-57-

MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVT. CORP

G.R. No. 123346 | 14 DECEMBER 2007

MANOTOK REALTY, INC. and MANOTOK ESTATE CORPORATION CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
v.
petitioners respondent

G.R. No. 134385

HEIRS OF JOSE B. DIMSON, REPRESENTED BY HIS COMPULSORY HEIRS: HIS SURVIVING

SPOUSE, ROQUETA R. DIMSON AND THEIR CHILDREN, NORMA AND CELSO TIRADO,
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC.
ALSON AND VIRGINIA DIMSON, LINDA AND CARLOS LAGMAN, LERMA AND RENE
v.
POLICAR, AND ESPERANZA R. DIMSON; REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON,
petitioner
respondents

Resolution

Justice TInga

The 2 petitions involve properties covered by OCT No. 994 which encompasses 1342 hectares of the Maysilo Estate, and
stretches over 3 cities.

GR 123346:
o Respondent CLT Devt. sought to recover from petitioner Manotok Realty the possession of Lot 26 covered
by aforementioned estate. Respondents claim is based on a title issued in its name by the Register of
Deeds-Caloocan, which title in turn was derived from Estelita Hipolito by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Real
Estate Mortgage dated 10 Dec. 1988. Hipolitos title came from Jose Dimsons title, which was issued
pursuant to a CFI order. Dimsons title appears to have been sourced from OCT 994.
o Petitioners challenged the validity of the title relied by respondent, alleging that Dimsons title was
irregularly issued, and hence, the subsequent titles flowing therefrom are void. Petitioners title likewise
traced as its primary source OCT 994, which was transferred to Alejandro Ruiz & Mariano Leuterio who
acquired the property through an Escritura de Venta (Deed of Sale) executed by Don Tomas Arguelles &
F Don Enrique Llopis. Ruiz & Leuterio then sold the property to Gonzales and then to his heirs, wherein the
lot was subdivided into 7 parcels.
o The RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents.
o CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

GR 134385:
o 18 Dec 1979: Dimson filed with CFI a complaint for recovery of possession & damages against petitioner
Araneta Institute, alleging that he was the absolute owner of part of the Maysilo Estate, and that petitioner
had been illegally occupying the land & refused to vacate the same. On the other hand, petitioner alleged
that Dimsons title to the land was void.
o CFI ruled in favor of Dimson, with the following findings:
o CA affirmed the trial courts decision.
29 Nov 2005: The SC denied the consolidated petitions.
The petitioners then duly filed their respective motions for reconsideration

Whether the Court can still overturn (at this point) its decision in MWSS v. CA & Heirs of Gonzaga v. CA wherein it sustained
I
the validity of OCT 994 registered on 19 APR 1917, and nullified the same OCT registered on a later date 3 MAY 1917.

H YES.
 The Court held that the earlier factual finding in the case of MWSS v. CA is indefensible.

NOTE: What is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT 994 indicates that it was received for transcription by the Register
of Deeds on 3 MAY 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration since that was when he was able to transcribe the
decree in the registration book, such entry made in the book being the original certificate of title.

The aforementioned case recognized an OCT 994 registered on 19 APR 1917, a title that never existed and, even
R assuming that it did exist, is now acknowledged as spurious. It would be incoherent for the Court to reiterate
jurisprudence that gave effect tot OCT 994 registered on 19 APR 1917, and at the same time, acknowledge that the
same OCT never existed. Hence, the Court can certainly decline to infuse further validity to such erroneous premise.

Moreover, the two cases should not bind the parties in the petitions now before us. Undisputedly, the two cases
involved different parcels of land. The present petitioners could not be bound by the decisions in the two cases, as
they were not parties thereto and their properties were not involved therein. As we very recently reaffirmed, it is basic
that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by
judgment rendered by the court.