May 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 137392 : May 30, 2011]
JOSE B. DIMSON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY ROQUETA R. DIMSON, PETITIONER, VERSUS SPOUSES ESTELITA AND ELADIO HIPOLITO AND CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. NO. 140532. MAY 30, 2011]
CONSUELO ZAFRA VDA. DE DANTES, SHIRLEY, MONCHITO, SIXTO JR., MARLON, EDGAR AND EDWIN, ALL SURNAMED DANTES, PETITIONERS, VERSUS CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES ELADIO AND ESTELITA HIPOLITO, JOSE B. DIMSON (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY ROQUETA R. DIMSON, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 137392 - JOSE B. DIMSON (deceased), substituted by ROQUETA R. DIMSON, petitioner, versus SPOUSES ESTELITA and ELADIO HIPOLITO AND CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
G.R. No. 140532 - CONSUELO ZAFRA VDA. DE DANTES, SHIRLEY, MONCHITO, SIXTO JR., MARLON, EDGAR and EDWIN, all surnamed DANTES, petitioners, versus CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES ELADIO AND ESTELITA HIPOLITO, JOSE B. DIMSON (deceased), substituted by ROQUETA R. DIMSON, respondents.
RESOLUTION
Before us are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari assailing the January 27, 1999 Decision[1] and October 22, 1999 Resolution[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 41413 which affirmed the September 29, 1992 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 121 in Civil Case No. C-8634.
The facts are as follows:
In Special Proceedings Case No. C-732, the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Caloocan City), Branch 33, granted Jose B. Dimson's petition for confirmation of the June 13, 1966 Order of the CFI in Civil Case No. 4557. The CFI had ordered the Register of Deeds for Caloocan City to issue to Dimson individual titles over Lot Nos. 25-A-1, 25-A-2, 26, and 28 of the Maysilo Estate. Thus, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) Nos. 15166, 15167 and 15168 were issued to Dimson covering Lot Nos. 26, 28 and 25-A-1 respectively.[4]
Subsequently, respondents Eladio and Estelita Hipolito (spouses Hipolito) intervened in Special Proceedings Case No. C-732 on the ground that Dimson had already sold the lots to them. Atty. Honesto N. Salcedo, Dimson's counsel, also intervened to protect his right to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total area covered by the three lots as his attorney's fees. Later, Dimson, the spouses Hipolito, and Atty. Salcedo entered into a compromise agreement where Dimson affirmed the validity of three deeds of sale executed between him and the spouses Hipolito, and confirmed that he received the full consideration stated in the agreements. The compromise agreement dated August 25, 1978 was approved by the CFI of Rizal on September 8, 1978, and respondent Estelita Hipolito was issued TCT Nos. R-17996, R-17994 and R-17995 covering Lot Nos. 25-A-1, 26, and 28, respectively. TCT Nos. 15166, 15167, and 15168 in Dimson's name were cancelled.
Later, however, on September 3, 1980, Dimson filed a complaint with the then CFI (now RTC) of Caloocan City against the spouses Hipolito for annulment of sale and reconveyance of the three lots. Dimson claimed that the three deeds of sale were void for lack of consideration, and that he never received any money in exchange for the lots. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. C-8634. On December 10, 1988, respondent Estelita Hipolito sold Lot No. 26 to respondent CLT Realty Development Corporation (CLT Realty) with the consent of her husband, respondent Eladio Hipolito. TCT No. R-17994 in respondent Estelita Hipolito's name was canceled, and TCT No. T-177013 was issued in favor of CLT Realty.
Thereafter petitioners Consuelo Zafra vda. de Dantes and her children Shirley, Monchito, Sixto Jr., Marion, Edgar and Edwin, all surnamed Dantes (petitioners Dantes), CLT Realty, Atty. Honesto Salcedo, Pascual David and Crisanta Santos, the spouses Pascual and Florentina David, Lilia Sevilla and Honor P. Moslares intervened in Civil Case No. C-8634, asserting their rights and interests over the subject properties.
On September 29, 1992, the RTC dismissed Dimson's complaint and found all the assertions of the intervenors without merit except those of CLT Realty. The RTC ruled,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
DISMISSING, for lack of merit, the following:
1) Plaintiff Dimson's complaint;
2) Intervenor Honesto Salcedo's Petition-in-Intervention;
3) Intervenor Pascual David and Crisanta Santos' Petition in Intervention;
4) Intervenor Lilia D. Seviila's Complaint-in-Intervention;
5) Intervenor Consuelo Z. Dantes, et. al.'s Complaint and/or Answer-in-Intervention;
6) Intervenor Pascual David and Florentina David's Supplemental Answer-in-Intervention; and
7) Intervenor Honor P. Moslares' Complaint-in-Intervention.
UPHOLDING the validity of Transfer Certificate of Title No. [R-] 17995, and [R-]17996 of defendant spouses Hipolito over Lot No. 28 and 25-A-1, respectively;
UPHOLDING the validity of Transfer Certificate of [T]itle No. 177013 in the name of intervenor CLT Realty over Lot No. 26, Maysilo Estate.
SO ORDERED.[5]
On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC. Petitioners Dantes, intervenors David et al., and intervenor Lilia Sevilla filed motions for reconsideration, but the CA denied their motions in its Resolution dated October 22, 1999.[6] Meanwhile, Dimson died and was substituted by his wife, herein petitioner Roqueta R. Dimson (petitioner Dimson).
On December 15, 1999 and March 22, 1999, petitioners Dantes and petitioner Dimson respectively filed separate petitions for review on certiorari, while the other intervenors did not appeal.
Petitioner Dimson raised the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I
THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE DEEDS OF SALE OF DIMSON TO HIPOLITO ON THE BASIS OF MERE CONJECTURES THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY, OR EVEN CONTRARY TO, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE COURT APPROVED COMPROMISE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING.
III
THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN FINDING CLT REALTY A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH WHEN THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ARE REPLETE WITH EVIDENCE SHOWING ITS BAD FAITH.[7]
On the other hand, petitioners Dantes raised the following arguments, to wit:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO HAS DECIDED IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND/OR APPPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO HAS DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE WHICH WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT HAS NOT THERETOFORE [BEEN] DETERMINED BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.[8]
Meanwhile, the validity and genuineness of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 of the Maysilo Estate, from which the TCTs involved in this case were derived, was being questioned in G.R. No. 123346 (Manotok Realty Inc., et al. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation); G.R. No. 134385 (Araneta Institute of Agriculture Inc. v. Heirs of Jose Dimson, et al.) and G.R. No. 148767 (Sto. Ni�o Kapitbahayan Association Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation) in light of the existence of a second OCT (OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917) also covering the Maysilo Estate. The Court in its Resolution[9] dated December 14, 2007 resolved to remand to the CA for reception of evidence to determine the question of which of the two OCTs was valid. But considering that determination of the issue in G.R. Nos. 123346, 134385 and 148767 affects the present case, the Court resolved on August 20, 2008 to await the resolution of said cases before resolving the present petitions.[10]
Upon submission of the report from the CA, the Court on March 31, 2009, rendered a Resolution[11] in G.R. Nos. 123346, 134385 and 148767 laying to rest the controversy surrounding the Maysilo Estate and nullifying OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917. The Court affirmed its earlier finding in its December 14, 2007 Decision that "there is only one OCT [No.] 994, the registration date of which had already been decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917" and categorically concluded that "OCT [No.] 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and void."[12]
Considering the above, petitioner Dimson and petitioners Dantes' claims can no longer prosper because the basis of their titles, OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 has been found conclusively to be spurious and nonexistent. The cancelled Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 15168,[13] 15166,[14] and 15167[15] in the name of Dimson, which were the source titles of the spouses Hipolito and CLT Realty's titles and which were being claimed by petitioners Dantes allegedly as the prior purchaser to the spouses Hipolito, were all traced to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917. They are thus null and void. As held by the Court in its December 14, 2007 Decision in G.R. Nos. 123346, 134385 and 148767 regarding OCT No. 994:
x x x First, there is only one OCT No. 994. As it appears on the record, that mother title was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917, and that should be the date which should be reckoned as the date of registration of the title. It may also be acknowledged, as appears on the title, that OCT No. 994 resulted from the issuance of the decree of registration on [19]> April 1917, although such date cannot be considered as the date of the title or the date when the title took effect.
Second. Any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent. The fact that the Dimson and CLT titles made specific reference to an OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 casts doubt on the validity of such titles since they refer to an inexistent OCT. xxx.
Third. The decisions of this Court in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals cannot apply to the cases at bars especially in regard to their recognition of an OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, a title which we now acknowledge as inexistent. Neither could the conclusions in MWSS or Gonzaga with respect to an OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917 bind any other case operating under the factual setting the same as or similar to that at bar.[16] (Emphases supplied.)
WHEREFORE, the petitions for review on certiorari are PARTLY GRANTED.
The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 27, 1999 and October 22, 1999, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 41413, affirming in toto the September 29, 1992 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121 in Civil Case No. C-8634, entitled "Jose Dimson v. Spouses Estelita and Eladio Hipolito (defendants) and Pascual David and Crisanta Santos, Honesto N. Salcedo, Lilia D. Sevilla, Consuelo Vda. De Dantes, et al., Honor P. Moslares, Pascual David and Florentina David and CLT Realty Development Corporation (intervenors),� are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, insofar as said Decision and Resolution UPHELD the validity of TCT Nos. 17995 and 17996 of Spouses Hipolito over Lot Nos. 28 and 25-A-1, respectively, and of TCT No. 177013 in the name of intervenor CLT Realty over Lot No. 26, Maysilo Estate.
All the certificates of title in the name of Jose B. Dimson, the spouses Eladio and Estelita Hipolito and CLT Realty Development Corporation including other derivative titles issued to their successors-in-interest, if any, are hereby declared NULL and VOID. The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City is hereby ORDERED to CANCEL TCT Nos. 15166, 15167, and 15168 in the name of Jose B. Dimson and all the other transfer certificates of title derived therefrom.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 140532), pp. 33-71. Penned by Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino with Associate Justices Cancio C. Garcia (now a retired member of this Court) and Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. concurring.[2] Id. at 73-74.
[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 137392), pp. 428-449. Penned by Presiding Judge Adoracion G. Angeles.
[4] Records are bereft of showing as to whether a TCT was issued over Lot No. 25-A-2.
[5] Id. at 448-449.
[6] Supra note 2.
[7] Rollo (G.R. No. 137392), pp. 71-72.
[8] Rollo (G.R. No. 140532), p. 17.
[9] G.R. Nos. 123346 & 134385, December 14, 2007, 540 SCRA 304.
[10] Rollo (G.R. No. 140532), p. 442.
[11] 582 SCRA 583.
[12] Id. at 644.
[13] Exh. "7," Plaintiffs Exhibit. TCT No. 17996 in the name of Estelita Hipolito over Lot No. 25-A-1 cancelling TCT No. 15168 of petitioner Dimson pertinently states:
x x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 19th day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume NA, page NA, as Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No. NA.
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-I5168/T-75, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
x x x x
[14] Exhs. "1," "4" and "D," Plaintiffs Exhibit. The pertinent portion of TCT No. 15166 over Lot No. 26 reads:
x x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 19lh day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume NA, page NA, as Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No. _____.
This certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title No. 994/ NA, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
x x x x
TCT No. 17994 in the name of Estelita Hipolito which cancelled TCT No. 15166 pertinently reads:
x x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 19th day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume NA, page NA, as Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No. ____.
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. R-15166/T-75, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
x x x x
TCT No. 177013 in the name of CLT Realty Development Corporation cancelling TCT No. 17994 pertinently states:
x x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 19th day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume NA, page NA, as Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No. ____ in the name of ______.
This certificate is a transfer from Trans. Certificate of Title No. R-17994/T-89, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
x x x x
[15] Exh. "6," Plaintiffs Exhibit. TCT No. R-17995 in die name of Estelila Hipolito cancelling TCT No. 15167 of petitioner Dimson over Lot No. 28 pertinently states:
x x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 19th day of April in the year nineteen hundred and seventeen in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, Volume NA, page NA, as Original Certificate of Title No. 994, pursuant to Decree No. 36455, issued in L.R.C. Case No. 4429 Record No. ____.
This certificate is a transfer from Original Certificate of Title No. C-15167/T-75, which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.
x x x x
[16] Supra note 9 at 348-349.
