Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, 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.

Sgd.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1
 The present motions for reconsideration seek reversal of the Decision dated 29
November 2005 (see 476 SCRA 305) promulgated in the consolidated cases of
Manotok Realty v. CLT Realty (G.R. No. 123346), Araneta Institute v. Heirs of Jose B.
Dimson (G.R. No. 13485) and Sto. Niño Kapitbahayan Association v. CLT Realty (G.R.
No. 148767). However, the losing party in G.R. No. 148767 failed to file any motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period.

2
 See Memorandum filed by the Office of the Solicitor General dated 25 August 2006,
p. 6.

3
 The total land areas of Monaco and the Vatican are 1.95 sq km and .44 sq. km .
respectively. The New York Times 2008 Almanac (2007 ed.), p. 632.

4
 G.R. No. 103558, 17 November 1992, 215 SCRA 783.

5
 330 Phil. 8 (1996).

6
 Supra note 1.

7
 Rollo, G.R. No. 123346, p. 2081.

8
 Id. at 2081-2082.

9
 Id. at 2082.

10
 Id. at 2087.

11
 Id. at 2088.

12
 Id. at 2087.

13
 Rollo, G.R. No. 123456, p. 2088.

14
 Id. at 131.
15
 Id. at 134.

16
 Id. at 25-26.

17
 Id. at 2093-2094.

18
 Rollo, G.R. No. 123346, p. 2097.

19
 Id. at 2094-2095.

20
 Id. at 2095-2096.

21
 Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, pp. 25-28.

22
 Supra note 1.

 Supra note 1. Decision penned by Associate Justice Angelita Sandoval Gutierrez,

23

and concurred by then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Artemio Panganiban,
Associate Justices Renato Corona and Conchita Carpio Morales.

24
 Id., at 339.

25
 Per the Advisory furnished to the parties prior to oral arguments.

26
 Then Antonio E. Nachura, now an Associate Justice of this Court. Justice Nachura
took no part in the present cases.

27
 TSN dated 1 August 2006, 353-354.

28
 Id. at 323

29
 Id. at 324.

30
 Resolution dated 1 August 2006. See also id. at 379-380.

31
 Memorandum of CLT dated 3 September 2006, p. 9.

 See Attachment to Compliance dated 11 August 2006 filed by the Office of the
32

Solicitor General.

33
 See note 31.

34
 Supra note 31 at 11-12.

35
 See note 25.
36
 See City of Manila v. Lack, 19 Phil. 324, 331 (1911).

37
 Antiporda v. Mapa, 55 Phil. 89, 91 (1930).

38
 PNB v. Tan, 51 Phil. 317, 321 (1927).

39
 See Act No. 496, Sec. 41.

40
 Noblejas and Noblejas, Land Titles and Deeds at 127. Emphasis supplied.

41
 Ponce, The Philippines Torrens System, at 202, 205, 242. Emphasis supplied.

42
 Ventura, Land Titles and Deeds (1955 ed.) at 168. Emphasis supplied.

 Peña, Peña and Peña, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds (1988 ed.) at 141.
43

Emphasis supplied.

44
 G.R. No. 150091, 2 April 2007, 520 SCRA 64.

45
 Supra note 1 at 336-337.

46
 Supra note 4.

47
 Id. at 788.

48
 Supra note 5.

49
 MWSS v. Court of Appeals, supra note 4 at 784. Emphasis supplied.

50
 Id. at 787-788. Emphasis supplied.

51
 Id. at 788. Emphasis supplied.

52
 Id. Emphasis supplied.

53
 Supra note 5 at 12.

54
 Id. at 13.

 Galicia v. Manliquez, G.R. No. 155785, 13 April 2007, 521 SCRA 85, 95;
55

citing National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140945, 16 May 2005, 458

SCRA 469, 478 (2005). See also, e.g., Mabayo Farms v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil.
112, 118 (2002).

56
 122 Phil. 963 (1965).
  As was later observed in Camid v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 161414, 448
57

SCRA 711, 17 January 2005.

The eminent legal doctrine enunciated in Pelaez was that the President was then, and
still is, not empowered to create municipalities through executive issuances. The Court
therein recognized "that the President has, for many years, issued executive orders
creating municipal corporations, and that the same have been organized and in actual
operation . . . ." However, the Court ultimately nullified only those thirty-three (33)
municipalities, including Andong, created during the period from 4 September to 29
October 1964 whose existence petitioner Vice-President Pelaez had specifically
assailed before this Court. No pronouncement was made as to the other municipalities
which had been previously created by the President in the exercise of power the Court
deemed unlawful. (Id., at 724, citations omitted)

 See e.g., Municipality of San Joaquin v. Siva, 125 Phil. 1004 (1967); Municipality of

58

Malabang v. Benito, 137 Phil. 358 (1969) and Municipality of Kapalong v. Moya, G.R.
No. L-41322, 29 September 1988, 166 SCRA 70.

 See Municipality of San Narciso v. Mendez, G.R. No. 103702, 6 December 1994, 239
59

SCRA 11; Municipality of Candijay v. Court of Appeals, 321 Phil. 922 (1995);
Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz, 333 Phil. 1 (1996).

60
 RTC records in G.R. No. 123346, Vol. 1, p. 14.

61
 Id. at 19-23.

62
 Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, p. 155.

 See Civil Code, Art. 364,. See also Silvestre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-32694
63

& L-33119, 16 July 1982, 115 SCRA 63, 68. "The trial court correctly applied the
established legal principle that in cases of annulment and/or reconveyance of title, a
party seeking it should establish not merely by a preponderance of evidence but by
clear and convincing evidence that the land sought to be reconveyed is his. In the case
at bar, respondent [Rufino] Dimson not only failed to establish by a preponderance of
evidence that he has a better right over the land in dispute but even failed to establish
private ownership of his alleged predecessor in interest. Although it is alleged that a
decision was rendered in a cadastral case in favor of the spouses Mariano
Batungbakal and Hilaria Vergara, respondent failed to produce a copy thereof,
(certificate or reconstituted) or to show when the alleged decision was rendered, but
merely asserts that it was before the war." Silvestre v. Court of Appeals, id.

64
 Pisalbon v. Balmoja, 122 Phil. 289, 292 (1965); citing Civil Code, Art. 364. See also
Misamis Lumber v. Director of Lands, 57 Phil. 881, 883 (1933); Sanchez Mellado v.
Municipality of Tacloban, 9 Phil. 92, 93-94 (1907). "In an action to recover possession
of real estate, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that he has a better right to
the possession than the defendant; and the universal rule in actions of ejectment,
where plaintiff seeks to recover possession and establish title to the land in
controversy; is that he must rely on the strength of his own and not on the weakness of
defendant's title." Nolan v. Jalandoni, 23 Phil. 292, 298 (1912).

65
 43 Phil. 558 (1922).

66
 Id. at 561.

67
 44 Phil. 587 (1923).

68
 Id. at 590.

69
 92 Phil. 952 (1953).

70
 Id. at 960.

 Ventura, supra note 42 at 232; citing Government of Philippine Islands v. Arias, 36

71

Phil. 194 (1917).

72
 Peña, supra note 42 at 491.

73
 Supra note 2 at 35.

74
 Id. at 31.

75
 Id.

 See Memorandum for Manotok Realty Inc. and Manotok Estate Corp. dated 3
76

September 2006, p. 26.

77
 Id. at 34.

 See St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, et al, 356 Phil. 811, 824 (1998), People v.
78

Go, G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943, 14 March 2001, 354 SCRA 338, 346.

79
 See Revised Rules of Court, Rule 56, Sec. 2. "The procedure in original cases
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus shall be in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution, laws, and Rules 46, 48,
49, 51, and 52.

80
 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 46, Sec. 6.

81
 See Revised Rules of Court, Rule 43, Sec. 6.

82
 359 Phil. 530 (1998).

 J. Puno (now Chief Justice), concurring, Republic v. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 530,
83

598.
84
 Id.

 Reference to a commissioner may also be directed in cases when the trial of an issue
85

of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side; or when the taking of
an account is necessary for the information of the court before judgment, or for carrying
a judgment or order into effect. See Revised Rules of Court, Rule 32, Sec. 2.

86
 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 32, Sec. 3.

87
 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 32, Sec. 9.

88
 See Rule 129, Sec. 1, which details when judicial notice is mandatory.

 In the Manotok petition, the Court of Appeals had first ruled against Manotok in
89

September of 1995, and subsequently affirmed its decision on motion for

reconsideration in January of 1996.

90
 "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."
Supra note 1 at 338.