C.!WHETHER OR NOT IN DETERMININ THE COVERAE OF AREAS FOR PRIORIT" DEVELOPMENT )APD!, REFERENCE MUST BE HAD TO THE LIST OF THE STREETS SUBJECT TO THE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT AND NOT TO THE AREAS INCLUDED IN THE DELINEATION B" METES AND BOUNDS AS INDICATED IN THE PROCLAMATION ITSELF.IV.ARUMENTS A.!T*+ /0 00+ +/// + 0*60 6 76897 +06+/ 60 :+ +9/+ ; *+/+ D+9+60-P+00+/ +<;0+ 0*+ 6<<67+ 0+0 9 0*+ 9/+/ +/ P.D. 151$ 6 P.D. 2%1&.B.!T*+/+ < :6/ 0*< <060 6<+ 9/ 6 76897 +06+/ 0 6=67 0*+ :++90< 6 ;/=7++< ;/=+ :> S+0 & P.D. 151$ ;/=+ 0 < 6;;76:7+. C.!T*+ +0+/60 9 0*+ <;+ 6 7060 9 A/+6< 9/ P//0> D+=+7;+0 <*677 :+ :6<+ 0*+ 7<0 9 <;+9 6/+6< ;/+</:+ :> 0*+ ;/7660.V.DISCUSSION A.!
@t is necessary to e#phasi0e that the Plaintiff-Respondent is the bona fide oner of the parcel of land located at (/1 inibini Street, Pasay City under TCT Ao, (/186 of the Re&ister of Deeds of Pasay City$ @n the Philippines, the presentation of a valid certificate of title of the real property is a conclusive evidence of onership of the person hose na#e the certificate of title is entitled to$ Under Section 84 of the :and Re&istration 5ct, or 5ct Ao$ 879, it provides that the ori&inal certificates in the re&istration boo?, any copy thereof duly certified under the si&nature of the cler?, or of the re&ister of deeds of the province or city here the land is situated, and the seal of the court, and also the oner>s duplicate certificate, shall be received as evidence in all the courts of the Philippine @slands and shall be conclusive as
to all matters
contained therein e%cept so far as otherise provided in this 5ct$Reco&ni0ed "urisprudence also uphold the si&nificance of a certificate of title in provin& valid onership of a land$ @n the decision of the case of
Spouses Pascual v. Spouses Coronel
, the ponente cited to cases hich hi&hli&ht the si&nificance of a valid certificate of title in clai#in& onership over a land$ @t as held that Fin the recent case of
Umpoc v. Mercado
, the Court declared that the trial court did not err in &ivin& #ore probative ei&ht to the TCT in the na#e of the decedent
the contested unre&istered Deed of Sale$ :ater in
Arambulo v. Gungab
, the Court held that the re&istered oner is preferred to possess the property sub"ect of the unlaful detainer case$ The a&e-old rule is that the person ho has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof$ The rulin& of Di0on v$ Court of 5ppeals as also used as basis for this ar&u#ent$ @t as stated that a certificate of title is conclusive evidence of onership and the Guestionability of the title is i##aterial in an e"ect#ent suit$ uther#ore, 5rticle 8/3 of the Ae Civil Code enu#erates the ri&hts of an oner$ The oner has the ri&ht to en"oy and dispose of a thin&, ithout other li#itations other than those established by la$
The owner has right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
@t is indubitable that the certificate of title of (/1 inibini Street, Pasay City under TCT Ao$ (/186 hich is re&istered in the Re&ister of Deeds of Pasay City entitles Petitioner-Respondent the ri&ht to e%ercise the afore#entioned ri&hts, specifically, in this instant case, the ri&ht of action a&ainst the holder and possessor of the thin& in order to recover the land$