TITLE: Manotok IV v.

Barque
G.R. No. 162335 & 162605
DATE: Dec. 18, 2008
PONENTE: Tinga J,:

TOPIC: The System of Land Registration in the Philippines; Torrens System of Land
Registration: Characteristics | Advantages

A. FACTS

On 11 June 1988, a fire gutted portions of the Quezon City Hall, immolating, among others, records
stored in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. That fire has attained notoriety due to
the numerous certificates of title on file with that office, which were destroyed as a consequence.

Respondents Heirs of Homer Barque filed a petition with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for
administrative reconstitution of the original of Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of
Homer Barque. Learning of the petition Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. (the Manotoks) filed their
opposition thereto.

Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting officer of the LRA, denied the petition for reconstitution
of the Barque title. Stated that such areas covered by TCT No. 210177, appear to duplicate Lot
823 Piedad Estate, containing an area of 342,945 Sq. Mtrs., covered by TCT No. 372302
registered in the name of Severino M. Manotok, et. al.

The LRA reversed Atty. Bustos on appeal. It ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have
required the submission of documents other than the owner’s duplicate certificate of title as basis for
denying the petition and should have confined himself to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

LRA conclusion is that the Manotok title was fraudulently reconstituted, the LRA noted that only the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) could cancel the Manotok title as a Torrens title. Ordered that
reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque, Sr. shall be given due course
after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Manotoks upon order of a court of
competent jurisdiction.

The Manotoks filed a motion for reconsideration, which was opposed by the Barques with a prayer
that the reconstitution be ordered immediately. The LRA denied the Manotoks’ motion for
reconsideration and the Barques’ prayer for immediate reconstitution.

Both the Manotoks and the Barques appealed the LRA decision to the Court of Appeals (CA)

On September 7, 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo Manahan filed a motion to intervene, to
which their petition was attached. They alleged that their predecessor-in-interest, Valentin
Manahan, was issued Sale Certificate No. 511 covering Lot No. 823 and attached the findings of the
NBI that the documents of the Manotoks were not as old as they were purported to be.
Consequently, the Director of the Legal Division of the LMB recommended to the Director of the
LMB the reconstituted Manotok Title should be reverted to the state.

A.1 ARGUMENTS/CONTENTIONS

PARTY A: Barque PARTY B: Manotok

ARGUMENT ON TCT

-alleged that the Barque title was among -claimed that the lot covered by the
the records destroyed by the 1988 fire. Barque title formed part of the land
covered by their reconstituted title TCT in
the name of Severino Manotok, et. al.
-submitted copies of the alleged owner’s
duplicate of the Barque title, real estate
tax receipts, tax declarations and a Plan
FLS 3168-D covering the property.

APPEAL BEFORE THE CA

-prayed that the LRA be directed to

B. ISSUE/S
Who has the better right over the subject property?

C. RULING

CA notably directed the cancellation of the Manotok title even as it mandated the reconstitution of
the Barque title. The obvious question is whether the Court of Appeals was empowered to direct the
annulment of the Manotok title through the petitions raised before it by the Barques and the
Manotoks. It could not.

There is no doubt that the CA does not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to otherwise
adjudicate questions over ownership of property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined by
law, section 9 of that law restricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the CA to special civil actions
and to actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial court.

It is thus clear that neither the Court of Appeals nor the LRA had jurisdiction to cancel the
Manotok title. The next matter of inquiry is whether the LRA had acted correctly in ordering,
conditional as it
may have been the administrative reconstitution of the Barque title.

The SC states that, “Under Rep. Act No. 26 as amended by

Section 19 of Rep. Act No. 26, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6732, further provides:

If the certificate of title considered lost or destroyed, and subsequently found or recovered, is
not in the name of the same person in whose favor the reconstituted certificate of title has
been issued, the Register of Deeds or the party concerned should bring the matter to the
attention of the proper regional trial court, which, after due notice and hearing, shall order the
cancellation of the reconstituted certificate of title and render, with respect to the memoranda
of new liens and encumbrances, if any, made in the reconstituted certificate of title, after its
reconstitution, such judgment as justice and equity may require:

Provided, however, That if the reconstituted certificate of title has been cancelled by virtue of
any deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, or by an order of the court, and a
new certificate of title has been issued, the procedure prescribed above, with respect to the
memorandum of new liens and encumbrances made on the reconstituted certificate of title,
after its reconstitution, shall be followed with respect to the new certificate of title, and to such
new liens and encumbrances, if any, as may have been on the latter, after the issuance
thereo

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, also known as the Property Registration Decree,

provides that "[a] certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack [...and] cannot
be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law."

Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot arise incidentally from the administrative
proceeding for reconstitution of the Barque title even if the evidence from that proceeding revealed
the Manotok title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in the appellate review of the LRA’s
administrative proceeding.

In order to effectively review and reverse the assailed rulings, it would be best for this Court to test
the premises under which the LRA and the Court of Appeals had concluded that the Barques
had a valid claim to title.

Based on the pieces of evidence presented there are discrepancies that would highlight the error of
the LRA and the CA in acknowledging the right of the Barques to seek reconstitution of their
purported Barque title. Even assuming that the petition for reconstitution should not have been
dismissed due to the Manotok title, it is apparent that the Barques’ claim of ownership is exceedingly
weak.

On the other side, such evidence and points raised against the Manotok title. The apparent flaws in
the Manotoks’ claim are considerable and disturbing enough. Many of these flaws have especially
emerged through the petition-for-intervention of Felicitas and Rosendo Manahan, whom we have
allowed to intervene in these cases.

It must be borne in mind that the disputed property is part of the "Friar Lands" over which the
Government holds title and are not public lands but private or patrimonial property of the Government
and can be alienated only upon proper compliance with the requirements of Act No. 1120 or the Friar
Lands Act.

It was thus primordial for the respondent to prove its acquisition of its title by clear and
convincing evidence in view of the nature of the land. In fact, it is essential for both
respondent and petitioners to establish that it had become private property. Both parties
failed to do so. As we have held earlier, petitioners have not succeeded to prove their claim
of ownership over the subject property.

Since respondent failed to present the paper trail of the property's conversion to private property, the
lengthy possession and occupation of the disputed land by respondent cannot be counted in its favor,
as the subject property being a friar land, remained part of the patrimonial property of the
Government.

The SC declaration that Lot 727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate legally belongs to the
Government does not amount to reversion without due process of law insofar as both parties
are concerned. The disputed property is a Friar Land and both parties failed to show that it
had ceased to belong to the patrimonial property of the State or that it had become private
property.

The Court recognizes that there is not yet any sufficient evidence for us to warrant the
annulment of the Manotok title. All that the record indicates thus far is evidence not yet
refuted by clear and convincing proof that the Manotoks’ claim to title is flawed.

The Court recognizes that the respective claims to title by other parties such as the Barques and the
Manahans, and the evidence they may submit on their behalf, may have an impact on the correct
determination of the status of the Manotok title. It would thus be prudent, in assuring the accurate
evaluation of the question, to allow said parties, along with the OSG, to participate in the proceedings
before the Court of Appeals.

Therefore, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in
accordance with this Resolution.