Syjuco Vs Bonifacio

10/28/2016
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME745
G.R. No. 148748.
January 14, 2015.*
IMELDA,
LEONARDO,
FIDELINO,
AZUCENA,
JOSEFINA, ANITA and SISA, all surnamed SYJUCO,
petitioners,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitionerintervenor,
vs. FELISA D. BONIFACIO and VSD REALTY &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
Civil Law Land Titles Quieting of Titles To determine
whether an attack on a certificate of title is direct or indirect, the
relevance of the object of the action instituted and the relief sought
therein must be examined.To determine whether an attack on a
certificate of title is direct or indirect, the relevance of the object
of the action instituted and the relief sought therein must be
examined. The rule was explained in Catores v. Afidchao, 582
SCRA 653 (2009), as follows: When is an action an attack on a
title? It is when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify
the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the
title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an
action or proceeding is to annul or set aside such
judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand,
the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is
nevertheless made as an incident thereof. (Emphasis
supplied, citation omitted) The instituted action in this case is
clearly a direct attack on a certificate of title to real property. In
their complaint for quieting of title, petitioners specifically pray
for the declaration of nullity and/or cancellation of respondents
TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313 over the subject land. The relief
sought by petitioners is certainly feasible since the objective of an
action to quiet title, as provided under Article 476 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, is precisely to quiet, remove, invalidate,
annul, and/or nullify a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title.
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
469
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015809de77b6da025900003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/38
10/28/2016
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
469
Syjuco vs. Bonifacio

Same Same Same It is an established doctrine in land
ownership disputes that the filing of an action to quiet title is
imprescriptible if the disputed real property is in the possession of
the plaintiff.It is an established doctrine in land ownership
disputes that the filing of an action to quiet title is imprescriptible
if the disputed real property is in the possession of the plaintiff.
One who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be
owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his
title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the
reason for the rule being that his undisturbed possession gives
him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to
ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third
party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed
only by one who is in possession.
Same Land Registration There cannot be two (2) or even
several certificates of title on the same parcel of real property
because a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the
registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an
earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same
land would be null and void, since the principle behind original
registration is to register a parcel of land only once.Certainly,
there cannot be two or even several certificates of title on the
same parcel of real property because a land registration court
has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already
decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration
case and a second decree for the same land would be null and
void, since the principle behind original registration is to register
a parcel of land only once. The indefeasibility of a title under the
Torrens system could be claimed only if a previous valid title to
the same parcel of land does not exist. Where the issuance of the
title was attended by fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled
owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it and the
person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the
same, for he has no true title thereto. This ruling is a mere
affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate is not
conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had
already been registered and that an earlier certificate for the
same land is in existence.
Same Land Titles As held in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT
Realty Development Corporation, 540 SCRA 304 (2007), [a]ny
title that traces its source to Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
994 dated 19 April 1917 is void, for such mother title is
inexistent.
470
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
2/38
10/28/2016

Considering all of the above matters, especially the fact that
respondents claim that their respective titles, TCT Nos. 265778
and 285313, are derivatives of OCT No. 994 registered on April
19, 1917, which this Court had already repeatedly declared to be
a nonexistent and invalid title, the Court rules in favor of
petitioners. As held in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty
Development Corporation, 540 SCRA 304 (2007), [a]ny title
that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917
is void, for such mother title is inexistent.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jayson S. Lamchek and Leonardo Syjuco for

petitioners.
Herrera, Teehankee, Faylona and Cabrera and The
Law Firm of Donato T. Faylona for respondents.
LEONARDODE CASTRO, J.:
For review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court is the Decision1 dated February 23, 2001 and
Resolution2 dated June 26, 2001 of the Court Appeals in
C.A.G.R. CV No. 57777, which affirmed in toto the
Decision3 dated January 9, 1998 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 126 of Caloocan City in Civil Case No.
C366.
The present controversy involves a parcel of land,
measuring around 2,835 square meters, which originally
formed part of a wider tract of land, dubbed as the Maysilo
Estate (subject land).
The factual antecedents, as culled from the records, are
as follows:
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 2734 penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. TriaTirona,
with Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Elloy R. Bello, Jr.,
concurring.
2 Id., at p. 36.
3 Records, pp. 435442.
471
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
471

3/38
10/28/2016
Petitioners Imelda, Leonardo, Fidelino, Azucena, Anita,

and Sisa, all surnamed Syjuco (collectively referred to as
petitioners) are the registered coowners of the subject
land, located in the then Barrio of Balintawak,
Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, under Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T1085304 issued by the
Register of Deeds of Caloocan City on March 26, 1984. The
subject land is particularly described under petitioners
certificate of title as follows:
It is hereby certified that certain land situated in the Caloocan,
Metro Manila, Philippines, bound and described as follows:
Un terreno (Lote No. 3B del plano de subdivision Psd706,
parte del Lote No. 23A, plano original Psu2345 de la Hacienda
de Maysilo), situado en el Barrio de Balintawak, Municipio de
Caloocan, Provincia de Rizal. Linda por el NE. con el Lote No. 3D
del plano de subdivision por el SE., con el Lote No. 3C del plano
de subdivision por el SO. con el Lote No. 7 y por el No. con el Lote
No. 3A del plano de subdivision. x x x midiendo una extension
superficial de DOS MIL OCHOCIENTOS TREINTA Y CINCO
METROS CUADRADOS CON TREINTA DECIMETROS
CUADRADOS (2,835), mas o menos. xxx la fecha de la medicion
original 8 al 27 de Septiembre, 4 al 21 de Octubre y 1718 de
Noviembre de 1911 y la de la subdivision, 29 de Diciembre de
1924. (Consta la descripcion decinica en el Certificado de
Transferencia de Titulo No. 10301)
xxxx
is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Registration Act in the name of
IMELDA G. SYJUCO LEONARDO G. SYJUCO FIDELINO
G. SYJUCO AZUCENA G. SYJUCO JOSEFINA
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 200201 Exhibit A.
472
472

G. SYJUCO ANITA G. SYJUCO SISA G. SYJUCO, all of legal

age, single, Filipinos,
as owner thereof in fee simple, subject to such of the
encumbrances mentioned in Section 39 of said Act as may be
subsisting, and to the provisions of Sec. 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of
Court with respect to the inheritance left by the deceased Monica
Galauran and Mariano Mesina. (From T.C.T. No. 12370)
Petitioners have been in open, continuous, and

uninterrupted possession of the subject land, by themselves
4/38
10/28/2016
or through their predecessorsininterest, since 1926.

Petitioners traced back their title over the subject land to
TCT No. 10301 issued on February 26, 1926 to Monica
Jacinto Galauran. Thereafter, TCT No. 10301 was replaced
by TCT No. 8685 under the names of Avelina Baello, Felisa
Baello, Dolores Baello, Eduardo Mesina, and Fausto
Galauran (Avelina Baello, et al.). TCT No. 8685 was then
replaced by TCT No. 12370 under the names of the
brothers Martin V. Syjuco (Martin) and Manuel V. Syjuco
(Manuel) pursuant to a Deed of Sale of Real Estate5 dated
February 7, 1949 executed by Avelina Baello, et al. in favor
of the siblings Martin and Manuel. TCT No. 12370 was, in
turn, replaced by TCT No. 48566 issued on July 1, 1964 in
Martins name alone in accordance with a Partition
Agreement7 executed by the brothers on June 16, 1964.
Upon Martins death, petitioners inherited the subject
land, and following the extrajudicial partition they
executed on June 27, 1976, they registered said land in
their names, as coowners, under TCT No. T108530 issued
on March 26, 1984. Petitioners and their predecessorsin
interest have been paying the real property taxes over the
subject land since 1949.8
_______________
5 Id., at pp. 207210 Exhibit H (with submarkings).
6 Id., at pp. 205206 Exhibit G (with submarkings).
7 Id., at pp. 211213 Exhibit I (with submarkings).
8 Id., at pp. 202204, 214223 Exhibits D, E, F, and J (with
submarkings).
473
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
473
Among the annotations on TCT No. T108530 are two

encumbrances constituted by petitioners and/or their
predecessorsininterest on the subject land, particularly:
(1) a lease agreement dated September 24, 1963, in favor of
Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company (Manufacturers
Bank), over a portion of the subject land, with the condition
that the buildings which the lessee had constructed
thereon shall become the property of the lessor/s after the
expiration of the lease agreement and (2) another lease
agreement dated December 20, 1971, in favor of a certain
Chan Heng, over the remaining portion of the subject
land.9
Sometime in 1994, however, petitioners learned that a
broker named Exequiel Fajardo, through a Letter10 dated
March 9, 1994, offered for sale the subject land along with
5/38
10/28/2016
the improvements thereon to a certain Luis Ong, giving the

following description of the property and terms of the offer:
AREA: 2,835.30 square meters
Lot No. 23A4B2A3B, PSD 706, TCT265778, Register of
Deeds, Kalookan City
Location: Kalookan City (beside LRT Station)
Owner: Felisa D. Bonifacio
The terms of this offer are as follows:
Price: P35,000.00 per square meter
Payment Terms: 50% down payment
Balance subject to negotiation
Petitioners found out that the purported owner of the

subject land, respondent Felisa D. Bonifacio (Bonifacio),
was the sublessee of Kalayaan Development Corporation,
which, in turn, was the sublessee of Manufacturers Bank,
which was the direct lessee of petitioners. Petitioners also
learned that respondent Bonifacio was able to register the
subject land in
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 200201 Exhibit A.
10 Id., at p. 224 Exhibit K.
474
474

her name under TCT No. 265778, which was issued on

March 29, 1993 by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City.
Respondent Bonifacios certificate of title described the
subject land as follows:
It is hereby certified that certain land situated in the Caloocan
City, Philippines, bounded and described as follows:
A parcel of land (Lot 23A4B2A3B of the subd. plan, Psd
706, L.R.C. Rec. No. ), situated in Balintawak, Caloocan, Rizal,
Bounded of the E., along line 12 by Lot 23A4B2A3D, on the
SE., along line 23 by lot 23A4B2A3C both of the subd. plan
on the SW., along line 34 by lot 23A4B2A6 and on the NW.,
along line 41 by Lot 23A4B2A3A of the subd. plan.
Beginning at a point marked 1 on plan, being N. 71 deg. 17E.,
1,285.85 m. from BLLN No. 1, Caloocan thence S. 01 deg. 46W.,
27.70 m. to point 2 S 64 deg. 30W., 105.15 m. to point 3 N 23
deg. 12 W., 26.39 m. to point 4 N. 65 deg. 22E., 116.78 m. to pt.
of beginning, containing an area of TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED THIRTYFIVE SQ. METERS AND THIRTY SQ.
DECIMETERS (2,835.30). All pts. referred to are indicated on the
6/38
10/28/2016
plan and are marked on the ground by old pts. Bearings true date
of original survey, Date of subd. survey, Dec. 29, 1922,
is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Property
Registration Decree in the name of
FELISA D. BONIFACIO, of legal age, Filipino, widow,
as owner thereof in fee simple, subject to such of the
encumbrances mentioned in Section 44 of said Decree as may be
subsisting[.]xxx.11
_______________
11 Id., at p. 21 Exhibits C and 1.
475
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
475
Respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 was issued

pursuant to an Order12 dated October 8, 1992 of the RTC of
Caloocan City, Branch 125, in L.R.C. Case No. C3288,
entitled In the Matter of Petition for Authority to Segregate
an Area of 5,680.1 Square Meters from Lot 23A4B2A3
B, PSD706 (PSU2345) of Maysilo Estate and Issuance of
Separate Certificate of Title in the Name of Felisa D.
Bonifacio. RTCBranch 125 granted respondent Bonifacios
petition for segregation because:
From the evidence presented, the Court finds that in
Case No. 4557 for Petition for Substitution of Names, in the
then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 1, the then
Presiding Judge Cecilia Muoz Palma, issued an Order
dated May 25, 1962 (EXHIBIT N) substituting Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal as one of the registered owners of
several parcels of land forming the Maysilo Estate and
covered by, among others, Original Certificate of Title No.
994 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal with among others
Eleuteria Rivera Bonifacio to the extent of 1/6 of 1189/1000
percent of the entire Maysilo Estate. On January 29, 1991,
Eleuteria Rivera Bonifacio executed in favor of Felisa D.
Bonifacio, herein petitioner, a Deed of Assignment
(EXHIBIT M) assigning all her rights and interests over
Lot 23A4B2A3A, Psd706 and Lot 23A4B2A3B, Psd
706, both lots being covered by O.C.T. 994 of the Register of
Deeds of Rizal. That even prior to the execution of the Deed of
Assignment but while negotiations with Eleuteria Rivera
Bonifacio were going on, petitioner already requested the Lands
Management Sector, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, National Capital Region, to prepare and issue the
Technical Descriptions of the two lots subject of this petition. As
7/38
10/28/2016
requested by petitioner, Elpidio T. de Lara, Chief, Technical

Services Section, Lands Management Sector,
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 1920 Exhibits B and 2.
476
476

DENRNCR, issued on June 20, 1990, two technical

descriptions (EXHIBITS J and K) covering the two lots. After
the issuance of the technical descriptions, the petitioner requested
Geodetic Engineer Jose R. Rodriguez to prepare a sketch plan of
the two lots subject of this petition. As requested, Engr. Rodriguez
prepared a sketch plan (EXHIBIT L) based from Exhibits J
and K which was submitted to the Lands Management Services,
formerly Bureau of Lands, for verification and checking. That Mr.
Benjamin V. Roque, Chief, Topographic and Special Map Section,
Land Management Services, formerly Bureau of Lands, certified
on July 31, 1992 that the sketch plan (EXHIBIT L) is a true and
correct plan of Lots 23A4B2A3A and 23A4B2A3B, both
on Psd[706]. (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, RTCBranch 125 decreed in the same Order:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby
GRANTS the petition and orders the segregation of Lots 23A4
B2A3A and 23A4B2A3B both on Psd[706] from Original
Certificate of Title No. 994 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal in
favor of the herein petitioner.
Upon the finality of this order and the payment of the
prescribed fees if any and presentation of the clearances of said
lots, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City is ordered to
issue a new transfer certificate of title in the name of
herein petitioner Felisa D. Bonifacio over Lots 23A4B2
A3A and 23A4B2A3B both on Psd[706] of O.C.T. 994 of
the Register of Deeds of Rizal.13
For unexplained reasons, the Register of Deeds of

Caloocan City issued TCT No. 265778 to respondent
Bonifacio on March 29, 1993 even before RTCBranch 125
declared its
_______________
8/38
10/28/2016
13 Id., at p. 20.
477
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
477
Order dated October 8, 1992, granting respondent

Bonifacios petition for segregation, final and executory on
April 6, 1993.14
Civil Case No. C366 before RTCBranch 126
To protect their rights and interest over the subject

land, petitioners lodged a Petition15 on July 28, 1994,
docketed as Civil Case No. C366 before RTCBranch 126,
Kalookan City, praying for the declaration of nullity and
cancellation of respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 over
the subject land in view of petitioners subsisting TCT No.
T108530 over the very same property. In an Order16 dated
July 28, 1994, RTCBranch 126 deemed Civil Case No. C
366 as a special civil action for quieting of title and not an
ordinary civil action for recovery of ownership of land.
Subsequently, petitioners discovered that respondent
Bonifacio sold the subject land in favor of respondent VSD
Realty & Development Corporation (VSD Realty), and that
TCT No. 265778 in the name of respondent Bonifacio had
already been cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 28531317
in the name of respondent VSD Realty on September 12,
1994. As a result, petitioners filed on April 25, 1995 an
Amended Petition,18 impleading respondent VSD Realty in
Civil Case No. C366.
Petitioners contended before RTCBranch 126 that
although TCT No. T108530 of petitioners, on one hand,
and TCT No. 265778 of respondent Bonifacio and TCT No.
285313 of respondent VSD Realty, on the other hand,
contained different technical descriptions, said certificates
of title actually pertained to one and the same property.
According to peti
_______________
14 Id., at p. 229 Exhibit O, Certificate of Finality.
15 Id., at pp. 15.
16 Id., at pp. 89.
17 Id., at pp. 9293 Exhibits Q and 5.
18 Id., at pp. 8086.
478
478
9/38
10/28/2016
tioners, respondents certificates of title over the subject

land could have only been obtained fraudulently given that:
a) No subsequent survey of the Lot could have been obtained,
approved by the Director of Lands, and presented by the
respondent as there exists an original isolated survey thereto for
which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10301 covering the said
land was issued as early as 26 February 1926 in the name of
Monica Jacinto Galauran, married to Mariano Mesina.
b) TCT No. 265778 was issued in the name of the respondent
Felisa Bonifacio on [29] March 1993 before the issuance on 6 April
1993 by the Branch Clerk of Court (RTC Branch 125 in L.R.C. No.
C3288) of a Certificate of Finality of the aforesaid Order dated 8
October 1992.
c) TCT No. 265778 was issued to Felisa Bonifacio on 29 March
1993 without the Register of Deeds of Kalookan City requiring the
presentation of the owners duplicate copy of O.C.T. No. 994.19
Respondent Bonifacio filed her Answer with Compulsory

Counterclaim20 on October 11, 1994. She denied knowledge
of petitioners TCT No. T108530 and maintained that the
technical description of the land covered by petitioners
TCT No. T108530 is different from that in her TCT No.
265778. Respondent Bonifacio also averred that the
technical description of the land covered by her TCT No.
265778 had been verified and approved by the Land
Management Services of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) that she acquired a valid
title, TCT No. 265778, over the subject land pursuant to a
court order in a land registration case and that Civil Case
No. C366 was a collateral attack on the validity of her TCT
No. 265778. Respondent VSD Realty, in
_______________
19 Id., at p. 84.
20 Id., at pp. 3037.
479
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
479
its Manifestation21 filed on June 31, 1995, adopted

respondent Bonifacios aforementioned Answer.
In the PreTrial Order22 dated February 23, 1995 of
RTCBranch 126, the parties agreed on the following
stipulation of facts and issues:
10/38
10/28/2016
STIPULATION OF FACTS:
1. That the petitioners are in possession of the lot in question
and
2. That the respondent is never in possession of the lot in
question.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Technical Description is one and the
same as appearing on both titles and
2. Whether or not the TCT No. 265778 of the respondent is a
valid title.
Thereafter, trial ensued.

Petitioners presented several documentary exhibits23
and the testimonies of Leonardo de Guzman Syjuco, one of
the
_______________
21 Id., at p. 99.
22 Id., at pp. 7375.
23 Petitioners documentary exhibits consisted of the following:
1) Certified True Copy of TCT No. T108530 in petitioners names
(Records, p. 200 Exhibit A)
2) Order dated October 8, 1992 issued by RTCBranch 125 in L.R.C.
Case No. C3288 (id., at pp. 1920 Exhibits B and 2)
3) Photocopy of TCT No. 265778 in respondent Bonifacios name (id., at
p. 21 Exhibits C and 1)
4) Certified True Copy of TCT No. 4856 in Martins name (id., at pp.
205206 Exhibit G)
480
480

_______________
5) Deed of [Sale of] Real Estate dated February 7, 1949 executed by
Avelina Baello, et al. in favor of the siblings Martin and Manuel over a
parcel of land covered by TCT No. 8685 (id., at pp. 207210 Exhibit H)
6) Partition Agreement dated June 16, 1964 executed by the siblings
Martin and Manuel over several properties, including the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 12370 (id., at pp. 211213 Exhibit I)
7) Tax Declaration of Real Property Value (for land covered by TCT No.
4856) issued in Martins name Tax Declaration of Real Property Value
(for
building
and
other
improvements)
issued
in
the
name
of
Manufacturers Bank and Tax Declaration of Real Property Value (for

building and other improvements) issued in petitioner Imelda Syjucos
name (id., at pp. 202204 Exhibits D, E, and F)
11/38
10/28/2016
8) Various Real Property Tax Receipts dated from 1949 to 1995 (id., at
pp. 214223 Exhibit J)
9) Letter dated March 9, 1994 addressed to Luis Ong from Exequiel
Fajardo (id., at p. 224 Exhibit K)
10) Letter dated June 5, 1994 addressed to petitioners from their
counsel (id., at pp. 225226 Exhibit L)
11) Certified True Copy of the Technical Description of Lot
23A4B2A3B, Psd706, dated June 19, 1990, issued by LMSDENR
with the notation [s]ubject for field survey (id., at p. 227 Exhibit M)
12) Certified True Copy of the Sketch Plan of Lot 23A4B2A3A,
Psd706, and Lot 23A4B2A3B, Psd706, prepared for respondent
Bonifacio (id., at p. 228 Exhibit N)
13) Certificate of Finality dated April 6, 1993 declaring final and
executory the Order dated October 8, 1992 of RTCBranch 125 in L.R.C.
Case No. C3288 (id., at p. 229 Exhibit O)
14) Certified True Copy of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN)
of the hearing held on August 11, 1992 before RTCBranch 125 in L.R.C.
Case No. C3288 (id., at pp. 230253 Exhibit P) and
481
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
481
petitioners24 Renato T. Malindog, Land Registration

Examiner of the Caloocan City Registry of Deeds25 and
Engineer (Engr.) Elpidio T. de Lara (De Lara), Chief of
Technical Services Section, Land Management Sector
(LMS), DENR.26 In its Order27 dated November 29, 1995,
RTCBranch 126 admitted all the evidence presented by
petitioners.
RTCBranch 126 summarized petitioners evidence as
follows:
Leonardo Syjuco testified that he, together with the other
petitioners in this case, inherited the subject property from their
late father, Martin Syjuco, as shown in Entry No. 15033/No. T
108530 annotated in TCT No. T108530. (Exhibit A) His father
and his uncle, Manuel Syjuco, in turn acquired the same from the
Baello Family through a Deed of Real Estate. (Exhibit H)
Thereafter, Martin and Manuel executed a deed of partition
(Exhibit I) and their father was issued TCT No. 4856 (Exhibit
G) over the subject property. He has been paying the tax
declaration on said property as evidenced by tax receipts.
(Exhibits J to J14) They then leased the property to
Manufacturers Bank who was the one who built the
improvements on the same with stipulation that they will become
the owners of these improvements after the expiration of the
lease. They also subleased the property to Kalayaan Development
Corporation (KDC, for short) and respondent Bonifacio is a lessee
of KDC. One of their tenants informed him that their property
12/38
10/28/2016
was being offered for sale and so he instituted measures to protect

their interest. He also discovered the existence of TCT No. T
265778 (Exhibit C) in the name of respondent Bonifacio which
he claims to be void as there can be no
_______________
15) Photocopy of TCT No. 285313 in the name of VSD Realty (id., at pp.
9293 Exhibits Q and 5).
24 TSN, July 13, 1995.
25 TSN, September 8, 1995.
27 Records, p. 260.
482
482

segregation of a property that was previously segregated.

Witness admits having executed a lease in favor of a certain John
Hay. He likewise admitted that the technical description
appearing on the property lease to John Hay is not the same as
the technical description appearing on Exh. A. He claims that
when they inherited the property, the technical description was
already recorded thereon and it was the Registry of Deeds who
placed the same on the property.
Renato T. Malindog, an examiner of the Register of Deeds of
Kalookan City, testified that prior to the issuance of TCT No.
265778, derivative documents were filed before their office such as
the Court Order dated October 8, 1992 in L.R.C. Case No. C3288
the Certificate of Finality to said Order dated April 6, 1993 the
subdivision plan to Lot 23A4B2A3A and Lot 23A4B2A3
B also PSD706 with Plan No. SK00750100024D and annexed
to said documents were the technical description for Lot 23A4B
2A3A, PSD706 and the technical description for Lot 23A4B
2A3B also of PSD706. Based on their record, documents were
[received] regarding the order of finality but there was no showing
that the tax clearance [was] registered in their office. Likewise,
based on the document presented to them, the office who issued
the technical description was from the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Land Management Sector,
and one Teodoro E. Mundo, Jr. is the Chief Survey Division of
said office.
Elpidio T. de Lara, Chief of the Technical Services Section of
the Department of Agrarian and Natural Resources, affirms to
having certified to the technical description [o]n July 9, 1990,
referred to as Lot 23A4B2A3B of subdivision plan PSD706,
based on a request by Felisa Bonifacio. He made the Note:
Subject for field survey on Exhibit M so that the corresponding
technical description be identified in the plan. Before issuing the
13/38
10/28/2016
technical description for the subject lot, he complied with the

processes of having the technical description researched from
their records. From their record, he had not issued a technical
description for the subject lot and
483
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
483

they have no record in their office of such. The corresponding
B37 technical description attached to the letter request came
from the Land Management Bureau, which is the survey of the
technical description. At the time the request was made until the
time the certification was issued, he did not meet Felisa Bonifacio
and said request was filed in their office and sent to the technical
services department.28
Respondents, in turn, presented documentary exhibits29

and called to the witness stand Geodetic Engr. Evelyn G.
Celzo (Celzo) of the Land Management Services, DENR30
Fernando D. Macaro (Macaro), Land Registration
Examiner of the Caloocan City Register of Deeds31 and
Attorney (Atty.) Kaulayao V. Faylona, Director and
Corporate Secretary of respondent VSD Realty.32
_______________
28 Id., at pp. 437438.
29 Respondents documentary exhibits consisted of the following:
1) The Survey Order dated August 22, 1994 issued by Acting Regional
Technical Director Roquesa E. de Castro of the DENR, pursuant to
respondent Bonifacios request (Records, p. 429 Exhibit 6)
2)
Engr.
Celzos
report
dated
April
17,
1995
on
the
verification/relocation survey conducted on August 23, 1994 (id., at p. 424

Exhibit 4) and
3) The Verification Plan of Lot 23A4B2A3B, PSD706, dated April
28, 1995, as surveyed for respondent Bonifacio, which established that a
verification survey of respondent Bonifacios property (subsequently
covered by TCT No. 265778) was officially conducted and approved. (id., at
p. 429A Exhibit 7).
30 TSN, December 1, 1995, February 2, 1996, and February 15, 1996.
32 TSN, November 3, 1997.
484
484

14/38
10/28/2016
RTCBranch 126 summed up respondents evidence as

follows:
Evelyn G. Celzo, a geodetic engineer from the Land
Management Services, testified that she was ordered to conduct a
verification survey of Lot 23A4B2A3B of PSD706 by their
Regional Technical Director, Roquesa de Castro. The survey was
conducted on August 23, 1994 and its result [was] contained in a
report dated April 17, 1995 (Exhibit 4) which she prepared and
submitted. She and her team personally went to the place and
found out that two (2) stores, namely, Fairy Mart and Zenco
Footstep were the present occupants of the lot. They likewise
informed the adjoining lots that they were going to execute a
verification survey. BPM 119 in Kalookan Cadastre was the
reference point to determine whether the lot was really in that
place. BPM 153, Kalookan Cadastre were used as common points
to identify the technical description in Felisas lot. However,
insofar as Exhibit A is concerned, the technical description of
said property did not contain these common points. The DENR,
NCR, has record of all technical descriptions approved and
verified in said office. She points out that only one (1) technical
description is allowed for a particular lot. In conducting the
survey verification, the certified TCT was furnished to them by
Felisa Bonifacio, together with the relocation survey filed at the
Technical Reference Section. As to the adjoining lots, they secured
the map of the Maysilo Estate Plan, under the relocation survey,
they found out that the lot belonged to Felisa Bonifacio and the
technical description is the same as the technical description
submitted to her. Her verification survey was approved as
reflected in the original plan from the Bureau of Land Verification
Survey (Exhibit 7). She also stated that before the survey, she
conducted a research as to the origin of the technical description
from her office and from the Bureau of Lands in Binondo but
there were no available record. Neither was there any record
about the original owner. When the certified copy of TCT No.
265778 was given to her, there were no annotations of adverse
claims and so she did not
485
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
485
anymore inquire from the Registry of Deeds whether

there were new annotations made thereon.
Atty. Kaulayao V. Faylona, a director and Corporate
Secretary of VSD Realty Corporation, testified that a real estate
broker offered for sale to VSD two (2) lots along Avenida and
occupied by Fairmart and Uniwide Sales, Inc. Among the
documents shown to him by the seller were the Order of Judge
Geronimo S. Mangay, of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan
15/38
10/28/2016
City, Branch 125 (Exhibit 2), as well as the Transcript of Case

No. C3288 (Exh. 3). While he found the issuance of said Order
by the Court regular, he also requested for a verification survey
from the sellers group in order to make sure that the lot
appearing in the technical description is also the lot actually
being occupied by the buildings already mentioned thereon. The
actual verification survey was conducted by the DENR through
Engr. E. Celzo as evidenced by a report (Exh. 4) submitted for
the purpose. Moreover, a verification plan (Exh. 7) approved by
the DENR was likewise prepared in connection with the
verification survey. He even personally went to the sala of Judge
Mangay and verified from the then Deputy Branch Clerk of Court,
the authenticity of the transcript that was given to him which the
said Branch Clerk of Court confirmed as having been issued by
said court. He did not however go over the petition filed by Felisa
Bonifacio since what was important was that the title was issued
in the land registration proceedings. He knew that Felisa was not
in possession of the said property as it was being occupied by
business establishments who were all not owners of the lot. As to
payments of realty taxes due on the property, he claims that the
title would not have been issued in the first place [and] the taxes
[would] not [have] been previously paid. Insofar as VSD is
concerned, the corporation was uptodate in its payment of realty
taxes over their property. He stresses that there is no other owner
of the lot in question except Felisa Bonifacio because there was
only one (1) lot with that technical description. The said approved
technical description appearing on Felisas lot was issued by the
DENR which is actually the custodian of the technical
descriptions of
486
486

lands under the Land Registration System, which was

confirmed by Mr. Elpidio T. de Lara, complainants witness.33
Macaros testimony was not included in the foregoing

prcis of respondents evidence by RTCBranch 126. Macaro
affirmed before RTCBranch 126 the existence of
respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778. Macaro further
testified that the standard operating procedure at the
Caloocan City Registry of Deeds was to require the
presentation of the certification stating that the court order
directing issuance of the certificate of title had already
become final and executory, before actually issuing said
certificate of title but he was unable to explain how in this
case respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 was issued on
16/38
10/28/2016
March 29, 1993, before the Certificate of Finality of the

Order dated October 8, 1992 in Civil Case No. C3288 was
issued by RTCBranch 125 on April 6, 1993.
On January 9, 1998, RTCBranch 126 rendered its
Decision in Civil Case No. C366, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations,
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) Dismissing the petition of the petitioners
2) Declaring that the technical description described in TCT
No. 108530 by the petitioners is not the same as the technical
description on [respondent] Bonifacios title (TCT No. 265778, now
TCT No. 285313)
3) Declaring that TCT No. 265778 is a valid title and
considering that respondent VSDs title, T285313, replaced the
former title, VSD is hereby declared the owner of the land in
question, that is, Lot 23A4B2A3B of PSD706
_______________
33 Records, pp. 438439.
487
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
487

4) For petitioners to pay attorneys fees and the costs of this
suit.34
Comparing the technical descriptions in petitioners TCT

No. T108530 and respondents TCT Nos. 265778 and
285313, RTCBranch 126 noted the bare differences in the
land areas and lot numbers contained therein, and
concluded that said technical descriptions were not one and
the same and that petitioners TCT No. T108530 did not
pertain to the same parcel of land described in respondent
Bonifacios TCT No. 265778. RTCBranch 126 also pointed
out that petitioners own witness, Engr. De Lara, testified
that his office, Technical Services Section of the DENR, had
not previously issued the technical description appearing
on respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778. Engr. De Laras
certification of the technical description of respondent
Bonifacios property was issued for the first time on July 9,
1990 only after complying with all the legal processes
necessary for the purpose, such as, among other things,
conducting a research from their office records which
showed that no such technical description on the subject
property was previously issued and further stating that the
B37 technical description came from the Land
17/38
10/28/2016
Management Bureau which was the survey of the technical

description.35 RTCBranch 126 further cited the testimony
of Engr. Celzo of Land Management Services who
conducted the verification survey during which it was
revealed that while common points were used in
identifying the technical description in TCT No. 265778, no
such common points existed in the
_______________
34 Id., at p. 442.
35 During his testimony on September 29, 1995 (TSN, p. 5), Engr. De
Lara confirmed that he certified the technical description of respondent
Bonifacios Lot 23A4B2A3B, PSD706, on July 9, 1990. However, a
close look at the Technical Description itself (Records, p. 227 Exhibit M)
shows that it was certified as correct by one Engineer T. Calvelo for the
Regional Technical Director on June 19, 1990 and by Engr. De Lara, Chief
of the Technical Services Section, on June 21, 1990.
488
488

technical description appearing on petitioners[] title.

RTCBranch 126 saw no reason to doubt the testimonies of
Engrs. De Lara and Celzo consistent with the rule that
government officials are presumed to perform their
functions with regularity and strong evidence is necessary
to rebut this presumption.
RTCBranch 126 also categorically upheld the validity of
respondent Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 as it was issued
pursuant to the Order dated October 8, 1992 of the
Caloocan City RTCBranch 125. RTCBranch 126 said that
it could not question the order of a coequal court and
brushed aside petitioners claim of continuous possession of
the subject property because such fact alone could not
defeat respondents title over said property registered
under the Torrens system. Absent any showing by clear
and convincing proof that TCT No. 265778 of respondent
Bonifacio, now TCT No. 285313 of respondent VSD Realty,
was irregularly issued, RTCBranch 126 accorded said
titles the conclusive presumption of validity.
C.A.G.R. CV No. 57777 before the Court of Appeals
Petitioners filed an appeal36 before the Court of Appeals,

docketed as C.A.G.R. CV No. 57777, with the following
sole assignment of error:
18/38
10/28/2016
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT ANNUL[L]ING

[RESPONDENTS] TITLES WHICH OVERLAP THE EXISTING
TITLE IN THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS.37
Petitioners asserted that the technical description of the

land in their TCT No. T108530 and that in respondents
TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313 pertain to one and the same
land.
_______________
36 CA Rollo, pp. 5469.
37 Id., at p. 61.
489
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
489
Petitioners argue that RTCBranch 126 failed to

appreciate the probative value of Engr. De Laras
testimony on this particular issue. According to petitioners,
Engr. De Laras certification dated July 9, 1990 on the
correctness of the technical description of Lot 23A4B2A
3B, PSD706, was based merely on the B37 survey
attached to respondent Bonifacios letterrequest, hence,
Engr. De Laras certification included a notation [s]ubject
for field survey since he did not know the location of the
land referred to by the technical description. The B37
survey or the subdivision plan of PSD706 was neither
presented before RTCBranch 126 in this case nor before
RTCBranch 125 in Civil Case No. C3288 (respondent
Bonifacios Petition for Segregation)38 thus, petitioners
contended that there was no evidence as to when the
survey was made, under whose name the survey was made,
and as to whether or not the said survey had the requisite
government approval.39 Petitioners added that it was
incorrect for RTCBranch 126 to conclude that Engr. De
Laras office had never issued any technical description
pertaining to the subject land prior to July 9, 1990, and
what Engr. De Lara actually said was that there was no
record in his office of the technical description of the
subject land as appearing in petitioners TCT No. T108530.
Petitioners also maintained that the Survey Order dated
August 22, 1994 and the Verification Plan of Lot 23A4B
2A3B, PSD706, dated April 28, 1995 had no probative
value as (1) said Survey Order was not authenticated (2)
said Survey Order was incomplete and uncertain as it did
not specify the lot to be surveyed, its location, and its
technical description and (3) the verification survey was
19/38
10/28/2016
conducted only on August 23, 1994, after respondent

Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 was issued on March 29, 1993,
consequently, said survey could not validate the irregular
issuance of TCT No. 265778.
_______________
38 Id., at pp. 7882.
39 Id., at p. 64.
490
490

Additionally,
petitioners
alleged
the
following
irregularities in the issuance of respondent Bonifacios TCT
No. 265778:
(1) Civil Case No. C3288, respondent Bonifacios

Petition for Segregation, is rooted in a Deed of Assignment
of the subject land purportedly executed on January 29,
1991 by Eleuteria Rivera Bonifacio in favor of respondent
Bonifacio, but said Deed merely copied the technical
description of the land issued and certified on June 19,
1990 upon the request of respondent Bonifacio herself.
(2) Respondent Bonifacio merely attached to her Petition
for Segregation in Civil Case No. C3288 a sketch plan of
the subject land, not an approved survey or subdivision
plan.
(3) Respondent Bonifacio stated in her Petition for
Segregation in Civil Case No. C3288 that her and her
transferors possession of the subject land was open,
public, and notorious without any known claimants[,]40
but she later admitted that she had never been in
possession of the said property.
(4) Respondent Bonifacio attached to her Petition for
Segregation a real property tax computation sheet for the
subject property which was in the name of Martin V.
Syjuco, who was petitioners predecessorininterest.41
(5) Respondent Bonifacio obtained TCT No. 265778 over
the subject property on March 29, 1993 whereas the order
authorizing the issuance of said certificate of title became
final and executory only on April 6, 1993.
(6) The Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 265778 to
respondent Bonifacio without requiring the presentation of
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994, which covered
the vast land from whence respondent Boni
_______________
20/38
10/28/2016
40 Id., at p. 80.
41 Id., at p. 82A.
491
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
491
facios property was purportedly segregated, and the

requisite tax clearance in respondent Bonifacios name.
Respondents asseverated that the technical descriptions

contained in their TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313, on one
hand, and in petitioners TCT No. T108530, on the other,
do not pertain to the same land that respondent
Bonifacios TCT No. 265778 was issued pursuant to a valid
court order by RTCBranch 125 in Civil Case No. C3288
and that petitioners Civil Case No. C366 before RTC
Branch 126 was a collateral attack on the validity of
respondents titles.
In its Decision dated February 23, 2001, the Court of
Appeals dismissed petitioners appeal and affirmed in toto
the Decision dated January 9, 1998 of RTCBranch 126 in
Civil Case No. C366.
Aside from essentially adopting the ratiocination in the
appealed judgment of RTCBranch 126, the Court of
Appeals also espoused respondents argument that Civil
Case No.
C366, instituted by petitioners before RTCBranch 126,
was a collateral attack on the validity of respondent
Bonifacios TCT No. 265778, in violation of Section 48 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the
Property Registration Decree. The appellate court,
comparing the parties respective certificates of title,
further ruled that:
[A] careful scrutiny of TCT Nos. 108530 and 265778 revealed
relevant similarities. Both TCTs originate from OCT No. 994
pursuant to Decree No. 36455, Record No. 4429. TCT No. 108530
was first originally registered on May 03, 1917, in contrast to
Bonifacios title (TCT No. 265778) which was [registered] in 1912.
In view of this, we quote the ruling enunciated by the court in
Metropolitan Waterworks Sewerage System v. Court of Appeals
and reiterated in the cases of Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court of
Appeals and Mascarias v. Court of Appeals.
492
492

21/38
10/28/2016
Where two certificates (of title) purport to include the same

land, the earlier in date prevails. x x x. In successive
registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect
of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming
under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest and
the person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the
holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the
person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in
respect thereof.
Hence, in point of priority in issuance, the title of Bonifacio
prevails over that of the [petitioners]. Since, the land in question
has already been registered under OCT 994, in the year 1912, the
subsequent registration of the same land on May 03, 1917 is null
and void.42 (Citations omitted)
The Court of Appeals lastly pointed out that petitioners

possession of the subject land cannot defeat respondent
Bonifacios title thereto:
While we recognize the fact that the [petitioners] have been in
44 years of continuous possession, still, we should not lose sight of
the fact that [respondent] Bonifacio is an owner of an earlier
issued title. The imprescriptibility of Bonifacios title cannot be
defeated by the [petitioners] continuous possession of the
questioned lot. To hold otherwise, the efficacy of the
conclusiveness of the certificate of title, which the Torrens System
seeks to insure, would be futile and nugatory.43 (Citations
omitted)
_______________
42 Rollo, pp. 3233.
43 Id., at p. 33.
493
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
493
The Court of Appeals concluded that since respondent

Bonifacio is the owner of the subject land, validly
registered in her name, she is within her rights in selling
said property to respondent VSD Realty, making the
latters TCT No. 285313 also valid.
Hence, the present petition for review.
Petitioners reiterate their position that their TCT No. T
108530 and respondents TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313
pertain to one and the same land, and that the latter titles
have been fraudulently obtained. Petitioners also aver that
22/38
10/28/2016
their undisturbed possession of the subject property gives

them a continuing right to seek the aid of a court to
ascertain and determine the nature and effect of
respondents adverse claim on the subject land.
In addition, petitioners pray for this Court to take
judicial notice of supervening events relative to the
indiscriminate issuance or proliferation of fake titles
derived from OCT No. 994 covering the Maysilo Estate.
They point out that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights,
Urban Planning, and Housing and Resettlement, already
conducted separate investigations of this serious land title
anomaly and had submitted their respective reports on the
matter. The DOJ Committee Report dated August 28, 1997
and Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25,
1998 validated OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917
declared OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917 as
nonexistent and recommended the cancellation of all titles
derived from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917.
Petitioners, thus, argue that respondent Bonifacios title,
which originated from OCT No. 994 registered in 1912, is
null and void as the only authentic OCT No. 994 is the one
issued pursuant to Decree No. 36455 originally registered
on May 3, 1917.
In their Comment, respondents stand by the propriety of
the Decision dated February 23, 2001 of the Court of
Appeals in C.A.G.R. CV No. 57777 and the Decision dated
January 9,
494
494

1998 of RTCBranch 126 in Civil Case No. C366.

Respondents also exhort this Court not to take judicial
notice of the DOJ and Senate committee reports because
those are irrelevant to the present case as the true date of
registration of OCT No. 994 has never been an issue
herein. At any rate, respondents insinuate that there was a
mistake in the indication in the title of respondent
Bonifacio that it originated from OCT No. 994 registered in
1912, claiming that the same must have been [caused by
either] a clerical error or a mental lapse.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
On the propriety of petitioners action to quiet title

over the subject land.
23/38
10/28/2016
The Court, at the outset, finds untenable the contention

that the action instituted by petitioners is a prohibited
collateral attack on the certificate of title of respondents
over the subject land.
Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 152944 states:
Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack.A
certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It
cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
To determine whether an attack on a certificate of title

is direct or indirect, the relevance of the object of the action
instituted and the relief sought therein must be examined.
The rule was explained in Catores v. Afidchao45 as follows:
_______________
44 The Property Registration Decree.
45 601 Phil. 638, 652 582 SCRA 653, 667 (2009).
495
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
495

When is an action an attack on a title? It is when the object of
the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge
the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The
attack is direct when the object of an action or proceeding
is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its
enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or
collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an
attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an
incident thereof. (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The instituted action in this case is clearly a direct

attack on a certificate of title to real property.
In their complaint for quieting of title, petitioners
specifically pray for the declaration of nullity and/or
cancellation of respondents TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313
over the subject land. The relief sought by petitioners is
certainly feasible since the objective of an action to quiet
title, as provided under Article 476 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, is precisely to quiet, remove, invalidate, annul,
and/or nullify a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or
effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective,
24/38
10/28/2016
voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said

title.
The Court also finds bereft of merit the contentions that
petitioners action to quiet title had already prescribed
and/or that the titles of respondents over the subject land
have already become incontrovertible and indefeasible
based on Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states:
Section 32. Review of decree of registration Innocent
purchaser for value.The decree of registration shall not be
reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other
disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing judgments, subject,
however, to the right of any
496
496

person, including the government and the branches thereof,

deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to
file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening
and review of the decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by
the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the
land or an interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.
Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for value or an
equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the
decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such
decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by
action for damages against the applicant or any other persons
responsible for the fraud. (Emphases added)
The above quoted rule has wellsettled exceptions.

It is an established doctrine in land ownership disputes
that the filing of an action to quiet title is imprescriptible if
the disputed real property is in the possession of the
plaintiff. One who is in actual possession of a piece of land
claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession
is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being that his
25/38
10/28/2016
undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to

seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine
the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by
one who is in possession.46
_______________
46 Faja v. Court of Appeals, 166 Phil. 429, 438 75 SCRA 441, 446
(1977).
497
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
497
In this case, petitioners have duly established during

the trial that they and/or their predecessorsininterest
have been in uninterrupted possession of the subject land
since 1926 and that it was only in 1994 when they found
out that respondent Bonifacio was able to register the said
property in her name in another title. It was also only in
1995 when petitioners learned that respondent Bonifacio
was able to sell and transfer her title over the subject land
in favor of respondent VSD Realty.
Moreover, the rule on the incontrovertibility or
indefeasibility of title has no application in this case given
the fact that the contending parties claim ownership over
the subject land based on their respective certificates of
title thereon which originated from different sources.
Certainly, there cannot be two or even several certificates
of title on the same parcel of real property because a land
registration court has no jurisdiction to order the
registration of land already decreed in the name of another
in an earlier land registration case and a second decree
for the same land would be null and void, since the
principle behind original registration is to register a parcel
of land only once.47 The indefeasibility of a title under the
Torrens system could be claimed only if a previous valid
title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where the
issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the same
cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the
land covered by it and the person in whose name the title
was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true
title thereto. This ruling is a mere affirmation of the
recognized principle that a certificate is not conclusive
evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had
already been registered and that an earlier certificate for
the same land is in existence.48
_______________
26/38
10/28/2016
47 Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, 350 Phil. 779,

790791 287 SCRA 333, 343344 (1998).
48 Register of Deeds v. Philippine National Bank, 121 Phil. 49, 5152
13 SCRA 46, 48 (1965), citing C. N. Hodges v. Dy Buncio & Co., Inc., 116
Phil. 595, 601 6 SCRA 287, 292 (1962).
498
498

Accordingly, petitioners filing of an action to quiet title

over the subject land is in order.
On the propriety of remanding this case for further

proceedings before the Court of Appeals.
In VSD Realty & Development Corporation v. Uniwide

Sales, Inc.,49 this Court remanded the case before the Court
of Appeals, citing Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty
Development Corporation,50 and held:
In the main, respondent Baello contends that the Court
erred in not declaring petitioner VSDs TCT No. T285312
as null and void, considering that it is derived from Felisa
Bonifacios TCT No. 265777/T1325, which, in turn, is
derived from the false and fictitious OCT No. 994 dated
April 19, 1917. The records of this case, however, show that
Felisa Bonifacios TCT No. 265777/T1325 and VSDs TCT
No. T285312 are derived from the legitimate OCT No. 994
registered on May 3, 1917, which date has been held as the
correct date of registration of the said OCT in Manotok
Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation. In her
Motion for Leave and Time to File Judicial Affidavit of Mr.
Felino
Cortez
and
Supplemental
Motion
for
Reconsideration, which the Court granted, respondent
Baello contends that she has additional evidence showing
that the copy of Felisa Bonifacios TCT No. 265777/T1325
that was presented to the Register of Deeds of Caloocan,
for the purpose of the issuance of petitioner VSDs TCT No.
T285312, was tampered with to fraudulently reflect that it
was derived from the legitimate and authentic OCT No.
_______________
49 G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013, 702 SCRA 597.
50 565 Phil. 59 540 SCRA 304 (2007) and 601 Phil. 571 582 SCRA 583
(2009).
499
27/38
10/28/2016
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
499

994 dated May 3, 1917. It is alleged that the original
microfilm copy retained by the LRA shows that Felisa Bonifacios
TCT No. 265777/T1325 did not originate from the legitimate and
authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917, but was instead
derived from OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1912. Baello cited
Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development
Corporation, which allowed the presentation of evidence
before a Special Division of the Court of Appeals to
ascertain which of the conflicting claims of title should
prevail, even though the case had already been decided
and the additional evidence was presented in connection
with a motion for reconsideration of this Courts decision.
The Court notes that in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT
Realty Development Corporation, the Court pronounced
that there is only one OCT No. 994, which is correctly
registered on May 3, 1917, and that any title that traces its
source to OCT No. 994 dated April 17, 1917 is void, for such
mother title is inexistent.
The Court recognizes the importance of protecting the
countrys Torrens system from fake land titles and deeds.
Considering that there is an issue on the validity of the
title of petitioner VSD, which title is alleged to be
traceable to OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917,
which mother title was held to be inexistent in Manotok
Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, in the
interest of justice, and to safeguard the correct titling of
properties, a remand is proper to determine which of the
parties derived valid title from the legitimate OCT No. 994
registered on May 3, 1917. Since this Court is not a trier of
facts and not capacitated to appreciate evidence of the
first instance, the Court may remand this case to the Court
of Appeals for further proceedings, as it has been similarly
tasked in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development
Corporation on these bases:
500
500

Under Section 6 of Rule 46, which is applicable to original

cases for certiorari, the Court may, whenever necessary to resolve
factual issues, delegate the reception of the evidence on such
issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or
office. The delegate need not be the body that rendered the
assailed decision.
28/38
10/28/2016
The Court of Appeals generally has the authority to review

findings of fact. Its conclusions as to findings of fact are generally
accorded great respect by this Court. It is a body that is fully
capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual
matters, including documentary evidence.
In fact, the Court had actually resorted to referring a factual
matter pending before it to the Court of Appeals. In Republic v.
Court of Appeals, this Court commissioned the former Thirteenth
Division of the Court of Appeals to hear and receive evidence on
the controversy, more particularly to determine the actual area
reclaimed by the Republic Real Estate Corporation, and the areas
of the Cultural Center Complex which are open spaces and/or
areas reserved for certain purposes, determining in the process
the validity of such postulates and the respective measurements
of the areas referred to. The Court of Appeals therein received
the evidence of the parties and rendered a Commissioners
Report shortly thereafter. Thus, resort to the Court of Appeals is
not a deviant procedure.
The provisions of Rule 32 should also be considered as
governing the grant of authority to the Court of Appeals to receive
evidence in the present case. Under Section 2, Rule 32 of the
Rules of Court, a court may, motu proprio, direct a reference to a
commissioner when a question of fact, other than upon the
501
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
501

pleadings, arises upon motion or otherwise, in any stage of a
case, or for carrying a judgment or order into effect. The order of
reference can be limited exclusively to receive and report evidence
only, and the commissioner may likewise rule upon the
admissibility of evidence. The commissioner is likewise mandated
to submit a report in writing to the court upon the matters
submitted to him by the order of reference. In Republic, the
commissioners report formed the basis of the final adjudication
by the Court on the matter. The same result can obtain herein.51
(Emphases added)
The Court notes, however, that several matters have

already transpired during the pendency of this case that
bear considerable relation in the resolution of the main
question of which of the respective titles of the parties over
the subject land is valid.
Firstly, the Court observes that the certification as
indicated in petitioners title, which the latter submitted
during the trial, shows that it originated from OCT No. 994
registered on May 3, 1917, thus:
29/38
10/28/2016
It is further certified that said land was originally registered

on the 3rd day of May, in the year nineteen hundred and
seventeen, in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register
of Deeds of Rizal, Volume A9, page 226, as Original Certificate of
Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. ____
Record No. 4429.
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 4856/T25, which is cancelled by virtue
_______________
51 VSD Realty & Development Corporation v. Uniwide Sales, Inc.,
supra note 49 at pp. 610613.
502
502

hereof insofar as the above described land is concerned.52

(Emphasis added)
On the other hand, the title of respondent Bonifacio, the

one presented during the trial, shows that it likewise
originated from OCT No. 994, but such mother title states
only the day and the year of its original registration as
follows:
It is further certified that said land was originally registered
on the 19th day of ____, in the year nineteen hundred and
twelve, in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Manila, Volume ____, Page ____, as Original Certificate
of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455 issued in L.R.C.
____, Record No. 4423, in the name of ____.
This certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title
No. 994, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above
described land is concerned.53 (Emphasis added)
Curiously, the title of respondent VSD Realty is

supposed to be a direct transfer from the title of respondent
Bonifacio, yet, the certification as to the original
registration of its mother title OCT No. 994 provides
the registration date of May 3, 1917, thus:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally
registered on the 3rd day of May, in the year nineteen hundred
and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume A9A, Page 226, as Original
Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455 issued
in L.R.C. ____ Record No. 4429 in the name of ____.
30/38
10/28/2016
_______________
52 Records, p. 200.
53 Id., at p. 21.
503
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
503

This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 265778/T1325 which is cancelled by virtue hereof
insofar as the above described land is concerned.
Entered at the City of Kalookan, Philippines, on the 12th day of
September in the year nineteen hundred and ninetyfour at 1:23
p.m.54 (Emphases added)
Furthermore, a certified true copy of respondent

Bonifacios title, which petitioners have obtained just prior
to the filing of the Petition at bar and attached to their
Reply dated December 12, 2001, now shows that the date of
the original registration of respondent Bonifacios mother
title OCT No. 994 has changed from the 19th day of an
unspecified month55 in 1912 to May 3, 1917, and the place
of registration from Manila to Rizal. Aside from these
changes, the portions that were left blank in the earlier
copy of respondent Bonifacios title have already been filled
up in the latest copy of the same, thus:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally
registered on the 3rd day of May, in the year nineteen
hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office
of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume A9A, Page 226, as
Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No.
36455 issued in L.R.C. ____ Record No. 4429 in the name of ____.
This certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of
Title No. 994 which is cancelled by virtue hereof insofar as
the above described land is concerned.
_______________
54 Id., at p. 92.
55 The space for the month was left blank.
504
504

Entered at Caloocan City, Philippines, on the 29th day of March

in the year nineteen hundred and ninetythree at 3:20 a.m.56
31/38
10/28/2016
(Emphases added)
Secondly, the Court notes that the Republic, represented

by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed herein a
Motion for Intervention with attached Petitionin
Intervention, pursuant to the recommendation in the
Report dated May 25, 1998 of the Senate Committees on
Justice, Human Rights, Housing, and Urban Planning and
Resettlement, that the OSG be mandated to intervene in
land disputes before the court, on cases whether pertaining
to government or private lands as the OSG may determine,
involving fake titles, duplication of titles or similar
anomalies, to guide the court on the position of the
government and to involve the concerned government
entities particularly the Land Registration Authority in a
concerted effort to protect the integrity of the Torrens
system of land title registration.57 The motion was granted
and the Petition of the Republic was admitted in the
Courts Resolution58 dated December 8, 2004.
The OSG manifests, among others, that petitioners TCT
No. T108530, in reliance to the conclusions of the DOJ and
Senate committees, is the valid certificate of title covering
the subject land as it could be traced back to the authentic
OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 conversely,
respondents TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313 are null and
void as these originated from the spurious OCT No. 994
registered in 1912.
Respondents filed their Comment [to the Republics
intervention]59 on June 1, 2005. Interestingly, respondents
now contend that their TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313 are
derivatives of OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917,
hence,
_______________
56 Rollo, p. 156.
57 Id., at pp. 354403.
58 Id., at p. 404.
59 Id., at pp. 360378.
505
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
505
they capitalize on the rulings of this Court in

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) v.
Court of Appeals60 and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court of
Appeals61 that those titles derived from OCT No. 994
registered on April 19, 1917 prevail over those titles
32/38
10/28/2016
derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917

considering the priority of the date of registration.
Thirdly, the Court reiterates that the validity of OCT
No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, and the nonexistence of
a purported OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917, have
already been exhaustively passed upon and settled with
finality in the Resolution[s] dated December 14, 2007 and
March 31, 2009 in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty
Development Corporation.62
In Angeles v. The Secretary of Justice,63 this Court
reiterated its pronouncements in Manotok Realty, Inc. v.
CLT Realty Development Corporation64 that the true and
valid OCT No. 994 was registered on May 3, 1917, not on
April 19, 1917, and that any title that traces its source to
the latter date is deemed void and inexistent. The Court
was also explicit that the cases of MWSS v. Court of
Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals had
already been rendered functus officio, thus, these
cases can no longer be cited as precedents. The Court
expounded as follows:
It is important to emphasize at this point that in the recent
case resolved by this Court En Banc in 2007, entitled Manotok
Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation (the 2007
Manotok case), as well as the succeeding resolution in the same
case dated March 31, 2009 (the 2009 Manotok case), the
controversy surrounding
_______________
60 G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783.
61 330 Phil. 8 261 SCRA 327 (1996).
62 Supra note 50.
63 628 Phil. 381 614 SCRA 478 (2010).
64 Supra note 50.
506
506

the Maysilo Estate and the question of the existence of another

OCT No. 994 have been finally laid to rest. All other cases
involving said estate and OCT No. 994, such as the case at bar,
are bound by the findings and conclusions set forth in said
resolutions.
As stated earlier, petitioner anchors her claim on previous
cases decided by this Court which have held that there are two
existing OCT No. 994, dated differently, and the one from which
she and her coplaintiffs (in Civil Case No. C424) derived their
rights was dated earlier, hence, was the superior title.
33/38
10/28/2016
Regrettably, petitioners claim no longer has a leg to stand on. As

we held in the 2007 Manotok case:
The determinative test to resolve whether the prior decision of
this Court should be affirmed or set aside is whether or not the
titles invoked by the respondents are valid. If these titles are
sourced from the socalled OCT No. 994 dated 17 April 1917, then
such titles are void or otherwise should not be recognized by this
Court. Since the true basic factual predicate concerning OCT No.
994 which is that there is only one such OCT differs from that
expressed in the MWSS and Gonzaga decisions, said rulings have
become virtually functus officio except on the basis of the law of
the case doctrine, and can no longer be relied upon as precedents.
Specifically, petitioner cannot anymore insist that OCT No. 994
allegedly issued on April 19, 1917 validly and actually exists,
given the following conclusions made by this Court in the 2007
Manotok case:
First, there is only one OCT No. 994. As it appears on the
record, that mother title was received for transcription by
the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917, and that should be
the date which should be reckoned as the date of
registration of the title. It may also be acknowledged, as
507
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
507

appears on the title, that OCT No. 994 resulted from the
issuance of the decree of registration on [19] April 1917,
although such date cannot be considered as the date of the
title or the date when the title took effect.
Second. Any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994
dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother title is
inexistent. The fact that the Dimson and CLT titles made
specific reference to an OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917
casts doubt on the validity of such titles since they refer to
an inexistent OCT. xxx.
Third. The decisions of this Court in MWSS v. Court of
Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals cannot apply to
the cases at bar, especially in regard to their recognition
of an OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, a title which we
now acknowledge as inexistent. Neither could the
conclusions in MWSS or Gonzaga with respect to an OCT
No. 994 dated 19 April 1917 bind any other case operating
under the factual setting the same as or similar to that at
bar.
To be sure, this Court did not merely rely on the DOJ and
Senate reports regarding OCT No. 994. In the 2007 Manotok case,
this Court constituted a Special Division of the Court of Appeals
to hear the cases on remand, declaring as follows:
34/38
10/28/2016
Since this Court is not a trier of fact[s], we are not prepared to

adopt the findings made by the DOJ and the Senate, or even
consider whether these are admissible as evidence, though such
questions may be considered by the Court of Appeals upon the
initiative of the parties. xxx. The reports cannot
508
508

conclusively supersede or overturn judicial decisions, but if

admissible they may be taken into account as evidence on the
same level as the other pieces of evidence submitted by the
parties. The fact that they were rendered by the DOJ and the
Senate should not, in itself, persuade the courts to accept them
without inquiry. The facts and arguments presented in the
reports must still undergo judicial scrutiny and analysis, and
certainly the courts will have the discretion to accept or reject
them.
There are many factual questions looming over the properties
that could only be threshed out in the remand to the Court of
Appeals. xxx.
xxxx
The Special Division is tasked to hear and receive evidence,
conclude the proceedings and submit to this Court a report on its
findings and recommended conclusions within three (3) months
from finality of this Resolution.
Thus, in the 2009 Manotok case, this Court evaluated the
evidence engaged in by said Special Division, and adopted the
latters conclusions as to the status of the original title and its
subsequent conveyances. This case affirmed the earlier
finding that there is only one OCT No. 994, the
registration date of which had already been decisively
settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917 and
categorically concluded that OCT No. 994 which reflects
the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and
void.65 (Emphases added)
_______________
65 Angeles v. Secretary of Justice, supra note 63 at pp. 398401 pp.
495498.
509
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
509
35/38
10/28/2016
In PhilVille Development and Housing Corporation v.

Bonifacio,66 this Court upheld the validity of the titles to a
portion of land which originally formed part of the Maysilo
Estate which were sourced from OCT No. 994 registered on
May 3, 1917, and declared as null and void a title
purportedly overlapping the said land which traced its
roots from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917. The
Court found that it was physically impossible for Eleuteria
Rivera, the person whom respondent Bonifacio claims to be
her predecessorininterest, to be an heir of Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal because it would turn out that Eleuteria
Rivera was older than her alleged grandmother Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal, to wit:
Eventually, on March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a
Resolution reversing its Decision of November 29, 2005 and
declaring certain titles in the names of Araneta and Manotok
valid. In the course of discussing the flaws of Jose Dimsons title
based on his alleged 25% share in the hereditary rights of
Bartolome Rivera, Eleuteria Riveras copetitioner in LRC No.
4557, the Court noted:
. . . 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). 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 [1903]. This alone creates an unexplained
anomalous, if not ridiculous, situation wherein Vidal, Riveras
alleged Grandmother,
_______________
66 G.R. No. 167391, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 327, 345346.
510
510

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.
The same is true in this case. The Death Certificate of
Eleuteria Rivera reveals that she was 96 years old when
she died on February 22, 1997. That means that she must
have been born in 1901. That makes Rivera two years older
than her alleged grandmother Maria de la Concepcion
36/38
10/28/2016
Vidal who was born in 1903. Hence, it was physically

impossible for Eleuteria Rivera to be an heir of Maria de la
Concepcion Vidal. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted)
Considering all of the above matters, especially the fact

that respondents claim that their respective titles, TCT
Nos. 265778 and 285313, are derivatives of OCT No. 994
registered on April 19, 1917, which this Court had already
repeatedly declared to be a nonexistent and invalid title,
the Court rules in favor of petitioners. As held in
Manotok, [a]ny title that traces its source to OCT
No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother
title is inexistent.67
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition
is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated February 23,
2001, as well as the Resolution dated June 26, 2001 of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R. CV No. 57777 which affirmed
in toto the Decision dated January 9, 1998 of Branch 126 of
the RTC of the City of Caloocan in Civil Case No. C366,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TCT No. 265778 in
the name of Felisa D. Bonifacio and TCT No. 285313 in
the name of VSD Realty & Development Corporation are
declared NULL and
_______________
67 Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation, supra
note 50 at p. 349.
511
VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015
511
VOID. The Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City is

DIRECTED to CANCEL the said certificates of title.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Bersamin, Perez and Perlas
Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and
set aside.
Notes.Quieting of title is a common law remedy for
the removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty
affecting title to real property. (Green Acres Holdings, Inc.
vs. Cabral, 697 SCRA 266 [2013])
Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, an action to quiet
title to real property or remove clouds therefrom may be
37/38
10/28/2016
brought in the appropriate Regional Trial Court.

(Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Muertegui, 703 SCRA 145 [2013])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
38/38

Syjuco Vs Bonifacio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Syjuco Vs Bonifacio

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Syjuco Vs Bonifacio

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/28/2016

G.R. No. 148748.

January 14, 2015.*

VOL. 745, JANUARY 14, 2015