You are on page 1of 33

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 165863 April 10, 2013 ALBERT CHUA, J MM!

CHUA CH LEONG "#$ SPOUSES E%UAR%O SOL S AN% GLOR A & CTA, Petitioners, vs. B.E. SAN % EGO, NC., Respondent. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! G.R. No. 1658'5 LOREN(ANA )OO% CORPORAT ON, Petitioner, vs. B.E. SAN % EGO, NC., Respondent. D"#ISION MEN%O(A, J.: These cases $ere alread% disposed of $ith finalit% b% the #ourt on &pril '', ())*, but $ere reconsidered, re+anded to the #ourt of &ppeals ,#&- for reevaluation and elevated to this #ourt a.ain for another revie$. It appears fro+ the records that on &pril '', ())*, /.R. No. (010'2, a case for annul+ent of title, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation, 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon., &lbert #hua, and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa v. #ourt of &ppeals and 7.". San Die.o, Inc., $as dis+issed b% the #ourt.( On 6une '0, ())*, the #ourt stood b% its &pril '', ())* Decision b% den%in. the +otion for reconsideration filed b% 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation ,35#- and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa ,Spouses Solis-. On Nove+ber (8, ())*, the #ourt issued a resolution orderin. the entr% of 9ud.+ent. Insistent, 35# filed its Petition to Re!open #ase $hile 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. ,6i++%and &lbert #hua ,&lbert- filed their Second Motion for Reconsideration, both see:in. to set aside the &pril '', ())* Decision and the 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())* Resolutions of the #ourt. On March (;, ())8, the #ourt issued its Resolution ' favorabl% .rantin. both pleadin.s statin. that the <petitioners alle.ed ne$ facts and sub+itted pertinent docu+ents puttin. in doubt the correctness of our factual findin.s and conclusions,< = and orderin. the re+and of the case to the #& for another round of evaluation.

7.". San Die.o, Inc. ,San Die.o- filed an O+nibus Motion (- to Recall the Resolution of March (;, ())8> and '- to Refer the #ase to the #ourt "n 7anc> and =- to Set #ase for Oral &r.u+ent> but the #ourt denied it on March =, ())2. On 6ul% (*, '00*, after considerin. all the evidence presented b% the parties, the #& rendered another decision,* the dispositive portion of $hich reads? @H"R"5OR", after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b% both parties, this #ourt hereb% holds, as follo$s? a- The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. ;0!(2 and 7#V ;(!(; are hereb% DISMISS"D. b- The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs, that is, T#T Nos. ;;*82, ;;*8;, (0*'*; and (0*'*), as $ell as the title of Spouses Solis, T#T No. )*=;), are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of their spurious nature. c- The validit% of the title of defendant 7.". San Die.o is hereb% APH"3D. No pronounce+ent as to costs. SO ORD"R"D.1 &.ain, not in confor+it%, the petitioners co+e to this #ourt $ith t$o separate petitions, the 6ul% (*, '00* Decision of the #& and the October '), '00* Resolution, den%in. their +otion for reconsideration. The first petition, doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;8= $as filed b% &lbert, 6i++% and Spouses Solis. The other one, doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;21, $as filed b% 35#.
8 2

T*+ )",-. Records sho$ that three ,=- civil cases for Buietin. of Title involvin. tracts of land located in 7acoor, #avite, $ere filed before the Re.ional Trial #ourt, 7ranch CIC, 7acoor, #avite and doc:eted as (. #ivil #ase 7#V!;0!(2 entitled <3oren4ana 5ood #orporation vs. 7.". San Die.o, Inc., et al.< '. #ivil #ase 7#V!;(!(; entitled <6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and &lbert #hua vs. 7.". San Die.o, Inc.< =. #ivil #ase 7#V!;=!2) entitled <7.". San Die.o, Inc. vs. "duardo Solis.<

The factual and procedural antecedents of this lon.!dra$n controvers% $ere succinctl% su++ari4ed b% the #ourt in its &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #ourt of &ppeals, as follo$s? The ob9ects of the controvers% are several portions of a lar.e tract of land located in the +unicipalit% of 7acoor, #avite. The lar.e tract of land is clai+ed to be ori.inall% o$ned b% one 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco, $ho had it surve%ed $a% bac: in ()((. The land itself is traversed b% railroad trac:s dividin. the land into t$o ,'- parcels. On 5ebruar% '(, ()'', 6uan #uenca $as issued Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 ," hibit <H<coverin. the t$o parcels, desi.nated as 3ots ( and '. Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 $as later reconstituted as O.#.T. No. ,(0'0- RO!), containin. the technical descriptions of 3ots ( and '. On &pril (*, ()';, a separate ori.inal certificate of title for 3ot (, referrin. to the parcel north of the railroad trac:s, $as issued to 6uan #uenca as O.#.T. No. ,(;);- RO!1; ," hibit <D<-. 3ot ( itself $as divided into thirteen ,(=- parcels, eleven ,((- of $hich $ere described therein as situated in the barrios of Talaba, Dapote, and Malicsi, $hile t$o ,'parcels $ere situated in the poblacion of 7acoor, #avite. Apon the de+ise of 6uan #uenca, an action for partition of his properties $as filed b% 6ose #uenca, one of the survivin. heirs. On 5ebruar% '(, ()8), a pro9ect of partition $as approved b% the 3and Re.istration #o++ission ," hibit <"""<-, and on &pril (0, ()8), the court ordered the Re.ister of Deeds of the Province of #avite to issue individual titles for t$elve ,('- parcels of 3ot ' ," hibit <//-. Three ,=- parcels thereof? 3ot '!&, '!E, and '! 3, $ere titled ,T.#.T. Nos. =1)8=, =1)2= and =1)2*, respectivel%and re.istered in the na+e of 6uan #uenca ," hibits <E<, <TTT!(< and <TTT!'<- on &pril '(, ()8). &ll three titles stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. RO!) on 5ebruar% '(, ()'' ," hibits <E<, </< and <H<-. 3ot '!& of 6uan #uenca $as later subdivided into seven ,2- lots in ()8). Of these seven subdivided parcels, one parcel ,3ot '!&!=- $as ad9udicated to his heir, Pura #uenca, $ho $as issued Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(101 on 5ebruar% '*, ()20 ," hibit <3-. The said T.#.T. No. *(101 stated that the land covered therein $as ori.inall% re.istered as Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';, and Transfer #ertificate of Title No. RO!1;!I $as cancelled b% virtue thereof. One other parcel ,3ot '! &!*- $as ad9udicated to another heir, 3adisla$ #uenca, $ho $as issued Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(108 ,&nne <M<- on 5ebruar% '*, ()20. 3i:e$ise, T.#.T. No. *(108 stated that the land covered therein $as ori.inall% re.istered as Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';, and that T.#.T. No. RO!1;!I $as cancelled b% virtue thereof. @e interpose at this point the observation that althou.h the transfer certificates of title issued to Pura and 3adisla$ #uenca stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. (;);, hence, referrin. to 3ot ( located at the northern portion of 6uan #uencaFs lar.e tract of land, the technical description

.T.#. and 3ot '!&!* of 3adisla$a #uenca covered b% T. No. $ere consolidated and." hibit <'<.inal tract of land.istered in favor of. No. and re." hibit <&<.ht .T.on 5ebruar% (.T. cancellin. No.T.. ()20. on &pril (*. 3ot 8 $as ad9udicated to 6ose #uenca.10!1.$as issued to and re. .inal tract of land o$ned b% 6uan #uenca $as bounded on the north b% #alle Real de Talaba. No.inall% re. =1)2= and =1)2*." hibit <7<-. said parcel straddlin. $ho $as issued T.T.*82 . $ere eventuall% sold to herein appellee 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation on 5ebruar% *. cancellin. No.#. to the southern portion of the ori. No. ()2). No.#. 3oo:in. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. <OOO<. .#.istered as O. $as sold to herein appellee 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. #avite. 3ot 8 $as sold b% 6ose #uenca to "duardo Solis. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. No.istered as O.&nne es. (.on the sa+e date. &nother co++on feature of all these succeedin. the land $as divided into t$o .). and that T.T.istered in his na+e on Ma% )..T.*82 and ..#. T!(0*'*) on Ma% ). No.T. 3ot '!&!= of Pura #uenca covered b% T. 7oth T.inall% re. as part of the testate estate of 3adisla$ #uenca. #o++on to the titles of 6i++% #hua #hin.appearin. and on the $est.. No..#. .. *(*).. *(*)2 . On the other hand. *(*)2. No.lots.T. Transfer #ertificate of Title No..#.). referrin.T.T. <###< and <AA!(<-. No.. &s +entioned earlier. on the south and southeast b% Sapa Nio.#. on &pril (*.(0'0.inall% re. b% #alle Nio. T. *(108 $as cancelled b% T. No.#. 3ot '.#.iven authorit% b% the court to dispose of so+e parcels of land. $ho $as issued T. *(108..#. fro+ and . ()2) . $ho $as issued T. as $ell as the poblacion proper.. $as sold to &lbert #hua. the records sho$ that the ori. Apon the deaths of Pura and 3adisla$ #uenca.#. part of the testate estate of Pura #uenca. . referrin..#. RO!1. the ad+inistrators of their respective testate estates $ere . *(*). T. issued to. No. .inal tract. (0*'*. .#. 3ots '!E and '!3 . No.!I $as cancelled thereb%. T!)*=.b% the railroad trac:s the na+e of 6uan #uenca. but contained portions of the technical description appearin..inal tract of land.*8. borderin." hibit <TTT!1<. the technical descriptions inscribed therein $ere lifted fro+ O. in O.T. The area located north of the railroad trac:s. #alle Real de Talaba $as later titled as O. to 3ot ( of the ori. ()'. Dapote and Milicsi.&nne <D<-. *(101 $as cancelled b% T. in turn. 3eon.T. Nos. cancellin. Nos. In the +eanti+e.T. $ho $as issued T. the barrios of Talaba.(0'0RO!) coverin. *(10( $ith the inscription therein that the land covered b% said titles $ere ori.#. ()22.on 5ebruar% '*.T. bein. Ho$ever.#. 3ot * $as ad9udicated to Pura #uenca. $ere subdivided into ei. 3ot = $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$ #uenca.T. No.T.#.#. T! *(10(. ..T. (.(0'0RO!) coverin.). bac:..T..). (.#. . . also stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori. to east and $est.T. in said transfer certificates of title $ere ta:en or lifted fro+ O. 3ot ' of the ori. &lbert #hua and "duardo Solis is the inscription that the lands covered therein $ere ori. . 3ot *. No. T. 3ot = of the consolidated 3ots '!E and '!3.T.T.#. 7acoor.).'.istered as O.RO!). ()22 . *(101.(. No.T." hibit <TTT!*<. ()'.*8. titles is the description that the propert% therein described is situated in the barrio of Talaba. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation . $ho $as issued T.#. No.#.oin.

and &lbert #hua. issued +ore than thirt%!nine . It is alle.uinaldo Hi. Traversin.(0'0.".civil suits for Guietin.". . no$ called the &. In ans$er. the portion located south of the railroad trac:s $as desi.3ot (.o.". 0!8**. &ll parties resolutel% see:in. 0!8** $as not null and void since it $as issued upon application and proper proceedin.a%ta% #it% to Metro Manila. and #alle Nio. ()81.3R##ase No..RO!). $hich ori.< The second parcel $as titled under O. Municipalit% of 7acoor.'.ed that it too: i++ediate possession of the said propert% and even contracted to prepare the land for develop+ent.=. also a. The controvers% arose $hen herein appellees learned that the sa+e parcels $ere bein.parcels.oFs na+e is null and void because 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs title e+anated fro+ an O. No.o countered that it and its predecessors!in!interest have been in the open continuous and adverse possession in concept of o$ner of the sub9ect propert% for +ore than fift% . T!(28'( . . Incorporated.(!(.ional Trial #ourt of 7acoor.parcels covered b% T. San Die. Ta. San Die.#.o. lin:in. b% Sapa Nio.*8. ()82. The sub!divided parcels afore+entioned.&nne <#<. b% their technical descriptions are located at the south to southeast portions of 3ot '.T. 7#V!.T. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation alle.titles re.istered on Dece+ber ''. 7.. before the then #ourt of 5irst Instance of #avite. The first parcel $as covered under T.inal #ertificate of Title No.Record No. 7. Nevertheless. in 7..=)%ears prior to the issuance of 7. San Die. 7#V!. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation clai+ed e clusive o$nership over the t$o . et al. The said title described <a parcel of land Plan Psu!'(('*1. .inated fro+ O. Inc.h$a%.*82 and . pursuant to 3. Inc. re. bounded on the south. This parcel $as later titled as O.=!2) $as filed b% 7. 7#V!.%ears prior to 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs purchase of the t$o . a.". No.< . of title $ere filed before the Re. San Die. 0!8**. on the $est. this land is $hat used to be a national road.". Plan Psu!''=)'0-.T. No.istered in its na+e.0!(2 $as filed b% 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation versus 7. <a parcel of land . San Die.inal certificate of title.ainst spouses "duardo and /loria Solis. San Die. pursuant to 3R# #ase No. No.". San Die.R.nated as 3ot '.o..#. $as filed b% 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon.ed that it $as onl% %ears later that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation learned that 7..". Incorporated. Inc. clai+ed b% herein appellant. situated in the 7arrio of Nio.'.o. It also ar.".T.istered on 6anuar% 1. to enforce their respective clai+s over the sub9ect properties..#.oFs ori. . situated in 7arrio of Nio. San Die.3R#. N!=08*2.T.s in . describin. The second civil case.oFs clai+ $as based on t$o .. doc:eted as 7#V!.10.". No.#. N!*82.#.#. San Die. . It is 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs contention that the O.ainst 7.0!(2. 7ranch CIC. the said parcels $ere described as situated in the barrio of Talaba. as defendants.ued that Ori. ()88.#. o$nership over portions of the said parcels b% virtue of O. 0!8**.T.. ()22.issued on March '.T. N!112 and N!=08*2. issued to it on 5ebruar% (.3R#Record No. The last case.o. 0! *)0 re. N!'2)'=.'. N!112. #avite.T." hibit <)<-.#. and other defendants. No. #ase No.#.On the other hand. $as clai+in. In #ivil #ase No. three . as defendants.. Nos. 7. The first case.

$ho sold the sa+e propert% to 7. after a lon. The pertinent portions of the RT# decision reads? Proceedin. as evidenced b% Transfer #ertificates of Titles Nos.Pursuant to its issuance.since 6une ''. evidence. and strate. 7#V!. San Die.o. San Die. San Die. San Die.and the absolute deed of sale $as sub+itted in .".ht the sub9ect propert% fro+ Teodora Do+in.o for ta purposes . . 7. si. &.o ar. the sub9ect propert% because 3oren4anaFs titled propert% is described to be located in 7arrio Talaba. $hile 7. It $as further ar.%. inti+idation. The fact that it appears in the titles of San Die.inal #ertificate of Title No.. and that the land described in plan Psu!'021 of #uenca is bounded b% #alle Real de Talaba and #alle Nio. are $ithin 3ot '. ()88. 0!*)0 ori.. in the li.". &lbert. San Die. issued on 6anuar% '0 and =0. San Die. San Die.). $ith $arnin.o that its lots are situated in Nio. for its part. T!(0*'*.". threat.". T!)*=. ()88 .ns. and &lbert #hua clai+ o$nership over the parcels the% respectivel% purchased fro+ the heirs of 6uan #uenca. and securit% . the said propert% $as declared b% 7.T. clai+ed the propert% b% virtue of Transfer #ertificate of Title No. Psu!'021 and overlapped the lots in Guestion of 3oren4ana." hibits <B< and <1!5<.(!(.ht of the fore.s in the verification surve%s conducted b% the 7ureau of 3ands. 7.inall% issued to Teodora Do+in. the #ourt finds that the three lots of San Die. unla$full% entered a portion of its propert% titled under Transfer #ertificate of Title No. The Solis spouses.. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation entered and occupied the sub9ect propert%. San Die.". and T!(0*'*).ue4 on 5ebruar% 8. &side fro+ this..o null and void.ainst the Solis spouses $ho. b% force. Den%in. 7. N!122. 7.o clai+s it bou. #hua and Solis.o $hich are presentl% covered b% O. issued pursuant to their purchase of said portion fro+ 6ose #uenca.o. and Sapa Nio.oFs propert% is situated in 7arrio Nio.ued that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation $as erroneousl% clai+in. and Spouses Solis.o $as located in 7arrio Nio.. trial. 7#V!.". San Die.". T*+ R/li#0 o1 -*+ RTC On 6ul% (1. these t$o barrios are ad9oinin. cannot prevail over the findin. in their respective titles.". despite barbed $ire fencin. accordin. 6i++%. to the for+er. San Die. . +ean$hile.".ue4. 0!8** and T#T No.oin.o a.Fs and &lbert #huaFs properties $ere located in 7arrio Talaba $hile that of 7. ()2).3R##ase No. as appearin. The last case. that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs predecessor!in!interest had been in possession of the sub9ect propert%. clai+ the said portion b% virtue of their Transfer #ertificate of Title No. ().=!2) $as initiated b% 7.ain.o. No.". T!(28'(. $hich cancelled Ori.#. plaintiffs 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. In #ivil #ase No. the RT# handed do$n its 6oint Decision ) in favor of 35#.o clai+ed that in ()2).uards posted b% 7. T!(28'(. ()88.ued that.8. T!(28'( issued on March '. and not in Talaba. and declared the titles of San Die." hibit <1!D<. respectivel%. stealth.

Saleeb%.R. II The trial court erred in declarin. the best evidence are the certificates of title the+selves. No. at first blush. ())(. under the prior certificate is entitled to the land a.. The relevant portions of the #& decision read? 5irst I In this case.+ent for the appellant. 6i++% and &lbert . 3!'()1=. 6i++%. ()82 and O. (0 Thereafter. #V No.inal parties and in case of successive re. orderin.T#T No. the sa+e land in $hole or in part. /atioon vs. a closer e a+ination bares the peculiar co++on defects in the titles of the appellees.De Villa vs. T!(0*'*. of the #& On Dece+ber '*.o. #hua and Solis e+anated fro+ the title of 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco issued on 5ebruar% '(. 9ud.. these titles should prevail over O.o filed an appeal $ith the #&. '2 S#R& 28)-. the #& rendered its Decision (' in #&!/. the RT# Decision.T#T Nos. the person holdin.istered under the na+e of &ntonio Sentero.7#V!.T.istration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to a future application for re.< of titles. March '0.*82(= and T!. to pa% appellees su+s of +one%. and Spouses Solis $ere defective $hile those of San Die. III The trial court erred in not orderin. said lot . ()8). based on the follo$in. reversin. the earlier in date +ust prevail as bet$een ori. 7#V!. ()81.(1 and T!(0*'*)(8and Spouses Solis .o sho$ed no defects.0!(2 and #ivil #ase No.(!(. Trinidad.istration coverin.)-> and dis+issed #ivil #ase No.#. it ordered the nullification and cancellation of the T#Ts in the na+es of 35# . Spouses Solis to vacate the sub9ect pre+ises.ainst the person $ho rel% on the second certificate .T. (( 5irst Rulin. ()8. <null and void< and orderin.n+ents of error? I The trial court erred in findin. Hence. not to +ention the fact that the authenticit% of O. assi.#. #V No. 0!*)0 alle.ue4 predecessor!in!interest of San Die. that the three lots of the appellant are $ithin and overlapped the lots in Guestion of the appellees. Thus.edl% issued on Dece+ber ''.arda vs. T!)*=. $hich $as doc:eted as #&!/. '' S#R& ((82.(*-.3e. @hile the titles of all the contendin. &lbert.ularl% issued. is Guestionable. the re. No. San Die. see+ to have been re...T.. the cancellation of appellantHs titles and orderin.*8. No. 0!*)0 of Teodora Do+in.T#T Nos. The rule is $ell! settled that a decree orderin.R. $here t$o certificates of title are issued to different persons coverin. $here there is a so!called <overlappin. attorne%Hs fees and costs. ()''. for the ori. =( Phil 1)0-. March '.< or <overla%in. T!. (=1*0. or affectin. parties. (=1*0. These defects are? .inal thereof appears to be re.istration $here +ore than one certificate is issued over the land. 0! 8** issued on 6anuar% 1. /affud. The #& ruled that the titles held b% 35#.Since the titles of 3oren4ana. 3!'*)(.#.

titles. The surve%orHs report declared that the appellantHs propert% overlapped those of the appellees. ()20. the succeedin. properties that are not in the location stated in their respective titles. @h% no effort $as e erted to correct the alle. )ir.istered under O#T No.h the appellees can trace their titles as havin. The appelleesH titles state that the properties are located in the barrio of Talaba $hen the properties described therein are situated in the 7arrio of Nio. adverse and continuous possession of the sub9ect propert%. Thus.ularl% issued.. On the other hand. the appellantHs titles sho$ no defect.ed <clerical errors< on the part of the appelleesH predecessors!in!interest. the appelleesH titles describe their properties as located in the barrio of Talaba.. to the e clusion of others. .a.inall% re. been ori. Second I Not onl% $ere the appellantsH titles not ble+ished b% an% defect and $ere re. issued on 5ebruar% '*.(0'0. The 7ureau of 3andsH verification and reco++endation.el% relied on the testi+on% and reco++endation of the 7ureau of 3ands surve%or $ho $as ordered to conduct a verification surve%. the sa+e surve%or ad+itted that his verification surve% $as 9ust based on the technical descriptions appearin.P+-i-io# -o -*+ Co/r- . in the opposin. ()''. ho$ever. On the other hand. Apon Guestionin.inall% re. even thou.istered on 5ebruar% '(. as described in its titles. The appellant is $here it should be. partiesH titles. &lbert and Spouses Solis +oved for reconsideration but their +otions $ere denied b% the #&. in the barrio of Nio.. therefore. The appellees are clai+in.. b. 6i++%. its valid title $as coupled $ith open.). The appelleesH titles are annotated $ith the inscription that the land described therein $as ori.RO! ). does not prove that onl% the appellees have the ri. 35#.. Not in confor+it%. but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No.. 7esides. (. Third I the lo$er court lar. has not been e to clai+ the propert%. as decreed in its titles. The surve% did not even pretend to resolve the issue of $hether or not the titles issued to the (2 appellees $ere perfect or defective. $ere all defective. the land possessed b% the appellant is. but the land the% clai+ is located in 7arrio Nio.

a historical stud% of ho$ San Die. the lots in dispute. i.nificance to the annotation than the technical description in identif%in. 6i++%.. ())*. doc:eted as /.. On &pril ''. II The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .ivin. ho$ever. ())* fro+ the Re. &lbert and Spouses Solis filed a petition for revie$ on certiorari before this #ourt.ularities $hile the titles of private respondent are unble+ished. ())* and Nove+ber (8. ())8. to reversible error of la$ and . den%in.and a certification dated &u. ())*. . a+ountin.certified true copies of the titles of 6uan #uenca.e. petitionersH +otion for reconsideration that petitioners failed to +a:e proper correction of their titles. ())* and Nove+ber (8. the decision of the lo$er court to uphold the validit% of the land titles of private respondent in spite of the fact that these $ere issued so+e fort%!si . IV The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted . thus. $ith finalit% the petitionersH +otions for reconsideration. 35#. The% also den% that 7arrios Talaba and Nio. The #ourt.6i++% and &lbertHs Second Motion for Reconsideration and settin. and the Resolutions dated 6une '0.ust '). in its resolution den%in. (010'2. dated &pril ''.sellers. declared? Petitioners no$ assail the correctness of the factual bases of our Decision. ())*.*8. petitioners and private respondents> . 0!*)0 in the na+e of . are one and a half :ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other. the follo$in.o acGuired its titles . 0!*)0 and O#T No.rave abuse of discretion in . +ore si. ())'.rantin.O#T No. dated 6une '0.R. To prove their clai+.rave abuse of discretion in reversin.35#Hs Petition to Re!open #ase> and '. No.%ears later than the titles of petitioners and their predecessors!in!interest. raisin.(.+ent on the liabilities of the estates of Pura #uenca and 3adislao #uenca.inal of O#T No. the #ourt issued a Resolution (. that their titles faciall% contain irre. ())*.'. issues? I The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and . petitioners have attached the follo$in.rave abuse of discretion $hen it failed to pass 9ud. docu+ents? . predecessors!in!interest .ister of Deeds that the ori. 0!8**. the #ourt dis+issed the petition and subseGuentl% issued Resolutions. (.On 6une 1.of the petitioners.rave abuse of discretion in holdin. aside the Decision. III The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts. On March (.

surve%.2. 7acoor. a. the order of the #ourt $as recorded and the correction dul% +ade on 6anuar% '). San Die.(!(. (.o overlaps $ith the land covered b% O#T No. as ori.8.ation of our Decision. The court declared that the certification in the face of the #huasH titles $as an error and. (.RO!1. and O#T No. &fter the pro+ul.inall% inscribed therein.Teodora Do+in. s:etch plans and certifications fro+ the 3and Re.h$a%-> .a state+ent that O#T No. 7ranch 1.of 6uan #uenca> .of #uenca <ori.o> . (0'0 . ())1> . is not the sa+e as O#T Nos.).ed O#T No.a certification and s:etch fro+ the 3and Re. and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor. the correction of the #huasH transfer certificates of title.1.e of the #huasH titles. (0'0 . in the %ear nineteen hundred and t$ent% t$o < not O#T (.RO!)-.RO!). that the land in O#T No.istr% file and did not for+ part of their records> .+ent.raphic stud% of the transactions over #uencaHs land $hich sho$s ho$ petitioners ca+e to purchase their lots> ..istration &uthorit% indicatin.&.in the na+e of Teodora Do+in.). 7#V!.uinaldo Hi..o. . ordered its a+end+ent to reflect the true fact that the titles $ere derived fro+ O#T No. petitioners . therefore.( of the #ourt of 5irst Instance. *)0. Per annotation in the second pa.a factual representation that O#T No.a historical outline and .ue4 no$ e ists in the records of the Re.flo$ charts tracin. did not e ist in the Re.RO!).istered on the '(st da% of 5ebruar%.inall% re. #avite.).eneral rule is that no part% is allo$ed a second +otion for reconsideration of a final order or 9ud. 0!*)( certified on 5ebruar% '*.ister of Deeds of #avite $ith a true cop% of said O#T No..( prior to the institution b% the #huas of #ivil #ase No.order dated 6anuar% '8.ainst San Die.inscribed in petitionersH titles cover different parcels of land> and that O#T No. 0! 8** and 0!*)0 of San Die.a certification b% the Municipal Plannin. ho$ever.ue4.oHs predecessor.istration &uthorit% that the lot described in the alle.). (0'0 .ue4 sits upon and encroaches on the National Hi. (). the subdivision and partition of #uencaHs land into the present parcels of land purchased b% petitioners fro+ the heirs of #uenca hi+self> the partitions $ere +ade $ith approval of the court> . 0!8** of San Die. #uencaHs title. and 7arrio Talaba are actuall% ad9acent to each other> . The .not O#T No.*. 0!*)( . decreein. #avite that 7arrio Nio. ().=.(0. 0!*)0 of Teodora Do+in.h$a% .

. dated March (. d. '00*.ain that rules of procedure are but +ere tools desi. . ())2.The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. Pursuant to this postulate.The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs. $e have suspended the rules and e cepted a particular case fro+ their operation to respond to the hi.u+ent. the #ourt issued another resolution den%in. fro+ Ori.ed ne$ facts and sub+itted pertinent docu+ents puttin. conclusions. San Recall the Resolution of March (. T#T Nos. that is. T#T No. In the cases at bar.ation on the peace of the co++unit% 9ustif% its reopenin. as $ell as the title of Spouses Solis.*8. of titles of the petitioners $ith those of the private respondent> and II @hether or not the apparent defective transfer certificates of title of the petitioners.. 7ac: to the #ourt of &ppeals In accordance $ith this #ourtHs Resolutions.".).The validit% of the title of defendant 7.o is hereb% APH"3D. San Die.ive all the parties full opportunit% to prove their Refer the #ase to the #ourt "n 7anc> and =. .s and le. and (0*'*).ain in favor of San Die. after considerin. are hereb% DISMISS"D. @e cannot be insensitive to these alle.oHs O+nibus Motion (. the #& $as tas:ed to receive evidence and resolve the follo$in.. (0*'*. this #ourt has held ti+e and a.. Ander e tre+e circu+stances.ations for this #ourt is co++itted to render 9ustice on the basis of the truth.o. e.her interests of 9ustice. all the evidence presented b% the parties. can $ithstand the ri.(!(.. this #ourt hereb% holds. as follo$s? a.alle. (0'0. . () On March =.edl% Set #ase for Oral &r.o#$ R/li#0 o1 -*+ CA On 6ul% (*. ())2. )*=. to .inal #ertificate of Title No. the dispositive portion of $hich reads? @H"R"5OR". the nu+ber of people affected and the i+pact of the scrutin%. in doubt the correctness of our factual findin.ned to facilitate the attain+ent of 9ustice. the #& rendered another decision a. ())8> '. after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b% both parties. The% are not the end in the+selves. ())8 and March =. the location of the contested lots.*82. . alle.ors of le. issues? I @hether or not there is overlappin.0!(2 and 7#V . are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of their spurious nature.

. $ere t$o separate and distinct localities $hose boundaries $ere clearl% defined and delineated. the #& stated that. that the nu+ber (. Moreover. No. and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert. '' It appeared.6uan.o.P. San Die. of titles bet$een those of the petitionersH and those of the respondent because the sub9ect properties described in the separate titles $ere located in separate and different barrios. 7. $hile those of the respondent sho$ed that its properties $ere located in 7arrio Nio.'0 The #& co+posed of a ne$ set of 6ustices.No pronounce+ent as to costs..o. the titles relied upon b% the petitioners all indicated that the% ca+e fro+ O#T No.ain filed separate petitions before this #ourt. in the O#T $as altered to reflect R0! ). before the lo$er court. for his application li:e$ise identified the sub9ect lots as located in the afore+entioned barrios. 7acoor. respectivel%. entitled &lbert #hua. SO ORD"R"D. (0*'*. (81. of Presidential Decree . (1'). (0*'*. Second.21.#5I. and (0*'*). and these surve% plans appeared to be re.before the then #ourt of 5irst Instance .)...o consistentl% sho$ed that its propert% $as located in 7arrio Nio. and Poblacion in 7acoor.No. $as doc:eted as /.R. the surve% plans presented b% San Die. in violation of Section (0..'( a. $as doc:eted as /.of the Province of #avite specificall% indicated that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba. that the technical descriptions of the properties therein referred to the parcels of land previousl% covered b% O#T No. there $as no overlappin. The notices of hearin.D. On the other hand. #avite. The certificates of title of the petitioners indicated that the properties covered therein $ere located in 7arrio Talaba. Dapote. $ithout an% +ention of a propert% in 7arrio Nio. the petitioners a. The first petition. The second. the #& ruled that the docu+ents presented b% the petitioners $ere not e actl% <ne$l% discovered evidence< because all of the+ could have been previousl% obtained and presented at the hearin. e cept for T#T Nos. entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #avite.). contained alterations. 5ourth.R.(0'0. ho$ever. the #& noted that T#T Nos. '00* #& Decision. (. .istration and confir+ation of title filed b% 6uan #uenca .o. copies of the application for re. (81.8=. San Die.ular and in order. Malicsi.. No. 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon.ain found that first. despite their :no$led. Inc. &dditionall%. The petitioners failed to e ert their best efforts to obtain these alread% available docu+ents to buttress their clai+. Inc. 7arrio Talaba and 7arrio Nio. 7. $hen the% filed a petition for correction of entries in their respective titles before the then #5I of #avite.". considerin.e of its clai+ over the sub9ect propert%.". 6i++% and &lbert failed to notif% San Die.RO!). as a part%!in!interest. . 1âwphi1 7ac: to the #ourt Obviousl% not satisfied $ith the 6ul% (*. Third. and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa v.

). V . that O#T (.. &lbert. (81. 6i++% #hua and Spouses Solis .R.rant the +otions. that the said titles cover tracts of land that have been previousl% re. II The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .R. IV The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts. No. erroneous conclusion of facts and . On March 1. On 6une 8.rave abuse of discretion in rulin. due course to the petitions. to reversible error of la$ and .).On March ). the #ourt issued a Resolution '= directin. 6i++%.rave abuse of discretion. III The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts a+ountin. RO!1.o considerin. No. is a separate title for 3ot!( of O#T (0'0 RO!) that $as issued on &pril (*. No. this disposition is a revie$ of the #ourtHs &pril ''. '1 In effect./.? 5or &lbert #hua.8=-? &SSI/NM"NT O5 "RRORS I The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$. reinstate the petitions and reGuire the parties to sub+it their respective +e+oranda.R. actin. on the separate +otions for reconsideration of the petitioners and other supple+ental pleadin. the consolidation of /. upon +otion of the parties.rave abuse of discretion $hen it upheld the validit% of the titles of San Die. ()'. that the titles of the petitioners ori.inated fro+ O.#. that the t$o titles of San Die. (81. ())* Decision in /. '001.istered and titled under the na+e 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco. (...21 $ith /. (010'2.rave abuse of discretion in holdin.8=. '002.o are unble+ished b% an% defect. the #ourt resolved to . and Spouses Solis anchored their pra%er for the reversal of the #& decision on the follo$in. to . '00. 35#.T.'8 In their respective petitions. No.s. (81.R. RO!1. a+ountin. the #ourt issued the Resolution '* den%in. in holdin.

that respondentHs title rests on solid support despite the latterHs failure to establish ho$ it acGuired o$nership over the propert% covered b% O#T No.R.rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin.rave abuse of discretion in holdin. that there $as no overlappin./. O!8**. '. '. Petitioner clearl% established its o$nership of the Sub9ect Properties.). VI The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and . that the correction +ade on the titles of 6i++% #hua and &lbert #hua are null and void. . RO! to the sub9ect properties even after petitioner $as able to trace its title fro+ one issued prior to the title relied upon b% respondent. No. (. 5or 35# . the #ourt of &ppeals disre.arded the principle that it is the description of the boundaries of a propert% that is essential for its identification.rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin. # The #ourt of &ppeals . (81. The presence or absence of errors on the face of the certificates of title is irrelevant in an action for Guietin. of title. (.rievousl% co++itted a reversible error $hen it relied upon a superficial co+parison of the respective certificates of title of the parties in concludin. O!8**. Petitioner established the identit% of the Sub9ect Properties and that the% are overlapped b% the propert% described in respondentHs O#T No. 7 The #ourt of &ppeals .The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in holdin. In rulin.. of titles in this case.21-? /ROANDS & The #ourt of &ppeals . that petitioner failed to establish a better ri. that the titles of the petitioners are defective because the technical description of the land stated therein ca+e fro+ O#T (0'0 RO!) and not fro+ O#T (. that respondent had superior title to the sub9ect properties.

'.=. identified the sub9ect properties $ith the use of the technical descriptions in T#T Nos. sGuare +eter area of 3ot '!&!* . as earl% as 5ebruar% ()''. disclosed that there $as an overlappin. fro+ $hich the% derived their titles. *(101 '2 and *(108. O!8**.T#T No. The overlappin. The evidence ad+itted in the RT# sho$ed the respondentHs properties. O#T No.*82of plan Psd!((0).ue that their land titles should prevail over those of the respondent because the lands covered b% their titles $ere previousl% re.*8.inall% re. Vene4uela-.) sGuare +eters of the ). Nio. O!8**.istered under the na+e of their predecessor!in!interest..hli. $as ad+itted b% the respondentHs o$n counsel..ue that $hat defines the land is the technical description as plotted on the .h its #ertification.8'. 3ot '!&!= of Psd!((0)... The errors in petitionerHs certificates of title that $ere hi.u+ents The petitioners ar. bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described in the respondentHs O#T No. . O!8** issued in ()82> and T#T No.*8. overlappin. The 7ureau of 3ands.inated fro+ 3ot!' of O#T No. (28'(') fro+ O#T No. T!..r.'. T!. ()'' in the na+e of 6uan $hile those of the respondent $ere re. sGuare +eters $ere overlapped b% the respondentHs O#T No. . This overlappin.ue4. of plan Psd!((0). 6uan. 1. dated 6ul% (.and '!&!* . respectivel%. D Petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to protection under the la$.round and that the location should be based on the technical description and not on the basis of the barrio indicated therein. PetitionersH consolidated ar. Specificall%. T!. and T! . covered b% O#T No. The Report of the 7ureau of 3ands on the verification surve%.(0'0-!RO!). the #hief of Technical Services Section.$ere overlapped b% O#T No.*82 and T!. ())1.T#T No. throu.istered onl% in ()81 and ()82.0 and define the +etes and bounds thereof. The technical descriptions found in T#T Nos.hted in the &ssailed Decision $ere adeGuatel% e plained. T!. 5elipe Vene4uela . respectivel%. the National Hi. The sa+e report sho$ed that of the ). $as ori.0.*82.T#T No.2 sGuare +eters of land co+prisin. $as confir+ed b% the 3and Re.h$a% and Sapan.0 . $hich $ere transferred fro+ T#T Nos. in a verification surve% conducted in co+pliance $ith the RT# order... T!.h "n.*. O!*)0=0 issued in ()81 to Teodora Do+in.istered on 5ebruar% '(. The petitioners further ar. T!.. (0'0 RO!) issued to 6uan in ()''.=( dated 5ebruar% (*..0.r.3R&throu.-.T#T No.'. O!8**> $hile 2.*8..*8."n. and the properties covered b% the titles of the petitioners $hich $ere traced to have ori.*82. identif% the lots the% cover as 3ots '!&!= and '!&!*. The sub9ect properties are 3ots '!&!= . ().istration &uthorit% . The petitioners insist that the titles of the respondent overlap their titles.

and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor. issued b% the Municipal Plannin.(0'0. (0'0. the petitionersH titles have defects.e tract of land covered b% O#T No. It $as 9ustified in rel%in. It . lots $ere +ista:enl% described as bein. one of $hich $as to . the na+es and addresses of the o$ners of such buildin.ues that it is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to protection under the la$ considerin..u+ent Respondent San Die. as sho$n b% the #ertification.. The sub9ect properties once for+ed part of a lar. althou.s or i+prove+ents.).). and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert.. RespondentHs ar. but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. &t an% rate. (0'0 $as principall% located in 7arrio Talaba. and $hen 6uanHs land $as partitioned or subdivided throu. the petitions $ould still not prosper because O#T No. (0*'*. T#T Nos. 3i:e$ise.ive notice to a part% in interest of oneHs application or petition for a+end+ent or alteration to a title. petitioner 35# ar. to the o$ners of the land. if an%.ation to . reasons? 5irst. (0'0. the petition for reconstitution filed b% 3adisla$ #uenca . upon T#T Nos. $ere altered. the resultin. $hich $as ad9acent to 7arrio Nio. The% $ere not able to prove the superiorit% of their titles over their titles. ())1. in the O#T space $as chan. area and boundaries of the properties> the nature and description of the buildin. $as void on its face because it did not contain all the essential data reGuired b% la$ such as the location.ave the follo$in. Third.istered under O#T No. ()1).s and . No.D. of P.3adisla$-.h the% $ere actuall% situated in the ad9acent 7arrrio Nio.o be%ond $hat appeared on the face of these titles. $hich did not belon. that the petitionersH titles ori. dated Ma% ''. (. T!*(101 and T!*(108 since it $as not under an% obli.inall% re.ed to reflect RO!) instead. Their petitions for correction of entries in their titles filed before the #5I of #avite failed to co+pl% $ith the 9urisdictional reGuire+ents of Section (0. The nu+ber (. that the sub9ect properties $ere purchased $ith the approval of the court in the course of the probate proceedin.o counters that the petitionersH clai+ of o$nership over the sub9ect properties $as not sufficientl% proven.s and $ere not in possession of an%one. (0'0 $as never offered as evidence in court.> Second. The inscriptions on the petitionersH titles state that the properties are located in 7arrio Talaba $hen the properties described therein are situated in 7arrio Nio. respectivel%. .The% clai+ that the errors in their certificates of title $ere adeGuatel% e plained in the sense that the propert% of 6uan covered b% O#T No. (1'). located in 7arrio Talaba. The% $ere annotated $ith the inscription that the land described therein $as ori.h the %ears. #avite.inated fro+ O#T No. dated 6anuar% '8.RO!)> '. as follo$s? (. even assu+in.

=' &fter cautiousl% .ht have an% interest in the propert%.(. (0'0 $as ad+inistrativel% reconstituted after a fire . a separate O#T I O#T No.RO!)== $hich also contained the technical descriptions of 3ots ( and ' of PSA!'021. . Si+ilarl%. 3R# Record No. N!'2)' to the propert%. . N!*82. PSA!'021 $as traversed b% a railroad trac: dividin. $ho clai+s that he has a better ri. evidence. it into t$o lots? 3ot ( coverin. North of the railroad trac:. $hich $as ori.. 3ot (. O!8** $as issued pursuant to Decree No. upon application for re.).(0'0. $as ad+inistrativel% reconstituted due to the fire that . 112 of the then #5I of #avite. the southern portion. On 5ebruar% (1. O#T No. the pertinent la$ and 9urisprudence on the +atter. ()''.oin. &dditionall%. (28'( $as derived fro+ O#T No.PSA!'021. the respondent contends that 35# cannot raise for the first ti+e on appeal the ar. the #ourt holds that the respondentHs clai+ over the disputed properties prevails over those of the petitioners.inall% o$ned b% and re. 3R# Record No.utted the #avite Provincial Hall. N!((''=) in 3R# No. the northern portion and 3ot ' coverin.). N! =08*2. ()1). ()'. 3ater. .istration. On &pril (*. or $ho pra%s for its recover%. O#T No. in 6une ()1). "ven if the sa+e $ere ne$l% discovered. 5ourth. 5ifth. and 6uan $as issued O#T No. 3R# #ase No. O#T No.. $ho see:s re. (.ue4 $hich $as issued pursuant to Decree No. +ust prove his assertion b% clear and convincin. the% did not affect. the alle.istered in the na+e of 6uan.RO!1. T*+ Co/r-2. the indefeasibilit% of the respondentHs titles. (0'0 $hich covered 3ots ( and ' of PSA!'021 $as issued to 6uan. the respondentHs titles $ere le. properties> and the na+es of all persons $ho +i. O!*)0 in the na+e of Do+in. #avite. +uch less i+pin.u+ent that it is an innocent purchaser for value.located in the Municipalit% of 7acoor. and T#T No.'8* sGuare +eters .0. the trial.e on.utted the #avite Municipal Hall and 6uan $as issued O#T No. ! $as issued to 6uan coverin.istration of title to a piece of land.). and is dut% bound to identif% sufficientl% and satisfactoril% the propert%. N!(08*. R/li#0 & person. The consolidated records reveal that the sub9ect properties undeniabl% co+e fro+ a lar.ed <ne$ evidence< presented b% the petitioners before the #& cannot support their clai+ of o$nership because said <ne$ evidence< $ere not ne$ because the sa+e could have been easil% presented and produced durin.. over the volu+inous records of these consolidated cases and appl%in.i+prove+ents> the na+es and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the propert%> the na+es of the o$ners of the ad9oinin. on 6une 2. O#T No. of '2(.all% issued.e land area consistin. (.

RO!1.'.istered in the na+e of 6uan. 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 I $ere titled and re. (0*'*) for &lbert. $as issued to the+.. )*=.inall% issued as O#T No.(.).Pura-.. after 6uanHs death.. *(*). lots. "leven .(0'0. after the death of Pura and 3adisla$. in an action for partition filed b% 6ose #uenca . . 3ot '!& $as subdivided into 2 lots and ne$ individual titles $ere issued to each lot includin. T#T No. #avite.istered as O#T No.(. *(100 for 3ot 8.inall% issued as O#T No. for 6i++% and T#T No.*82.inall% re. ()8). *(101=2 for 3ot '!&!=.istered as O#T No. $hich $as ad9udicated to Pura> and T#T No. respectivel%.(.).(0'0. not as T!=1)2= and T!=1)2*. &ll these titles $ere inscribed as ori. (' ne$ titles $ere issued to each of these lots $hich included T#T No. also another heir. to 6i++% and &lbert.inall% re.)..*(108 for 3ot '!&!*. The ne$ titles $ere inscribed as ori.. . 7acoor.. .inall% re. On Ma% ). &ll these titles $ere inscribed as ori. and T#T No. $as divided into (= lots.. the technical descriptions in the said T#Ts $ere ta:en or lifted fro+ O#T No. for 3ot =.O#T No. #avite. 3i:e$ise. . On October '(.inall% re. =1)2==1 for 3ot '!E> and T#T No. .(. *(*)2 =. .).(0*'*.(0'0. &lbert and Spouses Solis? (. ()28.istered as O#T No. the #5I of #avite approved the sale of 3ot '!&!= $ith T#T No. *(108 to 35#.(.-RO!1. .in the Poblacion of 7acoor. =1)2*=8 for 3ot '!3.(. *(100 $as sold b% 6ose to Spouses Solis and a ne$ title.((. . =1)8==* for 3ot '!&> T#T No.istered as O#T No. These = lots I 3ot '!&. and Malicsi. a survivin. *(101 and 3ot '!&!* $ith T#T No.).inall% re. (. $hich $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$. $hich $ere also inscribed as ori. ori. $hich $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$> T#T No.inall% re. and t$o .RO!).RO!1. Dapote..h the titles issued to Pura and 3adisla$ stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori. &lthou. the #5I of #avite approved the sale of 3ot = $ith T#T No. ()'.-RO!1. 3ot 8 $ith T#T No.e tract of land.). heir. . T#T No.istered as O#T No.inall% re. and ne$ titles $ere issued. T#T No.(0'0. lots $ere issued ne$ individual titles $hich included T#T No. $hich $as 3ot ' or the southern portion of 6uanHs lar. =) for 3ot *. . 3ot ' of O#T No.*8.the co++on inscription in their titles $as that the lands covered therein $ere ori. The ne$ titles $ere eventuall% issued in the na+e of 35#.RO!1. .).RO!).. T#T No.RO!) $as subdivided into (' lots as approved b% the #5I of #avite. There $ere t$o co++on features present in the titles of 6i++%. 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 $ere consolidated and further subdivided into .6ose-.istered as O#T No. Thereafter.RO!).$ere located in the barrios of Talaba. On Septe+ber ).istered as O#T No. . on &pril (*. On &pril (8. *(*)2 and 3ot * $ith T#T No. These .RO!). ()8). &ll these ne$ titles $ere inscribed as ori. $hich $as ad9udicated to Pura #uenca . and not as T!=1)8=. ori.. $hich $as 3ot ( of the northern portion of 6uanHs lar.(0'0. another heir> and T#T No.e tract of land. .). ()2). $hich $as ad9udicated to 6ose. *(*).the co++on description that the properties therein $ere located in the 7arrio of Talaba.> and '.

N!112 and N!=08*2 before the then #5I of #avite and T#T No. ()88 $hich cancelled O#T No.ue4 on 5ebruar% 8. San Die. O!*)0 ori. T!(0*'*. It has also been declarin.istered in its na+e. #ontrar% to the petitionersH ar.o ca+e into the picture and clai+ed o$nership of the sub9ect parcels of land for $hich titles $ere also re. respectivel%. on the 35# clai+ of e clusive o$nership over the t$o .< It is a phrase $hich.) issued in favor of Spouses Solis> *. Specificall%..o bou. ()88 and the absolute deed of sale $as sub+itted in 3R# #ase No. *( In the consolidated cases at bench.%ears before the% $ere purchased b% 35#.T#T No..inall% issued to Do+in. ()2). These are (J the petitionersH titles are annotated $ith the inscription . San Die. O!*)0 and issued in favor of San Die. $as ori. the parcels of land in dispute are those covered b% (. O!8**. issued upon application and proper proceedin. N!112. T!(28'( issued on March '.e the burden of provin. It is evidence $hich is +ore convincin.*82 and T#T No.s in 3R# #ase Nos.o. the evidence on record un+ista:abl% sho$ that their titles have co++on defects. ()88.O#T No.. T!)*=.ate evidence on either side and is usuall% considered to be s%non%+ous $ith the ter+ <.The le.10. issued on 5ebruar% (.*8.ues that it acGuired the sa+e parcels b% virtue of T#T No. in the last anal%sis..'.reater $ei. and value of the a.* of the credible evidence.o insists that it has been in open. continuous and adverse possession in the concept of an o$ner of these parcels of land for +ore than fift% . T!(28'( $hich cancelled O#T No.T#T No. and T#T No. San Die. 0!*)0 $hich. . . T! (0*'*) issued in favor of 6i++% and &lbert> =.reater $ of the evidence< or <. issued in favor of 35#> '.T!(28'( $hich cancelled O#T No. based on O#T No. ()22. *0 dated 5ebruar% ' sGuabble in this case started $hen San Die. the burden of proof +ust establish his case b% a preponderance of On their part.ue4. said propert% for ta purposes.u+ents.o fro+ 6ose for $hich T#T No.ue4.) $as issued to the+. T!(28'( in favor of San Die.*82 and . to the court as $orth% of belief than that $hich is offered in opposition thereto. the sub9ect propert% fro+ Do+in. the superiorit% of their titles over those of the respondent.T#T No. in turn. the petitioners failed to dischar. $ho sold the sa+e propert% to San Die.parcels of land covered b% T#T Nos.o> and 1. and T#T No.h an absolute deed of sale.inall% issued to Do+in. Petitioners failed to prove the superiorit% of their titles over those of the respondent In civil cases. T!(0*'*. @ith respect to the clai+s of o$nership b% 6i++% and &lbert over the parcels of land covered b% T#T No..T#T No. credit. T!(0*'*) issued on 6anuar% '0 and =0. <Preponderance of evidence< is the $ei. To recapitulate. $ho sold the sa+e propert% to it throu. Spouses Solis clai+ that the% purchased a portion of the propert% titled under T#T No.o +eans probabilit% of the truth. 0!8** issued in favor of San Die. T!)*=. the part% havin.

()'. ()8) to Pura and 3adisla$.(0'0-RO!).hts over the sub9ect properties have not been satisfactoril% and conclusivel% proven due to such inconsistencies. ho$ever. *(*)2 issued in favor of 3adisla$> T#T No. The sa+e defects also sho$ed in T#T No. O#T No.istered as O#T No.. and not as T!=1)2= and T!=1)2*. )*=. Since T#T No.that the land described therein $as ori. $hich cancelled said titles.inall% re.. it necessaril% follo$s that 35#Hs T#T No. respectivel%.). The petitioners. ori. .RO!1.. It +a% be recalled that $hen T#T NO.rit% of their titles.RO!)> and '. the #ourt adopts the initial rulin. .). O#T No. (.istered as O#T No. and T#T No.inall% re. .RO!) covered its southern portion. $hich is a separate and distinct localit%.. for the northern portion and O#T No. O#T No.(. . *(100.). The sa+e is true $ith the title issued to Spouses Solis. $hile O#T No. *(101 and T#T No. Pura and 3adisla$. O#T No. both titles $ere inscribed as ori. of the #& on the +atter . .ue that the errors or disparities in the inscriptions on the face of their respective titles $ere 9ust clerical and.(0'0-RO!). cannot affect the inte.ed o$nership ri..istered under O#T No. *(*). the petitionersH alle..).). *(100 issued in favor of 6ose.(0'0.(0'0. . The defects of these titles are evident fro+ the fact that O#T No. ori. and not as T!=1)8=. $hich contained technical descriptions $hich.).inall% re. *(108 $ere defective titles issued on Septe+ber ). In this re. (. 7acoor. &ll these titles $ere li:e$ise inscribed as ori.ard.*8.(. In effect. #learl%. $ere li:e$ise defective. *(101 $as ad9udicated to Pura. (0'0 issued to 6uan on 5ebruar% (1.RO!1. ho$ever.*82. The obvious disparities +a:e it difficult to e actl% deter+ine the sub9ect parcels of land covered b% the said titles in the sense that the technical descriptions therein referred to the area south of 6uanHs tract of land $hile the recital of facts in the certification therein refers to the area north of 6uanHs tract of land. (.RO!) $as an ad+inistrativel% reconstituted title fro+ O#T No. ..istered as O#T No. (. . but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. $as a separate O#T issued to 6uan on &pril (*.. ()8). issued in favor of Pura> and in T#T No. the northern portion of 6uanHs vast tract of land.. On the other hand. $hich cancelled T#T No. the +is+atch in the technical descriptions and the recital of facts in the certification on the face of the petitionersH titles creates a serious cloud of doubt on the inte.). did not correspond $ith the recital of facts in the certification portion. na+el%.RO!) is different fro+ O#T No. and T#T No. .inall% re.istered as O#T No. covered 3ot (. These defects $ere carried over fro+ the defective titles of their predecessors!in! interest. #avite. (. *(108 to 3adisla$ on Septe+ber ).). ()''.the petitionersH titles specificall% state that the sub9ect properties are located in the 7arrio of Talaba. It +ust be stressed that the northern and southern portions of 6uanHs tract of land have separate titles.rit% of the said titles. (0'0 for the southern portion. therefore.(0'0. . $hen the properties described therein are actuall% situated in the 7arrio of Nio.. T#T No. ar.(0'0.inall% re.

())( Decision in #& /.oin. $as also defective. that is. 0!8** and T. @h% no effort $as e erted to correct the alle.T. contained the sa+e defect. title. the succeedin. to the sa+e propert%..petitioners.T. The appelleesH clai+ that it is the annotations in their titles that are erroneous is not supported b% the evidence. continued to contain the sa+e defect. but the technical description $as lifted fro+ O.. titles. facts.inall% re.ed <clerical errors< on the part of the appelleesH predecessors!in!interest. This.T.).#. &s narrated in the fore.#. *(10( $as also defective. &nd +ore so. This title $as defective in the +anner alread% +entioned. This parcel $as later sold to appellee &lbert #hua. Our conclusion that the appelleesH titles are defective is bolstered b% the fact that the titles of their predecessors!in!interest $ere alread% defective. No. ()20 . the ne$ title issued to hi+ also carried the sa+e defect. (. ho$ever. the appellantHs titles $ere issued and re. The last sub9ect parcel $as ad9udicated to 6ose #uenca. before the appellees purchased the sub9ect parcels fro+ the #uencas. (=1*0." hibit <TTT!1<. Transfer #ertificate of Title No.istered lon. a parcel ad9udicated to 3adis$ala #uenca. ()''.h the appellees can trace their titles as havin. T!(28'( $ere issued $a% before the defective titles $ere issued to Pura. *(*=2 . . These t$o parcels $ere eventuall% sold to appellee 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation and the defect $as carried over to the ne$ titles issued to it.respondent. Moreover. $ere all defective.and other related points in its Dece+ber '*.ue.. () of the said transfer certificate of title $as O. ho$ about this present controvers%. This ar. *(101 $as issued on 5ebruar% '*. T#T No. coverin. One parcel ad9udicated to Pura #uenca covered b% T#T No.inal titles of their predecessors! in!interest $ere reconstituted casts doubts on the appelleesH clai+ that the technical description should prevail over the annotations. *(108 . $hich reads? The appellees . ad9udicated to 3adisla$a #uenca $as covered b% T. &s a. their ad+ission that the No.T. parties have in their possession titles referrin. *(*). The uncorrected defects in the appelleesH titles have brou. separate titles $ere issued to the heirs Pura.(0'0RO!).ainst the perfect and .T. the annotation states that the ori. 3adisla$a and 6ose #uenca. and $hose technical descriptions pertain to the said propert%. $as also defective.l%.#.&nne <3<-. cannot find application to the case at bar because the opposin. issued on 5ebruar% '*. the ne$ title issued to the appellee spouses Solis. the appellantHs ." hibit <TTT!*<-. li:e$ise. in turn. been said parcel. $hose T#T No.#. as a result of the partition of the propert%.#. &ccordin. that the annotations appearin. even thou. No. has not been e plained. On the contrar%. pursuant to a partition of the estate of 6uan #uenca. 3adisla$a and 6ose #uenca.R. in their respective titles are +ere clerical errors and that the technical descriptions contained therein should prevail. Not$ithstandin. No. &nother parcel. $ho bou.O.u+ent.coverin. No. @hen sold to appellee 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. Thus. and his ne$ title. still another parcel also carried the sa+e defect.istered on 5ebruar% '(. issued to Pura #uenca .&nne <M<-.

or that there is no adverse clai+ or serious ob9ection on the part of an% part% in interest. $as not dul% notified of the said petition.istration. the appelleesH belated and defective titles +ust . that +aterial alterations affected the inte. and T#T No. 6i++% and &lbert never notified San Die.rees $ith the #& that the lac: of notice to San Die.ent. (0*'*).o about their application or petition for a+end+ent or alteration of title.ister of Deeds.D. & re. *(*).istered o$ner or other person havin. and +a% order the entr% or cancellation of a ne$ certificate.ranted if there is unani+it% a+on.istered propert%. $hich provides as follo$s? Sec. upon the certificate have arisen or been created> or that an o+ission or error $as +ade in enterin. . (0. e cept b% order of the proper #ourt of 5irst Instance. *= @ithout doubt. appear as RO!) in the O#T space of the titles..). have ter+inated and ceased> or that a ne$ interest not appearin.ister of Deeds $ith the approval of the #o++issioner of 3and Re. alteration.ainst it. failed to sho$ sufficient proof that 6i++% and &lbert faithfull% co+plied $ith the basic notice reGuire+ent under Section (0.round that the re. The records reveal that despite their :no$led. e pectant or inchoate appearin.rit% of these titles. +a% appl% b% petition to the court upon the . to &lbert $hich cancelled T#T No. &+end+ent and alteration of certificates. (0*'*.T#T No.round> and the court +a% hear and deter+ine the petition after notice to all parties in interest.o. This #ourt a. or.istered o$ner has +arried. ho$ or on an% duplicate certificate> or that the na+e of an% person on the certificate has been chan. that the +arria. a certificate or an% +e+orandu+ thereon. 6i++% and &lbert +anifested that the% filed a petition for the correction of entries in their respective titles before the then #5I of #avite and that the said court . L"+phases suppliedJ The above provision reGuires that all interested parties +ust be dul% notified of the petitionerHs application for a+end+ent or alteration of the certificate of title.. an interest in re. K No erasure. the parties.+ent or its enforceabilit% a. The #& $as correct in sa%in. &n a+end+entMalteration effected . on the certificate. in proper cases. San Die. The records. if re. of P. the titles issued so+eti+e in ()2).istered land and has been dissolved has not conve%ed the sa+e $ithin three %ears after its dissolution> or upon an% other reasonable .*' or interest of heirs or creditors $ill thereb% be affected> or that a corporation $hich o$ned re. contin. $hether vested. The certifications $ere altered to +a:e the nu+ber (. or a+end+ent shall be +ade upon the re.e has been ter+inated and no ri. a part%!in!interest $ith an adverse clai+.istered interests of an% description.istration boo: after the entr% of a certificate of title or of a +e+orandu+ thereon and the attestation of the sa+e b% the Re.are li:e$ise defective due to the apparent +aterial alterations in the certification portion of their respective titles. .ed> or that the re.istered as +arried. the Re.e about its adverse clai+ over the sub9ect properties. or.ive $a%. *(*)2.. Relief under the said le.ularl% issued titles of the appellant. No. (1').al provision can onl% be .o placed in serious Guestion the validit% of the #5I 9ud. to 6i++% $hich cancelled T#T No.ranted their petition.

sir.** The record sho$s that &lbert $as a$are of San Die. of the properties covered b% the titles of the parties The petitioners ar.ue that an overlappin.$ithout notice to the affected o$ners $ould not be in co+pliance $ith la$ or the reGuire+ents of due process. ().h the #hief of its Technical . Despite said :no$led. (1!(8.oHs adverse clai+ on his propert%. . Thus? &tt% 7ernardo? B &fter %ou purchased this propert% did %ou ta:e possession thereofN & Oes.To the $itnessB Did %ou co+e to :no$ $ho is that personN & Oes. San Die.o is clai+in. O#T No.o. the 7ureau of 3ands. Moreover. 6ul% ().=. B Did %ou co+e to :no$ $h% the% disturb %our possessionN & Oes. throu.inal title fro+ $here this lot ca+e fro+. B &fter :no$in. sir. that 7artolo+e ". sir.iven to it. Surve%s and s:etch plans*8 $ere presented sho$in. B @hatN & 7ecause the% clai+ed that the% are also the o$ner of the lot. 7% &tt%. B @hoN & The +en of 7artolo+e San Die. B Did an% person disturb %our propert%N & Oes. the relative positions of the sub9ect properties as $ell as their histor%*2 $hich $ere traced all the $a% bac: to their +other title. of titles $as established b% their evidence. sir. pp. (0'0. 7ernardo . there $as still no due notice . sir. sir. $hat did %ou doN & I $ent to +% attorne% and he instructed +e also to locate for the ori.TSN.*1 There is no overlappin. to be the o$ner of %our lot.e.

decreed in 3R# #ase No. His Report. $hile 2.. propert%.). Record No. $hich included the sub9ect properties.nificantl% defective. These defects are ver% +aterial that it cannot be ar.) sGuare +eters of the ).raphical and innocuous. The fla$s in their titles are +a9or defects that cannot 9ust be dis+issed as t%po.r. there can be no clear evidence of overlappin. The apparent defects in the certificates of title prove that the petitioners are clai+in. In other $ords.RO!). ())* Decision in /... identified the sub9ect properties usin. in a verification surve% conducted in co+pliance $ith the order of the trial court. the criticall% defective certificates of title. a reconstituted title> 'J the location of the properties as indicated in their titles $as 7arrio Talaba> and =J the technical descriptions contained in their T#Ts pertain to properties specified in O#T No. dated 6ul% (.. Vene4uela. #avite. $hile those of the respondent are situated in 7aran. ()82 in favor of the respondent. $ould fall inside subdivision plan . (). ho$ever..a% Talaba.. the titles of the petitioners do not deserve the sanctit% .0. T!. descriptions lifted fro+ O#T No. these cannot serve as indubitable and valid bases for a clear and convincin. of the 3R&.8'. 7ein.'. T!.T#T No. their respective certificates of title $ere defective because (J the +other title. $ere parcels of land covered b% O#T No.rit%. . to the effect that 3ots ( and ' situated in 7arrio Nio. stated that there $as an overlappin. O!8**.u+ent in its &pril ''. Thus? Petitioners $ould +ini+i4e the i+port of the defects in their titles b% describin. asserts that overlappin.ued that the% are 9ust clerical in nature. #avite. T!.*82 and T!. *. N!=08*2 under Decree No. 3ot '!&!= Psd!((0). their technical descriptions and their locations cannot be dis+issed as clerical and har+less in character. sGuare +eters $ere overlapped b% the respondentHs O#T No. . the technical descriptions in T#T Nos.$ere overlapped b% O#T No..-. containin. The #ourt alread% debun:ed this ar. #onsiderin. delineation of the +etes and bounds of the properties.2 sGuare +eters of land co+prisin. and $hen plotted in the +unicipal inde sheet throu. 7acoor. $as O#T No. 1. indicated therein.3R#.(0'0. &s the petitioners the+selves 9udiciall% ad+itted.*8. 7acoor. the petitioners . The respondent. O!8**.T#T No.h its tie line. (. @ith these errors. is i+possible because the properties in Guestion are located in different barrios> the petitionersH properties are in 7aran. O!8**.R.rit%.0 .iven to torrens title.*8. This report $as the basis of the #ertification. sGuare +eter of 3ot '!&!* .< The plea does not persuade for the self!contradictions in petitionersF titles infract their inte. si. the $ron. N!112.'.(0'0. and Develop+ent #oordinator. as evidenced b% the #ertification *) of the Office of the Municipal Plannin.*82. These errors precisel% created and cast the cloud of doubt over petitionersF titles and precipitated the case at bench.. The defects pertain to the essential core of a title and definitel% affect their inte.Psd!))8)2. "n. 3ot!'!&. ())1.RO!).Services Section. the+ as <clerical. "rrors that relate to the lotsF +other title. No. O! 8**. The report sho$ed that of the ). dated 5ebruar% (*. (010'2..a% Nio. N!((''=) issued on 6anuar% *. bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described in the respondentHs O#T No.*.

h 7arrio Talaba and 7arrio Nio. the petitionersH theor% that the propert% that the% have been clai+in.R. in their titles $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. (.ard $hich appears in its &pril ''. their titles sho$ed on their ver% face that the% covered lots located in 7arrio Talaba. The verification surve% is unreliable 3i:e the petitionersH titles. of the sa+e +unicipalit%.10 #onsistentl%. Nonetheless. The% attached their defective titles to their co+plaints in the trial court. V&SBA"D? . the notices of hearin. specificall% indicated therein that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba.). confir+ed these blatant defects $hen he testified. are located in 7arrio Nio. as described in their titles. $ould be e pected on this basis. Vene4uela of the 7ureau of 3ands unreliable. $hen the% are actuall% located in 7arrio Nio. No less than petitionersF $itness.are clai+in.r. the southern portion of 6uan #uencaFs land. ('). 8).ain. of 6uanHs applications for re. #avite. thus? 7O &TTO. the northern portion of 6uan #uencaFs propert% before its subdivision. in 7acoor. so far. o$nership of parcels of land not in the location stated in their respective titles. Vene4uela ad+itted that his table surve% $as +erel% based on the technical description of the defective titles. 3i:e$ to the propert% or pra%s for its recover%.(0'0. +unicipalit% of 7acoor $hereas the lots of private respondent are in 7arrio Nio. that the said barrios $ere one and the sa+e at so+e point in ti+e. an overlappin. Dapote. No. It has not been sho$n. (010'2. these defects $ere 9udiciall% ad+itted b% the petitioners.. &lthou.1' before the #5I of the Province of #avite. The properties. Malicsi. ')'(0 1( and #ase No. There $as no +ention $hatsoever of an% propert% located in 7arrio Nio. . It is so because "n. &. +a% have been erroneousl% classified as situated in 7arrio Talaba. Naturall%. It is for this reason that the #ourt finds difficult% in acceptin.RO!) or fro+ 3ot ' for+in. the technical descriptions of the lots appearin. The t$o barrios are one and a half :ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other. +aps and surve%s on record. "n.r. $ho clai+s that he has a better ri.. /3RO Record No.. &s aforestated. ())* Decision in /. evidence and is dut% bound to identif% sufficientl% and satisfactoril% the propert%. and Poblacion. 7asic is the rule that a person.o. the $itnessB Oou said %ou referred to these titles in connection $ith %our verificationN .. presentl% in possession of San Die.istration and confir+ation of title in #ase No. are ad9acent to each other. the #ourt reiterates its position in this re. the face of their titles sho$ that the% e+anated fro+ O#T No. Thus? To be sure.. /3RO Record No. or fro+ 3ot ( constitutin. their respective boundaries are clearl% defined and delineated fro+ the plans. +ust prove his assertion b% clear and convincin.(. the #ourt finds the verification surve% conducted b% "n.'8.

. sir.). . subpara. 3OR"ND&N& 5OOD #ORPOR&TION.). <TH&T &S P"R T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTIONS &PP"&RIN/ ON T#T NO.N & Oes. 7&RRIO T&3&7& &ND 7&RRIO NIO/ &R" DI55"R"NT 7&RRIOSN @ITN"SS? & O"S.*8. R"/IST"R"D IN TH" N&M" O5.raph . . is not the sa+e land covered b% the titles of the 3oren4anaN . TH" PROP"RTO 5&33S IN TH" 7&RRIO O5 NIO/.raph of the title of plaintiff statin. did %ou notice thoseN @ITN"SS? & I noticed that. particularl% to the fact that as stated in both of these titles. para. V&SBA"D? . as Ori. B &re $e to understand that the land covered b% O#T No.. state+ent $hich I read.. .). ()'. pursuant to Decree No. SIR. MO BA"STION IS.). . No.*82 &ND T#T NO.To the $itnessB In the report that %ou sub+itted to this #ourt on %our verification surve%. (. #&VIT". . (.raph of the first pa. ')'(*. #&VIT".. 7&#OOR. 7O &TTO. . ==. (.e of the titles. $e find in para. 7&#OOR. I a+ referrin. .'1) 3R# Record No. B &nd %ou have apparentl% noticed that the state+ent contained in the second para. .@ITN"SS? & Oes.istered on &pril (*. <IT M&O 7" DA" TO TH" 5&#T TH&T S&ID TIT3" ORI/IN&T"D 5ROM ORI/IN&3 #"RTI5I#&T" NO TIT3" NO. D"#R""D AND"R NO. I presu+e %ou also sa$ the +atters stated in the second para.< #ONTR&DI#TIN/ TO TH" 3O#&TION ST&T"D IN TH" TIT3" @HI#H IS 7&RRIO T&3&7&. .raph *. B No$. I R"&D 5ARTH"R.inall% re. this land $as ori. ==. sir.raph f.'1) @HI#H IS &#TA&33O 3O#&T"D IN 7&RRIO T&3&7&.inal #ertificate of Title (. sir. the follo$in. that the land supposed to be covered b% said titles is derived fro+ O#T No.

+eanin. IT IS &3R"&DO #3"&R ON TH" TIT3" TH&T IT @&S T&E"N 5ROM O#T (.. %ou $ill tell the #ourt of these t$o ..To the $itnessB Oou are +entioned O#T No..).inal #ertificate . and I have here a s:etch plan of the positions.. V"RI5I#&TION. of the technical description as described on the title of the plaintiff is referrin. I based +% verification based on the title as reGuired b% the #ourt.). B I $ill not ar.). OR (0'0N @ITN"SS? & @"33. the one Ori. (0'0 is located at the southern portion of the Ori. as ordered b% the #ourt. to a land covered b% ori. or (0'0N & I 9ust follo$ed the title as issued. is located on northern portion of O#T No. this technical description that %ou utili4ed to plot the land described in the title or titles of the plaintiff. &##ORDIN/ TO OOA . (. (.. IT @OA3D &PP"&R TH&T THIS TIT3" O5 TH" 3OR"ND&N&S @&S D"RIV"D 5ROM (..)..& In a sense it is not actuall%.titles of 3oren4ana happened to fall to Ori.. B No$. in fact I +ade here a $or:in.titles cover different parcels of landN @ITN"SS? & &s per +% s:etch sheet plan. I5 @" /O 7O TH" TIT3". (0'0.. to sa% that the% are far apart fro+ each other. (. sheet sho$in. B TH" BA"STION IS. V&SBA"D? . and O#T No.'. @&S 5ROM &NOTH"R TIT3" SP"#I5I#&33O (0'0N @ITN"SS? . %ou the plottin. 7O &TTO.). the titles.. B IN OTH"R @ORDS.'.).. the title O#T (. (0'0. $hich title did %ou use. 7AT TH" T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTION . or (0'0N & It is ver% clear on +% plan that the t$o .inal of Title No. Ori.. (0'0.inal #ertificate of Title No.). IS IT #OV"R"D 7O (.). but I a+ as:in.inal #ertificate of Title No.ue to that fact that the title of 3oren4ana $as ta:en fro+ (.). TH" 3&ND 7"IN/ #3&IM"D 7O TH" P3&INTI55.).inal #ertificate of Title (0'0 and Ori. . of Title (.inal certificate of title (.

Their prior and la$ful possession of their titled properties is further bolstered b% the fact that the% have been pa%in.R.& O"S. =*!=1. docu+ents is that the% are not e actl% <ne$l% discovered evidence< as plaintiffsH clai+ the% are. ())* Decision in /. Moreover. His atte+pt to reconcile the defects and inconsistencies appearin. (010'2. 5or plaintiffsH failure to present these docu+ents there is no one else to bla+e but the+selves. The docu+ents attached b% the petitioners in their petition to re!open $ere the follo$in. to 6uanHs application for re. thereon.ardin. the sub9ect properties have no +ar:ed defects and the description of the properties therein coincides $ith the annotations appearin. San Die. The #ourt Guotes $ith approval the rulin. and Talaba are ad9acent> and =certification fro+ the 3R& re.oHs propert%. 1= L"+phasis suppliedJ San Die.s before the lo$er court. Thus.pp. and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor.ed ne$ docu+ents sub+itted b% the petitioners cannot be considered as ne$l% discovered evidence.1* The docu+ents of petitioners are not ne$l% discovered evidence The #ourt sustains the rulin. ()88. all of the+ could have been previousl% obtained and presented b% plaintiffs at the hearin. =2!*0.o $as able to sufficientl% prove their clai+ of o$nership of the sub9ect properties. There is si+pl% no discrepanc% bet$een its titles and the actual location of the sub9ect properties bein. on the faces of petitionersF titles did not i+press the respondent court and neither are $e. No. ('!)!. to . These are not ne$l% discovered and the% cannot affect the #ourtHs rulin. SIR.0. 7O ASIN/ TH" T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTION . adverse and continuous possession of the sub9ect properties since it purchased the sa+e on 5ebruar% 8. San Die. and the parcels of land it clai+s are also located in the sa+e barrio. the propert% ta es thereon since their purchase in ()88. its titles state that the sub9ect properties are located in 7arrio Nio. hold of evidence $hich $as alread% available.o has in its favor the fact that it has been in open. pertainin. tsn. His opinion lac:s authoritativeness for his verification surve% $as not +ade on the land itself. *(!*=. or at the ver% least. adverse and continuous possession In contrast. in its &pril ''.oin.? (J #ertified true copies of notices of hearin. It appears that the% did not e ert their best efforts to . of the #& that the alle. of the #& on this +atter? & co++on characteristic shared b% all the fore. It $as a +ere table surve% based on the defective titles the+selves.oHs titles have no +ar:ed defect and acco+panied b% an open.istration and confir+ation of title> 'J #ertification b% the Municipal Plannin. that 7arrios Nio. 7% their nature. bold letters supplied-. the encroach+ent of San Die. #avite. Its certificates of title coverin. clai+ed and possessed b% it.

JR.ain. &ssociate 6ustice #hairperson % OS%A%O M.rave abuse of discretion $hen it failed to pass 9ud. respectivel%> and Spouses SolisHs T#T No. The #ourt. O!8** and T#T No.(!(.ainst its predecessors!in!interest. a.0!(2 and 7#V!. petitioners contend that the respondent court co++itted . T!(28'( . To allo$ the presentation of evidence on a piece!+eal basis..fro+ O#T No.ed liabilit% in this petition for revie$ on certiorari.oHs O#T No. T!)*=.ed that the said "states breached their $arranties as sellers of the sub9ect lots. 9ustice. thereb% needlessl% causin.. O!*)0. The contention deserves scant attention.ainst the "states of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$ #uenca in #ivil #ase Nos. The records sho$ that the trial court dis+issed petitionersF #o+plaint a. the re+ed% of the petitioners is to see: co+pensation fro+ the &ssurance 5und. 1âwphi1 5inall%.ainst the disputed Decision. restates its position on an% clai+ of da+a.*82 and T#T No. the #ourt can safel% state that San Die. The% alle.buttress their clai+.oin. once a.). . PERALTA &ssociate 6ustice ROBERTO A. and T#T T!(0*'*)..ainst these "states.18 /rantin.> 6i++% and &lbertHs T#T T!(0*'*. &ELASCO. ar. The dis+issal has beco+e final and petitioners cannot resurrect the "statesF alle. Thus? In a last s$in. their predecessors!in! interest. @H"R"5OR". 7#V!.+ent on the liabilities of the estates of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$ #uenca.*8. . SO ORD"R"D.uendo that the% are so.11 In vie$ of the fore. JOSE CATRAL MEN%O(A &ssociate 6ustice @" #ON#AR? PRESB TERO J. a dela% in the resolution of the case $ould be anathe+a to the purpose of deliverin. ABA% &ssociate 6ustice . as to 35#Fs assertion that it is an innocent purchaser for value. and &lbert #hua did not appeal the dis+issal of their #o+plaints a.> suffice it to state that this doctrine is not applicable as the contendin. Petitioners 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation as $ell as 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. titles do not refer to one and the sa+e propert%..are +ore reliable than 35#Hs T#T No. the consolidated petitions are hereb% D"NI"D for lac: of +erit.

. p.alado ". 7ello. (=1*0.ned to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourtHs Division.MAR& C MAR O & CTOR ). Maa+bon. PRESB TERO J.R. MAR A LOUR%ES P. at *'(. 8 2 '=( S#R& 2(=. 6r. Narvasa. &ssociate 6ustice #hairperson. I certif% that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi. ( ' Rollo . .le* 1 Id.R. . Ta. SERENO #hief 6ustice )oo-#o-+. *(*!*'=. and &ssociate 6ustice 3ucenito N. Id. &ssociate 6ustice Teodoro R. Third Division #"RTI5I#&TION Pursuant to Section (=. Buotin./.8=-. Puno and concurred in b% #hief 6ustice &ndres R. A. and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Re. (81. ())( #& Decision in #&!/. pp. Re. LEONEN &ssociate 6ustice &TT"ST&TION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi. No. at (0!'1. . &rticle VIII of the #onstitution and the Division #hairpersonFs &ttestation. (0!'1. Id.. and &ssociate 6ustice 5loren4 D. = Rollo .Penned b% then &ssociate 6ustice Re%nato S.alado.R. 2(1!2(). JR. #V No. at '2!'.Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R./.ned to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourtFs Division. Padilla. No. fro+ the Dece+ber '*. &ELASCO. (81. '=( S#R& 2(=. at '*!'1.21-. Id.

=(2./. at (. Id. pp. at ())!'00. No. pp.21-. (81. Ta. pp.1!(. '=( S#R& 2(=. Id. (* (1 (8 (2 (. (8*!()=. Rollo . (81. 88=!88*. at '0(. v./.le'( '' Rollo . &ldecoa and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice 6ose #./.R. #a+pos and &ssociate 6ustice 5ile+on H.21-. '01!'08. No.R.Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R.)!()(. Rollo .8=-.R. pp./.R. p. No. (81. (81. at ()(!()'. Id. p. . Rollo . '= '* '1 '8 '2 '. (81. at (0!'1./.alado ". Rollo . p./. () '0 Id. 6r./.8. (81. ') .21-. and &ssociate 6ustice 3ucenito N. (0 (( Id. *(*!*'=.R. at (. Rollo . (' (= Rollo . Rollo . No. #&.> penned b% &ssociate 6ustice Venancio D. Mendo4a. '*=. Id./. pp./. at *()!*''. '*!'1.R. No.8=-. '0=!'08. Rollo . ()1.21-. Id. (81. No. 3oren4ana 5ood #orp. Id. at )'!)=. Id.21-. pp. pp. No. 7ello. at ()*!'0.R./.R. and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Re. (81.8=-. Maa+bon. Id.8=-.R. No. (81. at *'.. (81. '0)!'(8. No.) Rollo . No.8=-.R.

No. Id. ('0. ** *1 Rollo ./.' S#R& 8'.=. "ncinas v. '008. supra note '8 at 2'8. at 88'. No. Rollo .21-. 5ebruar% (1. National 7oo:store. 888!88.R.(. (8=11(. 8)1. Id. 1(8 S#R& 8.R.8=-. p. Inc.())2-.21-. at (0*!((. at (28. 3eonidisa N.R. 81. #&. No. 10( S#R& *=8. No. Spouses "nriGue4. (*. v. /. pp. ==) Phil. at (*(. (81. (('. No. =22. pp. #o+eta.81* S#R& =8.R. Rollo . Septe+ber ((. (81. (81. =* =1 =8 =2 =. Rollo .'2. '008.. at (. =.!81)./. Id.R.) . at (8=. Rollo .R. *) ./ 3antud. Id.. '0((.a%ta%!Taal Tourist Develop+ent #orporation v. 8. Id. at (21. (81. pp. /. /. #&.R. =( Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. pp. Id.1 Phil. (81.R.R.2. No.. No. 6ul% (.8=-.=0 Id. (*1!(*2.racia v. No. /. 1(> Republic v. p. No. Id./. *. **2> and Spouses Divina. '002. )0!)(. *= 3ife Ho+es Realt% #orporation v.'00*-../.R. (80))0. '0=!'01. (0=. =' == Rollo ./. at ()1. 5ebruar% '0. Had9i Serad Min. 3oren4ana 5ood #orp. (81. No. at (. =) *0 *( *' Ta. (1)880.8=-.8=-. *8 *2 *. *. #&. Id.

. 10 1( Rollo .R. 10( S#R& *=8. p. 1(> Republic v. /.racia v. #o+eta. at (*). No.8=-. *. Spouses "nriGue4. /. **2> and Spouses Divina./. '(2. '0((. 3eonidisa N. Had9i Serad Min. (80))0. No.R. Id. Septe+ber ((. Id. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. 6ul% (. #&. No. pp.!81). supra note '8 at 2'2. (=1!(=8. 81. supra note '8. /. (81. at 2'*!2'8. (81. (8=11(. 1' 1= 1* 11 18 .8=-.' S#R& 8'.81* S#R& =8.R.R. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. No. '008..R. #&.ca 3antud. (1)880.Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. No./. '008. 5ebruar% '0. at )'. Rollo .