ChanRobles Virtual law Library








GO TO FULL LIST OF DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS


chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scdecisions_separator.NHAD



SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION



  

Please click here to read full text of the following:
  • Main Decision
  • Ynares-Santiago, J., see dissenting opinion.
  • HEIRS OF ANTONIO PAELAND ANDREA ALCANTARA
    AND CRISANTO PAEL,
                               Petitioners,

    G.R. No. 133547
    November 11, 2003

                

    -versus-


    COURT OF APPEALS, JORGE H. CHINAND RENATO B.
    MALLARI,

                                     Respondents.
     

    x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
     
     

    MARIA DESTURA,
                Petitioner,

    G.R. No. 133843
    November 11, 2003

                  

    -versus-


    COURT OF APPEALS, JORGE H. CHINAND RENATO B.
    MALLARI,

                             Respondents.
     
     

    SEPARATE OPINION
     

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., dissenting:


    With fitting deference to the majority, I vote to maintain our decision dated February 10, 2000 and to deny the petition-in-intervention of the University of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Considering the factual and evidentiary matters raised by the University of the Philippines in its petition-in-intervention, we referred the case to the Court of Appeals since it has the "power to try cases and conduct hearings, receive evidence and perform any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues."[1]

    Indeed, this Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction in appealed cases is limited to resolving questions of law.[2] This being the case, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed by this Court, unless they appear to be based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    It is not our function to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence presented by the parties during trial. Our jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive on this Court especially where they are consistently and sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Based on my own reading and analysis of the Court of Appeals' Report dated July 30, 2003, the factual findings contained therein are well supported and established by the records. Thus, it is my view that we should adopt its conclusion and recommendation as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully recommended that a ruling by the Honorable Supreme Court recognizing the better rights of petitioners Jorge H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari to the properties covered by their TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929, as against intervenor University of the Philippines, be issued, without prejudice to the claim of intervenor Pfina Properties, Inc. thereto, and consistently therewith, the said properties be ordered excluded from the claim and title of intervenor University of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Enclosed herewith are the records of CA-G.R. SP No. 454245, Vols. I, II and III.

    Respectfully submitted.[5]

    Indeed, it appeared that U.P.'s claim of ownership over the subject properties is not supported by clear, competent and substantial evidence. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals evidently found a preponderance of evidence which buttress the claims of private respondents to the properties, which it enumerated as:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    1. The April 29, 1998 decision of this Court and the February 10, 2000 Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843 which plainly and categorically stated that petitioners Chin and Mallari are the true and absolute owners of the subject properties;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    2. The December 7, 2001 Resolution of the Supreme Court itself which remanded the instant cases to this court for reception of evidence merely to determine the conflicting boundary claims of the parties, petitioners and intervenor U.P.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    3. The verification survey report dated January 16, 2003 submitted to the RTC, Branch 99, Quezon City, which found that "the property of Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari described on TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 falls inside and is entirely within the property covered by TCT Nos. RT-07359 (192689), RT-107350 (192686), RT-58201 (192687) and RT-57442 (192688) PR-32309, registered in the name of the University of the Philippines."

    4. The findings of Atty. Virgilio B. Tiongson, Assistant Regional Executive Director for Legal Services and Public Affairs, DENR-NCR, in his memorandum dated January 14, 2003, that since the verification and survey report found that the properties of Chin and Mallari covered by TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 "fall(s) inside the property covered by the titles of the University of the Philippines," then there is an apparent overlapping of the titles. His findings even refuted the Tiburcio and other cases cited by U.P. which were found to be inapplicable and irrelevant to the claim of Chin and Mallari. Atty. Tiongson recommended that the report on the verification/relocation survey over the properties covered by TCT Nos. 52928 & 52929 in the names of Jorge H. Chin and Renato B. Mallari, be adopted as it appears from the record that the properties of U.P. under TCT No. 9462 overlap the properties of Chin and Mallari, hence, the same should be returned to Chin and Mallari, the true and absolute owners thereof.

    5. The aforementioned decision of this court dated April 29, 1998 and the decision of the Supreme Court dated February 10, 2000 in G.R. Nos. 133547 and 133843 which categorically ruled that petitioners Chin and Mallari are the true and absolute owners of the subject properties and its resolution dated December 7, 2001 remanding the cases to this court for reception of evidence to determine the conflicting boundary claims of petitioners Chin and Mallari and intervenor U.P.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    6. The findings of Geodetic Engineer Mauro Gabriel in the narrative report dated February 20, 1995 on the verification survey on the subject properties which he submitted to the Regional Technical Director, DENR-NCR, who then found that the properties of U.P. overlap the properties of the Paels identified as Lot 588-A and Lot 588-B, Psd-1006, and recommended that said properties of be excluded from the properties claimed by U.P. under its TCT No. 9462, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    "x     x     x                 x     x     x                 x     x     x

    In order to correct whatever mislead (sic) that had been transpired by the previous preparation of the Deed of Conveyance is to exclude properties and rights that had been long existing before the transfer of ownership from the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines to University of the Philippines. That is to exclude the private property of the Paels, the survey plan, Psd-1006 from lot 42-C, Pcs-13 (8th parcel of land) covered by T.C.T. No. 9462 (U.P.).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    In view of the foregoing, I am recommending that the long existing private property of Antonio Pael, et al. (now Jorge H. Chin & Renato B. Mallari) identified as lots 588-A & 588-B, Psd-1006 be respected and that lot 42-C, Pcs-13 be amended in order to exclude the private rights from University of the Philippines properties, upon approval and confirmation of the proper legal authorities concerned."[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Anent the cases cited by intervenor U.P. in support of its claim of ownership over the disputed properties, I submit that the Court of Appeals was correct in stating:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Intervenor U.P. places much reliance on the alleged validity, efficacy, indefeasibility and imprescriptibility of its title over the subject property claiming that the same has long been upheld with finality by no less than the Supreme Court in several cases, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    1. Tiburcio v. People's Homesite Housing Corporation 106 Phil. 477 (1959)
    2. Galvez v. Tuason 10 SCRA 344 (1964)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    3. People's Homesite Housing Corporation v. Mencias 20 SCRA 1031 (1967)
    4. Katigbak v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-67414, December 7, 1988
    5. Varsity Hills v. Mariano 163 SCRA 132 (1988)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    6. Pael v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 97277, April 15, 1992chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    7. Krus na Ligas Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. University of the Philippines G.R. No. 107622, March 23, 1993

    The aforementioned cases fail to support U.P.'s superior claim over the particular properties being claimed by petitioners Chin and Mallari, nor uphold U.P.'s title to that specific property. Petitioners Chin and Mallari have managed to show that the origin or source of U.P.'s purported TCT No. 9462 was OCT No. 735, and not OCT No. 730. The evidence indicates that U.P. derived its property from the Tuasons, the predecessor-in-interest of the PHHC and U.P., and that the said property being claimed by U.P. is the one covered by OCT No. 735 issued on July 6, 1914, and not OCT No. 730 issued on May 5, 1914, which is another property of the Tuasons.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Indeed, the Tiburcio cases readily show that the mother title involved therein was OCT No. 735, not OCT No. 730. The origin of U.P.'s purported TCT No. 9462 is OCT No. 735 while that of the Paels, now Chin and Mallari, is OCT No. 730.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Tiburcio v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, supra, ruled as follows:

    "It appears, however, that the land in question placed under the operation of the Torrens system since 1914 when it was originally registered in the name of defendant's predecessor-in-interest. It further appears that sometime in 1955 defendant People's Homesite and Housing Corp. acquired from the original owner a parcel of land embracing practically all of plaintiff's property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1356 was issued in its favor while defendant University of the Philippines likewise acquired from the same owner another portion of land which embraces the remainder of the property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462 was issued in its favor while defendant University of the Philippines likewise acquired from the same owner another portion of land which embraces the remainder of the property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462 was issued in its favor  x  x  x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    x  x  x   Thus it appears that defendant People's Homesite and Housing Corporation bought the portion of the property in question from its predecessor-in-interest sometime in 1955 for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1356 was issued in its favor  x  x  x.   The same thing is true with regard to defendant University of the Philippines. It likewise acquired the portion of the property in question sometime in 1955 from its predecessor-in-interest for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462 was issued in its favor   x  x  x."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    The case of Tiburcio does not support U.P.'s claim of having acquired its properties from the Commonwealth of the Philippines in a deed of sale executed by Pres. Quirino on March 1, 1949. The case simply essays that the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation acquired its property registered under TCT No. 1356 in 1955 from the original owner. U.P. likewise acquired its properties registered under TCT No. 9462 in the same year from the original owners.

    A careful reading of the subsequent case of Galvez v. Tuason, supra, shows that what was involved was OCT No. 735 issued on July 6, 1914 in the name of the Tuasons. Since the court noted that the same property was earlier litigated in Tiburcio v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation, supra, then this earlier case involved the same property originally registered under OCT No. 735, and not OCT No. 730. As a matter of fact, it was People's Homesite and Housing Corporation which presented said OCT No. 735 as evidence. Pertinent portions of the decision in Galvez read:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    "x  x  x   Their complaint alleged, in substance that they and their predecessors-in-interest had been in actual, adverse, open, public, exclusive and continuous possession as owners of a parcel of land located in Quezon City containing an area of 430 hectares cultivating and enjoying its fruits; that when the PHHC and U.P. began exercising rights of dominion over the property, they investigated the records of the Register of Deeds of Rizal and discovered that their property was included within the technical boundaries set out in Original Certificate of Title No. 735 in the name of the defendant Tuasons by means of detachable sheets of paper incorporated to the certificate of title; that by virtue of a deed of donation executed by the Tuasons in favor of themselves said certificate was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2680 was issued in their (Tuasons) names; that subsequently the latter sold to appellee U.P. and PHHC the property covered by TCT No. 2680.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    "x     x     x                 x     x     x                 x     x     x

    For its part, the PHHC presented as evidence the Original Certificate of Title No. 735 issued on July 6, 1914 in the name of the Tuasons, its predecessors-in-interest, covering the property claimed by appellants (Exhibit 1-PHHC); a certificate of the Commissioner of Land Registration to the effect that the document thereto attached is a duplicate copy of the Decree No. 17431, on the basis of which Original Certificate of Title No. 735 was issued (Exhibit 2-PHHC); a copy of Decree No. 17431 showing that the property claimed by appellants was included in the judgment rendered in favor of the Tuasons (Exhibit 2-A-PHHC); and a certificate showing the technical description of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1356 issued in favor of the PHHC (Exhibit 3-PHHC)  x  x  x."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Perforce, when the Supreme Court held in Galvez that "the question of ownership with respect to the property in litigation is a matter thrice settled definitely and conclusively by the courts, and must be deemed well beyond the reach of review," it was obviously referring to OCT No. 735 and not to OCT No. 730.

    In short, what has been passed upon with finality by the Supreme Court in the aforecited cases is the origin of U.P.'s TCT No. 9462 which is TCT No. 2680 which, in turn, came from OCT No. 735 of the Tuasons.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    There thus arise serious doubts as to the factual basis of the March, 1949 Proclamation of President Quirino. It states that the property sold by the Commonwealth Government to U.P. was covered by TCT No. 36048 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, yet it is clear that the title of U.P., TCT No. 9462, did not come nor originate from TCT No. 36048 which belonged to the Paels, but from TCT No. 2680 of the Tuasons.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    It is, therefore, understandable that U.P. has been claiming that its title originated from OCT No. 730, and that the same was cancelled by TCT No. 9462 from which came TCT No. 36048. This claim is clearly erroneous and is negated by the foregoing earlier decided cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Thus, the statement in Galvez that:

    "Clearly, therefore, the question of ownership with respect to the property in litigation is a matter thrice settled definitely and conclusively by the courts, and must be deemed well beyond the reach of review."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    clearly refers to OCT No. 735, not to OCT No. 730.

    The Supreme Court was categorical and explicit in Galvez and People's Homesite and Housing Corporation decisions that the origin of U.P.'s title is not OCT No. 730, but OCT No. 735, and that the source of its present title, TCT No. 9462, was TCT No. 2680 of the Tuasons, not TCT No. 36048 of the Paels.

    In any event, even if the Proclamation had any operative force and effect, it is always subject to private rights which must, perforce, be respected.

    The case of Katigbak v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra, also cited by U.P., could not be appreciated as no copy of the judgment or resolution alluded to has been submitted to this court. The same observation is made as regards Krus na Ligas Farmers Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. University of the Philippines, supra.

    The resolution dated April 15, 1992 in Pael v. Court of Appeals, supra, is not relevant as it merely denied the Petition for Review filed by Roberto Pael, et al., "for having been filed out of time."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Relevantly, in the same case of CA-G.R. SP No. 39298, this Court made the following observations:

    a. Paels' TCT is presently kept in the vault of the Register of Deeds, Quezon City; the Philippine Commonwealth Government's TCT is missing in the Land Registration Commission Records, as per letter of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City dated July 30, 1986;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    b. Paels' TCT was issued at 8:36 a.m.; that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, at 9:30 a.m.;

    c. Paels' TCT embraces an area located at Bo. Culiat, Quezon City; that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, an area located in Balara, Quezon City;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    d. Paels' TCT was transferred direct from OCT No. 730; that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, was transferred from TCT No. 31990, but even the latter TCT is missing in the records of the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal, as per Certification of said Registry dated November 23, 1947;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    e. Paels' TCT covers 77.9477 hectares; that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, only 43.21 hectares;

    f. Paels' TCT contains two (2) lots, 588-A and 588-B; that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government, it contains seven (7) lots, namely, Lots 40, 41, 101, 102, 103, 131 and 174; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    g. Paels' TCT subdivision survey plan was approved by the Bureau of Lands on July 22, 1925, under Psd-1006 with Accession No. 224154, per Certification of the Bureau of Lands dated August 12, 1986; whereas, that of the Philippine Commonwealth Government has no subdivision survey plan.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    What is clear from the cases cited is that intervenor U.P.'s title actually came from OCT No. 735 of the Tuasons, which was registered on July 6, 1914 (Exhs. "M-2" and "M-3"). Clearly, the registration of the property of the Tuasons, U.P.'s predecessors, was later than the registration of OCT No. 730 on May 5, 1914. The cases also show that OCT No. 735 was replaced by TCT No. 2680 by virtue of the Deed of Donation executed by the Tuasons, who eventually sold the property in 1955 to PHHC under TCT No. 1356, and the remaining portion, also in 1955, to intervenor U.P. under TCT No. 9462 (Exhs. "M-2" and "M-3"). These are judicial findings which should estop intervenor U.P. from taking any contrary stand now.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Moreover, petitioners point out that it is highly improbable that U.P.'s title was issued on May 3, 1914 because May 3, 1914 fell on a Sunday when there were no routine official transactions. They also stress that it is legally improbable for the Commonwealth to have acquired and later for U.P. to have purchased the subject landholdings on November 1, 1938 which is seven (7) months prior to its recorded creation, upon approval of CA No. 442 only on June 3, 1939. It can neither be the same Tuason's OCT No. 730, with its different registration date of May 5, 1914, that gave birth to TCT No. 36048 (Exh. "C") in the name of the Paels, which cannot also be the same as U.P.'s missing TCT No. 36048 of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    TCT No. 9462 (Exh. "A") of U.P. embodied eight (8) specifically described parcels of land with an area of 4,930,981.30 square meters, which is nowhere close to Paels' TCT No. 36048 (Exh. "C") which covered only two (2) lots, namely, Lot Nos. 588-A and 588-B with a total area very much less than that stated in TCT No. 36048 of U.P. Significantly, no authenticated copies of U.P.'s alleged titles of origin, OCT No. 730 dated May 3, 1914, and TCT No. 36048 in the name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while alleged, have ever been presented by the intervenor U.P.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Furthermore, intervenor U.P.'s claims were belied by the same reports on which it relied. As the Court of Appeals found:

    U.P. invokes the report dated August 27, 1984 of Atty. Edwina C. Pastoral, a member of the Verification Committee of the LRA (Land Registration Authority), on the "authenticity" of TCT No. 36048 of the Paels (Exh. "13" & Annex "16" of U.P.'s Memorandum). An examination of said report shows that it makes lavish reference to previous other reports, such as the alleged report dated June 6, 1983 of then Acting Register of Deeds of Pasay City, Atty. Ramon Manalastas, the report dated July 3, 1984 of then Acting Register of Deeds of Quezon City, Atty. Vicente N. Caloyan and the letter of Atty. Josefina C. Ceballos then Special Assistant to the Director of Lands, wherein she informed the LRA (formerly LRC) that their office cannot trace the official copy of plan Psd-1006 of the 2 lots covered by TCT No. 36048 of the Paels. Atty. Ceballos appeared to have submitted with her letter another report of Privadi J.D. Daire, a geodetic engineer of the Lands Management Bureau (then Bureau of Lands).

    The weight of the Pastoral Report is, however, denied by Atty. Pastoral herself when she pointed out that "vault-keeper Manuel Lim of the Q.C. Registry could not find in the archives the said deed of sale in favor of U.P. as well as TCT No. 36048 in the name of the Commonwealth of the Philippines." Atty. Pastoral then expressed therein that —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    "In view of the loss of said documents, it is difficult to establish the link and determine the manner of transfer of the lot in question owned by the Tuasons from OCT No. 730 to TCT No. 2681, TCT No. 6075 & TCT No. 26550, and to the Commonwealth of the Philippines leading to the issuance of TCT No. 36048 in the name of the latter."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    The above admission implicitly confirms that there is indeed a disturbing doubt as to whether the titles of U.P., allegedly derived from TCT No. 36048 of the Tuasons, are the true facts. At the same time, this supports this court's earlier observations that what was confirmed by the cases cited by U.P. in its memorandum is that U.P.'s original mother title is OCT No. 735, not OCT No. 730. U.P.'s memorandum also cites a report of Mamerto L. Infante, Regional Technical Director for Management Service, NCR, DENR, who concluded therein that "an actual relocation survey may be superfluous because it will just confirm the same technical condition as established  x  x  x." This is self-defeating and leads this court to no other alternative than to give the report no probative value.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Private respondents, on the other hand, submitted to the Court of Appeals credible evidence to show that their titles over the subject properties, TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929, originated from OCT No. 730. These are, as enumerated by the Court of Appeals:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    1. TCT No. 36048 (Exh. "C") which was registered on November 11, 1939 in the names of the Spouses Antonio Pael and Andrea Pael (Paels) and their son Crisanto Pael, covering two (2) parcels of land designated as Lot No. 588-A with an area of 518,455 square meters, and Lot No. 588-B comprising 261,022 square meters, or a total area of 779,477 square meters (77.9477 hectares).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    2. TCT No. 52924 (Exh. "R") in the names of Crisanto Pael and Roberto Pael which cancelled TCT No. 36048 upon the execution of an extrajudicial settlement by the Paels on December 27, 1965.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    3. TCT No. 52925 (Exh. "S") in the names of the Paels and Luis Menor which cancelled TCT No. 52924 after Menor purchased a portion of the land of the Paels on July 24, 1978.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    4. TCT No. 52926 (Exh. "I") in the names of Luis Menor and petitioners (private respondents) Chin and Mallari which replaced TCT No. 52925 after the Paels sold their remaining share to Chin and Mallari on December 10, 1978.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    5. TCT No. 52927 (Exh. "U") in the names of Chin and Mallari which replaced TCT No. 52926 after Luis Menor sold his share in the land to the former.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    6. TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 (Exhs. "P" and "Q") in the names of Chin and Mallari which were issued upon their request, thereby cancelling TCT No. 52927. These two (2) TCT's were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on January 24, 1992.[9]

    Hence, I am constrained to agree with the Conclusion and Recommendation of the Court of Appeals as follows:

    This court, after a studied and judicious examination and appreciation of the totality of the evidence submitted by petitioners Chin and Mallari and intervenor U.P., finds that petitioners' TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929 originated from OCT No. 730 which was registered on May 5, 1914. On the other hand, the court finds that intervenor U.P. has failed to sufficiently establish that its TCT No. RT-107350 (192689) similarly originated from the same OCT No. 730. For one, intervenor failed to submit authenticated or certified copies of the TCT of the Commonwealth of the Philippines which covers the parcels of land sold to U.P. and which thereafter secured its TCT No. 9462. To note more, in her report to the LRA Verification Committee (Exh. "3"), Atty. Edelwina C. Pastoral lamented that because of "the loss of said documents, it is difficult to establish the link and determine the manner of transfer of the lot in question owned by the Tuasons from OCT No. 730 to TCT No. 2681, TCT No. 6075 & TCT No. 26550, and to the Commonwealth of the Philippines leading to the issuance of TCT No. 36048 in the name of the latter." Moreover, the TCT's presented by intervenor U.P. to prove its ownership of the lands allegedly conveyed to it by the Commonwealth of the Philippines (marked as Exhs. "1," "2," "3," "4," "5" and "6"), uniformly show that the OCT No. 730 which U.P. claims, was the root of said TCT's was registered on May 3, 1914. This date appears, however, to fall on a Sunday, which casts doubts on U.P.'s claim. This court, therefore, finds that in line with its observations on the cases cited by U.P., the latter's TCT, which overlaps that of petitioners, originated from another title — OCT No. 735 — which was registered on July 6, 1914 (see Galvez v. Tuason, supra)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    In Benin v. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531 (1974), it was held that the original certificate of title takes effect upon the date of its entry in the registration book of the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated, and the land thereby becomes registered land on that date. (see also, secs. 39 and 40 of PD No. 1529). The land covered by OCT No. 730 of the Tuason, thus, became registered land as of May 5, 1914, ahead of the registration of OCT No. 735 on July 6, 1914.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Although intervenor U.P. appears to hold a certificate of title over the same property covered by petitioner's TCT Nos. 52928 and 52929, it certainly could not claim a better right to the property than petitioners. It has been aptly commented that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    "The simple possession of a certificate of title does not necessary make the holder thereof a true owner of all the property described therein, such as when such title includes by mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered under the Torrens system, as when the same land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the land is existence." (Land Registration and Related Proceedings by Amado D. Aquino, 2002 Ed., p. 144, citing Avila vs. Tapucar, 201 SCRA 148, 156 [1991], Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 177 SCRA 303 [1989], Register of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 46 [1965], and other cases).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    In Register of Deeds v. Philippine National Bank, supra, it was also held that the indefeasibility of title could be claimed only if a previous valid title to the same land does not exist. Nor does the incontestable character of Torrens certificate apply when the land covered thereby is not capable of registration [Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647 (1974); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 743 (1980)], as when it is private property.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    The rule has also been laid down that a certificate of title is likewise not conclusive of ownership where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin. Thus, where the holder of a transfer certificate of title claims that its origin as reflected in the certificate is not the true original certificate of title but another certificate of title, then the derivative certificate's conclusiveness is not indubitable (Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 165 [1991]). This rule equally applies even when, as in the case at bar, it is another party who disputes the origin of a derivative certificate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    This court does not in this report make a finding that intervenor U.P. illegally obtained titles over the contested property. But given the fact that petitioners' TCT's are transfer certificates from OCT No. 730 which was earlier registered than OCT No. 735, and by reason of the above-cited rulings and jurisprudence governing the Torrens system of registration, this court must inevitably submit that petitioners have a better right of ownership over the property in dispute than U.P.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    However, while I agree with the Court of Appeals that the rights of respondents Chin and Mallari to the properties in dispute must be upheld, the same should not be made subject to the claims of PFINA Properties, Inc. In other words, I believe that the Court of Appeals erred when it granted PFINA's motion for leave to intervene. It is too late in the day for PFINA to intervene after judgment in the main case has already become final. These proceedings are only for the determination of the conflicting claims of intervenor U.P. Insofar as the other parties are concerned, this case has already been terminated with finality in our Resolution dated December 7, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, I dissent from the majority resolution and vote to deny the petition-in-intervention filed by intervenor University of the Philippines for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred

    Azcuna, J., concurs.chan robles virtual law library
     
     


    ____________________________

    Endnotes:
     

    [1] B.P. Blg. 129, Sec. 9, last par., as amended.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [2] Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 2(e); 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45, Sec. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [3] Padunan v. DARAB, G.R. No. 132163, 28 January 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [4] Producers Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115324 19 February 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [5] Report, pp. 26–27; signed by Associate Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Danilo B. Pine.
    [6] Id., pp. 14–16; emphases in the original.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [7] Id., pp. 16–22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [8] Id., pp. 23–24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [9] Id., p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
    [10] Id., pp. 25–26; emphases in the original.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred


     Back to Top   -   Back to Main Index   -   Back to Table of Contents -2003 SC Decisions   -   Back to Home











































    chanrobles.com




    ChanRobles Legal Resources:

    ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

    ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

    ChanRobles MCLE On-line

    ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com