ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 133168. October 16, 2006]
REPUBLIC OF THE
Second Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 16 2006 .
G.R. No. 133168 (Republic
of the
Before us is this motion for reconsideration of our decision dated March 28, 2006 which denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner.
In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner presents the following arguments: (1) there is ample evidence that the area indicated in respondent's certificate of title, OCT No. 0-28, included a public road and encroached the 83-square meter portion where Angelina Bustamante's house had been existing since 1961; (2) Guerrero never appealed from the Order dated January 10, 1989 of the Office of the President directing the segregation from Guerrero's titled property of the right-of-way and the 83-square.meter portion where Bustamante's house is standing; (3) there is adequate evidence showing that respondent Guerrero misrepresented his application thereby fraudulently obtaining his title to the subject land; (4) the government is never estopped by the mistakes and errors of its officials or agents, nor is the State bound by prescription or laches.
After once again reviewing the records, we find no compelling reason to reverse or modify our previous decision.
It may be observed that petitioner has not presented any issue that is new or different from that which it had previously raised before the trial court, the Court of Appeals (CA) or this Court. Moreover, the arguments raised by the petitioner have been discussed at length and passed upon by the trial court, by the CA and by this Court.
The records are bereft of any showing that a public road was erroneously included in the lot awarded to respondent Guerrero. In fact, the testimony of the petitioner's own witness, Supervising Geodetic Engr. Ernesto Erive, proved otherwise. He testified that there was nothing to correct or amend in the plan and technical description of the property covered by OCT No. 0-28, thus:
Atty. Acorda:
Q:����� The purpose of conducting the second survey which is covered by Exhibit "8" was to correct the technical description?
A:����� It is not to correct, sir, but, it is to segregate, as per order of the Malaca�ang, the actual occupation of Mr. Bustamante and the actual occupation of Guerrero. x x x. But the title for the whole is for Mr. Guerrero. There is no question there. The road is also in the name of Guerrero. It is a matter of reference for the Court to decide. If the Court decides for Guerrero, the whole property is for Guerrero. There is no alteration in the technical description of the title. x x x. There is no violation because the road is also in the name of Guerrero, all the lots there.
Q:����� In other words, the whole parcel of land consisting of 174 sq. m., as reflected in the plan which was MSA No. 83191 was the result of the survey conducted by Geodetic Engineer Mariano Datiles before OCT was issued to Mr. Guerrero is in the name of Mr. Guerrero?
A:����� What we used in the final plan in the verification is the title of Mr. Guerrero. It is indicated there. It is very clear in the plan. It is in the name of Guerrero. There is no change there.
Q:����� The whole amount of 174?
A:����� Yes, the whole title. It is in the name of Guerrero. There is no alteration there.
xxx������������� xxx������ xxx
Q:����� Before the title was issued to Mr. Benjamin Guerrero, one of this proposed road was then existing?
A:����� There is no existing, as per title of Mr. Guerrero. The road is not indicated, as per the award only. There is an award. There is an indication that on the east portion of the award, there is a road.
Q:����� My question is, before the OCT was issued by the government in favor of Mr. Guerrero, for which he paid the total amount of 174 sq. m., there was a plan to place a road. That was in front of the property.
A:����� There is no road. [1] cralaw
The categorical declarations of Engr. Erive negate the claim of the petitioner that a public road was included in the title issued to Guerrero. To be sure, the above testimony bolsters the conclusion that Guerrero's OCT No. 0-28 is a valid and clean title. Too, the ocular inspection conducted by the trial court on the subject lot proved that petitioner's claim of the existence of a public road, was unsubstantiated.
The failure to prove actual fraud continues to hound the petitioner, having failed in its motion for reconsideration to substantiate its claims of fraud on the part of Guerrero in obtaining his patent and title. Records reveal that Guerrero has complied with the requirements for application of sales patent, and his patent was subsequently issued in conformity with the procedure set forth by law. In fact, the posting of the notice of the sale of the subject lot was made for the purpose of giving adverse claimants the opportunity to present their claims. Said notice was posted at Pugadlawin, Quezon City, the place where Angelina Bustamante claimed to have been residing since 1961. However, there is no evidence whatsoever which would indicate that Angelina Bustamante filed an adverse claim with the Bureau of Lands [2] cralaw on or before March 17, 1965, the date of the sale. The only plausible conclusion that can be drawn is that no such claim existed at the time Guerrero applied for sales patent. As the subject lot was free from any adverse claim, the issuance of the patent and the corresponding title in the name of Guerrero were properly made. As we see it, Bustamante only has herself to blame for her current predicament.
Likewise, the petitioner has not adduced sufficient evidence to show any error or irregularity that may have been committed by the land officials in awarding the sales patent to the respondent. Neither was there any proof of connivance between the respondent and the land officials to prejudice Bustamante. It was never established that the respondent made misrepresentations in his application and in the processing thereof. If respondent Guerrero had succeeded in obtaining his patent, it was because he faithfully observed the rules and procedures required for its issuance.
The review of a decree of registration under Section 38 of Act No. 496 [3] cralaw would prosper only upon proof that the registration was procured through actual and extrinsic fraud. The evidence thereof must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. [4] cralaw Unless convincing evidence is presented, a Torrens certificate of title cannot be overturned. The Torrens system rests on stability: on the assurance that once ownership is recorded in the proper registry, the owners can rest easy on their properties.
Petitioner has not shown in its motion for reconsideration any substantial argument to warrant a disregard of the above rule, nor has it shown that the Court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts of weight and circumstance that would have materially affected the outcome of the case.
WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw TSN, May 20, 1993, p. 8-10.
[2] cralaw Now Lands Management Bureau.
[3] cralaw Land Registration Act of 1903.
[4] cralaw Pe�a, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1994 ed., p. 126.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
