloud of doubt over the title of CLT Realty. The latter thus prays ththe 20 titles of Manotok Corporations be cancelled for being void; and that Manotok Corporations be ordered to vacate the disputportions of Lot 26 and turn over possession thereof to CLT Realty, and to pay damages.

In their answer with counterclaim, Manotok Corporations denied the material allegations of the complaint, alleging thJose B. Dimsons title (TCT No. R-15166) was irregularly issued, hence void; and that consequently, the titles of Estelita Hipoli

(TCT No. R-17994) and CLT Realty (TCT No. 177013) derived therefrom are likewise void. By way of affirmative defense, Manot

Corporations assert ownership of the parcel of land being claimed by CLT Realty, alleging that they acquired the same from thawardees or vendees of the National Housing Authority.

During the pre-trial conference, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, approved the creation of a commissiocomposed of three commissioners tasked to resolve the conflict in their respective titles. On July 2, 1993, the trial court issued Order[7]defining the issues to be resolved by the commissioners, thus:

1. Whether or not the property covered by the Transfer Certificates of Title of defendants(Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation) pertain to or involved Lot No. 26 of the MaysiloEstate presently titled in the name of the plaintiff (CLT Realty Development Corporation); and

2. Whether or not the property covered by the title of the plaintiff and the property covered bythe titles of the defendants overlap.[8]

The commissioners chosen were Engr. Avelino L. San Buenaventura (nominated by CLT Realty), Engr. Teodoro

Victorino (nominated by Manotok Corporations), and Engr. Ernesto S. Erive (chosen by the two commissioners and the parties)Significantly, Engr. Ernesto Erive is the Chief of the Surveys Division, Land Management Bureau, Department of Environment an

Natural Resources DENR), Quezon City.[9] On July 2, 1993, the three took their oaths of office in open court.

On October 8, 1993, Ernesto Erive and Avelino San Buenaventura submitted an exhaustive Joint Final Report[1

(Majority Report) with the following conclusion:

h. Based on the foregoing, it is the conclusion of the undersigned Commissioners thatdefendants (Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation) titles overlap portions of plaintiffs(CLT Realty Development Corporation) title, which overlapping is due to the irregular and questionableissuance of TCT Nos. 4211 (also of TCT No. 4210), 5261, 35486, 1368 to 1374. The inherent technicaldefects on TCT No. 4211 (from where defendants derive their titles) and TCT No. 4210 which were

exhaustively elucidated above, point to the fact that there was no approved subdivision of Lot 26 whichserved as legal basis for the regular issuance of TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211. Thus, as between plaintiffstitle, which was derived from regularly issued titles, and defendants titles, which were derived fromirregularly issued titles, plaintiffs title which pertains to the entire Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate shouldprevail over defendants titles.

On the other hand, Teodoro Victoriano submitted his Individual Final Report[11](Minority Report) dated October 2

1993 with the following findings:

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

3/16

f. That viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations, there is no question that thedifferent parcels of land which are covered by defendants transfer certificates of title in question areparts of Lot 26 of then Maysilo Estate;

g. That on the basis of the technical descriptions appearing on the certificates of titles of thedefendants, it is ascertained that the parcels of land covered therein overlap portions of the parcel ofland which is covered by the plaintiffs certificate of title.

The trial court then scheduled the hearing of the two Reports. CLT Realty filed its objections to the Minority Report. Fits part, Manotok Corporations submitted their comment/objections to the Majority Report.

On February 8, 1994, the trial court issued an Order directing the parties to file their respective memoranda to enabthis court to adopt wholly or partially the memorandum for either as the judgment herein , x x x.[12]

On April 6, 1994, Manotok Corporations submitted their Memorandum praying that the trial court approve the MinoriReport and render judgment in their favor.

CLT Realty likewise filed its Memorandum on April 15, 1994 praying that the Majority Report be approved in toto,a

that judgment be rendered pursuant thereto.

In its Order of April 22, 1994, the trial court considered the case submitted for decision.[13]

On May 10, 1994, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff (CLTRealty) and against defendants (Manotok Corporations) as follows:

1. Ordering the annulment and cancellation of defendants Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.4210 and 4211 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City which encroach on plaintiffs 201,288 squaremeters of Lot No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City;

2. Ordering defendants to vacate said 201,288 square meters of Lot No. 26 registered inthe name of plaintiff;

3. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P201,288.00annually from March 15, 1989, as reasonable compensation for defendants occupancy and use of the201,288 square meters involved in this case until the area is vacated;

4. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs counsel (Villaraza & Cruz LawOffice) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; and

5. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs of suit.

Defendants Counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit.

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

4/16

SO ORDERED.

The findings of fact and conclusions contained in the Majority Report, which the trial court adopted in its Decision, a

quoted as follows:

7. That the following facts were established by the undersigned Commissioners:

a. Records show that Maysilo Estate was surveyed under Plan No. Psu-2345 onSeptember 8 to 27, October 4 to 21 and November 17 to 18, 1991;

b. That on the basis of the Decision rendered on December 3, 1912 by Hon. NorbertoRomualdez in Land Registration Case No. 4429 pursuant to which the Decree No. 36455 wasissued and the approved plan Psu-2345,the Maysilo Estatewas registered under Republic Act No.496 and Original Certificate of Title No. 994, OCT-994, was issued by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal,covering 34 parcels of land, Lots 1 to 6, 7-A, 8 to 15, 17 to 22, 23-A, 24, 25-A, 25-D and 26 to 33, all ofPsu-2345.

c. The original copy of OCT-994 in its original form although dilapidated is on file at theRegistry of Deeds of Caloocan City;

d. That according to the documents submitted by the plaintiff, TCT-177013in the name ofplaintiff CLT Realty Development Corporationspecifically describes the parcel of land covered by itstitle as Lot 26, Maysilo Estate. TCT-177013 was a transfer from TCT-R-17994registered in thename of Estelita Hipolitowhich in turn is a transfer from TCT-R-15166registered in the name of JoseB. Dimsonwhich also is a transfer from OCT-994. TCT-R-17994 and TCT-R-15166 also specificallydescribe the parcel of land covered by the titles as Lot 26, Maysilo Estate;

e. That defendant Manotok Realty Inc.s properties are covered by TCT Nos. 7528, 7762,8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405, 26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-35267, 41956, 53268,55896, T-1214528, 163902 and 165119, while defendant Manotok Estate Corporations property iscovered by TCT No. T-232568, all of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City.

f. That on the basis of the technical descriptions on the titles of defendants, the parcels ofland covered therein overlapportions of the parcel of land covered by plaintiffs title;

g. That according to the documents of defendants, Lot 26 was apparently subdivided whichled to the issuance of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 4210 and 4211 which were registered onSeptember 9, 1918 in the names of Messrs. Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio. All of defendantstitles are derived from TCT No. 4211.

h. The original copy of OCT-994 does not contain the pages where Lot 26 and some otherlots are supposedly inscribed;

i. TCT No. 4211 was later cancelled by TCT No. 5261 in the name of Francisco J.

Gonzales which was later cancelled by TCT No. 35486 in the names of Jose Leon Gonzales, ConsueloSusana Gonzales, Juana Francisca Gonzales, Maria Clara Gonzales, Francisco Felipe Gonzales andConcepcion Maria Gonzales;

j. Upon examination of the original copy of OCT-994, it can be seen that the technicaldescriptions of the lots and the certificate itself are entirely written in the English language. Onthe other hand, it was noticed that the technical descriptions on TCT Nos. 4211 (as well as TCTNo. 4210) 5261 and 35486 are inscribed in the Spanish language in these certificates;

k. The dates of the original survey of the mother title OCT-994 (September 8-27,October 4-21 and November 17-18, 1911) are not indicated on TCT Nos. 4211 (also on TCT No.4210), 5261 and 35486. Rather, an entirely different date, December 22, 1917, is indicated at the

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

5/16

end of the Spanish technical descriptions on TCT No. 4211 (also on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and35486;

l. The parcel of land covered by the successive titles TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486is not identified by a lot number. There is no reference or mention of Lot 26 of the MaysiloEstate in the technical description of said titles.

m. That there is no subdivision survey plan number indicated on TCT No. 4211 (alsoon TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486 covering the purported subdivision of Lot 26. Uponverification with the Bureau of Lands or in the Land Registration Authority, which are the officialdepositories of all approved survey plans, no survey plan covering said subdivision could befound;

n. The three (3) separate lots covered by TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which allegedlywere the result of the subdivision of Lot 26 were not designated or identified as Lot 26-A, Lot 26-B and Lot 26-C to conform with existing practice;

o. That it appears that the parcel of land covered by the successive titles TCT No. 4211,then 5261 and lastly 35486 was again subdivided under Plan Psu-21154. The alleged subdivisionplan Psd-21154 had seven (7) resultant lots which are issued individuals certificates, TCT Nos. 1368thru 1374, six of which are in the names of each of the six children of Francisco J. Gonzales;

p. Plan Psd-21154 appears to have been prepared on September 15, 21, 29 andOctober 5-6, 1946 according to the technical descriptions appearing on TCT Nos. 1368 thru1374;

q. TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 are written in the English language and the technicaldescriptions of the lots covered therein indicate the original survey of the mother title asSeptember 8-27, October 4-21 and November 17-18, 1911 which dates are not found in themother title TCT No. 35486 or the antecedent titles TCT No. 5261 and 4211;

r. It appears that these seven (7) properties covered by TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 werelater expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines through the Peoples Homesite and HousingCorporation (now the National Housing Authority) after which they were consolidated and subdivided

into 77 lots under (LRC) Pcs-1828 for resale to tenants. Manotok Realty, Inc. appears to be one of theoriginal vendees of said lots having acquired Lot 11-B covered by TCT No. 34255. It appears thatsome of the tenants later sold their lots to various vendees some of whom are the defendants, ManotokRealty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation;

s. That Psd-21154, the plan which allegedly subdivided the lot covered by TCT No.35486 (formerly covered by TCT No. 4211, then TCT No. 5261), could not be traced at the officialdepository of plans which is the Bureau of Lands. According to the EDPS Listings of theRecords Management Division of the Lands Management Bureau (formerly the Bureau ofLands), there is no record of the alleged plan Psd-21154. Accordingly, said EDPS listingsindicate those survey plans which were salvaged after the fire that gutted the Philippines fromthe Japanese forces. It appears, however, from TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 that psd-21154 wasdone after the war on September 15, 21, 29 and October 5-6, 1946;

t. Upon examination of the technical descriptions inscribed on TCT Nos. 1368 thru1374, it was noticed that the tie lines deviated from the mother lots tie point which is Bureau ofLands Location Monument No. 1, Caloocan City. Instead different location monuments ofadjoining Piedad Estate were used. The tie point used in TCT No. 1368 is B.M. 10, Piedad Estatewhile TCT Nos. 1369 and 1370 used B.M. No. 9, Piedad Estate; and TCT Nos. 1371, 1372, 1373and 1374 used B.M. No. 7, Piedad Estate. The changing of the tie points resulted in the shiftingof the position of the seven (7) lots do not fall exactly inside the boundary of the mother lot.The same is true when the lots described on the titles of the defendants are plotted on the basisof their technical descriptions inscribed on said titles.

8. In the light of the foregoing facts, the undersigned Commissioners have come tothe following conclusions:

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

6/16

a. There are inherent technical infirmities or defects on the face of TCT Nos. 4211(also on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486. The fact that the technical descriptions in TCT Nos.4211, 5261 and 35486 are written in Spanish while those on the alleged mother title, OCT-994,were already in English is abnormal and contrary to the usual practice in the issuance of titles.If OCT-994 is the mother title of TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486, then said titles should also bewritten in English because OCT-994 is already in English. It is possible that an ascendant titlebe written in Spanish and the descendant title in English, the language now officially used, butthe reverse is highly improbable and irregular.

b. Also, the fact that the original survey dates of OCT-994 (September 8-27, October

4-21 and November 17-18, 1911) are not indicated on the technical descriptions on TCT Nos.4211, 5261 and 35486 but an entirely different date, December 22, 1917, is instead indicatedlikewise leads to the conclusion that TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 could not have beenderived from OCT-994. It is the established procedure to always indicate in the certificate oftitle, whether original or transfer certificates, the date of the original survey of the mother titletogether with the succeeding date of subdivision or consolidation. Thus, the absence of theoriginal survey dates of OCT-994 on TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 is the original survey date ofthe mother title, then OCT-994 is not the mother title of TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 not onlybecause the original survey dates are different but because the date of original survey is alwaysearlier than the date of the issuance of the original title. OCT-994 was issued on May 3, 1917and this is much ahead of the date of survey indicated on TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which isDecember 22, 1917;

c. Granting that the date December 22, 1917 is the date of a subdivision surveyleading to the issuance of TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211, there are, however, no indications on theface of the titles themselves which show that a verified and approved subdivision of Lot 26 tookplace. In subdividing a lot, the resulting parcels are always designated by the lot number of thesubdivided lot followed by letters of the alphabet starting from the letter A to designate the firstresultant lot, etc., for example, if Lot 26 is subdivided into three (3) lots, these lots will be referred to asLot 26-A, Lot 26-N and Lot 26-C followed by a survey number such as Psd-_____ or (LRC) Psd-_____. However, the lots on TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 do not contain such descriptions. In fact,the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 are not even described by lot numberand this is again technically irregular and defective because the designation of lots by LotNumber was already a practice at that time as exemplified by the technical descriptions of somesub-lots covered by OCT-994, i.e., 23-A, 25-A, 25-D, etc.;

d. That TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which allegedly was the result of a subdivision of Lot26 should not have been issued without a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands orthe Chief of the General Land Registration Office. Republic Act No. 496 which took effect onNovember 6, 1902, particularly Section 58 thereof, provided that the Registry of Deeds shall notenter the transfer certificate to the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions orlots into which it has been subdivided, and the technical description of each portion or lot, havebeen verified and approved by the Director of Lands and as corroborated by Section 44,Paragraph 2, and that the plan has been approved by the Chief of the General Land RegistrationOffice, or by the Director of Lands as provided in Section fifty-eight of this Act, the Registry ofDeeds may issue new certificates of title for any lot in accordance with said subdivision plan;

e. The absence of a lot number and survey plan number in the technical descriptioninscribed on TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 and the absence of a subdivision survey plan for Lot 26 atthe records of the Bureau of Lands or the Land Registration Authority leads to the conclusionthat there was no verified and approved subdivision survey plan of Lot 26 which is acompulsory requirement needed in the issuance of said titles;

f. Similarly, the absence of plan Psd-21154 from the files of the Bureau of Lands, theofficial depository of survey plans, is another indication that the titles covered by TCT Nos. 1368thru 1374 which were derived from TCT No. 4211 are again doubtful and questionable;

g. Moreover, the changing of the tie points in the technical descriptions on TCT Nos. 1368thru 1374 from that of the mother lots tie point which is BLLM No. 1, Caloocan City to different locationmonuments of adjoining Piedad Estate which resulted in the shifting of the position of the seven (7) lotsin relation to the mother lot defeats the very purpose of tie points and tie lines since the accepted

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

7/16

practice is to adopt the mother lots tie point in order to fix the location of the parcels of land beingsurveyed on the earths surface.[14]

Manotok Corporations then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. For its part, CLT Realty filed a motion

amend/correct the dispositive portion of the above Decision alleging that TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 mentioned therein amistakenly referred to as the titles of Manotok Corporations; and that to conform to the body of the Decision, the correct numbeof the titles ordered to be cancelled should be indicated. In its Order dated May 30, 1994, the trial court granted the motion, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment dated May23, 1994 filed by counsel for plaintiff is granted. Accordingly, the first paragraph of the dispositiveportion of the Decision of this Court dated May 10, 1994 is amended as follows:

x x x

1. Ordering the annulment and cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 7528,7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405, 26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-35267, 41956,53268, 55897, T-121428, 163902 and 165119 in the name of defendant Manotok Realty, Inc. andTransfer Certificate of Title No. T-232568 in the name of defendant Manotok Estate Corporation of theRegistry of Deeds of Caloocan City which encroach on plaintiffs 201,288 square meters of Lot No. 26

of the Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City.

x x x.

SO ORDERED.

The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 28, 1995 in CA-G.R. CV No. 45255, affirmedthe Decision of t

trial court, except as to the award of damages which was ordered deleted, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING theDecision dated May 10, 1994, as corrected by the Order dated May 30, 1994, rendered by the trialcourt, with the modification that the award of damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee is hereby DELETED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Manotok Corporations motion for reconsideration was denied by the Appellate Court in its Resolution dated January

1996.

Hence, the present petition of Manotok Corporations. They allege in essence that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. In upholding the trial courts Decision which decided the case on the basis of theCommissioners Report; and

2. In giving imprimatur to the trial courts Decision even though the latter overlookedrelevant facts recited in the Minority Report of Commissioner Victorino and in the comment ofpetitioners on the Majority Report of Commissioners San Buenaventura and Erive, detailing the legaland factual basis which positively support the validity of petitioners title and ownership of the disputedparcels of land.

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

8/16

2.G.R. No. 134385

(Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.

, petitioner, vs. Heirs of Jose B. Dimson, represented by his compulsoryheirs: his surviving spouse, Roqueta R. Dimson and their children, Norma and Celso Tirado, Alson and Virginia

Dimson, Linda and Carlos Lagman, Lerma and Rene Policar, and Esperanza R. Dimson ; and Registry of Deeds of

Malabon, respondents)

Records show that on December 18, 1979, Jose B. Dimsonfiled with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 3

Caloocan City a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. (Araneta Institutdocketed as Civil Case No. C-8050. Dimson alleged in his amended complaint that he is the absolute owner of a parcel of la

located at Barrio Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila with an area of 50 hectares of the Maysilo Estate, covered by TCT No. R-15169the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City; that he discovered that his land has been illegally occupied by Araneta Institute; that th

latter has no legal and valid title to the land; and that Araneta Institute refused to vacate the land and remove its improvementhereon despite his repeated demands.

In its answer, Araneta Institute admitted occupying the disputed land by constructing some buildings thereon ansubdividing portions thereof, claiming that it is the absolute owner

of the land by virtue of TCT No. 737[15]and TCT No. 13574.[16] It further alleged that Dimsons title of the subject land is vohence, his complaint has no cause of action.

On May 28, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision [17]in favor of Dimson, thus:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of theplaintiff Jose B. Dimson and against defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture, ordering

1) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture and all those claiming rights and authorityunder the said defendant Araneta, to vacate the parcel of land covered by plaintiff Dimsons title TCTNo. R-15169 of the Registry of Deeds of Metro Manila, District III, Caloocan City, with a land area of

500,000 square meters, more or less; to remove all the improvements thereon; and to return fullpossession thereof to the said plaintiff Dimson.

2) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture to pay plaintiff Dimson the amount ofP20,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; and

3) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture to pay costs.

Defendant Aranetas counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

All other counterclaim against plaintiff Dimson are, likewise, hereby dismissed for lack ofmerit.

All claims of all the intervenors claiming rights against the title of plaintiff Dimson TCT R -15169 are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

This is without prejudice on the part of the intervenors Heirs of Pascual Dav id, FlorentinaDavid and Crisanta Santos to file the proper case against the proper party/parties in the proper forum, ifthey so desire.

The claim of Virgilio L. Enriquez as co-plaintiff in the instant case is dismissed for lack ofmerit.

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

9/16

SO ORDERED.[18]

Araneta Institute interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.

On May 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming the Decision of the trial court in favor

Dimson.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, in CA-G.R. CV No. 41883 (Civil Case No. C-8050 ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City), with MODIFICATION deleting the award forattorneys fees, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against defendant -appellant. CA-G.R. SP No. 34819 is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

In its Decision, the Appellate Court ruled that the title of Araneta Institute to the disputed land is a nullity, holding that: We now proceed to CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.

In its first assignment of error, defendant-appellant (Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.)contends that the trial court erred in giving more weight to plaintiffs transfer certificate of title over theland in question notwithstanding the highly dubious circumstances in which it was procured.

This validity of plaintiff-appellees (Jose B. Dimson) title is actually the meat of thecontroversy.

It was in the pursuit of this objective to nullify plaintiff-appellees title that CA-G.R. SP No.34819 was belatedly filed on August 10, 1994, long after plaintiff-appellees TCT No. R-15169 wasissued on June 8, 1978.

Unfortunately for defendant-appellant, in the light of applicable law and jurisprudence,plaintiff-appellees title must be sustained.

Plaintiff-appellees TCT No. R-15169 covers Lot 25- A-2 with an area of 500,000 squaremeters. This was derived from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917. TCT No. R-15169 wasobtained by plaintiff-appellee Jose B. Dimson simultaneously with other titles, viz: TCT Nos. 15166,15167, and 15168 by virtue of the Decision dated October 13, 1977 and Order dated October 18, 1977,in Special Proceedings No. C-732. The Order dated October 18, 1977 directed the Registry of Deedsof Caloocan City to issue in the name of Jose B. Dimson separate transfer certificate of titles for the lotcovered by plan (LRC) SWO-5268 and for the lots covered by the plans, Exhibits H, I and J.

Upon the other hand, defendant-appellant Araneta Institute of Agricultures TCT No. 13574

was derived from TCT No. 26539, while TCT No. 7784 (now TCT No. 21343) was derived from TCT No.26538. TCT No. 26538 and TCT No. 26539 were both issued in the name of Jose Rato. TCT No.26538 and TCT No. 26539 both show Decree No. 4429 and Record No. 4429.

Decree No. 4429 was issued by the Court of First Instance of Isabela. On the other hand,Record No. 4429 was issued for ordinary Land Registration Case on March 31, 1911 in CLR No.5898, Laguna (Exhs. 8, 8-A Rivera). The trial court ruled defendant-appellant Araneta Institute ofAgricultures TCT No. 13574 spurious because this title refers to a property in the Province of Isabela(RTC Decision, p. 19).

Another point, Aranetas TCT No. 13574 (Exh. 6) and 21343 are both derived from OCT No.994 registered on May 3, 1917, which was declared null and void by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

10/16

Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 783 (1992). The Supreme Courtruled: Where two certificates of title purportto include the same land, the earlier in date prevails x x x.Since the land in question has already been registered under OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, thesubsequent registration of the same land on May 3, 1919 is null and void .

In sum, the foregoing discussions unmistakably show two independent reasons why the titleof defendant-appellant Araneta Institute of Agriculture is a nullity, to wit: the factual finding that theproperty in Isabela, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the MWSScase.[19]

Araneta Institute then filed the present petition, ascribing to the Court of Appeals a long list of factual errors which may stated substantially as follows:

In CA-G.R. CV No. 41883

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the evidence presented bypetitioner Araneta Institute clearly establish the fact that it has the better right of possession over thesubject property than respondent Jose B. Dimson.

A.) There is only one Original Certificate of Title No. 994 covering theMaysilo Estate issued on May 3, 1917 pursuant to the Decree No. 36455 issued bythe Court of Land Registration on April 17, 1917.

B.) Certifications of responsible government officials tasked to preserve theintegrity of the Torrens System categorically confirm and certify that there is only oneOCT 994 issued on May 3, 1917.

C.) The Government in the exercise of its governmental function of preservingthe integrity of the torrens system initiated a fact-finding inquiry to determine thecircumstances surrounding the issuance of OCT No. 994 and its derivative titles.

D.) The Government fact-finding committee correctly found and concluded thatthere is only one OCT No. 994 issued on May 3, 1917.

E.) The Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the SenateCommittee on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement conducted anInvestigation and concluded that there is only one OCT 994 that was issued on May3, 1917.

F.) The certifications issued by the government officials, notably from the LandRegistration Authority, the Department of Justice Committee Report and the SenateCommittees Joint Report are allnewly-discovered evidence that would warrant the

holding of a new trial.[20]

3. G.R. No. 148767

(Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., petitioner, vs.CLT Realty Development Corporation, respondent)

CLT Realty is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 26of the Maysilo Estate in Caloocan City, covered bTCT No. T-177013.[21] It acquired the property on December 10, 1998 from the former registered owner Estelita I. Hipolito und

TCT No. R-17994, who in turn, acquired it from Jose B. Dimson.

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

11/16

On the other hand, Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc. (Sto. Nio Association), petitioner, is the registered owner of tw

parcels of land likewise located in Caloocan City, covered by TCT Nos. T-158373and T-158374. By virtue of these titles, Sto. NiAssociation occupied and claimed ownership over a portion of Lot 26.

Thus, on July 9, 1992, CLT Realty filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 121, Caloocan City a complaint fo

annulment of titles[22]and recovery of possession with damages against Sto. Nio Association, docketed as Civil Case No. 15491. In its complaint, CLT Realty alleged that based on the technical descriptions on the titles of Sto. Nio Association,

overlapping exists between their respective titles; and that the titles of Sto. Nio Association are void as they are derived from TC

No. 4211,[23]a forged and fictitious title.

In its answer, Sto. Nio Association denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted that its members have be

in possession of the disputed lots prior to 1987. The area had been identified by the government as slum and blighted.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts, thus:

(1) Both parties admit that the defendant (Sto. Nio Association) is presently occupying the propertycovered by TCT Nos. 158373 and 158374 located at Barrio Baesa, Caloocan City; and

(2) Both parties admit that the plaintiff (CLT) is also the registered owner of the same propertiesbeing occupied by the defendant and covered by TCT No. 177013 of the Registry of Deedsof Caloocan City.

Resolving the issue of whose title to the disputed land is valid, the trial court, on September 28, 1995, rendered

Decision in favor of Sto. Nio Association and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-177013 in the name of CLT Realty.

However, upon motion for reconsideration by CLT Realty, the trial court, in its Amended Decision dated February 12, 199granted the motion, rendered judgment in favor of CLT Realty, and ordered the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-158373 and 158374, both in the name of Sto. Nio Association, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTEDand judgment is accordingly rendered in favor of the plaintiff CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION and against the defendant STO. NIO KAPITBAHAYAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both in the name of the defendant.The defendants counterclaim is hereby dismissed for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[24]

The Amended Decision is anchored on the trial courts finding that, based on the evidence, there was fraud in th

issuance of TCT No. 4211 from which Sto. Nio Associations titles were derived. The irregularities which attended such issuanwere discussed lengthily by the court a quo as follows:

The court finds the motion meritorious.

The conflict stems from the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants titles overlap each other,hence, a determination of the respective origins of such titles is of utmost importance.

TCT No. T-177013 in the name of the plaintiff was derived from R-17994 T-89 in the nameof Estelita Hipolito which title can trace its origin from OCT 994. The boundaries of OCT 994 known as

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

12/16

Lot No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate are the same as that of the plaintiffs titles.

On the other hand, TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both in the name of thedefendants, are the latest in a series of titles which descend from TCT No. 4211. A trace of the historyof TCT No. 4211 reveals that it was succeeded by TCT No. 5261 which was in turn succeeded by TCTNo. 35486. TCT No. 35486 was allegedly subdivided into seven lots covered by TCT Nos. 1368 to1374. One or two of these subdivided lots were the predecessors of the defendants titles.

It behooves this court to address the issue of whether or not TCT No. 4211 fromwhich the defendants titles were originally derived can validly trace its origin from OCT 994.

There is pervasive evidence that TCT No. 4211 could not have been a true derivativeof OCT No. 994.

Firstly, the survey dates indicated in OCT No. 994 are September 8-27, October 8-21and November 17-18, all in the year 1911. On the other hand, these dates of original survey areconspicuously missing in TCT No. 4211 contrary to established procedure that the originalsurvey dates of the mother title should be indicated in succeeding titles. Instead, anexamination of TCT No. 4211 reveals a different date on its face. This date, December 22, 1971,could not be an original survey date because it differs from those indicated in the mother title.Of equal importance is the fact that the date of original survey always comes earlier than thedate of the issuance of the mother title. Since OCT No. 994 was issued on April 19, 1917, it is

highly irregular that the original survey was made only several months later or only onDecember 22, 1917.

Neither is the Court inclined to consider this date as the date a subdivision survey wasmade. The regular procedure is to identify the subdivided lots by their respective survey or lotnumbers, on the contrary, no such lot number is found in TCT No. 4211, pointing to the inevitableconclusion that OCT No. 994 was never validly subdivided into smaller lots, of which one of them iscovered by TCT No. 4211.

Secondly, the assertion that TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374 which preceded the defendantstitles were issued pursuant to subdivision plan PSD 21154 is not supported by the evidence.The Land Management Bureau which handles survey plans has no records of the said PSD21154. The Registry of Deeds of Rizal has a copy of the plan but the court finds suchpossession questionable since the Land Registration Authority which supervises the Registry ofDeeds does not have a copy of the same. The court therefore believes that the issuance of TCTNos. 1368 to 1374 is attended by a serious irregularity which cannot be ignored as it affects thevery validity of the alleged subdivisions of the land covered by TCT No. 35486.

Thirdly, the language of the technical descriptions of the land covered by OCT No.994 is already in English, while its alleged derivative titles TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 arestill in Spanish. This is in direct violation of the practice that the language used in the mothertitle is adopted by all its derivative titles. The reversion to Spanish in the derivative titles ishighly intriguing and casts a cloud of doubt to the genuineness of such titles.

Fourthly, the tie points used in the mother lot were not adopted by the alleged

derivative titles particularly TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374, the immediate predecessors of thedefendants titles. The pivotal role of tie points cannot be brushed aside as a change thereof couldresult to the shifting of positions of the derivative lots in relation to the mother lot. Consequently,overlapping could take place as in fact it did when the defendants titles overlapped that of CLT at thenorthwestern portion of the latters property.

Fifthly, the results of laboratory analysis conducted by a Forensic Chemist of the NBIrevealed that TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 were estimated to be fifty (50) years old as of March 1993when the examination was conducted. Hence, the documents could have been prepared only in1940 and not in 1918 as appearing on the face of TCT No. 4211.

Based on the foregoing patent irregularities, the court finds the attendance of fraud inthe issuance of TCT No. 4211 and all its derivative titles which preceded the defendants titles.

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

13/16

Evidently, TCT No. 4211 cannot be validly traced from OCT No. 994. Being void ab ini t io, it didnot give rise to any transmissible rights with respect to the land purportedly invalid, andresultantly, the defendants, being the holders of the latest derivatives, cannot assert any right ofownership over the lands in question. The void ab ini t io land titles issued cannot ripen intoprivate ownership. (Republ ic vs . Interm ediate Ap pel late Cour t, 209 SCRA 90)

x x x

The courts findings are consistent with a ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR No. 45255entitled CLT Realty Development Corp. vs. Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. promulgated on September 28,1995, affirming the decision of the mother branch of this court ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos.4210 and 4211 which encroached on a specific area of Lot No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate, CaloocanCity. This court is also aware that on January 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion forReconsideration of the defendants in the aforementioned case for lack of merit. [25] (underscoringsupplied)

The above Amended Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated May 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV N52549, thus:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed Decision, We AFFIRM the same.

Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[26]

Hence, the present petition based on the following assigned errors:

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THEAMENDED DECISION OF THE COURTA QUO.

2. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IS PREMISED ONTHE MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS OF THE COURTA QUO.

3. ASSUMING ARGUENDO, WITHOUT NECESSARILY ADMITTING THAT THEARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT ARE UNAVAILING, THERE ARE SUPERVENING FACTS ANDEVENTS, SHOULD THIS HONORABLE COURT CONSIDER THE SAME, THAT WOULD WARRANTTHE REVERSAL OF THE CHALLENGED DECISION AND WILL IMPEL A DIFFERENTCONCLUSION.[27]

In sum, the three instant petitions assail the validity of: (1)TCT No. R-15169

of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City in t

name of Jose B. Dimson, covering Lot 25-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate;[28]and (2) TCT No. T-177013of the same Registry of Deeds

the name of CLT Development Corporation, covering Lot 26, also of the Maysilo Estate.[29]

In the meantime, petitioners Manotok filed with this Court two separate Manifestations stating that a (1) Report of the FaFinding Committee dated August 28, 1997 composed of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Land Registration Authority and the Offiof the Solicitor General, and (2) Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998 were issued by the DOJ and the SenateBoth reports conclude that there is only one OCT No. 994issued, transcribed and registered on May 3, 1917.

The respondents in these cases vehemently opposed the said Manifestations alleging, among others, that the same a

nothing but a crude attempt to circumvent and ignore time -honored judicial procedures and sabotage the orderly administration justice by using alleged findings in the alleged reports prepared by the DOJ and the Senate Committee that were never presente

before the trial courts to obtain a reversal of the questioned Decisions. At the very least, said procedure is highly irregul

improper and contrary to the dictates of due process.[30]

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

14/16

Summary of the Contentions of the Parties

I. G.R. No. 123346

Petitioners Manotok Corporations mainly contend that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the lower courDecision which was rendered without conducting trial for the reception of evidence. It merely relied on the technical report of tcommissioners appointed by the court based on the parties nomination. They (petitioners) were thus denied due process as th

were not able to present evidence in a full-blown trial.

Respondent CLT Realty, on the other hand, maintains that the factual findings of the commissioners are supported

evidence. The contending parties were accorded due process because they submitted their respective evidence to tcommissioners in the course of the proceedings. The same evidence became the basis of their Majority and Minority Reports. T

two Reports were later heard and passed upon by the trial court.

Respondent CLT Realty adds that the Decision of the trial court, upheld by the Court of Appeals, complies with the requireme

of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution since it clearly and distinctly expresses the facts and the law upon which it is based.

II. G.R. 134385

Petitioner Araneta Institute basically submits that the case of MWSS vs. CA[31]cited in the Decision dated May 30, 1997 of th

Court of Appeals is inapplicable to the present case. In that case, it upheld TCT No. 15167 of Dimson derived from OCT 994 issuand registered earlier, or on April 19, 1917. Whereas, the MWSS title was derived from OCT 994 issued and registered later, or oMay 3, 1917. The Appellate Court erred when it relied on MWSS vs. CA.[32]

On the other hand, respondents heirs of Dimson counter that the validity of Dimsons title, TCT No. 15167, has beupheld by this Court in MWSS case.

III. G.R. No. 148767

Like petitioner Araneta Institute in G.R. No. 134385 and petitioners Manotok Corporations in G.R. No. 123346, petitioner StNio Association contends that there are supervening facts and events that transpired after the trial court rendered its AmendeDecision that if considered will result in a different conclusion. These are the two Reports of the DOJ and Senate Fact-Findi

Committees that there is only one OCT No. 994 issued on May 3, 1917. Thus, with a new trial, and with the presentation of theReports as evidence, it could be shown that the titles of Jose Dimson and CLT Realty are void.

Ruling of the Court

The present petitions must fail.

At the outset, it bears stressing that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction ovcases brought to us from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by said court. TSupreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our function to review

factual

issues and examine, evaluate or weigh t

probative value of the evidence presented by the parties.[33] We arenot bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidenalready considered in the proceedings below.[34]

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

15/16

Here, the paramount question being raised in the three petitions is whether TCT No. 15169issued in the name of Jose

Dimson and TCT No. 177013 issued in the name of CLT are valid. Undoubtedly, such issue is a pure question of fact

a mattbeyond our power to determine.

Where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial courts are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the sam

are accorded the highest degree of respect and, generally, will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusi

on this Court.[35]

Be that as it may, to reinforce our conclusion, we shall still proceed to discuss why the present petitions have no merit

As regards G.R. No. 123346 (Man otok Corporations vs CLT Realty

,

involving Lot 26), the trial court acted properly whenadopted the Majority Report of the commissioners as part and parcel of its Decision. That is allowed in Section 11, Rule 32 of th

Revised Rules of Court (now the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended), quoted below:

SEC. 11. Hearing upon report. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) daysreferred to in the preceding section, the report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall renderjudgment by adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in partor it may receive furtherevidence or may recommit it with instructions. (underscoring supplied)

The case of overlapping of titles necessitates the assistance of experts in the field of geodetic engineering. The vereason why commissioners were appointed by the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, was precisely to make an evaluati

and analysis of the titles in conflict with each other. Given their background, expertise and experience, these commissioners area better position to determine which of the titles is valid. Thus, the trial court may rely on their findings and conclusions.

It bears stressing that the parties opted to submit the case for decision on the bases, among others, of their respecti

objections/comments on the commissioners reports.

Thus, petitioners Manotok Corporations, under the doctrine of estoppel, cannot now be permitted to assail the Decisioof the trial court which turned out to be adverse to them and insist that it should have conducted further reception of eviden

before rendering its judgment on the case.

We note further that while petitioners assail the trial courts Decision as being premature, however , they also assert ththe said court should have adopted the Minority Report which is favorable to them. Certainly, we cannot countenance their act

adopting inconsistent postures as this is a mockery of justice.

We noted in the beginning of this Decision that the issue in all these three (3) cases involves the validity of the partieoverlapping titles. The titles of the respondents in these cases were derived from OCT No. 994 of the Registry of Deeds of CaloocCity registered on April 19, 1917. The validity of such mother title has already been upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 103558, MWvs. Court of Appeals, et al.dated November 17, 1992[36] earlier cited in the assailed Decisions. Significantly, the ruling in MWSwas reiterated in G.R. No. 96259, Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appealsdated September 3, 1996.[37]

We cannot delve anymore into the correctness of the Decision of this Court in MWSS. The said Decision, confirming the valid

of OCT No. 994 issued on April 19, 1917 from which the titles of the respondents in the cases at bar were derived, has long becom

final and executory. Nothing is more settled in law than that once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable an

unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it by the highest court of the land.[38]

The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, an

8/21/2019 Manotok vs CLT (2005)

16/16

that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law

otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in thenforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. [39]

Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party likewise has th

correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his case. We held that "a final judgment vests in the prevailing party a rigrecognized and protected by law under the due process clause of the Constitution. . . .

final judgment is a vested interest which it

right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the individual could not be deprived arbitrari

without injustice."[40] In the present cases, the winning parties, respondents herein, must not be deprived of the fruits of a finverdict.

Finally, we cannot consider the alleged newly-discovered evidence consisting of the DOJ and Senate Fact-FindinCommittee Reports invoked by petitioners herein. Certainly, such committee reports cannot override the Decisions of the tr

courts and the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of respondents titles in th ese cases. The said Decisions were rendered aft

the opposing parties have been accorded due process. It bears stressing that the courts have the constitutional duty to adjudica

legal disputes properly brought before them. The DOJ and Senate, or any other agencies of the Government for that matter, haclearly distinguishable roles from that of the Judiciary. Just as overlapping of titles of lands is abhorred, so is the overlapping findings of facts among the different branches and agencies of the Government. This we unmistakably stressed in Agan, Jr., et al. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., et al,[41] thus:

Finally, the respondent Congressmen assert that at least two (2) committee reports by the Houseof Representatives found the PIATCO contracts valid and contend that this Court, by taking cognizanceof the cases at bar, reviewed an action of a co-equal body. They insist that the Court must respect thefindings of the said committees of the House of Representatives. With due respect, we cannotsubscribe to their submission.There is a fundamental difference between a case in court and aninvestigation of a congressional committee. The purpose of a judicial proceeding is to settle thedispute in controversy by adjudicating the legal rights and obligations of the parties to thecase. On the other hand, a congressional investigation is conducted in aid of legislation(Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950). Its aim is to assist and recommend to thelegislature a possible action that the body may take with regard to a particular issue, specifically as towhether or not to enact a new law or amend an existing one. Consequently, this Court cannot treat

the findings in a congressional committee report as binding because the facts elicited incongressional hearings are not subject to the rigors of the Rules of Court on admissibility ofevidence. The Court in assuming jurisdiction over the petitions at bar simply performed itsconstitutional duty as the arbiter of legal disputes properly brought before it, especially in this instancewhen public interest requires nothing less. (Underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE

, the instant petitions areDENIED

and the assailed Decisions and Resolutions of the Court of Appeals a

hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.