ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 162335 & 162605. April 19, 2006]
SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, et al. vs. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE
Special First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Special First Division of this Court dated APR. 19, 2006
G.R. No. 162335 & 162605 (Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. vs. Heirs of Homer L. Barque )
This resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision dated December 12, 2005.
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioners merely reiterate arguments already raised and fully discussed in our Decision promulgated on December 12, 2005.
Moreover, it is futile for petitioners to again ask for a review of the facts already passed upon in detail by the LRA whose findings thereon were affirmed in toto by Two Divisions of the Court of Appeals in separate cases involving the same parties and issues. Findings of fact of administrative bodies are accorded respect, even finality by this Court and, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are no longer reviewable except only for very compelling reasons. Basic is the rule that factual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that this Court is essentially not a trier of facts. [1] cralaw
Petitioners' claim that our ruling on the issue of collateral attack on a Torrens Certificate of Title constitutes a departure from settled law and jurisprudence is totally baseless and misleading. There is absolutely no departure from settled jurisprudence. As explained in our decision, since petitioners' TCT No. RT. 22481 had been found by the LRA and Two Divisions of the Court of Appeals to be fake and spurious, a finding which is no longer reviewable by this Court, the same is not entitled to the protection accorded to duly issued Certificates of Title.
Moreover, having been found to be fake and spurious and therefore void ab initio , petitioners' title, according to Ferrer v. Bautista, [2] cralaw is susceptible to direct as well as to collateral attacks. Likewise, in the case of Heirs of Pael v. Court of Appeals, [3] cralaw we also ruled that:
[I]t should be recalled that the transfer of title from the Heirs of Pael in favor of PFINA was replete with badges of fraud and irregularities which rendered nugatory and inoperative the existing doctrines on land registration and land titles.
Petitioners' claim that we misapplied the case of Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco [4] when we refused to refer the case to the trial court for further proceedings is incorrect. Since the findings of fact of the LRA clearly established that the petitioners' title is fake and spurious, a finding the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto, the Court of Appeals correctly applied the ruling in Ortigas v. Velasco when it ordered the cancellation of petitioners' TCT No. RT. 22481 and the reconstitution of respondent's genuine and existing title. Indeed, as held in Ortigas, it "would be pointless and unduly circuitous" for the court to require further proceedings before the trial court for the cancellation of petitioners' fake and spurious title and to try anew the same issues of facts already ruled upon with finality by Two Divisions of the Court of Appeals.
ACCORDINGLY , petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration dated January 23, 2006 is DENIED for lack of merit.
The Court further resolves to:
(a) NOTE the manifestation dated March 22, 2006 by respondents that they adopt their opposition to petitioners' motion for reconsideration dated January 23, 2006 as their comment on the said motion for reconsideration; that they also filed on February 28, 2006 their opposition to petitioners' omnibus motion dated February 13, 2006; and that on March 1, 2006 they filed a manifestation calling attention to the inadvertence to the last paragraph on p. 3 of their opposition to petitioners' motion for reconsideration; and
(b) TREAT as comment on petitioners' motion for reconsideration the opposition of respondents to the said motion for reconsideration. CARPIO, J. maintains his dissent.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
By:
EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Citing Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 336 Phil. 193, 204 (1997).
[2] cralaw G.R. No. 46963, March 14, 1994, 231 SCRA 257, 262. See also Estoesta, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 74817, November 8, 1989, 179 SCRA 203, 212.
[3] cralaw 423 Phil. 67, 69-70 (2001).
[4] cralaw G.R. No. 109645, July 25, 1994, 234 SCRA 456, 501.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
