This case has been cited 21 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This factual issue of which OCT No. 994 is genuine is not a novel matter. This Court, in Angeles v. The Secretary of Justice,[39] citing Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation,[40] exhaustively passed upon and ruled that the true and valid OCT No. 994 was dated 3 May 1917, not 19 April 1917. | |||||
|
2015-09-02 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As we have priorly pronounced, any title that traces its source to a void title, is also void. The spring cannot rise higher than its source. Nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse habet. All titles that trace its source to OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, are therefore void, for such mother title is inexistent.[44] CLT so traces its title to OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, the title of CLT is void.[45] | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As a matter of fact, in Alfonso v. Office of the President and Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation,[53] the Court penalized the former register of deeds of Caloocan who acquiesced to the change of the date of registration of OCT No. 994 from May 3, 1917 to April 19, 1917, which wreaked havoc on our country's land titling system, and led to much confusion that continued to "rear its ugly head" in many cases pending before the courts. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Respondents filed their Comment [to the Republic's intervention][59] on June 1, 2005. Interestingly, respondents now contend that their TCT Nos. 265778 and 285313 are derivatives of OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917, hence, they capitalize on the rulings of this Court in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) v. Court of Appeals[60] and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals[61] that those titles derived from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917 prevail over those titles derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 considering the priority of the date of registration. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Angeles v. The Secretary of Justice,[63] this Court reiterated its pronouncements in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation[64] that the true and valid OCT No. 994 was registered on May 3, 1917, not on April 19, 1917, and that any title that traces its source to the latter date is deemed void and inexistent. The Court was also explicit that the cases of MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals had already been rendered functus officio, thus, these cases can no longer be cited as precedents. The Court expounded as follows: It is important to emphasize at this point that in the recent case resolved by this Court En Banc in 2007, entitled Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation (the 2007 Manotok case), as well as the succeeding resolution in the same case dated March 31, 2009 (the 2009 Manotok case), the controversy surrounding the Maysilo Estate and the question of the existence of another OCT No. 994 have been finally laid to rest. All other cases involving said estate and OCT No. 994, such as the case at bar, are bound by the findings and conclusions set forth in said resolutions. | |||||
|
2015-01-14 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation v. Bonifacio,[66] this Court upheld the validity of the titles to a portion of land which originally formed part of the Maysilo Estate which were sourced from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, and declared as null and void a title purportedly overlapping the said land which traced its roots from OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917. The Court found that it was physically impossible for Eleuteria Rivera, the person whom respondent Bonifacio claims to be her predecessor-in-interest, to be an heir of Maria de la Concepcion Vidal because it would turn out that Eleuteria Rivera was older than her alleged grandmother Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, to wit: Eventually, on March 31, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution reversing its Decision of November 29, 2005 and declaring certain titles in the names of Araneta and Manotok valid. In the course of discussing the flaws of Jose Dimson's title based on his alleged 25% share in the hereditary rights of Bartolome Rivera, Eleuteria Rivera's co-petitioner in LRC No. 4557, the Court noted: | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation,[30] the Court pronounced that there is only one OCT No. 994, which is correctly registered on May 3, 1917, and that any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated April 17, 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As regards the first requisite, we find that petitioner was able to establish its title over the real properties subject of this action. Petitioner submitted in evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale [41] by which it acquired the subject property from N. Dela Merced and Sons, Inc., as well as copies of OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917 and all the derivative titles leading to the issuance of TCT Nos. 270921, 270922 and 270923 in petitioner's name as follows: Title No. Registration Date Holder 8004 July 24, 1923 Vedasto Galino 8059 September 3, 1923 -ditto- 8160 October 24, 1923 -ditto- 8164 November 6, 1923 Juan Cruz Sanchez 8321 February 26, 1924 -ditto- 8734 September 11, 1924 Emilio Sanchez 12946 November 21, 1927 -ditto- 28315 July 16, 1935 Eastern Syndicate Mining Co., Inc. 39163 November 18, 1939 Royal Lawrence Rutter 43559 July 26, 1941 Mapua Institute of Technology 18767 June 16, 1950 Sofia Nepomuceno 57541 March 13, 1958 Leona N. de Jesus, Pacifico Nepomuceno, Sofia Nepomuceno, Soledad Nepomuceno de Jesus 81679 December 15, 1960 Pacifico Nepomuceno, Sofia N. Jugo, Soledad N. de Jesus (81680) | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| 17745 December 15, 1960 Pacifico Nepomuceno & Co. C-13794 April 21, 1978 Pacifico Nepomuceno & Co. Inc. C-14603 May 16, 1978 N. de La Merced & Sons, Inc. T-148220 April 22, 1987 Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. [42] Petitioner likewise presented the Proyecto de particion de la Hacienda de Maysilo[43] to prove that Lot 23-A, of which petitioner's Lots 1-G-1, 1-G-2 and 1-G-3 form part, is among the 34 lots covered by OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917. It produced tax receipts accompanied by a Certification[44] dated September 15, 1997 issued by the City Treasurer of Caloocan stating that Phil-Ville has been religiously paying realty taxes on the lots. Its documentary evidence also includes a Plan[45] prepared by the Chief of the Geodetic Surveys Division showing that Lot 23-A of the Maysilo Estate is remotely situated from Lot 23 portion of the Maysilo Estate. Petitioner ties these pieces of evidence to the finding in the DOJ Committee Report[46] dated August 28, 1997 and Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998 that, indeed, there is only one OCT No. 994, that is, the one registered on May 3, 1917. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Some of said alleged heirs were able to procure Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) over portions of the Maysilo Estate. They also had led this Court to believe that OCT No. 994 was registered twice, thus, in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) v. Court of Appeals,[4] reiterated in Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court Of Appeals,[5] the Court held that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, and not May 3, 1917, was the valid title by virtue of the prior registration rule. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As can be gleaned from the above discussion, the issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. In the same vein, we find that in this case, which involves the issuance of transfer certificates of title, the Register of Deeds cannot be compelled by mandamus to comply with the RTC Order since there were existing transfer certificates of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs. Neither could respondent LRA Administrator be mandated by the Court to require the Register of Deeds to comply with said Order, for we find merit in the explanations of respondent LRA Administrator in his letter-reply that cites the 1st Indorsement issued by respondent Guingona, LRA Circular No. 97-11, and Senate Committee Report No. 1031, as reasons for his refusal to grant petitioner's request.[31] There was, therefore, sufficient basis for public respondents to refuse to comply with the RTC Order, given the finding, contained in the cited documents, that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, on which petitioner and her co-plaintiffs in the civil case clearly anchored their rights, did not exist. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Respondent Guingona further states that the 1st Indorsement dated September 22, 1997 was issued long before the Order dated January 18, 1998, thus it could not be said that petitioner was denied due process as her rights and interests were non-existent at that time. Furthermore, respondent Guingona alleges that petitioner was accorded due process when the LRA Administrator gave an opportunity to petitioner's counsel to present petitioner's case to the LRA legal staff. Respondent Guingona claims that such opportunity to be heard satisfies the requirements of due process, as the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. [19] | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| As can be gleaned from the Report, Jose Dimson was able to obtain an order in 1977 issued by Judge Marcelino Sayo of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan City on the basis of which he was able to register in his name properties belonging to the Maysilo Estate. Judge Sayo's order in turn was sourced from a 1966 Order issued by Judge (later Supreme Court Associate Justice) Cecilia Muñoz-Palma of the CFI of Rizal. Dimson's titles reflected, as their mother title, OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917.[10] Among these properties was a fifty (50)-hectare property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 151169, which apparently overlapped with the property of Araneta covered by TCT No. 13574 and 26538.[11] Araneta was then and still is in possession of the property. The Araneta titles state, as their mother title, OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917. Consequently, Dimson filed an action for recovery of possession against Araneta. | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Notably also, with the evident intent to discredit and refute the title of ARANETA, DIMSON submitted TCT Nos. 26538[[69]] and 21857,[[70]] which are both derivatives of OCT No. 994 registered on 3 May 1917 and cover parcels of land located in Malabon, Rizal. However, these certificates of title reflect different registered owners and designation of the land covered. | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Ultimately, the question of whether the aforesaid certificates of title constitute as clouds on ARANETA's titles are not for this Court to rule upon for purposes of the present remand. Needless to state, it is not for the Heirs of Dimson to rely on the weakness of ARANETA's titles and profit from it. Rather, they should have focused on the strength of their own titles since it is not within our office to decide in whose hands the contested lands should go, our task being merely to trace back the parties' claims to OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917.[75] There is no question that the Araneta titles were derived from OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917, particularly from the share of Jose Ma. Rato y Tuazon, one of the co-heirs named in OCT No. 994. The Special Division correctly assessed, among others, the reference to Decree No. 4429 and Record No. 4429 in some of the antecedent titles of Araneta[76] as mere clerical errors that could not have invalidated said titles, "4429" being the case number of Decree No. 36455, and the designation and the technical description of the land on those titles not having been shown to be erroneous or variant with the source title. The Special Division also correctly considered that the trial court had failed to take into account the several conveyances of TCT No. 26538 before it was ultimately transferred to Araneta in 1948, which explain the difference in area between TCT No. 7784 and TCT No. 26538. The imputed overlap of TCT No. 26538 and TCT No. 26539 with the titles held by Dimson was based on a private survey which had not been duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. The alleged absence of any entry on the Memorandum of Encumbrances of TCT No. 26538 of the sale of the property between Rato and Araneta did not, according to the Special Division, discount the fact that Rato and Araneta entered into a voluntary agreement with the intention of transferring the ownership of the subject property. Finally, the Special Division noted that the titles derived from OCT No. 994, which Dimson had submitted as evidence to discredit the Araneta claim, pertain to properties wholly different from those covered by the Araneta titles. | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Will it be necessary to remand these cases to the trial courts to determine which of the Certificates of Title are valid? If so, which trial court?[25] A crucial fact emerged during the oral arguments. The Republic, through the Solicitor General,[26] strenuously argued that contrary to the supposition reflected in the Advisory, there was, in fact, only one OCT No. 994. x x x In this particular case, it appears that on December 3, 1912, the Court of Land Registration, the Judge Norberto Romualdez presiding, acting on Land Registration Case No. 4429 rendered judgment ordering the GLRO to issue a decree. Pursuant to this order, the GLRO prepared Decree No. 36455 and issued the same on April 19, 1917 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, at Manila, Philippines. It may be observed that at the face of the OCT 994 which was then on file at the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan and now kept in the LRA, the following entry can be seen. Received for transcription at the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal this 3rd day of May 1917 at 7:30 a.m. Obviously, April 19, 1917 is not the date of inscription or the date of transcription of the decree into the Original Certificate of Title. It appears that the transcription of the decree was done on the date it was received by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on May 3, 1917. There is no other date to speak of. In the records of the Land Registration Authority, there is only one OCT 994, on its face appears the date of transcript, May 3, 1917. The validity then of all subsequent titles tracing their origin from OCT 994 should be tested in the light of these set of facts. x x x[27] On the other hand, the counsel for CLT stated during the same oral argument that he had seen a photocopy of an OCT No. 994 that was dated 19 April 1917,[28] and manifested that he could attach the same to CLT's memorandum.[29] At the same time, on even date, the Court directed the Solicitor General and counsel for CLT to submit to the Court "certified true copies of the Original Certificate of Title No. 994 dated May 3 1917 and April 19, 1917, respectively, on or before Friday, August 4, 2006."[30] | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Will it be necessary to remand these cases to the trial courts to determine which of the Certificates of Title are valid? If so, which trial court?[25] A crucial fact emerged during the oral arguments. The Republic, through the Solicitor General,[26] strenuously argued that contrary to the supposition reflected in the Advisory, there was, in fact, only one OCT No. 994. x x x In this particular case, it appears that on December 3, 1912, the Court of Land Registration, the Judge Norberto Romualdez presiding, acting on Land Registration Case No. 4429 rendered judgment ordering the GLRO to issue a decree. Pursuant to this order, the GLRO prepared Decree No. 36455 and issued the same on April 19, 1917 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning, at Manila, Philippines. It may be observed that at the face of the OCT 994 which was then on file at the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan and now kept in the LRA, the following entry can be seen. Received for transcription at the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province of Rizal this 3rd day of May 1917 at 7:30 a.m. Obviously, April 19, 1917 is not the date of inscription or the date of transcription of the decree into the Original Certificate of Title. It appears that the transcription of the decree was done on the date it was received by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on May 3, 1917. There is no other date to speak of. In the records of the Land Registration Authority, there is only one OCT 994, on its face appears the date of transcript, May 3, 1917. The validity then of all subsequent titles tracing their origin from OCT 994 should be tested in the light of these set of facts. x x x[27] On the other hand, the counsel for CLT stated during the same oral argument that he had seen a photocopy of an OCT No. 994 that was dated 19 April 1917,[28] and manifested that he could attach the same to CLT's memorandum.[29] At the same time, on even date, the Court directed the Solicitor General and counsel for CLT to submit to the Court "certified true copies of the Original Certificate of Title No. 994 dated May 3 1917 and April 19, 1917, respectively, on or before Friday, August 4, 2006."[30] | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The issuance of the original and owner's duplicate certificates are basic for the valid existence of the title. Issuance of additional copies are permissive and their non-existence does not affect the status of title. A certificate of title is deemed as regularly issued with the issuance of the original copy and owner's duplicate.[41] So was Professor Francisco Ventura: Immediately upon the issuance and entry of the decree of registration, the Commissioner of Land Registration sends a certified copy thereof, under seal of the said office, to the Register of Deeds of the province where the land lies, and the register of Deeds transcribes the decree in a book, called the Registration Book," in which a leaf, or leaves, in consecutive order should be devoted exclusively to each title. The entry made by the Register of Deeds in said book constitutes the original certificate of title and is signed by him and sealed with the seal of his office.[42] The same view came from Professor Narciso Peña, also a former Assistant Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission and Acting Register of Deeds of Manila, as he wrote, thus: Thus, Section 42 of Act No. 496 provides that the certificate first registered in pursuance of the decree of registration in regard to any parcel of land shall be entitled in the registration book "Original Certificate of Title, entered pursuant to decree of the Court of Land Registration, dated at (stating time and place of entry of decree and the number of the case). This certificate shall take effect upon the date of the transcription of the decree. Subsequent certificates relating to the same land shall be in like form, but shall be entitled. "Transfer from number (the number of the next previous certificate relating to the same land)," and also the words "Originally registered (date, volume, and page of registration).[43] The dissent has likewise suggested that the variance between these two dates is ultimately inconsequential. It cannot be so for otherwise, the recent decision of the Court in Alfonso v. Office of the President[44] would simply be wrong. In Alfonso, the Court precisely penalized Alfonso, the former register of deeds of Caloocan because she acquiesced to the change of the date of registration of OCT No. 994, as reflected in several subsequent titles purportedly derived from that mother title, from 3 May 1917 to 19 April 1917. If indeed the difference in dates were "inconsequential," then it should not have really mattered that Mrs. Alfonso, as found by the Court, had invariably issued certificates of title, reflecting either the 19 April or 3 May date, a circumstance which, the Court concluded, was irregular. But if the Court were to accede to the dissent and agree that it did not really matter whether the date of registration of OCT No. 994 was 3 May or 19 April, then poor Mrs. Alfonso should be spared of the penalty of dismissal from the service which the Court had already affirmed. | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| What is prohibited in a cadastral proceeding is the registration of land, already issued in the name of a person, in the name of another, divesting the registered owner of the title already issued in his favor, or the making of such changes in the title as to impair his substantial rights.[72] Yet such prohibition does not mean that the cadastral court will not have jurisdiction over the action involving the previously registered land, as explained in Pamintuan and Timbol, or that the cadastral court may not issue a new title at all even if it would not impair the rights of the previously registered owner, as emphasized in Sideco. The dissent contents itself with the simplistic conclusion that because there was a cadastral case covering the Maysilo Estate from which the titles emanated, such titles could not have been valid. It is clear that there could be such titles issued, and they would be valid for so long as they do not impair the rights of the original registrant to whom OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917 was issued. | |||||
|
2007-12-14 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The OSG observes that during the oral arguments on the motion for reconsideration, then Chief Justice Panganiban suggested that a remand may be required to determine the status of the original title.[77] Considering that the genuine OCT No. 994 is that issued on/ registered on/dated 3 May 1917, a remand would be appropriate to determine which of the parties, if any, derived valid title from the said genuine OCT No. 994. On the one hand, the appreciation of facts is beyond the province of this Court, since it is not a trier of fact[78] as well as not capacitated to appreciate evidence at the first instance. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals has the competence to engage in that undertaking. | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To prevent the proliferation of similar request and nuisance suits, may we request this Authority for its official stand on OCT No. 994 and the Dimson titles. To date, the Dimson titles and their derivative titles [are] still existing and on file at the Registries of Deeds of Kalookan and Malabon despite the Verification Committee's findings that they were issued void ab initio.[40] Second. Petitioner wrote Phil-Ville a letter dated September 20, 1996[41] in which she categorically stated that OCT No. 994 was issued pursuant to Decree No. 36455 dated April 19, 1917, and the date of transcription of said decree at the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pasig, Rizal was May 3, 1917. | |||||