Manotok vs.

Heirs of Barque Hall, immolating records stored in the Office of the Registry of Deeds of
December 18, 2008 | Tinga, J.| Classification of Philippine Courts: Quezon City.
Courts of law and equity Heirs of Homer Barque filed a petition with the Land
DIGEST MADE BY: Registration Authority for administrative reconstitution of the original of
Sienna Nacario & Nina Napala TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer Barque. The subject is a
land belonging to Lot. 823 of the Piedad estate situated in the then
Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal. In support of their petition,
PETITIONER: SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK,
FERNANDO M. MANOTOK III, MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. they submitted the following: owner’s duplicate title, real estate tax
TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL MARSHALL receipt, tax declarations, and a plan FLS 3168-D covering the property.
Severino Manotok IV et. al filed an opposition claiming that the
V. MANOTOK, MARY ANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK,
IGNACIO MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO lot covered by the Barque title formed part of the land covered by their
MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. reconstituted title in the name of Severino Manotok and further alleged
that Barque title was spurious.
BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE
CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin Bustos, reconstituting officer of
MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR., and LRA, denied the petition of Barque on the ground that the land is
MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Rosa registered under the name of the Manotoks and that the plan submitted
R. Manotok is a spurious document.
RESPONDENTS: HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, Represented by The motion for reconsideration of Barque was subsequently denied.
TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ Barque appealed to the LRA which reversed the decision of Atty. Bustos
and granting the reconstitution of Barque title while ordering the
DOCTRINE: cancellation of the Manotok’s title. It ordered that reconstitution of TCT
The law expressly provides that the RTC has "exclusive original No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque shall be given due course
jurisdiction" over actions seeking the cancellation of title to real after cancellation of TCT in the name of the Manotoks upon order of a
property. The LRA is not empowered by law to cancel or annul a Torrens competent court of jurisdiction.
title. The Court of Appeals does not have original jurisdiction to annul Manotok filed a motion for reconsideration while Barque filed an
opposition praying that reconstitution be ordered immediately, both of
Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of
property. For the appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of which were denied by the LRA.
a Torrens title in the course of reviewing a decision of the LRA, the LRA Both the Manotoks and the Barques appealed the LRA decision to
the CA, both requests were denied. Barque prayed that LRA be directed
itself must have statutory authority to cancel a Torrens title in the first
place. to immediately reconstitute Barque title without being subjected to the
condition that Manotok title should be cancelled. The Manotoks contend
that the LRA erred in imputing that their title was spurious
*See J. Carpio’s concurring opinion where he explains equity jurisdiction
(p. 48). (Where the law prescribes a particular remedy with fixed and From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review with the
limited boundaries, the court cannot, by exercising equity jurisdiction, Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the LRA. However,
extend the boundaries further than the law allows.) special division of CA gave conflicting resolutions. Hence, the petition
before the Supreme Court.
RECIT- READY SUMMARY: The SC held that, in the present case, neither the LRA nor the CA
On June 11, 1988, a fire gutted portions of the Quezon City have the authority to cancel or annul a Torrens title. When an
administrative reconstitution of title is filed with the LRA and it is found 5. Both the Barques' and the Manotoks' titles advert to land
that the title is not in the name of the petitioner, the LRA must dismiss belonging to Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate situated in the
the petition which is subject to judicial review. The only remedy is an then Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal.
action before the RTC for the cancellation of the existing title, whether 6. Atty. Benjamin Bustos, the reconstituting officer of the LRA,
by the competing claimant. denied Barques' petition declaring that land covered in the
B.P. Blg. 129, confers jurisdiction on the RTC over "all civil actions TCT is already registered in the name of the Manotoks and
which involve the title to or possession of real property, or any interest covered by another TCT which was already reconstituted and
therein”. This means that the RTC has "exclusive original jurisdiction" that submitted plans by the Barques was spurious.
over actions seeking the cancellation of title to real property. 7. The Barques' motion for reconsideration having been denied,
Following this, the CA does not have original jurisdiction to they appealed to the LRA. The LRA reversed the ruling of the
annul Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over reconstituting officer and declared that the Manotok title was
ownership of property. However, the CA may exercise its exclusive fraudulently reconstituted. It ordered that reconstitution of TCT
appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the LRA and decide on the No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque shall be given due
factual issues in the present case. On such evidence, the Court may course after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the
thereafter decide whether the cancellation of the Manotok’s Torrens title name of the Manotoks upon order of a competent court of
is warranted. (The case was remanded to the CA for further jurisdiction.
proceedings.) 8. The LRA denied the Manotoks' motion for reconsideration and
the Barques' prayer for immediate reconstitution. The Barques
FACTS: prayed that the LRA be directed to immediately reconstitute the
1. On 11 June 1988, a fire gutted portions of the Quezon City Hall, Barque title without being subjected to the condition that the
immolating records stored in the Office of the Register of Deeds Manotok title should first be cancelled by a court of competent
of Quezon City. jurisdiction.
2. The respondents, as the surviving heirs of the late 9. Both the Manotoks and the Barques appealed the LRA decision
Homer Barque, filed a petition with the Land Registration to the CA, both requests were denied. From the foregoing,
Authority (LRA) for administrative reconstitution of the original respondents filed a petition for review with the Court of
copy of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer Barque, Appeals which affirmed the decision of the LRA. However,
which was allegedly destroyed in the fire. special division of CA gave conflicting resolutions. Hence, the
3. In support of the petition, petitioners submitted the owner's petition before the Supreme Court.
duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177, real estate tax receipts, tax 10. On September 7, 2006, Felicitas Manahan and Rosendo
declarations and the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the property. Manahan filed a motion to intervene, to which was attached
their petition in intervention. They alleged that their
4. Upon being notified of the petition for administrative
predecessor-in-interest, Valentin Manahan, was issued Sale
reconstitution, petitioners (the Manotoks) filed their Certificate No. 511 covering Lot No. 823 and attached the
opposition, claiming that the lot covered by the title under findings of the NBI that the documents of the Manotoks were
reconstitution forms part of the land covered by their not as old as they were purported to be.
reconstituted title, and alleging that TCT in the name
of respondents' predecessors-in-interest is spurious. BASIS FOR THEIR CLAIMS FOR OWNERSHIP:
• Manotoks: Their grandfather bought Lot 823 from the
Government in 1919. They have since occupied the land, built
 their houses and buildings on it. The subject land is now known denied the immediate
as Manotok Compound. reconstitution
• Barques: Teresita claims her father (Homer) bought land from
Emiliano Setosta who had a TCT in his name. Barque filed a motion for reconsideration on both cases
• Manahans: The lot originally belonged to his parents but was Action of Decision
subsequently bought by his wife. They had a caretaker on the the Court
property but she was ousted by armed men in 1950s so they
just declared the property for taxation to protect their rights. 66642 (filed MR was Reconstituted Barque title
by Manotok) granted and directing the Registry
of deeds of QC to cancel
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Manotok’s title
66700 (filed MR was Created a Reconstituted Barque title
Parties filed the following in the LRA by Barque) granted Special and directing the Registry
Document Filed Action of the Division of of Deed of QC to cancel
LRA Five of the Manotok’s title
Manotok Motion for Reconsideration Denied former
Barque Opposition with prayer that reconstitution Denied 2nd Division
be ordered immediately

Both appealed to the CA ISSUE/S:

POC
Manotoks CA- G.R. LRA erred in imputing that their title was 1. WON the LRA has the authority to cancel or annul a Torrens
No. spurious title and the reconstitution of the Barque title should be given
66642 due course - NO
Barque CA- G.R. Prayed that LRA be directed to immediately 2. WON the CA can direct the cancellation of a Torrens title in
No. reconstitute Barque title without being the course of reviewing a decision of the LRA – NO
66700 subjected to the condition that Manotok title
should be cancelled
RULING:
Decision of the CA
Parties CA-GR. Court Decision WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 12 June 2005, and the Resolutions
No. dated 19 April and 19 June 2006 of the Court's First Division are hereby
Manotok 66642 3rd Division Affirmed the decision of the LRA SET ASIDE, and the Entry of Judgment recorded on 2 May 2006 is
of CA ruling that LRA correctly deffered RECALLED. The Amended Decision dated 24 February 2004 in CA-G.R.
in giving due course to the SP No. 66642, the Amended Decision dated 7 November 2003 and the
Barques’ petition for Resolution dated 12 March 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, and the
reconstitution, since there was yet Resolutions of the Land Registration Authority dated 24 June 1998 and
no final judgment upholding or
14 June 1998 in Admin. Recons. No. Q-547-A[97] are all REVERSED
annulling the Barque title
and SET ASIDE.
Barque 66700 2nd division Denied Barque’s petition and
of CA affirmed the decision of LRA which
The instant cases are hereby REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings in accordance with this Resolution. The Court of
Appeals is directed to raffle these remanded cases immediately upon nor the Court of Appeals at that point may inquire into
receipt of this Resolution. the validity of the title or the competing claims over the
property. The only remedy is an action before the
RATIO: RTC for the cancellation of the existing title,
1. NO whether by the competing claimant or by the OSG
● Nowhere in PD 1529 is it stated that the LRA has the on behalf of the Republic.
power to cancel Torrens titles.
● None of the provisions pertaining to administrative 2. NO
reconstitution in Rep. Act No. 26 or 6732 extraordinarily • The Court of Appeals does not have original jurisdiction
empowers the LRA to exercise jurisdiction over a to annul Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate
petition for reconstitution, where the property is questions over ownership of property. Its exclusive
already covered by a Torrens title. original jurisdiction is determined by law, particularly
● Clearly, the cancellation of the Manotok title cannot by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129). Section 9 of that law
arise incidentally from the administrative proceeding restricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court
for reconstitution of the Barque title even if the of Appeals to special civil actions and to actions for
evidence from that proceeding revealed the Manotok annulment of judgments of the regional trial court.
title as fake. Nor could it have emerged incidentally in • Thus, for the appellate court to be able to direct the
the appellate review of the LRA's administrative cancellation of a Torrens title in the course of reviewing
proceeding. a decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory
● For reconstitution of title, the certificate of title must authority to cancel a Torrens title in the first place.
not be the subject of litigation or investigation, • The Court of Appeals was not endowed with the proper
administrative or judicial, regarding its genuineness or appellate jurisdiction to annul the Manotok title. As
due execution or issuance. earlier pointed out, since the LRA had no original
● The administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is jurisdiction to cancel the Manotok title, it follows that
intended for non-controversial cases, or especially the Court of Appeals had no jurisdictional competence
where the subject property is not covered by an to extend the same relief, even while reviewing the
existing title in favor of a person other than the LRA's ruling.
applicant. • Paragraph 2, Section 19 of B.P. Blg. 129, confers
● If a petition for administrative reconstitution is filed jurisdiction on the RTC over "all civil actions which
with the LRA, and it appears from the official records involve the title to or possession of real property, or any
that the subject property is already covered by an interest therein . . . ." The RTC has "exclusive original
existing Torrens title in the name of another person, jurisdiction" over actions seeking the cancellation of
there is nothing further the LRA can do but to title to real property is so cardinal in our remedial law
dismiss the petition. that it is reflected in hundreds if not thousands of
● The dismissal of such petition is subject to judicial examples in jurisprudence
review, but the only relevant inquiry in such appellate • However, the Court of Appeals did acquire jurisdiction
proceeding is on whether or not there is a previously over the Barques' and the Manotoks' petitions, albeit in
existing title covering that property. Neither the LRA the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction
 over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to Section Registration Decree expressly prohibiting collateral attacks
9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. on Torrens titles.
• The primary focus for the Court of Appeals in receiving • To extend equity jurisdiction to LRA officers to allow
them to entertain collateral attacks on a Torrens title
and evaluating evidence should be whether the
is a gross and blatant violation of the clear and
Manotoks can trace their claim of title to a valid express command of a positive law. Any extension of
alienation by the Government of Lot No. 823 of the equity jurisdiction that operates to negate Section 48 will
Piedad Estate, which was a Friar Land. destroy the most basic safeguard in the Property
• On that evidence, this Court may ultimately decide Registration Decree. Certainly, equity jurisdiction cannot be
whether annulment of the Manotok title is used for this purpose.
warranted.

SEPARATE OPINIONS:

Carpio, J., concurring

• LRA has no jurisdiction, in administrative reconstitution

proceedings, to rule which between two titles over the same
property is valid, or who between two claimants over the
same property is the lawful owner. Section 19 of the
Judiciary Act vests in courts of justice the "exclusive
original jurisdiction" to decide factual and legal
issues involving "the title to . . . real property".
• Equity jurisdiction aims to attain complete justice in
cases where a court of law is unable to render judgment to
meet the special circumstances of a case because of the
limitations of its statutory jurisdiction. However, equity
follows the law, and courts exercising equity jurisdiction
must still apply the law and have no discretion to disregard
the law. Where the law prescribes a particular remedy with
fixed and limited boundaries, the court cannot, by
exercising equity jurisdiction, extend the boundaries further
than the law allows.
• As for equity, which has been aptly described as ‘a justice
outside legality,' this is applied only in the absence of,
and never against, statutory law or, as in this case,
judicial rules of procedure.
• Hence, no court can extend equity jurisdiction to the
LRA where the law has expressly reserved exclusive
original jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court. No
court, invoking equity jurisdiction, can also allow a
collateral attack on a Torrens title, either before the LRA or
before itself, in gross violation of Section 48 of the Property