LTD Cases
LTD Cases
LTD Cases
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16761
After notice and publication, initial hearing was held on June 20, 1957.
The Director of Lands and Bureau of Public Highways filed written
oppositions. Thirty-five individuals appeared and expressed verbal
oppositions. All persons, ,except the abovementioned oppositors, were
declared in default on July 8, 1957.
On July 24, 1958 applicants started presenting evidence and the
private oppositors were given five days to file written opposition (Tsn.,
p. 5). Of the oppositors 28 filed written but unverified opposition on July
29, 1958. On August 20, 1958 applicants finished adducing evidence
and rested their case.
On August 27, 1958 the private oppositors presented their first witness.
After his cross-examination, counsel for applicants called the Court's
attention to the lack of verification in the opposition filed by the private
oppositors and moved to dismiss the same.
The private oppositors offered to verify their opposition. After parties
had filed memoranda, the court issued an order on January 13, 1959
dismissing the unverified opposition, without pronouncement as to
costs (Rec. on Appeal, p. 26). Motion for reconsideration was denied
by order dated November 18, 1959. The private oppositors have
appealed from both orders.
The requirement of verifying oppositors in land registration
proceedings is based on Sec. 34 of Act 496
Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the
notice or not, may appear and file an answer on or before
the return day, or within such further time as may be allowed
by the court. The answer shall state all the objections to the
application, and shall set forth the interest claimed by the
party filing the same and apply for the remedy desired, and
shall be signed and sworn to by him or by some person in
his behalf.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
In its 16 December 1999 Decision, the trial court adjudicated the land
in favor of respondent.
The trial court ruled that a juridical person or a corporation could apply
for registration of land provided such entity and its predecessors-ininterest have possessed the land for 30 years or more. The trial court
ruled that the facts showed that respondents predecessors-in-interest
possessed the land in the concept of an owner prior to 12 June 1945,
which possession converted the land to private property.
30, Land Classification Map No. 582 certified [on] 31 December 1925."
The second certification17 in the form of a memorandum to the trial
court, which was issued by the Regional Technical Director, Forest
Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR), stated "that the
subject area falls within an alienable and disposable land, Project No.
30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC No.
582."
The certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order (DAO)
No. 20,18 dated 30 May 1988, delineated the functions and authorities
of the offices within the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the
CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below
50 hectares. The Provincial Environment and Natural Resources
Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land classification status for
lands covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38,19 dated 19 April 1990,
amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series of 1990
retained the authority of the CENRO to issue certificates of land
classification status for areas below 50 hectares, as well as the
authority of the PENRO to issue certificates of land classification status
for lands covering over 50 hectares.20 In this case, respondent applied
for registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by Lot 10705-B is
over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate
covered the entire Lot 10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters
which, as per DAO No. 38, series of 1990, is beyond the authority of
the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable.
The Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority under
DAO Nos. 20 and 38 to issue certificates of land classification. Under
DAO No. 20, the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of ordinary minor products
(OM) permits except rattan;
The Facts
Andres Valiente owned a 3,135-square meter land in Barangay
Siminublan, San Narciso, Zambales. In 1978, he sold the property to
respondents Jose and Perla Castuera (Spouses Castuera). On 21 May
2003, the Spouses Castuera filed with the RTC an application5 for
original registration of title over the property.
The Spouses Castuera presented three witnesses to support their
application. The three witnesses were (1) former barangay captain and
councilman Alfredo Dadural, (2) Senior Police Officer 2 Teodorico
Cudal, and (3) Perla Castuera. All witnesses testified that the Spouses
Castuera owned the property.
The Spouses Castuera also presented documentary evidence to
support their application. The documents included tax receipts and an
advance plan6 with a notation, "Checked and verified against the
cadastral records on file in this office and is for registration purposes.
This survey is within the Alienable and Disposable land proj. No. 3-H
certified by Director of Forestry on June 20, 1927 per LC Map No. 669
Sheet 1."
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Office of
the Solicitor General, filed an opposition to the application for original
registration.
The RTCs Ruling
In its 31 January 2005 Decision, the RTC granted the application for
original registration of title over the property. The RTC held:
From the evidence submitted by the applicants, they have shown
preponderantly that they are the lawful owners in fee simple and the
actual possessors of Lot 6553 of the San Narciso Cadastre. They are
entitled therefore to a judicial confirmation of their imperfect title to the
said land pursuant to the provisions of the new Property Registration
Decree (PD 1529).7
Petitioner appealed the RTC Decisionto the Court of Appeals. The
Spouses Castuera attached to their appellees brief a certification8 from
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO),
stating:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the tract of land situated at Brgy.
Siminublan, San Narciso, Zambales containing an area of ONE
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN (1847.00) SQUARE
METERS as shown and described in this sketch as verified by Cart.
Nestor L. Delgado for Sps. Jose Castuera and Perla Castuera was
found to be within the Alienable or Disposable, Project No. 3-H,
certified by then Director of Forestry, manila [sic] on June 20, 1927 per
LC Map No. 669, sheet No. 1.9
The Court of Appeals Ruling
In its 26 March 2012 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC
Decision. The Court of Appeals held that:
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, provides for the instances when a person may file
for an application for registration of title over a parcel of land:
"Section 14. Who May Apply. The following persons may file in the
proper Court of first Instance an application for registration of title to
the land classification and released the land of the public domain as
alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application
for registration falls within the approved area per verification through
survey by the PENRO or CENRO. In addition, the applicant must
present a copy of the original classification of the land into alienable
and disposable, as declared by the DENR Secretary, or as proclaimed
by the President. Such copy of the DENR Secretary's declaration or
the President's proclamation must be certified as a true copy by the
legal custodian of such official record. These facts must be established
to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.13
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the
26 March 2012 Decision and 14 August 2012 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85015. Respondents Jose and Perla
Castuera's application for registration is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 210341
July 1, 2015
The Case
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 14 August 2012
Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. Hence, the
present petition.
The Issue
Petitioner raises as issue that the advance plan and the CENRO
certification are insufficient proofs of the alienable and disposable
character of the property.
Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the 5 December 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.CV No. 99280, which denied the appeal of the
Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) and affirmed the 3 July 2012
Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31 of San Pedro,
Laguna (RTC) in LRC Case No.SPL-0697-10.
The Facts
The CA, however, denied the appeal. The court a quo cited the case of
Republic v. Vega,24 which harmonized the conflicting rulings in
Republic v. Serrano and Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc. In Republic
v. Vega, this Court ruled that the doctrine enunciated under Republic v.
Serrano applies pro hac vice and "it does not in any way detract from
our rulings in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc ., and similar cases
which impose a strict requirement to prove that public land is alienable
x x x."25
The CA based its ruling on the express declaration in Republic v. Vega,
to wit: As an exception, however, the courts in their sound discretion
and based solely on the evidence presented on record may approve
the application, pro hac vice, on the ground of substantial compliance
showing that there has been a positive act of the government to show
the nature and character of the land an d an absence of effective
opposition from the government. This exception shall only apply to
applications for registration currently pending before the trial court prior
to this Decision and shall be inapplicable to all future
applications.26 (Underscoring and boldfacing in the original)
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issues
Petitioner alleges that:
1. The CA erred in holding that respondents were able to
substantially establish that the subject parcel of land is
alienable and disposable; and
2. The CA erred in holding that the respondents were able to
sufficiently prove that they and their predecessors-in-interest
were in possession of the subject property since 12 June
1945 or earlier.
The Ruling of the Court
sufficient evidence to show that the subject parcel of land falls within
the disposable and alienable lands of the public domain.
Petitioner claims that the CA and the RTC should have applied our
ruling in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., which was promulgated on
26 June 2008.1wphi1 In that case, we held that applicants for land
registration must present a copy of the original classification approved
by the DENR Secretary and certified as true copy by the legal
custodian of the official records. If this standard were to be applied in
the instant case, the CA decision should be overturned because
respondents failed to present a certified classification from the DENR
Secretary. Petitioner argues that the standard in Republic v. T.A.N.
Properties, Inc. has been applied in more recent decisions of this
Court.
SO ORDERED.
The CA, however, did not follow the ruling in Republic v. T.A.N.
Properties, Inc. Instead, it followed Republic v. Serrano (decided on 24
February 2010) and Republic v. Vega (decided on 17 January 2011). In
Republic v. Serrano, we allowed the approval of a land registration
application even without the submission of the certification from the
DENR Secretary. As this ruling presented an apparent contradiction
with our earlier pronouncement in Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc.,
we sought to harmonize our previous rulings in Republic v. Vega. We
then said that the applications for land registration may be granted
even without the DENR Secretarys certification provided that the
application was currently pending at the time Republic v. Vega was
promulgated. Since respondents application was pending before the
RTC at the time Republic v. Vega was promulgated, the CA ruled in
favor of the respondents, despite the lack of certification from the
DENR Secretary.
Admittedly, we declared in Republic v. Vega that trial courts may grant
applications for registration despite the absence of a certification from
the DENR Secretary. It should be emphasized, however, that Republic
v. Vega applies on a pro hac vice basis only. After Republic v. Vega, we
pointed out in Republic v. San Mateo 27 that:
In Vega, the Court was mindful of the fact that the trial court rendered
its decision on November 13, 2003, way before the rule on strict
compliance was laid down in T.A.N Properties on June 26, 2008. Thus,
the trial court was merely applying the rule prevailing at the time, which
was substantial compliance. Thus, even if the case reached the
Supreme Court after the promulgation of T.A.N Properties, the Court
allowed the application of substantial compliance, because there was
no opportunity for the registrant to comply with the Court's ruling in
T.A.N Properties, the trial court and the CA already having decided the
case prior to the promulgation of T.A.N Properties.
In the case here, however, the RTC Decision was only handed down
on November 23, 2010, when the rule on strict compliance was already
in effect. Thus, there was ample opportunity for the respondents to
comply with the new rule, and present before the RTC evidence of the
DENR Secretary's approval of the DENR-South CENRO Certification.
This, they failed to do.
In the instant case, the RTC Resolution was issued on 3 July 2012,
after the promulgation of Republic v. T.A.N Properties, Inc. Thus,
following our ruling in Republic v. San Mateo, the rule requiring
certification from the DENR Secretary should be applied. It is important
to emphasize that the more recent case of Republic v. Spouses
Castuera,28 decided on 14 January 2015, applied the rule in Republic v.
T.A.N Properties, Inc. without any qualification.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The 5 December 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 99280 and the 3
July 2012 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31 of San
SO ORDERED.2
ARANETA, for its part, refuted said allegations and countered that it is
the absolute owner of the land being claimed by DIMSON and that the
real properties in the Araneta Compound are "properly documented
and validly titled." It maintained that it had been in possession of the
subject parcel of land since 1974. For this reason, the claims of
DIMSON and ENRIQUEZ were allegedly barred by prescription.
1988, it had acquired Lot 26 from its former registered owner, Estelita I.
Hipolito ["HIPOLITO"], by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Real Estate
Mortgage. HIPOLITOs title was , in turn, a direct transfer from
DIMSON, the registered owner of TCT No. 15166, the latter having
acquired the same by virtue of a Court Order dated 13 June 1966
issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 4557.
On the other hand, the MANOTOKS maintained the validity of their
titles, which were all derivatives of OCT No. 994 covering over twenty
(20) parcels of land located over a portion of Lot 26 in the Maysilo
Estate. In substance, it was contented that the title of CLT was an
offspring of an ineffective grant of an alleged undisputed portion of Lot
26 by way of attorneys fees to its predecessor-in- interest, Jose B.
Dimson. The MANOTOKS, in this connection, further contended that
the portion of Lot 26, subject of the present controversy, had long been
disposed of in favor of Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio and hence,
there was nothing more in said portion of Lot 26 that could have been
validly conveyed to Dimson.
Tracing the legitimacy of their certificates of titles, the MANOTOKS
alleged that TCT No. 4210, which cancelled OCT No. 994, had been
issued in the names of Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio on Sept
ember 1918 by virtue of an Escritura De Venta executed by Don
Tomas Arguelles and Don Enrique Lopes on 21 August 1918. TCT No.
4210 allegedly covered an approximate area of 19,565.43 square
meters of Lot 26. On even date, TCT No. 4211 was transferred to
Francisco Gonzales on the strength of an Escritura de Venta dated 3
March 1920 for which TCT No. T-5261, covering an area of 871,982
square meters was issued in the name of one Francisco Gonzales,
married to Rufina Narciso.
Thereafter, TCT No. T-35485, canceling TCT No. T-5261, was issued
to Rufina Narcisa Vda. de Gonzales which was later replaced with the
names of Gonzales six (6) children. The property was then subdivided
and as a result of which, seven (7) certificates of titles were issued, six
(6),under the names of each of the children while the remaining title
was held by all of them as co-owners.
Eventually, the properties covered by said seven certificates of title
were expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines. These properties
were then later subdivided by the National Housing Authority ["NHA"],
into seventy-seven (77) lots and thereafter sold to qualified vendees.
As it turned out, a number of said vendees sold nineteen (19) of these
lots to Manotok Realty, Inc. while one (1) lot was purchased by the
Manotok Estate Corporation.
During the pre-trial conference, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, approved the creation of a commission composed of three
commissioners tasked to resolve the conflict in their respective titles.
Accordingly, the created Commission convened on the matter in
dispute.
On 8 October 1993, Ernesto Erive and Avelino San Buenaventura
submitted an exhaustive Joint Final Report ["THE MAJORITY
REPORT"] finding that there were inherent technical infirmities or
defects on the face of TCT No. 4211, from which the MANOTOKS
derived their titles (also on TCT No. 4210), TCT No. 5261 and TCT No.
35486. Teodoro Victoriano submitted his Individual Final Report ["THE
MINORITY REPORT"] dated 23 October 1993.
After the conduct of a hearing on these reports, the parties filed their
respective comments/objections thereto. Upon order of the trial court,
the parties filed their respective memoranda.
ARANETA EVIDENCE
Another property in Dimsons name, apparently taken from Lot 26 of
the Maysilo Estate, was later sold to Estelita Hipolito, who in turn sold
the same to CLT. Said property was registered by CLT under TCT No.
T-177013, which also reflected, as its mother title, OCT No. 994 dated
19 April 1917.12 Said property claimed by CLT encroached on property
covered by titles in the name of the Manotoks. The Manotoks traced
their titles to TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211, both issued in 1918 and both
reflecting, as their mother title, OCT No. 994 dated 3 May
1917.1avvphi1
It is evident that both the Heirs of Dimson and CLT had primarily relied
on the validity of OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917 as the basis of their
claim of ownership. However, the Court in its 2007 Resolution held that
OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917 was inexistent. The proceedings
before the Special Division afforded the Heirs of Dimson and CLT alike
the opportunity to prove the validity of their respective claims to title
based on evidence other than claims to title the inexistent 19 April
1917 OCT No. 994. Just as much was observed by the Special
Division:
Nonetheless, while the respective certificates of title of DIMSON and
CLT refer to OCT 994 issued on 19 April 1917 and that their previous
postulations in the present controversies had been anchored on the
supposed validity of their titles, that which emanated from OCT 994 of
19 April 1917, and conversely the invalidity of the 3 May 1917 OCT
994, the Supreme Court has yet again allowed them to substantiate
their claims on the basis of other evidentiary proofs:
Otherwise stated, both DIMSON and CLT bear the onus of proving in
this special proceedings, by way of the evidence already presented
before and such other forms of evidence that are not yet of record, that
either there had only been an error in the course of the transcription or
registration of their derivative titles, or that other factual and legal
bases existed to validate or substantiate their titles aside from the OCT
No. 994 issued on 19 April 1917.13
Were they able to discharge such burden?
A.
We begin with the Heirs of Dimson. The Special Division made it clear
that the Heirs of Dimson were heavily reliant on the OCT No. 994
dated 19 April 1917.
[DIMSON], on the strength of Judge Sayos Order dated 18 October
dated 18 October 1977, was issued separate certificates of title, i.e.,
TCT Nos. 15166, 15167, 15168 and 15169, covering portions of the
Maysilo Estate. Pertinently, with respect to TCT No. 15169 of DIMSON,
which covers Lot 25-A-2 of the said estate, the following were inscribed
on the face of the instrument.
"IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered
on the 19th day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in
the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal,
Volume NA pageNA , as Original Certificate of Title No. 994 pursuant
to Decree No. 36455 issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No.
______
This Certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title No.
994/NA, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the abovedescribed land is concerned.14
From the above accounts, it is clear that the mother title of TCT no.
15169, the certificate of title of DIMSON covering the now disputed Lot
25-A-2, is OCT No. 994 registered on 19 April 1917. Manifestly, the
certificate of title issued to DIMSON, and as a matter of course, the
derivative title later issued to CLT, should both be voided inasmuch as
the OCT which they emanated had already been declared inexistent. 15
The Special Division noted that the Heirs of Dimson did not offer any
explanation why their titles reflect the erroneous date of 19 April 1917.
At the same time, it rejected CLTs explanation that the transcription of
the erroneous date was a "typographical error."
Aside from that, are there other cases of the same number?
Atty. Contreras:
No, there should be only number for a particular case; that must be a
petition after decree record.
Atty. Ignacio:
This 4557 is not an LRC Case, it is a simple civil case.
xxxxxx
Moreover, both the MANOTOKS and ARANETA insist that Palmas 13
June 1966 Order had been recalled by a subsequent Order dated 16
August 1966, ["RECALL ORDER"],21 wherein the trial court dismissed
the motion filed by DIMSON on the courts findings that " x x
x whatever portion of the property covered by OCT 994 which has not
been disposed of by the previous registered owners have already
been assigned and adjudicated to Bartolome Rivera and his
assignees, as a result of which there is no portion that is left to be
given to the herein supposed assignee Jose Dimson."
However, We are reluctant to recognize the existence and due
execution of the Recall Order considering that its original or even a
certified true copy thereof had not been submitted by either of the two
parties relying on it despite having been given numerous opportunities
to do so.
Be that as it may, even if We are to consider that no Recall Order was
ever issued by then Judge Palma, the validity of the DIMSON titles
over the properties in the Maysilo Estate becomes doubtful in light of
the fact that the supposed "share" went beyond what was actually due
to Jose Dimson under the Compromise Agreement with Rivera. It
should be recalled that Palmas 13 June 1966 Order approved only the
conveyance to Jose Dimson of "25% of whatever share of Bartolome
Rivera has over Lots 25, 26, 27, 28-B and 29 of OCT 994 x x x subject
to availability of undisposed portion of the said lots."22
Atty. Directo:
That is the reason why we want to see the original.
Court:
I did not see the original also. When the records of this case was
brought here, I checked the records, there were so many pages
missing and the pages were re-numbered but then I saw the duplicate
original and there is a certification of a woman clerk of Court, Atty.
Molo.
Atty. Directo:
That is the reason why we want to see this document, we are surprised
why it is missing.
Court:
Rule 39 should, therefore, find application in this case and thus, the
confirmation of DIMSONs title, if any, should fail.
Parenthetically, the allegations of DIMSON would further show that
they derive the validity of their certificates of title from the decreased
Jose Dimsons 25% share in the alleged hereditary rights of Bartolome
Rivera ["RIVERA"] as an alleged grandson of Maria Concepcion Vidal
["VIDAL"]. However, the records of these cases would somehow
negate the rights of Rivera to claim from Vidal. The Verification Report
of the Land Registration
Commission dated 3 August 1981 showed that Rivera was 65 years
old on 17 May 1963 (as gathered from the records of Civil Case Nos.
4429 and 4496).31 It can thus be deduced that, if Rivera was already
65 years old in 1963, then he must have been born around 1898. On
the other hand, Vidal was only nine (9) years in 1912; hence, she could
have been born only on 1905. This alone creates an unexplained
anomalous, if not ridiculous, situation wherein Vidal, Riveras alleged
grandmother, was seven (7) years younger than her alleged grandson.
Serious doubts existed as to whether Rivera was in fact an heir of
Vidal, for him to claim a share in the disputed portions of the Maysilo
Estate.32
These findings are consonant with the observations raised by Justice
Renato Corona in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion on our 2007
Resolution. To wit:
TCT No. T-177013 covers Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate with an area of
891,547.43 sq. m. It was a transfer from TCT No. R-17994 issued in
the name of Estelita I. Hipolito. On the other hand, TCT No. R-17994
was a transfer from TCT No. R-15166 in the name of Jose B. Dimson
which, in turn, was supposedly a direct transfer from OCT No. 994
registered on April 19, 1917.
Annotations at the back of Hipolito's title revealed that Hipolito acquired
ownership by virtue of a court order dated October 18, 1977 approving
the compromise agreement which admitted the sale made by Dimson
in her favor on September 2, 1976. Dimson supposedly acquired
ownership by virtue of the order dated June 13, 1966 of the CFI of
Rizal, Branch 1 in Civil Case No. 4557 awarding him, as his attorney's
fees, 25% of whatever remained of Lots 25-A, 26, 27, 28 and 29 that
were undisposed of in the intestate estate of the decedent Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal, one of the registered owners of the properties
covered by OCT No. 994. This order was confirmed by the CFI of
Caloocan in a decision dated October 13, 1977 and order dated
October 18, 1977 in SP Case No. C-732.
However, an examination of the annotation on OCT No. 994,
particularly the following entries, showed:
AP-6665/0-994 Venta: Queda cancelado el presente Certificado en
cuanto a una extencion superficial de 3,052.93 metros cuadrados y
16,512.50 metros cuadrados, y descrita en el lote no. 26, vendida a
favor de Alejandro Ruiz y Mariano P Leuterio, el primer casado con
Deogracias Quinones el Segundo con Josefa Garcia y se ha expedido
el certificado de Titulo No; 4210, pagina 163 Libro T-22.
Fecha del instrumento Agosto 29, 1918
Fecha de la inscripcion September 9, 1918
10.50 AM
AP-6665/0-994 Venta: Queda cancelado el presente Certficado
el cuanto a una extencion superficial de 871,982.00 metros cuadrados,
descrita en el lote no. 26, vendida a favor de Alejandro Ruiz y Mariano
P. Leuterio, el primer casado con Deogracias Quinones el segundo
con Josefa Garcia y se ha expedido el certificado de Titulo No 4211,
pagina 164, Libro T-22.
Fecha del instrumento Agosto 25, 1918
2) TCT no. 26538 and TCT No. 26539 in the name of Jose
Ma. Rato are not annotated in the Original Certificate of Title
994, where they were said to have originated.
3) The Escritura de Incorporacion de Philippine Land
Improvement Company (Exhibit I) executed on April 8, 1925
was only registered and was stamped received by the Office
of the Securities and Exchange Commission only April 29,
1953 when the Deed of Sale & Mortgage was executed on
August 23, 1947 (Exh. 5 defendant) and the Novation of
Contract, Deed of Sale and Mortgage executed on
November 13, 1947 (Exh. M0. So, that when Philippine Land
Improvement was allegedly given a special power of
attorney by Jose Ma. Rato to represent him in the execution
of the said two (2) documents, the said Philippine Land
Improvement Company has not yet been duly registered.
4) TCT 26538 and 26538 and TCT 26539 both in the name
of Jose Ma. Rato, both cancel 21857 which was never
presented in Court if only to have a clear tracing back of the
titles of defendant Araneta.
5) If the subject matter of the Deed of Sale & Mortgage
(Exhibit 5 defendant) is TCT 26539, why is it that TCT 13574
of defendant Araneta cancels TCT 6196 instead of TCT
26539. That was never explained. TCT 6196 was not even
presented in Court.
6) How come TCT 26538 of Jose Ma. Rato with an area of
593,606.90 was cancelled by TCT 7784 with an area of only
390,282 sq.m.
7) How was defendant Araneta able to have TCT 7784
issued in its name, when the registration of the document
entitled Novation of Contract, Deed of Sale & Mortgage
(Exhibit M) was suspended/denied (Exhibit N) and no title
was received by the Register of Deeds of Pasig at the time
the said document was filed in the said Office on March 4,
1948 (Exhibit N and N-1).
Under Sec. 55 of Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) now
Sec. 53 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, no new certificate
of title shall be entered, no memorandum shall be made
upon any certificate of title by the register of deeds, in
pursuance of any deed or other voluntary instrument, unless
the owners duplicate certificate is presented for such
endorsement.
cancelled by TCT No. 2653849 and TCT No. 2653950 which were both
issued in the name of Jose Ma. Rato y Tuazon on 17 September 1934.
With respect to TCT No. 26539, the certificate of title showed that it
covered a parcel of land designated as Section No. 2 of the subdivision
plan Psd-10114, being a portion of Lot 25-A-3-C having an
approximate area of 581,872 square meters.51 Thereafter, TCT No.
26539 was cancelled by TCT No. 619652 whose registered owner
appears to be a certain Victoneta, Inc. This parcel of land has an area
of 581,872 square meters designated as section No. 2 of subdivision
plan Psd-10114, being a portion of Lot 25-A-3-C.
As shown on its face, TCT No. 6196 issued on 18 October 1947 in the
name of Victoneta, Inc. and its mother title were traced from OCT No.
994 registered on 3 May 1917. Later, TCT No. 6196 was cancelled,
and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 13574 was issued in favor of Araneta
Institute of Agriculture on 20 May 1949.53 It covers a parcel of land
designated as section No. 2 of subdivision plan Psd-10114, being a
portion of Lot 25-A-3-C. It has an aggregate area of 581,872 square
meters.
On the other hand, appearing under Entry No. 16086/T-No. 13574 of
TCT No. 6196 is the following:
"Entry No. 16086/T-No. 13574 SALE in favor of the ARANETA
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, vendee: Conveying the property
described in this certificate of title which is hereby cancelled and
issuing in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13574, page 74,
Book T-345 in the name of the vendee. (Doc. No. 149, page 98, Book
II, S. of 1949 of Notary Public for Manila, Hospicio B. Bias).
Date of Instrument May 18, 1949
Date of the Inscription May 30, 1949 at 11:00 a.m.54
TCT No. 2653855 in turn showed on its face that it covers a parcel of
land designated as Section 1 of subdivision plan Psd-10114 being a
portion of Lot 25-A-3-C having an area of 592,606.90 square meters.56
On 4 March 1948, TCT No. 26538 was cancelled by TCT No. 7784,
which was issued in favor of Araneta Institute of Agriculture. TCT No.
7784 covers four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 390,282
square meters.57It would appear from the records of CA-G.R. SP No.
34819 consolidated with CA-G.R. CV No. 41883 that TCT No. 7784
was eventually cancelled by TCT No. 21343.58 As per attachment of
ARANETA in its Answer dated 6 march 1980 filed in Civil Case No.
8050, a mere copy of TCT No. 21343 showed that it covers a parcel of
land designated as Lot 6-B of the subdivision plan Psd-24962 being a
portion of Lot 6, described as plan Psd-21943, G.L.R.O. Record No.
4429 with an approximate area of 333,377 square meters.59 However,
for reasons unknown, a copy of TCT No. 21343, whether original or
certified true copy thereof, was not submitted before this Court.
In summation, ARANETA had shown that RATO, as one of the coowners of the property covered by OCT NO. 994, was assigned Lot
No. 25-A-3. His evidence of ownership is reflected on TCT No. 8692
issued in his name. RATO held title to these parcels of land even after
its subdivision in the 1930s. Further subdividing the property, RATO
was again issued TCT No. 21857, and later TCT Nos. 26538 and
26539, still covering Lot No. 25 A-3-C. In all his certificates of title,
including those that ultimately passed ownership to ARANETA, the
designation of the lot as either belonging to or portions of Lot 25-A-3
was retained, thereby proving identity of the land.
More importantly, the documentary trail of land titles showed that all of
them were derived from OCT No. 994 registered on 3 May 1917. For
purposes of tracing ARANETAs titles to Oct No. 994, it would appear
that the evidence presented ultimately shows a direct link of TCT Nos.
7784 and 13574 to said mother title. Suffice it to state, the origin and
legitimacy of the proprietary claim of ARANETA had been well
substantiated by the evidence on record and on this note, said titles
deserve validation.
Notably also, with the evident intent to discredit and refute the title of
ARANETA, DIMSON submitted TCT Nos. 2653869 and 21857,70 which
are both derivatives of OCT No. 994 registered on 3 May 1917 and
cover parcels of land located in Malabon, Rizal. However, these
certificates of title reflect different registered owners and designation of
the land covered.
Pertinently, Exhibit "M-Dimson" relating to TCT No. 26538, registered
on 12 June 1952, points to one Angela Bautista de Alvarez as the
registered owner of a 240 square meter of land designated as Lot No.
19, Block 14 of the subdivision plan Psd-5254 being a portion of Lot
No. 7-A-1-A. This certificate of title cancels TCT No. 14112/T-348 and
refers to a certain TCT No. 30473 on the inscriptions.
Exhibit "N-Dimson," on the other hand, pertaining to TCT No. 21857
was issued on 30 March 1951 to one Angela I. Tuason de Perez
married to Antonio Perez. This certificate of Title covers a parcel of
land described as Lot No. 21, Block 16 of the consolidation and
subdivision plan Pcs-140, G.L.R.O. Record No. 4429. It ahs an area of
436 square meters and cancels TCT No. 21856.
Exhibit "Q-Dimson"71 consisting of TCT No. 8692 covers two parcels of
land designated as Lot Nos. 1 and 2 of Block No. 44 of the
consolidation Subdivision Plan Pcs-188 with a total area of 3,372
square meters. It was issued to Gregorio Araneta, Incorporated on 7
May 1948. This certificate of title cancelled TCT No. 46118.
Comparing these titles to those of the ARANETA, it is apparent that no
identity of the land could be found. The Supreme Court, in the case of
Alonso v. Cebu City Country Club, Inc.72 agreeing with the Court of
Appeals dissertation in said case, ruled that there is nothing fraudulent
for a certificate of title to bear the same number as another title to
another land. On this score, the Supreme Court elucidated as follows:
"On the question that TCT No. RT-1310 (T-1151) bears the same
number as another title to another land, we agree with the Court of
Appeals that there is nothing fraudulent with the fact that Cebu Country
Club, Inc.s reconstituted title bears the same number as the title of
another parcel of land. This came about because under General Land
Registration Office (GLRO) Circular No. 17, dated February 19, 1947,
and Republic Act No. 26 and Circular No. 6, RD 3, dated August 5,
1946, which were in force at the time the title was reconstituted on July
26, 1946, the titles issued before the inauguration of the Philippine
Republic were numbered consecutively and the titles issued after the
inauguration were numbered also consecutively starting with No. 1, so
that eventually, the titles issued before the inauguration were
duplicated by titles issued after the inauguration of the Philippine
Republic x x x."
Parenthetically, in their Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this
Courts Resolution dated 30 October 2008, DIMSON objected to the
admissibility of Exhibits 4-A1A to 7-A1A on the ground that ARANETA
failed to submit the original copies of these certificates of title and
contended that the "originals" contain different "contents" from their
own Exhibits M, N and Q.73 The fact that the entries contained in
ARANETAs pieces of evidence are different from that of DIMSONs do
not automatically make ARANETAs exhibits inferior replications or a
confirmation of their falsity. Interestingly, the objection regarding the
non-submission of the "original copy" had not been raised by DIMSON
in their Comments/Objections to Consolidated Formal Offer of
Evidence (Of Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.).74 In any case, we
find the objections unwarranted considering that certified true copies or
certified microfilm copies of Exhibits 4-A1A to 7-A1A had been
submitted by ARANETA in these proceedings.
Lastly, on the alleged non-registration of Philippine Land Improvement
Company at the time the special power of attorney was executed by
Jose Ma. Rato to represent him in the execution of the deed of
conveyances, the same only proves that Philippine Land Improvement
Company was not yet registered and this does not go as far as proving
the existence or non-existence of the company at which time it was
executed. In effect, the company was not precluded to enter into
contracts and be bound by them but it will do so at the risk of the
adverse effects of non-registration under the law.
There is no question that the Araneta titles were derived from OCT No.
994 dated 3 May 1917, particularly from the share of Jose Ma. Rato y
Tuazon, one of the co-heirs named in OCT No. 994. The Special
Division correctly assessed, among others, the reference to Decree
No. 4429 and Record No. 4429 in some of the antecedent titles of
Araneta76 as mere clerical errors that could not have invalidated said
titles, "4429" being the case number of Decree No. 36455, and the
designation and the technical description of the land on those titles not
having been shown to be erroneous or variant with the source title. The
Special Division also correctly considered that the trial court had failed
to take into account the several conveyances of TCT No. 26538 before
it was ultimately transferred to Araneta in 1948, which explain the
difference in area between TCT No. 7784 and TCT No. 26538. The
imputed overlap of TCT No. 26538 and TCT No. 26539 with the titles
held by Dimson was based on a private survey which had not been
duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. The alleged absence of any
entry on the Memorandum of Encumbrances of TCT No. 26538 of the
sale of the property between Rato and Araneta did not, according to
the Special Division, discount the fact that Rato and Araneta entered
into a voluntary agreement with the intention of transferring the
ownership of the subject property. Finally, the Special Division noted
that the titles derived from OCT No. 994, which Dimson had submitted
as evidence to discredit the Araneta claim, pertain to properties wholly
different from those covered by the Araneta titles.
There is no cause to dispute the factual findings and conclusions of the
Special Division on the validity of the Araneta titles, and we affirm the
same.
B.
It appears that the claim to title of the Manotoks is somewhat more
controversial. The Special Division did not discount the fact that there
could have been flaws in some of the intervening titles between the 3
May 1917 OCT No. 994 and the present titles of the Manotoks.
However, the significant event was the expropriation proceedings
undertaken by the Republic of the Philippines sometime in 1947. At
least some of the titles in the name of the Manotoks were sourced from
the titles issued to and subsequently distributed by the Republic. The
Special Division explained the milieu in full:
VALIDITY OF THE MANOTOK TITLES
The notation under Entry No. 6655/O-994, found on page 17 of OCT
994 of the Owners Duplicate Copy, shows that Lot No. 26 had been a
subject of sale in favor of Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano P.
Leuterio.77 The notations reads:
"Ap. 6655/O-994 Venta: Queda Cancelado el presente Certificado en
cuanto a una extension superficial de 3,052.93 Metros cuadrados y
16,512.50 metros Cuadrados y descrita en elLote No. 26 vendida a
favor de Alejandro Ruis y Mariano P. Leuterio, el primar casado con
Diogracias Quinones y el Segundo con Josefa Garcia y se be
expedido el Certificado de Titulo No. 4210, Pagina 163, Libro T-22.
Date of the Instrument Aug. 29, 1918
Date of Inscription Sept. 9, 1918 10:50 a.m.
(GD) L. GARDUNIO, Register of Deeds"
"Ap. 6665/O-994-Venta: Queda Cancelado el presente Cerficiado en
cuanto a una extension superficial de 871,982.00 metros cuadrados,
In annulling the Manotok titles, focus was laid on the alleged defects of
TCT No. 4211 issued in September of 1918. However, TCT No. 4211
was issued decades before the property was expropriated. Thus, any
and all defects that may have attended that particular title would have
been purged when the property covered by it was subsequently
acquired by the State through eminent domain. The Special Division
noted as much:
As it is, the validity of most of MRIs certificates of title should be
upheld because they were derived from the Republics valid certificates
of title. In fact, some of the MANOTOKS titles can be traced back to
the Governments titles as a result of the expropriation in 1947.
Relevantly, the titles of the Republic, as the predecessor-in-interest of
the MANOTOKS, are presumed valid by virtue of their acquisition
resulting from the exercise of its inherent power of eminent domain that
need not be granted even by the fundamental law. Thus, the alleged
flaws concerning the certificates of title issued previous to the exercise
of the State of its inherent power did not affect or render invalid the
subsequent transfers after the forced sale. Indeed, when land has
been acquired for public use in fee simple unconditionally, either by the
exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains
no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned, or the
land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the
estate or title acquired or any reversion to the former owner.119
The Special Division also took exception to the majority report of the
Commissioners (Majority Report) who had been tasked by the trial
court to examine the validity of the Manotok titles. The Majority Report
had arrived at several conclusions with respect to the TCTs from which
the Manotok titles were derived.120 The Special Division, however,
concluded that such report was in fact tainted by the fact that it was
determined "outside the scope of the issues framed and agreed upon
by the parties." To wit:
In meeting the issue, the MANOTOKS disproved the "opinion" with
regard to the alleged defects of their titles inasmuch as the majority
report submitted before the trial court was made outside the scope of
the tasks which the trial court confined them to perform. The
MANOTOKS also argued that before this proceeding on remand, CLT
failed to introduce evidence of such flaws neither were the concerned
geodetic engineers presented as witnesses. Moreover, the
MANOTOKS further maintained that CLT failed to submit any factual or
legal bases to prove the authenticity and validity of the Palma and
Sayo Orders. They insisted that the Palma Order was a void one for
being conditional and having resulted to the issuance of "duplicate
certificates of land title."
With respect to the imputed flaws on the MANOTOKS titles which
were based on the Majority Report, we find that the bases of the
alleged defects proceeded from unreliable sources thus, tainting the
veracity of the said report.
The records of the case between CLT and the MANOTOKS reveal that
the parties approved the creation of a commission to resolve only
these two issues, to wit:
"x x x
These issues to be resolved by the 3 Commissioners are as follows:
1) Whether or not the property covered by the Transfer
Certificates of Title of defendants pertain to or involve Lot
No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate presently titled in the name of
the plaintiff; and
2) Whether or not the property covered by the title of the
plaintiff and the property covered by the titles of the
defendants overlap.121
the basis of separate and distinct imputed flaws. Still, the crucial
difference between the imputed flaws allegedly tainting said
contending titles, DIMSON and CLT on one hand, and the
MANOTOKS and ARANETA, on the other, is that the imputed flaws
purportedly beleaguering the respective certificates of title of the
MANOTOKS and ARANETA relate to the mechanical and technical
aspect of the transcription of their titles and are therefore
inconsequential to the import and validity thereof. Said imputed flaws
do not depart from the fact that the predecessors-in-interest of the
MANOTOKS and ARANETA had been clothed with the right of
ownership over the disputed portions of the Maysilo Estate.
On the other hand, the flaws attending the titles of DIMSON and CLT
primarily stem from infirmities attending or otherwise affecting the very
crux of their claim of ownership. Having derived their titles from
RIVERA, whose title is questionable and dubious to the core, DIMSON
and CLT cannot rightly insist on the validity of their titles. Such flaws
are hard to overcome as they delve into the substance of their
proprietary claims. As stated, DIMSON and CLT miserably failed to
overcome their onus and instead opted to hap on the supposed flaws
of the adverse parties. For these reasons, the titles of DIMSON and
CLT should be declared a nullity.
xxx
From the foregoing evaluation and in conformity with the Supreme
Court 2007 Resolution, this Court arrived at the following conclusions
as to the status of the original title and its subsequent conveyances:
1. As categorically declared by the Supreme Court, there is
only one OCT 994, the registration date of which had already
been decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917.
OCT 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its
registration date is null and void.
2. In view thereof and in addition to other grounds we have
already discussed, the certificates of title of the deceased
Jose Dimson and his successor-in-interest, CLT, having
been traced back to OCT 994 dated 19 April 1917, are NULL
and VOID and thus vest no legal right or claim in favor of
DIMSON and CLT.
3. The 13 June 1966 Palma Order and the 18 October 1977
Sayo Order, on which DIMSON and CLT anchor the validity
of their respective titles, do not substantiate their proprietary
claims. While the existence of said Orders are admitted, the
legal import thereof nonetheless fails to confer a semblance
of legality on the titles of DIMSON and consequently, of CLT,
more so, a superior right to defeat the titles of the
MANOTOKS and ARANETA, respectively.
4. Portions of Lot No. 26 pertinent to this controversy,
particularly that being disputed by the MANOTOKs and CLT,
were expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines
sometime in 1947 under Commonwealth Act No. 539 for
resale to tenants. The MANOTOKS, thus as successor-ininterest of the Republic, were able to establish that some of
their certificates of title had indeed originated or were
derived from said expropriated parcels of land.
5. The evidence on record confirm that the certificates of title
covering the land being claimed by ARANETA were derived
from OCT NO. 994 registered on 3 May 1917 thereby
ultimately showing a direct link of TCT Nos. 7784 and 13574
to said mother title. By reason of which, that is either
belonging to or portions of Lot 25-A-3 as previously owned
by RATO, had been well substantiated and proven to be
superior to that of DIMSON.
6. For reasons above-stated and in view of the established
rights of ownership of both the MANOTOKS and ARANETA
over the contested properties, we find that the imputed flaws
on their titles cannot defeat the valid claims of the
f) TCT No. 55897 covering Lot 3 of consolidationsubdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-1828 of the Maysilo
Estate covering an area of more or less 20,531
square meters;
g) TCT No. C-17272 covering Lot 6-C which has
an approximate area of 27,850 square meters;
h) TCT No. T-121428 covering Lot No. 5-C of
subdivision plan (LRC) psd-315278, which has an
approximate area of 4,650 square meters;
i) TCT No. 163902 covering Lot No. 4-B-2 with an
area of more or less 6,354 square meters
allegedly a by-product of TCT No. 9022, which in
turn, cancelled TCT No. 8994/T-45 registered in
the name of Filemon S. Custodio;
SO ORDERED.