SPECIAL FIRST
DIVISION
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 |