THIRD DIVISION

MANOTOK REALTY, INC. and G.R. No. 123346

MANOTOK ESTATE
CORPORATION,
Petitioners,

- versus -

CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 134385
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF
AGRICULTURE, INC.,
Petitioner,

- versus -

HEIRS OF JOSE B. DIMSON,

represented by his Compulsory Heirs:
His surviving spouse, ROQUETA R.
DIMSON and their children, NORMA
and CELSO TIRADO, ALSON and
VIRGINIA DIMSON, LINDA and
CARLOS LAGMAN, LERMA and
RENE POLICAR, and ESPERANZA
R. DIMSON; REGISTRY OF
DEEDS OF MALABON,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------x
STO. NINO KAPITBAHAYAN G.R. No. 148767
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Petitioner,
Present:

PANGANIBAN, J., Chairman

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES, and
GARCIA, JJ.

CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT Promulgated:

CORPORATION,
Respondent. November 29, 2005

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Before us for resolution are three petitions for review on certiorari:[1]

1. G.R. No. 123346

The petition in this case was filed by Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok
Estate Corporation against CLT Realty Development Corporation assailing the
Decision[2] dated September 28, 1995 and Resolution dated January 8, 1996 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 45255;
 2. G.R. No. 134385

The petition was filed by Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. against Jose
B. Dimson (now deceased), represented by his surviving spouse and children,
and the Registry of Deeds of Malabon, challenging the Joint Decision[3] dated
May 30, 1997 and Resolution dated July 16, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CV No. 41883 and CA-G.R. SP No. 34819; and

3. G.R. No. 148767

The petition here was filed by Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc.
against CLT Realty Development Corporation questioning the Decision[4]of the
Court of Appeals dated March 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52549.

On March 6, 2002, these petitions were consolidated[5] as the issue

involved is the validity of the parties titles over portions of land known as
the Maysilo Estate located at Caloocan City and Malabon, Metro Manila,
covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 of the Registry of

Deeds of Caloocan City. It is this same OCT No. 994 from which the titles of
the parties were purportedly derived.

We shall state the antecedents of these cases separately considering their

peculiar circumstances.
 1. G.R. No. 123346

(Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation,

petitioners, vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation,
respondents)

On August 10, 1992, CLT Realty Development Corporation (CLT

Realty) filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 129, Caloocan City a
complaint for annulment of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT), recovery of
possession, and damages against Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate
Corporation (Manotok Corporations) and the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan
City, docketed as Civil Case No. C-15539.

The complaint alleges inter alia that CLT Realty (plaintiff) is the registered
owner of Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate located in Caloocan City, covered
by TCT No. T-177013 of the Registry of Deeds of said city; that this TCT was
originally derived from OCT No. 994; that on December 10, 1988, CLT Realty
acquired Lot 26 from its former registered owner, Estelita I. Hipolito, by virtue
of a Deed of Sale with Real Estate Mortgage; that she, in turn, purchased the
same lot from Jose B. Dimson; that Manotok Corporations (defendants)
illegally took possession of 20 parcels of land (covered by 20 separate titles[6])
within said Lot 26 owned by CLT Realty; that based on the technical
descriptions of Manotok Corporations titles, their property overlap or embrace
Lot 26 of CLT Realty; and that the titles of Manotok Corporations constitute a
cloud of doubt over the title of CLT Realty. The latter thus prays that the 20
titles of Manotok Corporations be cancelled for being void; and that Manotok
Corporations be ordered to vacate the disputed portions of Lot 26 and turn over
possession thereof to CLT Realty, and to pay damages.
 In their answer with counterclaim, Manotok Corporations denied the
material allegations of the complaint, alleging that Jose B. Dimsons title (TCT
No. R-15166) was irregularly issued, hence void; and that consequently, the
titles of Estelita Hipolito (TCT No. R-17994) and CLT Realty (TCT No.
177013) derived therefrom are likewise void. By way of affirmative defense,
Manotok Corporations assert ownership of the parcel of land being claimed by
CLT Realty, alleging that they acquired the same from the awardees or vendees
of the National Housing Authority.

During the pre-trial conference, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, approved the creation of a commission composed of three
commissioners tasked to resolve the conflict in their respective titles. On July 2,
1993, the trial court issued an Order[7] defining the issues to be resolved by the
commissioners, thus:

1. Whether or not the property covered by the Transfer Certificates of Title

of defendants (Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation)
pertain to or involved Lot No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate presently titled in the
name of the plaintiff (CLT Realty Development Corporation); and

2. Whether or not the property covered by the title of the plaintiff and the
property covered by the titles of the defendants overlap.[8]

The commissioners chosen were Engr. Avelino L. San Buenaventura

(nominated by CLT Realty), Engr. Teodoro I. Victorino (nominated by
Manotok Corporations), and Engr. Ernesto S. Erive (chosen by the two
commissioners and the parties). Significantly, Engr. Ernesto Erive is the Chief
of the Surveys Division, Land Management Bureau, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Quezon City.[9] On July 2,
1993, the three took their oaths of office in open court.

On October 8, 1993, Ernesto Erive and Avelino San Buenaventura

submitted an exhaustive Joint Final Report[10] (Majority Report) with the
following conclusion:

h. Based on the foregoing, it is the conclusion of the undersigned

Commissioners that defendants (Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate
Corporation) titles overlap portions of plaintiffs (CLT Realty Development
Corporation) title, which overlapping is due to the irregular and questionable
issuance of TCT Nos. 4211 (also of TCT No. 4210), 5261, 35486, 1368 to
1374. The inherent technical defects on TCT No. 4211 (from where
defendants derive their titles) and TCT No. 4210 which were exhaustively
elucidated above, point to the fact that there was no approved subdivision
of Lot 26 which served as legal basis for the regular issuance of TCT Nos.
4210 and 4211. Thus, as between plaintiffs title, which was derived from
regularly issued titles, and defendants titles, which were derived from
irregularly issued titles, plaintiffs title which pertains to the entire Lot 26 of
the Maysilo Estate should prevail over defendants titles.

On the other hand, Teodoro Victoriano submitted his Individual Final

Report[11] (Minority Report) dated October 23, 1993 with the following findings:

f. That viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations, there is no

question that the different parcels of land which are covered by defendants
transfer certificates of title in question are parts of Lot 26 of then Maysilo
Estate;

g. That on the basis of the technical descriptions appearing on the

certificates of titles of the defendants, it is ascertained that the parcels of
land covered therein overlap portions of the parcel of land which is covered
by the plaintiffs certificate of title.
 The trial court then scheduled the hearing of the two Reports. CLT Realty
filed its objections to the Minority Report. For its part, Manotok Corporations
submitted their comment/objections to the Majority Report.

On February 8, 1994, the trial court issued an Order directing the parties
to file their respective memoranda to enable this court to adopt wholly or
partially the memorandum for either as the judgment herein, x x x.[12]

On April 6, 1994, Manotok Corporations submitted their Memorandum

praying that the trial court approve the Minority Report and render judgment in
their favor.

CLT Realty likewise filed its Memorandum on April 15, 1994 praying that
the Majority Report be approved in toto, and that judgment be rendered pursuant
thereto.

In its Order of April 22, 1994, the trial court considered the case submitted
for decision.[13]

On May 10, 1994, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of plaintiff (CLT Realty) and against defendants (Manotok
Corporations) as follows:

1. Ordering the annulment and cancellation of defendants Transfer

Certificates of Title Nos. 4210 and 4211 of the Registry of Deeds of
Caloocan City which encroach on plaintiffs 201,288 square meters of Lot
No. 26 of the Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City;
 2. Ordering defendants to vacate said 201,288 square meters of Lot
No. 26 registered in the name of plaintiff;

3. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum

of P201,288.00 annually from March 15, 1989, as reasonable
compensation for defendants occupancy and use of the 201,288 square
meters involved in this case until the area is vacated;

4. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs counsel

(Villaraza & Cruz Law Office) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees; and

5. Ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay the costs of suit.

Defendants Counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

The findings of fact and conclusions contained in the Majority Report,

which the trial court adopted in its Decision, are quoted as follows:

7. That the following facts were established by the undersigned

Commissioners:

a. Records show that Maysilo Estate was surveyed under Plan No.
Psu-2345 on September 8 to 27, October 4 to 21 and November 17 to 18,
1991;

b. That on the basis of the Decision rendered on December 3,

1912 by Hon. Norberto Romualdez in Land Registration Case No. 4429
pursuant to which the Decree No. 36455 was issued and the approved
plan Psu-2345, the Maysilo Estate was registered under Republic Act No.
496 and Original Certificate of Title No. 994, OCT-994, was issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Rizal, covering 34 parcels of land, Lots 1 to 6, 7-A, 8
to 15, 17 to 22, 23-A, 24, 25-A, 25-D and 26 to 33, all of Psu-2345.

c. The original copy of OCT-994 in its original form although

dilapidated is on file at the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City;

d. That according to the documents submitted by the plaintiff, TCT-

177013 in the name of plaintiff CLT Realty Development
Corporationspecifically describes the parcel of land covered by its title
as Lot 26, Maysilo Estate. TCT-177013 was a transfer from TCT-R-
17994 registered in the name of Estelita Hipolito which in turn is a transfer
from TCT-R-15166 registered in the name of Jose B. Dimson which also
is a transfer from OCT-994. TCT-R-17994 and TCT-R-15166 also
specifically describe the parcel of land covered by the titles as Lot 26,
Maysilo Estate;

e. That defendant Manotok Realty Inc.s properties are covered by

TCT Nos. 7528, 7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405, 26406,
26407, 33904, 34255, C-35267, 41956, 53268, 55896, T-1214528, 163902
and 165119, while defendant Manotok Estate Corporations property is
covered by TCT No. T-232568, all of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan
City.

f. That on the basis of the technical descriptions on the titles of

defendants, the parcels of land covered therein overlap portions of the
parcel of land covered by plaintiffs title;

g. That according to the documents of defendants, Lot 26 was

apparently subdivided which led to the issuance of Transfer Certificates of
Title Nos. 4210 and 4211 which were registered on September 9, 1918 in
the names of Messrs. Alejandro Ruiz and Mariano Leuterio. All of
defendants titles are derived from TCT No. 4211.

h. The original copy of OCT-994 does not contain the pages where
Lot 26 and some other lots are supposedly inscribed;

i. TCT No. 4211 was later cancelled by TCT No. 5261 in the name of
Francisco J. Gonzales which was later cancelled by TCT No. 35486 in the
names of Jose Leon Gonzales, Consuelo Susana Gonzales, Juana
Francisca Gonzales, Maria Clara Gonzales, Francisco Felipe Gonzales and
Concepcion Maria Gonzales;

j. Upon examination of the original copy of OCT-994, it can be

seen that the technical descriptions of the lots and the certificate itself
are entirely written in the English language. On the other hand, it was
noticed that the technical descriptions on TCT Nos. 4211 (as well as
TCT No. 4210) 5261 and 35486 are inscribed in the Spanish language
in these certificates;

k. The dates of the original survey of the mother title OCT-994

(September 8-27, October 4-21 and November 17-18, 1911) are not
indicated on TCT Nos. 4211 (also on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486.
Rather, an entirely different date, December 22, 1917, is indicated at
the end of the Spanish technical descriptions on TCT No. 4211 (also
on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486;

l. The parcel of land covered by the successive titles TCT Nos.

4211, 5261 and 35486 is not identified by a lot number. There is no
reference or mention of Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate in the technical
description of said titles.
 m. That there is no subdivision survey plan number indicated
on TCT No. 4211 (also on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486 covering the
purported subdivision of Lot 26. Upon verification with the Bureau of
Lands or in the Land Registration Authority, which are the official
depositories of all approved survey plans, no survey plan covering
said subdivision could be found;

n. The three (3) separate lots covered by TCT Nos. 4210 and
4211 which allegedly were the result of the subdivision of Lot 26 were
not designated or identified as Lot 26-A, Lot 26-B and Lot 26-C to
conform with existing practice;

o. That it appears that the parcel of land covered by the successive

titles TCT No. 4211, then 5261 and lastly 35486 was again subdivided
under Plan Psu-21154. The alleged subdivision plan Psd-21154 had seven
(7) resultant lots which are issued individuals certificates, TCT Nos. 1368
thru 1374, six of which are in the names of each of the six children of
Francisco J. Gonzales;

p. Plan Psd-21154 appears to have been prepared on September

15, 21, 29 and October 5-6, 1946 according to the technical
descriptions appearing on TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374;

q. TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 are written in the English language
and the technical descriptions of the lots covered therein indicate the
original survey of the mother title as September 8-27, October 4-21 and
November 17-18, 1911 which dates are not found in the mother title
TCT No. 35486 or the antecedent titles TCT No. 5261 and 4211;

r. It appears that these seven (7) properties covered by TCT Nos.

1368 thru 1374 were later expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines
through the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation (now the National
Housing Authority) after which they were consolidated and subdivided into
77 lots under (LRC) Pcs-1828 for resale to tenants. Manotok Realty, Inc.
appears to be one of the original vendees of said lots having acquired Lot
11-B covered by TCT No. 34255. It appears that some of the tenants later
sold their lots to various vendees some of whom are the defendants,
Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation;

s. That Psd-21154, the plan which allegedly subdivided the lot

covered by TCT No. 35486 (formerly covered by TCT No. 4211, then
TCT No. 5261), could not be traced at the official depository of plans
which is the Bureau of Lands. According to the EDPS Listings of the
Records Management Division of the Lands Management Bureau
(formerly the Bureau of Lands), there is no record of the alleged plan
Psd-21154. Accordingly, said EDPS listings indicate those survey
plans which were salvaged after the fire that gutted the Philippines
from the Japanese forces. It appears, however, from TCT Nos. 1368
thru 1374 that psd-21154 was done after the war on September 15, 21,
29 and October 5-6, 1946;

t. Upon examination of the technical descriptions inscribed on

TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374, it was noticed that the tie lines deviated from
the mother lots tie point which is Bureau of Lands Location Monument
No. 1, Caloocan City. Instead different location monuments of
adjoining Piedad Estate were used. The tie point used in TCT No. 1368
is B.M. 10, Piedad Estate while TCT Nos. 1369 and 1370 used B.M. No.
9, Piedad Estate; and TCT Nos. 1371, 1372, 1373 and 1374 used B.M.
No. 7, Piedad Estate. The changing of the tie points resulted in the
shifting of the position of the seven (7) lots do not fall exactly inside
the boundary of the mother lot. The same is true when the lots
described on the titles of the defendants are plotted on the basis of
their technical descriptions inscribed on said titles.

8. In the light of the foregoing facts, the undersigned

Commissioners have come to the following conclusions:

a. There are inherent technical infirmities or defects on the face

of TCT Nos. 4211 (also on TCT No. 4210), 5261 and 35486. The fact that
the technical descriptions in TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 are
written in Spanish while those on the alleged mother title, OCT-994,
were already in English is abnormal and contrary to the usual practice
in the issuance of titles. If OCT-994 is the mother title of TCT Nos. 4211,
5261 and 35486, then said titles should also be written in English
because OCT-994 is already in English. It is possible that an ascendant
title be written in Spanish and the descendant title in English, the
language now officially used, but the reverse is highly improbable and
irregular.

b. Also, the fact that the original survey dates of OCT-994

(September 8-27, October 4-21 and November 17-18, 1911) are not
indicated on the technical descriptions on TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and
35486 but an entirely different date, December 22, 1917, is instead
indicated likewise leads to the conclusion that TCT Nos. 4211, 5261
and 35486 could not have been derived from OCT-994. It is the
established procedure to always indicate in the certificate of title,
whether original or transfer certificates, the date of the original survey
of the mother title together with the succeeding date of subdivision or
consolidation. Thus, the absence of the original survey dates of OCT-
994 on TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 is the original survey date of
the mother title, then OCT-994 is not the mother title of TCT Nos. 4211,
5261 and 35486 not only because the original survey dates are
different but because the date of original survey is always earlier than
the date of the issuance of the original title. OCT-994 was issued on
May 3, 1917 and this is much ahead of the date of survey indicated on
TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which is December 22, 1917;

c. Granting that the date December 22, 1917 is the date of a

subdivision survey leading to the issuance of TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211,
there are, however, no indications on the face of the titles themselves
which show that a verified and approved subdivision of Lot 26 took
place. In subdividing a lot, the resulting parcels are always designated by
the lot number of the subdivided lot followed by letters of the alphabet
starting from the letter A to designate the first resultant lot, etc., for example,
if Lot 26 is subdivided into three (3) lots, these lots will be referred to as Lot
26-A, Lot 26-N and Lot 26-C followed by a survey number such as Psd-
_____ or (LRC) Psd-_____. However, the lots on TCT Nos. 4210 and
4211 do not contain such descriptions. In fact, the parcels of land
covered by TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 are not even described by lot
number and this is again technically irregular and defective because
the designation of lots by Lot Number was already a practice at that
time as exemplified by the technical descriptions of some sub-lots
covered by OCT-994, i.e., 23-A, 25-A, 25-D, etc.;

d. That TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which allegedly was the result
of a subdivision of Lot 26 should not have been issued without a
subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands or the Chief of the
General Land Registration Office. Republic Act No. 496 which took
effect on November 6, 1902, particularly Section 58 thereof, provided
that the Registry of Deeds shall not enter the transfer certificate to the
grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into
which it has been subdivided, and the technical description of each
portion or lot, have been verified and approved by the Director of
Lands and as corroborated by Section 44, Paragraph 2, and that the
plan has been approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, or by the Director of Lands as provided in Section fifty-eight of
this Act, the Registry of Deeds may issue new certificates of title for
any lot in accordance with said subdivision plan;

e. The absence of a lot number and survey plan number in the

technical description inscribed on TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 and the
absence of a subdivision survey plan for Lot 26 at the records of the
Bureau of Lands or the Land Registration Authority leads to the
conclusion that there was no verified and approved subdivision
survey plan of Lot 26 which is a compulsory requirement needed in
the issuance of said titles;

f. Similarly, the absence of plan Psd-21154 from the files of the

Bureau of Lands, the official depository of survey plans, is another
indication that the titles covered by TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 which
were derived from TCT No. 4211 are again doubtful and questionable;
 g. Moreover, the changing of the tie points in the technical
descriptions on TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 from that of the mother lots tie
point which is BLLM No. 1, Caloocan City to different location monuments
of adjoining Piedad Estate which resulted in the shifting of the position of
the seven (7) lots in relation to the mother lot defeats the very purpose of
tie points and tie lines since the accepted practice is to adopt the mother
lots tie point in order to fix the location of the parcels of land being surveyed
on the earths surface.[14]

Manotok Corporations then interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

For its part, CLT Realty filed a motion to amend/correct the dispositive portion

of the above Decision alleging that TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 mentioned therein
are mistakenly referred to as the titles of Manotok Corporations; and that to
conform to the body of the Decision, the correct numbers of the titles ordered to

be cancelled should be indicated. In its Order dated May 30, 1994, the trial court
granted the motion, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Amend/Correct

Judgment dated May 23, 1994 filed by counsel for plaintiff is granted.
Accordingly, the first paragraph of the dispositive portion of the Decision of
this Court dated May 10, 1994 is amended as follows:

xxx

1. Ordering the annulment and cancellation of Transfer Certificates

of Title Nos. 7528, 7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405,
26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-35267, 41956, 53268, 55897, T-121428,
163902 and 165119 in the name of defendant Manotok Realty, Inc. and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-232568 in the name of defendant Manotok
Estate Corporation of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City which
encroach on plaintiffs 201,288 square meters of Lot No. 26 of the Maysilo
Estate, Caloocan City.

x x x.

SO ORDERED.
 The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 28, 1995 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 45255, affirmed the Decision of the trial court, except as to the
award of damages which was ordered deleted, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered AFFIRMING the Decision dated May 10, 1994, as corrected by
the Order dated May 30, 1994, rendered by the trial court, with the
modification that the award of damages in favor of plaintiff-appellee is
hereby DELETED.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Manotok Corporations motion for reconsideration was denied by the

Appellate Court in its Resolution dated January 8, 1996.

Hence, the present petition of Manotok Corporations. They allege in

essence that the Court of Appeals erred:

1. In upholding the trial courts Decision which decided the case on

the basis of the Commissioners Report; and

2. In giving imprimatur to the trial courts Decision even though the

latter overlooked relevant facts recited in the Minority Report of
Commissioner Victorino and in the comment of petitioners on the Majority
Report of Commissioners San Buenaventura and Erive, detailing the legal
and factual basis which positively support the validity of petitioners title and
ownership of the disputed parcels of land.

2. G.R. No. 134385

(Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc., petitioner, vs. Heirs of Jose

B. Dimson, represented by his compulsory heirs: his surviving
spouse, Roqueta R. Dimson and their children, Norma and Celso
 Tirado, Alson and Virginia Dimson, Linda and Carlos Lagman,
Lerma and Rene Policar, and Esperanza R. Dimson; and Registry
of Deeds of Malabon, respondents)

Records show that on December 18, 1979, Jose B. Dimson filed with the
then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 33, Caloocan City a complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against Araneta Institute of Agriculture,
Inc. (Araneta Institute), docketed as Civil Case No. C-8050. Dimson alleged in
his amended complaint that he is the absolute owner of a parcel of land located
at Barrio Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila with an area of 50 hectares of
the Maysilo Estate, covered by TCT No. R-15169 of the Registry of Deeds of
Caloocan City; that he discovered that his land has been illegally occupied by
Araneta Institute; that the latter has no legal and valid title to the land; and that
Araneta Institute refused to vacate the land and remove its improvements
thereon despite his repeated demands.

In its answer, Araneta Institute admitted occupying the disputed land by

constructing some buildings thereon and subdividing portions thereof, claiming
that it is the absolute owner

of the land by virtue of TCT No. 737[15] and TCT No. 13574.[16] It further alleged
that Dimsons title of the subject land is void, hence, his complaint has no cause
of action.

On May 28, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision[17] in favor of

Dimson, thus:
 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby
rendered in favor of the plaintiff Jose B. Dimson and against defendant
Araneta Institute of Agriculture, ordering

1) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture and all those claiming

rights and authority under the said defendant Araneta, to vacate the parcel
of land covered by plaintiff Dimsons title TCT No. R-15169 of the Registry
of Deeds of Metro Manila, District III, Caloocan City, with a land area of
500,000 square meters, more or less; to remove all the improvements
thereon; and to return full possession thereof to the said plaintiff Dimson.

2) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture to pay plaintiff Dimson

the amount of P20,000.00 as and for attorneys fees; and

3) defendant Araneta Institute of Agriculture to pay costs.

Defendant Aranetas counterclaim is hereby dismissed for lack of

merit.

All other counterclaim against plaintiff Dimson are, likewise, hereby

dismissed for lack of merit.

All claims of all the intervenors claiming rights against the title of
plaintiff Dimson TCT R-15169 are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

This is without prejudice on the part of the intervenors Heirs of

Pascual David, Florentina David and Crisanta Santos to file the proper case
against the proper party/parties in the proper forum, if they so desire.

The claim of Virgilio L. Enriquez as co-plaintiff in the instant case is

dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[18]

Araneta Institute interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed

as CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.

On May 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming
the Decision of the trial court in favor of Dimson.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, in CA-G.R. CV No. 41883

(Civil Case No. C-8050 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 122, Caloocan
 City), with MODIFICATION deleting the award for attorneys fees, the
decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, with costs against defendant-
appellant. CA-G.R. SP No. 34819 is DENIED DUE COURSE and
DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

In its Decision, the Appellate Court ruled that the title of Araneta Institute to
the disputed land is a nullity, holding that:
We now proceed to CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.

In its first assignment of error, defendant-appellant (Araneta Institute

of Agriculture, Inc.) contends that the trial court erred in giving more weight
to plaintiffs transfer certificate of title over the land in question
notwithstanding the highly dubious circumstances in which it was procured.

This validity of plaintiff-appellees (Jose B. Dimson) title is actually the

meat of the controversy.

It was in the pursuit of this objective to nullify plaintiff-appellees title

that CA-G.R. SP No. 34819 was belatedly filed on August 10, 1994, long
after plaintiff-appellees TCT No. R-15169 was issued on June 8, 1978.

Unfortunately for defendant-appellant, in the light of applicable law

and jurisprudence, plaintiff-appellees title must be sustained.

Plaintiff-appellees TCT No. R-15169 covers Lot 25- A-2 with an area
of 500,000 square meters. This was derived from OCT No. 994 registered
on April 19, 1917. TCT No. R-15169 was obtained by plaintiff-appellee Jose
B. Dimson simultaneously with other titles, viz: TCT Nos. 15166, 15167, and
15168 by virtue of the Decision dated October 13, 1977 and Order dated
October 18, 1977, in Special Proceedings No. C-732. The Order dated
October 18, 1977 directed the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City to issue
in the name of Jose B. Dimson separate transfer certificate of titles for the
lot covered by plan (LRC) SWO-5268 and for the lots covered by the plans,
Exhibits H, I and J.

Upon the other hand, defendant-appellant Araneta Institute of

Agricultures TCT No. 13574 was derived from TCT No. 26539, while TCT
No. 7784 (now TCT No. 21343) was derived from TCT No. 26538. TCT No.
26538 and TCT No. 26539 were both issued in the name of Jose Rato. TCT
No. 26538 and TCT No. 26539 both show Decree No. 4429 and Record No.
4429.
 Decree No. 4429 was issued by the Court of First Instance
of Isabela. On the other hand, Record No. 4429 was issued for ordinary
Land Registration Case on March 31, 1911 in CLR No. 5898, Laguna (Exhs.
8, 8-A Rivera). The trial court ruled defendant-appellant Araneta Institute of
Agricultures TCT No. 13574 spurious because this title refers to a property
in the Province of Isabela (RTC Decision, p. 19).

Another point, Aranetas TCT No. 13574 (Exh. 6) and 21343 are both
derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, which was declared
null and void by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 783 (1992). The
Supreme Court ruled: Where two certificates of title purport to include the
same land, the earlier in date prevails x x x. Since the land in question has
already been registered under OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917,
the subsequent registration of the same land on May 3, 1919 is null and
void.

In sum, the foregoing discussions unmistakably show two

independent reasons why the title of defendant-appellant Araneta Institute
of Agriculture is a nullity, to wit: the factual finding that the property in
Isabela, and the decision of the Supreme Court in the MWSS case.[19]

Araneta Institute then filed the present petition, ascribing to the Court of
Appeals a long list of factual errors which may be stated substantially as follows:

In CA-G.R. CV No. 41883

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the

evidence presented by petitioner Araneta Institute clearly establish the fact
that it has the better right of possession over the subject property than
respondent Jose B. Dimson.

A.) There is only one Original Certificate of Title No.

994 covering the Maysilo Estate issued on May 3,
1917 pursuant to the Decree No. 36455 issued by the Court of
Land Registration on April 17, 1917.

B.) Certifications of responsible government officials tasked

to preserve the integrity of the Torrens System categorically
confirm and certify that there is only one OCT 994 issued on
May 3, 1917.
 C.) The Government in the exercise of its governmental
function of preserving the integrity of the torrens system initiated
a fact-finding inquiry to determine the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of OCT No. 994 and its derivative
titles.

D.) The Government fact-finding committee correctly found

and concluded that there is only one OCT No. 994 issued on
May 3, 1917.

E.) The Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights

and the Senate Committee on Urban Planning, Housing and
Resettlement conducted an Investigation and concluded that
there is only one OCT 994 that was issued on May 3, 1917.

F.) The certifications issued by the government officials,

notably from the Land Registration Authority, the Department of
Justice Committee Report and the Senate Committees Joint
Report are all newly-discovered evidence that would warrant
the holding of a new trial.[20]

3. G.R. No. 148767

(Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., petitioner, vs. CLT
Realty Development Corporation, respondent)
CLT Realty is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 26 of
the Maysilo Estate in Caloocan City, covered by TCT No. T-177013.[21] It
acquired the property on December 10, 1998 from the former registered owner
Estelita I. Hipolito under TCT No. R-17994, who in turn, acquired it from Jose
B. Dimson.

On the other hand, Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc. (Sto. Nio
Association), petitioner, is the registered owner of two parcels of land likewise
located in Caloocan City, covered by TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374. By
virtue of these titles, Sto. Nio Association occupied and claimed ownership over
a portion of Lot 26.
 Thus, on July 9, 1992, CLT Realty filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 121, Caloocan City a complaint for annulment of titles[22] and recovery
of possession with damages against Sto. Nio Association, docketed as Civil Case
No. C-15491. In its complaint, CLT Realty alleged that based on the technical
descriptions on the titles of Sto. Nio Association, an overlapping exists between
their respective titles; and that the titles of Sto. Nio Association are void as they
are derived from TCT No. 4211,[23] a forged and fictitious title.

In its answer, Sto. Nio Association denied the material allegations of the
complaint and asserted that its members have been in possession of the disputed
lots prior to 1987. The area had been identified by the government as slum and
blighted.

At the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts,

thus:
(1) Both parties admit that the defendant (Sto. Nio Association) is presently
occupying the property covered by TCT Nos. 158373 and 158374
located at Barrio Baesa, Caloocan City; and

(2) Both parties admit that the plaintiff (CLT) is also the registered
owner of the same properties being occupied by the defendant and
covered by TCT No. 177013 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan
City.

Resolving the issue of whose title to the disputed land is valid, the trial
court, on September 28, 1995, rendered a Decision in favor of Sto. Nio
Association and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-177013 in the name of
CLT Realty.
However, upon motion for reconsideration by CLT Realty, the trial court, in
its Amended Decision dated February 12, 1996, granted the motion, rendered
judgment in favor of CLT Realty, and ordered the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-
158373 and T-158374, both in the name of Sto. Nio Association, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for

Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and judgment is accordingly
rendered in favor of the plaintiff CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and against the defendant STO. NIO KAPITBAHAYAN
ASSOCIATION, INC., ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-158373 and
T-158374, both in the name of the defendant. The defendants counterclaim
is hereby dismissed for utter lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.[24]

The Amended Decision is anchored on the trial courts finding that, based
on the evidence, there was fraud in the issuance of TCT No. 4211 from which
Sto. Nio Associations titles were derived. The irregularities which attended such
issuance were discussed lengthily by the court a quo as follows:

The court finds the motion meritorious.

The conflict stems from the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants
titles overlap each other, hence, a determination of the respective origins of
such titles is of utmost importance.

TCT No. T-177013 in the name of the plaintiff was derived from R-
17994 T-89 in the name of Estelita Hipolito which title can trace its origin
from OCT 994. The boundaries of OCT 994 known as Lot No. 26 of the
Maysilo Estate are the same as that of the plaintiffs titles.

On the other hand, TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both in the
name of the defendants, are the latest in a series of titles which descend
from TCT No. 4211. A trace of the history of TCT No. 4211 reveals that it
was succeeded by TCT No. 5261 which was in turn succeeded by TCT No.
35486. TCT No. 35486 was allegedly subdivided into seven lots covered by
TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374. One or two of these subdivided lots were the
predecessors of the defendants titles.

It behooves this court to address the issue of whether or not

TCT No. 4211 from which the defendants titles were originally derived
can validly trace its origin from OCT 994.

There is pervasive evidence that TCT No. 4211 could not have
been a true derivative of OCT No. 994.

Firstly, the survey dates indicated in OCT No. 994 are

September 8-27, October 8-21 and November 17-18, all in the year
1911. On the other hand, these dates of original survey are
conspicuously missing in TCT No. 4211 contrary to established
procedure that the original survey dates of the mother title should be
indicated in succeeding titles. Instead, an examination of TCT No. 4211
reveals a different date on its face. This date, December 22, 1971,
could not be an original survey date because it differs from those
indicated in the mother title. Of equal importance is the fact that the
date of original survey always comes earlier than the date of the
issuance of the mother title. Since OCT No. 994 was issued on April
19, 1917, it is highly irregular that the original survey was made only
several months later or only on December 22, 1917.

Neither is the Court inclined to consider this date as the date a

subdivision survey was made. The regular procedure is to identify the
subdivided lots by their respective survey or lot numbers, on the contrary,
no such lot number is found in TCT No. 4211, pointing to the inevitable
conclusion that OCT No. 994 was never validly subdivided into smaller lots,
of which one of them is covered by TCT No. 4211.

Secondly, the assertion that TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374 which

preceded the defendants titles were issued pursuant to subdivision
plan PSD 21154 is not supported by the evidence. The Land
Management Bureau which handles survey plans has no records of
the said PSD 21154. The Registry of Deeds of Rizal has a copy of the
plan but the court finds such possession questionable since the Land
Registration Authority which supervises the Registry of Deeds does
not have a copy of the same. The court therefore believes that the
issuance of TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374 is attended by a serious irregularity
which cannot be ignored as it affects the very validity of the alleged
subdivisions of the land covered by TCT No. 35486.

Thirdly, the language of the technical descriptions of the land

covered by OCT No. 994 is already in English, while its alleged
derivative titles TCT Nos. 4211, 5261 and 35486 are still in Spanish.
This is in direct violation of the practice that the language used in the
 mother title is adopted by all its derivative titles. The reversion to
Spanish in the derivative titles is highly intriguing and casts a cloud
of doubt to the genuineness of such titles.

Fourthly, the tie points used in the mother lot were not adopted
by the alleged derivative titles particularly TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374, the
immediate predecessors of the defendants titles. The pivotal role of tie
points cannot be brushed aside as a change thereof could result to the
shifting of positions of the derivative lots in relation to the mother lot.
Consequently, overlapping could take place as in fact it did when the
defendants titles overlapped that of CLT at the northwestern portion of the
latters property.

Fifthly, the results of laboratory analysis conducted by a

Forensic Chemist of the NBI revealed that TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211
were estimated to be fifty (50) years old as of March 1993 when the
examination was conducted. Hence, the documents could have been
prepared only in 1940 and not in 1918 as appearing on the face of TCT
No. 4211.

Based on the foregoing patent irregularities, the court finds the

attendance of fraud in the issuance of TCT No. 4211 and all its
derivative titles which preceded the defendants titles. Evidently, TCT
No. 4211 cannot be validly traced from OCT No. 994. Being void ab
initio, it did not give rise to any transmissible rights with respect to the
land purportedly invalid, and resultantly, the defendants, being the
holders of the latest derivatives, cannot assert any right of ownership
over the lands in question. The void ab initio land titles issued cannot
ripen into private ownership. (Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 209 SCRA 90)

xxx

The courts findings are consistent with a ruling of the Court of

Appeals in CA-GR No. 45255 entitled CLT Realty Development Corp. vs.
Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. promulgated on September 28, 1995, affirming
the decision of the mother branch of this court ordering the cancellation of
TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which encroached on a specific area of Lot No.
26 of the Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City. This court is also aware that on
January 8, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for
Reconsideration of the defendants in the aforementioned case for lack of
merit.[25](underscoring supplied)

The above Amended Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its
Decision dated May 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52549, thus:
 WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed Decision,
We AFFIRM the same. Without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[26]

Hence, the present petition based on the following assigned errors:

1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE AMENDED DECISION OF THE COURT A
QUO.

2. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

IS PREMISED ON THE MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS OF THE
COURT A QUO.

3. ASSUMING ARGUENDO, WITHOUT NECESSARILY

ADMITTING THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT ARE
UNAVAILING, THERE ARE SUPERVENING FACTS AND EVENTS,
SHOULD THIS HONORABLE COURT CONSIDER THE SAME, THAT
WOULD WARRANT THE REVERSAL OF THE CHALLENGED DECISION
AND WILL IMPEL A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.[27]

In sum, the three instant petitions assail the validity of: (1) TCT No. R-15169 of
the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City in the name of Jose B. Dimson,
covering Lot 25-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate;[28] and (2) TCT No. T-177013 of
the same Registry of Deeds in the name of CLT Development Corporation,
covering Lot 26, also of the Maysilo Estate.[29]

In the meantime, petitioners Manotok filed with this Court two separate
Manifestations stating that a (1) Report of the Fact-Finding Committee dated
August 28, 1997 composed of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Land
Registration Authority and the Office of the Solicitor General, and (2) Senate
Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998 were issued by the DOJ and
the Senate. Both reports conclude that there is only one OCT No. 994issued,
transcribed and registered on May 3, 1917.

The respondents in these cases vehemently opposed the said Manifestations

alleging, among others, that the same are nothing but a crude attempt to
circumvent and ignore time-honored judicial procedures and sabotage the
orderly administration of justice by using alleged findings in the alleged reports
prepared by the DOJ and the Senate Committee that were never presented
before the trial courts to obtain a reversal of the questioned Decisions. At the
very least, said procedure is highly irregular, improper and contrary to the
dictates of due process.[30]

Summary of the Contentions of the Parties

I. G.R. No. 123346

Petitioners Manotok Corporations mainly contend that the Court of

Appeals erred in affirming the lower courts Decision which was rendered
without conducting trial for the reception of evidence. It merely relied on the
technical report of the commissioners appointed by the court based on the
parties nomination. They (petitioners) were thus denied due process as they were
not able to present evidence in a full-blown trial.

Respondent CLT Realty, on the other hand, maintains that the factual findings
of the commissioners are supported by evidence. The contending parties were
accorded due process because they submitted their respective evidence to the
commissioners in the course of the proceedings. The same evidence became the
basis of their Majority and Minority Reports. The two Reports were later heard
and passed upon by the trial court.

Respondent CLT Realty adds that the Decision of the trial court, upheld by the
Court of Appeals, complies with the requirement of Section 14, Article VIII of
the Constitution since it clearly and distinctly expresses the facts and the law
upon which it is based.

II. G.R. 134385

Petitioner Araneta Institute basically submits that the case of MWSS vs.
CA[31] cited in the Decision dated May 30, 1997 of the Court of Appeals is
inapplicable to the present case. In that case, it upheld TCT No. 15167 of
Dimson derived from OCT 994 issued and registered earlier, or on April 19,
1917. Whereas, the MWSS title was derived from OCT 994 issued and
registered later, or on May 3, 1917. The Appellate Court erred when it relied
on MWSS vs. CA.[32]

On the other hand, respondents heirs of Dimson counter that the validity
of Dimsons title, TCT No. 15167, has been upheld by this Court in MWSS case.

III. G.R. No. 148767

Like petitioner Araneta Institute in G.R. No. 134385 and petitioners Manotok
Corporations in G.R. No. 123346, petitioner Sto. Nio Association contends that
there are supervening facts and events that transpired after the trial court
rendered its Amended Decision that if considered will result in a different
conclusion. These are the two Reports of the DOJ and Senate Fact-Finding
Committees that there is only one OCT No. 994 issued on May 3, 1917. Thus,
with a new trial, and with the presentation of these Reports as evidence, it could
be shown that the titles of Jose Dimson and CLT Realty are void.

Ruling of the Court

The present petitions must fail.

At the outset, it bears stressing that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the
Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed
by said court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our
function to review factual issues and examine, evaluate or weigh the probative
value of the evidence presented by the parties.[33] We are not bound to analyze
and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings
below.[34]

Here, the paramount question being raised in the three petitions is

whether TCT No. 15169 issued in the name of Jose B. Dimson and TCT No.
177013 issued in the name of CLT are valid. Undoubtedly, such issue is a
pure question of fact a matter beyond our power to determine. Where, as here,
the findings of fact of the trial courts are affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
the same are accorded the highest degree of respect and, generally, will not
be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on this
Court.[35]
 Be that as it may, to reinforce our conclusion, we shall still proceed to
discuss why the present petitions have no merit.

As regards G.R. No. 123346 (Manotok Corporations vs. CLT

Realty, involving Lot 26), the trial court acted properly when it adopted the
Majority Report of the commissioners as part and parcel of its Decision. That is
allowed in Section 11, Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Court (now the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended), quoted below:
SEC. 11. Hearing upon report. Upon the expiration of the period of
ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, the report shall be set for
hearing, after which the court shall render judgment by adopting,
modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part or it may receive
further evidence or may recommit it with instructions. (underscoring
supplied)

The case of overlapping of titles necessitates the assistance of experts in

the field of geodetic engineering. The very reason why commissioners were
appointed by the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, was precisely to
make an evaluation and analysis of the titles in conflict with each other. Given
their background, expertise and experience, these commissioners are in a better
position to determine which of the titles is valid. Thus, the trial court may rely
on their findings and conclusions.

It bears stressing that the parties opted to submit the case for decision on the
bases, among others, of their respective objections/comments on the
commissioners reports.
 Thus, petitioners Manotok Corporations, under the doctrine of estoppel,
cannot now be permitted to assail the Decision of the trial court which turned
out to be adverse to them and insist that it should have conducted further
reception of evidence before rendering its judgment on the case.

We note further that while petitioners assail the trial courts Decision as
being premature, however, they also assert that the said court should have

adopted the Minority Report which is favorable to them. Certainly, we cannot

countenance their act of adopting inconsistent postures as this is a mockery of
justice.

We noted in the beginning of this Decision that the issue in all these three
(3) cases involves the validity of the parties overlapping titles. The titles of the
respondents in these cases were derived from OCT No. 994 of the Registry of
Deeds of Caloocan City registered on April 19, 1917. The validity of such
mother title has already been upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 103558, MWSS
vs. Court of Appeals, et al. dated November 17, 1992[36] earlier cited in the assailed

Decisions. Significantly, the ruling in MWSS was reiterated in G.R. No.

96259, Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals dated September 3, 1996.[37]

We cannot delve anymore into the correctness of the Decision of this Court
in MWSS. The said Decision, confirming the validity of OCT No. 994 issued on
April 19, 1917 from which the titles of the respondents in the cases at bar were
derived, has long become final and executory. Nothing is more settled in law
than that once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable and unalterable.
It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant
to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and
regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court
rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[38]

The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental

considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of

occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some
definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus
setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by
settling justiciable controversies with finality.[39]

Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed
period, the winning party likewise has the correlative right to enjoy the finality
of the resolution of his case. We held that "a final judgment vests in the

prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process

clause of the Constitution. . . . A final judgment is a vested interest which it

is right and equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and
of which the individual could not be deprived arbitrarily without
injustice."[40] In the present cases, the winning parties, respondents herein, must
not be deprived of the fruits of a final verdict.
 Finally, we cannot consider the alleged newly-discovered evidence
consisting of the DOJ and Senate Fact-Finding Committee Reports invoked by
petitioners herein. Certainly, such committee reports cannot override the
Decisions of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of
respondents titles in these cases. The said Decisions were rendered after the
opposing parties have been accorded due process. It bears stressing that the
courts have the constitutional duty to adjudicate legal disputes properly brought
before them. The DOJ and Senate, or any other agencies of the Government for
that matter, have clearly distinguishable roles from that of the Judiciary. Just as
overlapping of titles of lands is abhorred, so is the overlapping of findings of facts
among the different branches and agencies of the Government. This we
unmistakably stressed in Agan, Jr., et al. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals
Co., Inc., et al,[41] thus:

Finally, the respondent Congressmen assert that at least two (2) committee
reports by the House of Representatives found the PIATCO contracts valid
and contend that this Court, by taking cognizance of the cases at bar,
reviewed an action of a co-equal body. They insist that the Court must
respect the findings of the said committees of the House of
Representatives. With due respect, we cannot subscribe to their
submission. There is a fundamental difference between a case in court
and an investigation of a congressional committee. The purpose of a
judicial proceeding is to settle the dispute in controversy by
adjudicating the legal rights and obligations of the parties to the case.
On the other hand, a congressional investigation is conducted in aid
of legislation (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950). Its
aim is to assist and recommend to the legislature a possible action that the
body may take with regard to a particular issue, specifically as to whether
or not to enact a new law or amend an existing one. Consequently, this
Court cannot treat the findings in a congressional committee report
as binding because the facts elicited in congressional hearings are
not subject to the rigors of the Rules of Court on admissibility of
 evidence. The Court in assuming jurisdiction over the petitions at bar
simply performed its constitutional duty as the arbiter of legal disputes
properly brought before it, especially in this instance when public interest
requires nothing less. (Underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DENIED and the assailed

Decisions and Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are
hereby AFFIRMED intoto. Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division

Chairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion
of the Court.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice

[1]
These petitions were filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Presiding Justice Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. (retired)
and Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this Court).

[3]
Penned by Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro and concurred in by Justice Pedro A. Ramirez (both retired) and Justice
Maximiano C. Asuncion (deceased).
[4]
Penned by Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. (retired) and Justice
Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.
[5]
Pursuant to Resolutions of this Court dated April 21, 1999 and March 6, 2002.
[6]
TCT Nos. 7528, 7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405, 26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-33267, 41956,
53268, 55897, T-121428, 163902 and 165119 in the name of Manotok Realty, Inc., and TCT No. T-23568 in
the name of Manotok Estate Corporation of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City (Annexes D, D-1 through
D-19 of the complaint.
[7]
Rollo of G.R. No. 123346, Vol. I at 245-246.
[8]
Id. at 138.
[9]
Id. at 137-138.
[10]
Id. at 265-275.
[11]
Id. at 254-265.
[12]
Decision dated September 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals (Annex A of Petition in the Manotok Case) at 10;
Decision dated 10 May 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (Annex C of Petition in the Manotok Case) at 5.
[13]
Annex H of Petition in the Manotok Case; Decision dated May 10, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (Annex C of
Petition in the Manotok Case), at 5.
[14]
Records of G.R. No. 123346 at 268-275.
[15]
Issued on March 4, 1948, Pasig, Rizal and derived from TCT No. 26538 in the name of Jose Ma. Rato with an area
of 592,606.90 sq.m; Annex 10, Records at 515.
[16]
Issued on May 20, 1949 and derived from TCT No. 26539 in the name of Jose Ma. Rato with an area of 581,872.00
sq.m Annex 10, Records at 515.
[17]
Penned by B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz (retired).
[18]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, RTC Decision, Civil Case No. C-8050 at 140.
[19]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, CA Decision, CV No. 41883 at 122-124.
[20]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, Petition at 25-28.
[21]
Record I, G.R. No. 123346 at 14.
[22]
TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both registered in the name of SNKAI.
[23]
Annex A, Record, G.R. No. 123346 at 74-75.
[24]
Id. at 34-46.
[25]
Amended Decision dated February 12, 1996, Rollo of G.R. No. 148767 at 11-13.
[26]
Rollo, G.R. No. 148767 at 33-45.
[27]
Rollo, G.R. No. 148767, Petition at 17.
[28]
In G.R. No. 134385 filed by Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.
[29]
In G.R. Nos. 123346 and 148767 filed by Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation and Sto. Nio
Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., respectively.
[30]
Rollo of G.R. No. 123346 at 1578.

[31]
Supra.
[32]
Supra.
[33]
Asia Trust Development Bank vs. Concepts Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 130759, June 20, 2003, 404 SCRA
449.
[34]
Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 483.
[35]
Duremdes vs. Duremdes, G.R. No. 138256, November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA 684.
[36]
215 SCRA783 (1992).
[37]
261 SCRA 327 (1996).
[38]
Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102692, September 23, 1996, 262 SCRA 298.

[39]
Garbo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100474, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 250.
[40]
Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong, No. L-52415, October 23, 1984, 132
SCRA 663.
[41]
G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547 and 155661, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 575.