JOSE A. BERNAS AND THE WHARTON RESOURCES GROUP (PHILIPPINES), INC.

Vs

THE ESTATE OF FELIPE YU HAN YAT, REPRESENTED BY HERO T. YU

G.R. No. 195908, August 15, 2018

Facts:

On February 21, 1992, Bernas, for and on behalf of Wharton Resources Group Inc. (Wharton), entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement with Mejia whereby the latter agreed to sell to Wharton the parcel of land covered by
TCT No. 336663. Subsequently, a Deed of Sale was entered into between Mejia and Wharton conveying to the latter
the subject property. Bernas discovered that there was another title registered under Yu Han Yat covering about 3
hectares overlapped a portion of the property.

Yu Han Yat filed a petition for quieting of title. RTC ruled in favor of Bernas. CA reversed the decision. On
appeal, petitioners contend that the CA Decision was not based on the evidence on record, and that TCT No. 30627
allegedly covers a property different from the one covered by TCT No. 336663 from which they derive their claims.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA’s ruling that the property covered by respondent's title is the same as the property
subject of TCT No. 336663 is supported by the evidence on record.

Held:

The CA was correct in holding that it was Yu Han Yat who was able to account for the previous major
transactions involving the property and was able to show how he acquired the subject property from his immediate
predecessors. To be sure, Yu Han Yat painstakingly traced his title, complete with documentary and testimonial
evidence

The CA was justified in taking judicial notice when Quezon City was established. Section 1, Rule 129 of the
Rules of Court states:

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction
of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive
and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions.

The CA correctly held that the Quezon City was established only in 1939, upon the enactment of
Commonwealth Act No. 502, the city's charter. Hence, when the survey for Psd-2498 was conducted in 1927, Quezon
City did not as yet exist.

The CA correctly took judicial notice of the fact that Quezon City was not yet established at the time the
survey for Psd-2498 was conducted. Therefore, the Court so holds that Yu Han Yat's title, TCT No. 30627, and Mejia
and Bernas' title, TCT No. 336663, cover the same property.

It is well established in jurisprudence that where there are two certificates of title covering the same land,
the earlier in date must prevail as between the parties claiming ownership over it. Yu Han Yat is the rightful owner of
the subject property in light of the Court's ruling above that there is an overlap between the properties covered by
the two TCTs in question, and that the evidence showing Yu Han Yat's title to be earlier means that Yu Han Yat holds
better title.