G.R. No. 113549 July 5, 1996 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (Represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS), petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS DAVIDE, JR., J.:p Petitioner seeks the reversal of the Resolution 1 of 24 January 1994 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 17351, which set aside its earlier decision 2 of 9 January 1991. The latter affirmed the decision 3 of 11 November 1987 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Legazpi City, in Civil Case No. 6198 which declared null and void an original certificate of title issued pursuant to a decree and a decision in a land registration case decided on 18 September 1925. After the private respondents filed their Comment and the petitioner their Reply, we gave due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. The Court of Appeals' reversal was primarily due to its disagreement with the trial court's findings of fact. Hence, such removes this case from the general rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals bind us in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 4 We are thus compelled to review the factual antecedents. From the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals and the pleadings of the parties, the following were established: On the basis of the private respondents' exhibits, 5 on 9, 10, 12-16, 23, 24, 26, and 27 July 1920, a parcel of land located in the barrio of Magragondong, Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay, was survived for the spouses Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris (hereinafter the spouses Ribaya) by Telesforo Untalan, a Bureau of Lands surveyor. The parcel of land was found to comprise an area of 25,542,603 square meters. The survey plan was denominated as Plan II-13961 and allegedly approved by the Acting Director of Lands on 3 January 1922. However, as noted by the Court of Appeals in its 9 January 1991 1 decision, 6 these exhibits do not at all show the surveyor's signature. Moreover, its per Land Classification Map No. 871 of the Bureau of Forestry, the above parcel of land was considered part of the public forest and released for disposition only on 31 December 1930. 7 In 1925, the spouses Ribaya applied for registration and confirmation of title of the lot covered by Plan II-13961 before the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay. The case was docketed as LRC Case No. 52, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26050. Notice of the application and hearing thereof were published in the 17 March 1925 issue of the Official Gazette, 8 and in its decision of 18 September 1925, 9 the CFI granted the said application. Sometime later, or on 18-21 November and 23-30 November 1925, a resurvey of the parcel of land covered by Plan II13961 was conducted at the instance of the spouses Ribaya. This gave rise to Plan II-13961-Amd., which embraced, inter alia, four different parcels of land with an aggregate area of only 10,975,022 square meters, instead of the original 25,542,603 square meters. Plan II-13961-Amd. appeared to have been approved by the Director of Lands on 26 February 1926. 10 The application was not amended to reflect the resurvey and the amended plan was not published. On 31 July 1926, the corresponding decree of registration was issued, 11 while on 19 August 1926, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 3947 covering the four lots embraced by Plan II-13961-Amd. was issued in the names of the spouses Ribaya. 12 On 11 September 1958, OCT No. 3947 was administratively reconstituted from the owner's duplicate copy thereof and the reconstituted title was denominated as OCT No. P0-10848 (3947). 13 In 1964, the heirs of Luis Ribaya (herein private respondents) received compensation from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States for damages sustained by the land during the war. 14 In 1968, pursuant to a deed of partition executed by the private respondents herein, the land covered by OCT No. RO10848 (3947) was subdivided per Subdivision Plan LRC Psd-96075, approved on 16 December 1968. 15Then, OCT No. RO-10848 (3947) was cancelled and separate Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) were issued to the private respondents. 16 In a letter dated 6 January 1977, sixty-two (62) farmers occupying the land 17 and claiming ownership thereof, requested the Director of Lands to institute an action to annul OCT No. RO-10848 (3947). 18 Finding merit in the request, herein petitioner filed a verified complaint, dated 17 August 1978, with the CFI (now Regional Trial Court) of Albay, Branch V, for the declaration of nullity of OCT No. 3947, OCT No. RO-10848 (3947), and all subsequent titles emanating from the original title, viz., TCT Nos. T-31333 to T-31358, inclusive. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6198. The petitioner claimed therein that OCT No. 3947 was obtained through fraud and that the land registration court did not acquire jurisdiction over the land for lack of republication of the amended plan, neither did the spouses-applicants comply with Section 45 (],) of Act No. 2874. 19 The petitioner further alleged that at the time the petition for registration was filed, the land covered therein was forest land, and therefore, inalienable. On 27 October 1979, the aforementioned 62 farmers filed a complaint-in-intervention and prayed that the land revert to the petitioner and their titles over the portions respectively occupied by them confirmed. In its decision of 11 November 1987, 20 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) held for the petitioner as follows: WHEREFORE, decision is hereby rendered as follows: 1. Declaring Original Certificate of Title No. 3947 and administratively reconstituted Original Certificate of Title No. RO10848 (3947) as null and void ab initio and without force and effect; 2. Declaring separate Transfer Certificates of Title, to wit: T-31333, T-31334, T-31335, T-31336, T-31337, T-31338, T31339, T-31340, T-31341, T-31342, T-31343, T-31344, T-31345, T-31346, T-31347, T-31348, T-31349, T-31350, T31351, T-31352, T-31353, T-31354, T-31355, T-31356, T-31357 and T-31358, emanating from OCT No. 3947 and OCT No. RO-10848 (3947), all issued to the heirs of Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris, as likewise null and void and without force and effect.

3. Ordering [respondents] Heirs of Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris to surrender their copy of OCT No. RO-10848 (3947) as well as their separate transfer certificates of title to the Register of Deeds of Albay, who (sic) is thereafter directed or ordered to cancel the same. 4. Ordering the reversion of the land to [petitioner] Republic of the Philippines, as alienable and disposable land of the public domain. 5. And ordering the dismissal of the counterclaim. The trial court found that at the time the spouses Ribaya filed their petition for registration, the land was already classified as alienable and disposable agricultural land; however, the then CFI, as a land registration court, did not acquire jurisdiction over the said lot due to lack of publication or republication in the Official Gazette of Plan II-13961Amd., which was the basis of the decree of registration and OCT No. 3947. Consequently, said OCT No. 3947 and its derivative titles were void. 21 In so finding, it relied on Fewkes vs. Vasquez, 22 where it was held that any amendment or alteration in the description of the land after its publication and decree of registration was not permissible unless coupled with republication. The trial court likewise ruled that there was no evidence that the possession of the spouses Ribaya and their predecessors-in-interests was open, continuous, and adverse under a bona fide claim of ownership for the required number of years; moreover, they failed to present any tax declarations. It then concluded that the said spouses may have occupied portions of the land at a later time, but not in the concept of bona fide owners, for mere casual cultivation and raising of cattle on the land did not constitute "possession" as contemplated by law. 23 The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 17351), which, in its decision 24 of 9 January 1991, affirmed in toto the appealed decision of the trial court. The appellate court further pointed out another reason why the registration in favor of the applicants was invalid, thus: [W]hen [the] spouses [Luis Ribaya and Agustina Revatoris] applied for registration thereof in their names said land was still part of the public forest. The land was released for public disposition only onDecember 31, 1930 as shown by the Land Classification Map No. 871 of the Bureau of Forestry (Exhs. K, K-5). Consequently, OCT No. 3947 as reconstituted by OCT No. RO-10848 is void ab initio. It is well-settled that lands of the public domain classified as forest or timber lands, are incapable of registration in the names of private persons and their inclusion in a title nullifies the title (Director of Lands vs. Reyes, 68 SCRA 177 and cases cited therein.) 25 In refuting the claim of the private respondents that publication of the amended survey plan was unnecessary in light of the decision of this Court in Benin vs. Tuazon, 26 the Court of Appeals held that the facts in Benin were different. In Benin, an approved survey plan was submitted before the property was decreed for registration, while in the present case: [T]he land was decreed for registration on September 18, 1925 while its survey was performed sometime inNovember and December 1925. The amended survey plan (plan II-13961-Amd.) thereof was approved by the Director of Lands on February 26, 1926. In other words, the survey plan (plan II-13961-Amd.) of the land in the instant case was approved when the land was already decreed for registration. . . . 27 There was then, the Court of Appeals concluded, a violation of Sections 23 and 26 of Act No. 496. 28 The private respondents seasonably moved for a reconsideration of this decision. In its resolution 29 of 24 January 1994, the Court of Appeals granted the motion for reconsideration and set aside its decision of 9 January 1991, reversed that of the trial court of 11 November 1987, and dismissed the complaint and the complaint-in-intervention in Civil Case No. 6198 of Branch 7 of the RTC of Legazpi City. In overturning its previous decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that OCT No. 3947 "is conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Government and all its branches (Sec. 38, Act No. 496) as to all matters contained therein (Sec. 47, Act No. 496). One (1) year after its transcription which is the date of its effectivity (Sec. 42, Act No. 496), said certificate of title became incontrovertible (Sec. 38, Act No. 496)." 30 It further applied the presumption of regularity in the grant of the land applied for by the spouses Ribaya, and even extended said presumption to their compliance with all conditions required by law, in particular, their "open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the land under a bona fide claim of ownership since July 26, 1894." It thus burdened the Republic "to prove otherwise." 31 It likewise ruled that the failure of the spouses Ribaya to present tax receipts was not fatal, and that although they actually lived in Gas, Albay, such did not negate the character of their possession for "[p]ossession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a men has to have his feet on every square meter of ground before he can be said that he is in possession." 32 The Court of Appeals also rejected the application of the Fewkes case and applied, instead, the decision in Benin, where this Court held that republication could be dispensed with in an amendment in the application or in the survey plan, where such amendment consisted of the exclusion of a portion covered by the original application and the original survey plan as published. Accordingly, the land registration court retained its jurisdiction. Finally, the Court of Appeals withdrew its earlier finding that the land in question still formed part of the public forest at the time of the application for registration. It asserted, instead, that there was insufficient basis to conclude that a parcel of land only became open to disposition on the basis of the date of approval of the land classification map, because such approval may have been made later by authority of a prior executive declaration.33 Unsatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition and asserts that: (1) the indefeasibility of title does not lie against the State in an action for reversion of land; (2) the spouses-applicants failed to prove possession of the land for the period required by law, and the evidence shows that their possession was not open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious under a bona fide claim of ownership; (3) the amended survey plan was not published; (4) the land covered by OCT No. 3947 was then part of the forest land, hence, inalienable; and (5) the accuracy of the land survey was doubtful. 34

In their Comment, the private respondents allege that the petition merely raises factual matters and argue that OCT No. 3947 is absolutely incontestable, considering that the land was no longer part of the public forest when it was decreed in favor of their parents. They further contend, invoking Benin, that the issue of republication is inapplicable since the publication of the original survey plan was already had in compliance with law. Moreover, possession of the land by their parents, the spouses-applicants, was duly proven, i.e., donations of portions thereof in favor of the government and the compensation they received from the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States for damages sustained by the land during the war sufficiently proved that they were the legitimate owners of the land. Finally, the original survey plan could no longer be questioned by the petitioner. 35 As the Court sees it, only two relevant issues need be resolved, to wit: 1. Whether the Republic of the Philippines is barred by prescription to bring the action for annulment of OCT No. 3947 and all its derivative certificates of title; and 2. Whether the land registration court acquired jurisdiction over the four parcels of land subject of the amended survey plan (Plan II-13961-Amd.) and covered by the decree issued on 31 July 1926 by the General Land Registration Office pursuant to the decision of the said court of 18 September 1925. As to the first issue, we find that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that OCT No. 3947 was, to repeat: [C]onclusive upon and against all persons, including the Government and all its branches (Sec. 38, Act No. 496) as to all matters contained therein (Sec. 47, Act No. 496). One (1) year after its transcription which is the date of its effectivity (Sec. 42, Act No. 496), said certificate of title became incontrovertible (Sec. 38, Act No. 496). 36 First, the one-year period provided for in Section 38 of Act No. 496 merely refers to a petition for review and is reckoned from the entry of the decree. In the second place, there are other remedies available to an aggrieved party after the said one-year period, e.g., reconveyance, covered by Section 65 of Act No. 496 which, inter alia, provides that "in all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title." 37 Likewise, an action for damages is sanctioned in cases where the property has been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value, which may be filed within four years from discovery of the fraud. 38 Recourse may also be had against the Assurance Fund. 39 Finally, prescription never lies against the State for the reversion of property which is part of the public forest or of a forest reservation which was registered in favor of any party. Then too, public land registered under the Land Registration Act may be recovered by the State at any time. In Republic vs. Animas, 40 we ruled: Public land fraudulently included in patents or certificates of title may be recovered or reverted to the state in accordance with Section 101 of the Public Land Act. Prescription does not lie against the state in such cases for the Statute of Limitations does not run against the state. The right of reversion or reconveyance to the state is not barred by prescription. We therefore hold that since the land applied for by the spouses Ribaya was part of the public forest and released only on 31 December 1930, 41 the land registration court acquired no jurisdiction over the land, which was not yet alienable and disposable. Hence, the State's action to annul the certificates of title issued thereunder and for the reversion of the land is not barred by prescription. Anent the second issue, we hold that the land registration court in LRC Case No. 52, G.L.R.O. Record No. 26050 never acquired jurisdiction over the land covered by either the original plan (Plan II-13961) or the amended plan (Plan II13961-Amd.) for lack of sufficient publication of the first and total want of publication of the second. As found by both the trial court in Civil Case No. 6198 and the Court of Appeals, the notice of the hearing of application of the spouses Ribaya for the registration of the land covered by the original plan was published in the 17 March 1925 issue of the Official Gazette. In short, there was only one publication thereof. Section 31 of Act No. 496, the governing law then, required two publications. Hence, the decision of 18 September 1925 of the land registration court was void for want of the required publications. The requirement of dual publication is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of the registration court; 42 it is a jurisdictional requisite. 43 Land registration is a proceeding in rem and jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice. 44 Worse, the decision of 18 September 1925 was entirely based on an alleged original survey plan. The fact remains, however, that in November of that year that original plan was amended (Plan II-13961-Amd.) and the amended plan was not published at all. There is no evidence that the court amended its decision to conform to the amended plan, neither is there a showing that the parties even attempted publication thereof. However, the decree that was subsequently issued was based on the amended plan insofar as the four lots were concerned. A decree of registration is required to recite the description of the land. 45 On the basis of the decree, OCT No. 3947 was issued. It follows then that the land registration court may have attended its decision to conform to the amended plan for the four lots which ultimately found their way into the decree issued by the General Land Registration Office, and finally, into OCT No. 3947. Whether it did so or not and the General Land Registration Office merely adjusted the decree to conform to the amended plan, such aims were fatally flawed due to the absence of publication of the amended plan. As such, the land registration court acquired no jurisdiction over the land embraced by the amended plan. The Court of Appeals in its challenged resolution of 24 January 1994 and the private respondents, however, maintain that the publication of the amended plan was unnecessary under our pronouncements in Benin vs.Tuazon. 46 This case reiterates our rulings in Philippine Manufacturing Co. vs. Imperial, 47 Juan and Chuongco vs.Ortiz, 48 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Acuna, 49 Lichauco vs. Herederos de Corpus, 50 and Director of Lands vs. Benitez, 51 that only where the original survey plan is amended during the registration proceedings, by the addition of land not previously included in the original plan, should publication be made in order to confer jurisdiction on the court to order the registration of the area added after the publication of the original plan. Conversely, if the amendment does not involve an addition, but on the contrary, a reduction of the original area that was published, no new publication is required.

Reliance on Benin and its predecessors is misplaced. In the first place, the amendment of the original survey plan for the land applied for by the spouses Ribaya was made after the land registration court rendered its decision. It follows then that a re-opening of the case was indispensable; however, no such re-opening appears to have been done therein. Second, as earlier shown, the land registration court acquired no jurisdiction over the land covered by the original plan because of insufficient publication in the Official Gazette. Third, it has not been sufficiently shown that the four parcels of land covered by OCT No. 3947, which are based on the amended plan, are but a small part of the same land covered by the original survey plan. This conclusion is thoroughly discussed below. In the 24 January 1994 resolution of the Court of Appeals, it found the original areas covered by Plan II-13961 to be 25,542,603 square meters and the four parcels of land embraced in the amended plan, Plan II-13961-Amd., to be in the aggregate of 10,975,022 square meters. Thus: In the case at bar, in 1925, the spouses Ribaya sought for a judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title of the land described as follows: Parcel of Land (plan II-13961) containing an area of 25,542,603 square meters, with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio Magragondong, Municipality of Ligao, Province of Albay, P.I. . . . (Emphasis supplied). Said 25,542,603 square meter land was surveyed on July 9, 10, 12-16, 23, 24, 26 and 27, 1920 by Telesforo Untalan, a surveyor of the Bureau of Lands which survey was approved by the Acting Director of Lands on January 3, 1922. (Exh. 6). The notice of application and hearing of the land as aforedescribed, was published in the March 17, 1925 issue of the Official Gazette (Exhs. J and J-1). The land registration court issued a decision in favor of the spouses Ribaya on September 18, 1925 but for a smaller parcel of land than the 25,542,603 square meters are applied for. On November 23 and 30, 1925, said smaller parcel of land was surveyed by Land Surveyor Wenceslao Manuel, and was approved by the Director of Lands on February 26, 1926 as Plan II-13961-Amd. (Exh. H and series). Plan II-13961-Amd. embraced 4 parcels of land in the aggregate area of 10,975,022 square meters separately described as follows: 1. A parcel of land (Lot No. 1 Plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 3,318,454 square meters, more or less; 2. A parcel of land (Lot No. 2 Plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 1,575,195 square meters, more or less; 3. A parcel of land (Lot No. 3 Plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 4,844,205 square meters, more or less; 4. A parcel of land (Lot No. 4 Plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 1,237,368 square meters, more or less. 52 This was also its finding in its earlier decision of 9 January 1991. 53 In their Comment of 30 May 1994, the private respondents do not, for obvious reasons, dispute such finding and so they not only quoted it therein, 54 they also explicitly assert that: The undisputed facts are that the original plan of the land applied for which was published in the Official Gazette contained an area of 25,542,603 square meters. The land actually embraced in the decree of registration contained only 10,975,022 square meters. 55 (emphasis supplied). In hectares, the 25,542,603 square meters means Two Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Four Hectares, two ares, and six hundred and three centares (2,554 has., 2 ares, and 603 centares); and the 10,975,022 square meters means one thousand and ninety seven hectares, five ares, and twenty-two centares (1,097 has., 5 ares, and 22 centares). However, the trial court is somewhat confused as to the area of the land covered by Plan II-13961, as well as that covered by the amended plan (Plan II-13961-Amd.). Thus: [A]nd on March 7, 1978 Land Investigator Selecio San Felipe wrote the Director of Lands that the report of the ocular inspection and investigation conducted on May 14, 15 and 16, 1977 was true and correct, . . . that Plan II-13961-Amd., Sheet no. 1, surveyed for Luis Ribaya, with an area of 489.3649 hectares, located at Magragondong, Ligao, Albay, was surveyed on November 18-21, December 8-9, 1925 by Private Land Surveyor Wenceslao Manuel, and was approved by the Director of Lands on February 26, 1926 (Exhibits G, G-1 and G-2 for plaintiff and Exhibits GG, GG-1 and GG-2 for Intervenors); that Plan II-13961-Amd., Sheet no. 2, surveyed for Luis Ribaya, with an area of 608.1373 hectares, located at Magragondong, Ligao, Albay, was surveyed on November 23-30, 1925 by Private Land Surveyor Wenceslao Manuel, and was approved by the Director of Lands on February 26, 1926 (Exhibits H, H-1 and H-2 for plaintiff and Exhibits HH, HH-1 and HH-2 for intervenors); . . . that Original Certificate of Title No. RO-10848 (3947) covers 4 parcels of land, to wit: Lot No. 1, plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 3,318.454 square meters more or less, Lot No. 2, plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 1,575.195 square meters more or less, Lot No. 3, plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of 4,844.005 square meters more or less, and Lot No. 4, plan II-13961-Amd.), containing an area of1,237.368 square meters more or less, with a total of 10,975.022 square meters more or less; . . . that plan II13961 of property as surveyed for Luis Ribaya, situated in the barrio of Magragondong, Municipality of Ligao, province of Albay, containing an area of 25,542.603 square meters, was surveyed on July 9, 10, 12-16, 23, 24, 26 and 27, 1920 in accordance with Section 45 of Act 2874 by Telesforo Untalan, a surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, and the said plan was approved by the Acting Director of Lands on January 3, 1922 (Exhibits 6 and 6-A). . . . 56 (emphasis supplied) Note that instead of a comma (,) before the last three digits in the areas of the four lots covered by the amended plan, as well as the areas embraced in the original plan, the trial court placed a period (.). The change from a comma to a period is of vital significance. For, translated into hectares, the 25,542.603 square meters would be only Two (2) hectares, five (5) ares, and five hundred and forty-two (542) centares; and the aggregate of 10,975.022 square meters for the four lots embraced in Plan II-13961-Amd. would beone (1) hectare and nine hundred seventy-five (975) centares. Indeed, the disagreement between the Court of Appeals and the trial court as to the land area of the original survey plan (Plan II-13961), i.e., whether it was 25,542,603 square meters, (twenty-five million, five hundred and forty-two thousand and six hundred three square meters) as found by the former, or 25,542.603 square meters (twenty-five thousand, five hundred forty-two point six hundred and three square meters) as found by the latter, only shows

the unreliability of the original plan sought to be established through Exhibits "6" and "6-A." The Court of Appeals itself so found it to be in its decision of 9 January 1991 because these exhibits did not show that the survey plan was signed by the surveyor. Thus: Although the trial court said so (decision, p. 4) its basis, which is (original) plan II-13961 (Exhs. 6, 6-A), did not indubitably establish the same. In the first place, said original plan (plan II-13961) does not bear the signature of the surveyor thereof, thereof casting doubt on its genuiness and due execution. . . . 57 (emphasis supplied). Such doubt gains strength if we consider that if indeed the area embraced therein was that found by the Court of Appeals, i.e., 25,542,603 square meters - with a comma before the last three digits - it would have been physically impossible to finish the survey thereof in only eleven days (9, 10, 12-16, 23, 24, 26, and 27 July 1920). Plainly, the present-day sophisticated survey instruments were not then available. Furthermore, the trial court indicated in its findings of fact that in addition to the four lots covered by OCT No. 3947, there were other large tracts covered by the amended survey plan (Plan II-13961-Amd.), viz.: [T]hat Plan II-13961-Amd., Sheet no. 1, surveyed for Luis Ribaya, with an area of 489.3649 hectares, located at Magragondong, Ligao, Albay, . . . (Exhibits G, G-1 and G-2 for plaintiff and Exhibits GG, GG-1 and GG-2 for Intervenors); that Plan II-13961 Amd., Sheet no. 2, surveyed for Luis Ribaya, with an area of 608.1373 hectares, located at Magragondong, Ligao, Albay, . . . (Exhibits H, H-1 and H-2 for plaintiff and Exhibits HH, HH-1 and HH-2 for intervenors); 58 (emphasis supplied) The disagreement between the trial court and the Court of Appeals cannot be definitely resolved because no reliable copy of the original Plan II-13961 was presented. Exhibits "6" and "6-A" are a machine copy of the blueprint of the said Plan, which is not the best evidence under Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. They are, at most, secondary evidence, which are inadmissible for failure of the offeror to prove any of the exceptions provided therein and to establish the conditions for their admissibility. Even if they are admitted, they have no probative value. Clearly then, there is absence of factual basis to conclude that the four parcels of land included in OCT No. 3947 are but a part of the land covered by the original plan (Plan II-13961). WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged resolution of 24 January 1994 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 17351 is SET ASIDE, while its decision therein of 9 January 1991 affirming in totothat of Branch 7 of the Regional Trial Court of Legaspi City of 11 November 1987 in Civil Case No. 6198 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. Costs against the private respondents. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 5246 September 16, 1910 MANUELA GREY ALBA, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. ANACLETO R. DE LA CRUZ, objector-appellee. TRENT, J.: These petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan, and Francisco, surnamed Grey y Alba, are the only heirs of Doa Segunda Alba Clemente and Honorato Grey, deceased. Remedios Grey y Alba, a sister of the petitioners, was married on the 21st day of March, 1903, to Vicente Reyes and died on the 13th of July, 1905, without leaving any heirs except her husband. The four petitioners, as coowners, sought to have registered the following-described property: A parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talampas, municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, upon which are situated three houses and one camarin of light material, having a superficial area of 52 hectares, 51 ares, and 22 centares; bounded on the north by the highway (calzada) of Talampas and the lands of Rita Ruiz Mateo; on the east by the lands of the said Rita Ruiz Mateo, Hermenegildo Prado, Policarpo de Jesus, and a stream called Sapang Buslut; on the south by the same stream and the lands of the capellania; and on the west by the stream called Sapang Buslut, and the lands of Vicente de la Cruz, Jose Camacho and Domingo Ruiz Mateo. This parcel of agricultural land is used for the raising of rice and sugar cane and is assessed at $1,000 United States currency. The petition, which was filed on the 18th of December, 1906, was accompanied by a plan and technical description of the above-described parcel of land. After hearing the proofs presented, the court entered, on the 12th of February, 1908, a decree in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926, directing that the land described in the petitioner be registered in the names of the four petitioners, as coowners, subject to the usufructuary right of Vicente Reyes, widower of Remedios Grey. On the 16th of June, 1908, Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz filed a motion in the Court of Land Registration asking for a revision of the case, including the decision, upon the ground that he is the absolute owner of the two parcels of land which are described in said motion, and which, according to his allegations, are included in the lands decreed to the petitioners. He alleged that the decree of February 12, 1908, was obtained maliciously and fraudulently by the petitioners, thereby depriving him of said two parcels of land. He further alleged that he was the absolute owner of the two parcels of land, having inherited them from his father, Baldomero R. de la Cruz, who had a state grant for the same. He therefore asked, under the provisions of section 38 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496), a revision of the case, and that the said decree be modified so as to exclude the two parcels of land described in said motion. The Land Court upon this motion reopened the case, and after hearing the additional evidence presented by both parties, rendered, on the 23rd of November, 1908, its decision modifying the former decree by excluding from the same the two parcels of land claimed by Anacleto Ratilla de la Cruz. From this decision and judgment the petitioners appealed and now insist, first, that the trial court erred in reopening the case and modifying its decree dated the 12th of February, 1908, for the reason that said decree was not obtained by means of fraud; and, second, that the court erred in holding that the two parcels of land described in the appellee's motion are not their property.

It was agreed by counsel that the two small parcels now in dispute forma part of the land described in the petition and were included in the decree of February 12, 1908, and that the petitioners are the owners of the remainder of the land described in the said decree. The petitioners inherited this land from their parents, who acquired the same, including the two small parcels in question, by purchase, as is evidenced by a public document dated the 26th of November, 1864, duly executed before Francisco Iriarte, alcalde mayor and judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Bulacan. Baldomero R. de la Cruz, father of the appellee, obtained in march, 1895, a state grant for several parcels of land, including the two parcels in question. This grant was duly inscribed in the old register of property in Bulacan on the 6th of April of the same year. It is admitted that at the time the appellants presented their petition in this case the appellee was occupying the two parcels of land now in question. It is also admitted that the name of the appellee does not appear in the said petition as an occupant of the said two parcels. The petitioners insist that the appellee was occupying these parcels as their tenant and for this reason they did not include his name in their petition, as an occupant, while the appellee contends that he was occupying the said parcels as the absolute owner under the estate grant by inheritance. The court below held that the failure on the part of the petitioners to include the name of the appellee in their petition, as an occupant of these two parcels of land, was a violation of section 21 of Act No. 496, and that this constituted fraud within the meaning of section 38 of said Land Registration Act. The trial court further held that the grant from the estate should prevail over the public document of purchase of 1864. The mother of the petitioners died on November 15, 1881; their father died prior to that time. Manuela, the oldest of the petitioners, was about six years of age when their mother died. So these children were minors when the father of the appellee obtained the estate grant. On the 13th of June, 1882, Jose Grey, uncle and representative of the petitioners, who were then minors, rented the land owned by the petitioners' deceased parents to one Irineo Jose for a period of three years. On the 23d of March, 1895, the said Jose Grey, as the representative of the petitioners, rented the same land for a period of six years to Baldomero R. de la Cruz, father of the appellee. This rental contract was duly executed in writing. This land was cultivated during these six years by Baldomero R. de la Cruz and his children, one of whom is the appellee. On the 14th of December, 1905, Jose Grey, for himself and the other petitioners, rented the same land to Estanislao R. de la Cruz for a period of two years. Estanislao de la Cruz on entering into this rental contract with Jose Grey did so for himself and his brothers, one of whom is the appellee. While the appellee admits that his father and brother entered into these rental contracts and did, in fact, cultivate the petitioners' land, nevertheless he insists that the two small parcels in question were not included in these contracts. In the rental contract between the uncle of the petitioners and he father of the appellee the land is not described. In the rental contract between Jose Grey, one of the petitioners, and Estanislao R. de la Cruz, brother of the appellee, the two small parcels of land in question are included, according to the description given therein. This was found to be true by the court below, but the said court held that as this contract was made by Estanislao R. de la Cruz it was not binding upon Anacleto R. de la Cruz, the appellee. The two small parcels of land in question were purchased by the parents of the petitioners in 1864, as is evidenced by the public document of purchase and sale of that year. The same two parcels of land are included in the state grant issued in favor of Baldomero Ratilla de la Cruz in 1895. This grant was obtained after the death of the petitioners' parents and while they were minors. So it is clear that the petitioners honestly believed that the appellee was occupying the said parcels as their lessee at the time they presented their application for registration. They did not act in bad faith, nor with any fraudulent intent, when they omitted to include in their application the name of the appellee as one of the occupants of the land. They believed that it was not necessary nor required that they include in their application the names of their tenants. Under these circumstances, did the court below commit an error in reopening this case in June, 1908, after its decree had been entered in February of the same year? The application for the registration is to be in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant, or by some person duly authorized in his behalf. It is to contain an accurate description of the land. It shall contain the name in full and the address of the applicant, and also the names and addresses of all occupants of land and of all adjoining owners, if known; and, if not known, it shall state what search has been made to find them. In the form of notice given by statute, which shall be sworn to, the applicant is required to state and set forth clearly all mortgages or encumbrances affecting said land, if any, the rights and interests, legal or equitable, in the possession, remainder, reversion, or expectancy of all persons, with their names in full, together with their place of residence and post office addresses. Upon receipt of the application the clerk shall cause notice of the filling to be published twice in the Official Gazette. This published notice shall be directed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land sought to be registered and to the adjoining owners, and also "to all whom it may concern." In addition to the notice in the Official Gazette the Land Court shall, within seven days after said publication, cause a copy of the notice, in Spanish, to be mailed by the clerk to every person named in the application whose address is known; to cause a duly attested copy of the notice, in Spanish, to be posted in a conspicuous place on every parcel of land included in the application, and in a conspicuous place on the chief municipal building of the town in which the land is situated. The court may also cause other or further notice of the application to be given in such manner and to such persons as it may deem proper. The certificate of the clerk that he has served the notice as directed by the court by publication or mailing shall be conclusive proof of such service. Within the time allowed in the notices, if no person appears and answers, the court may at once, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, order a general default. By the description in the published notice "to all whom it may concern," and by express provisions of law "all the word are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default an order." If the court, after hearing, finds that the applicant has title, as stated in his application, a decree or registration shall be entered. Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government, and all the

branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description "to all whom it may concern." Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceedings in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within one year. . . . (Sec. 38 of Act No. 496.) The appellee is not included in any of the exceptions named in section 38 referred to above. It will be seen that the applicant is required to mention not only the outstanding interest which he admits but also all claims of interest, though denied by him. By express provision of law the world are made parties defendant by the description in the notice "to all whom it may concern." Although the appellee, occupying the two small parcels of land in question under the circumstances as we have set forth, was not served with notice, he was made a party defendant by publication; and the entering of a decree on the 12th of February, 1908, must be held to be conclusive against all persons, including the appellee, whether his (appellee's) name is mentioned in the application, notice, or citation. The said decree of February 12, 1908, should not have been opened on account of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, and could have been opened only on the ground that the said decree had been obtained by fraud. That decree was not obtained by fraud on the part of the applicants, inasmuch as they honestly believed that the appellee was occupying these two small parcels of land as their tenant. One of the petitioner went upon the premises with the surveyor when the original plan was made. Proof of constructive fraud is not sufficient to authorize the Court of Land Registration to reopen a case and modify its decree. Specific, intentional acts to deceive and deprive anther of his right, or in some manner injure him, must be alleged and proved; that is, there must be actual or positive fraud as distinguished from constructive fraud. The question as to the meaning of the word "fraud" in the Australian statutes has been frequently raised. Two distinctions have been noted by the Australian courts; the first is the distinction between the meaning of the word "fraud" in the sections relating to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and its meaning in the sections relating to the protection of bona fide purchasers from registered proprietors. The second is the distinction between "legal," "equitable," or "constructive" fraud, and "actual" or "moral" fraud. In none of the groups of the sections of the Australian statutes relating to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, and in which fraud is referred to, is there any express indication of the meaning of "fraud," with the sole exception of that of the South Australian group. (Hogg on Australian Torrens System, p. 834.) With regard to decisions on the sections relating to the conclusive effect of certificates of title, it has been held in some cases that the "fraud" there mentioned means actual or moral fraud, not merely constructive or legal fraud. In other cases "fraud" has been said to include constructive, legal, and every kind of fraud. In other cases, against, knowledge of other persons' right, and the deliberate acquisition of registered title in the face of such knowledge, has been held to be "fraud" which rendered voidable the certificates of title so obtained; and voluntary ignorance is, for this purpose, the same as knowledge. But in none of these three classes of cases was there absent the element of intention to deprive another of just rights, which constitutes the essential characteristics of actual as distinguished from legal-fraud. (Id., p. 835, and cases cited in notes Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, and 89 at bottom of pages 835 and 836.) By "fraud" is meant actual fraud-dishonesty of some sort. (Judgment of Privy Council in Assets Co. vs. Mere Roihi, and Assets Co. vs. Panapa Waihopi, decided in March, 1905, cited by Hogg in his Supplementary Addendum to his work on Australian Torrens System, supra.) The same meaning should be given to the word "fraud" used in section 38 of our statutes (Act No. 496). The question as to whether any particular transaction shows fraud, within the meaning of the word as used in our statutes, will in each case be a question of fact. We will not attempt to say what acts would constitutes this kind of fraud in other cases. This must be determined from the fact an circumstances in each particular case. The only question we are called upon to determine, and have determined, is whether or not, under the facts and circumstances in this case, the petitioners did obtain the decree of February 12, 1908, by means of fraud. It might be urged that the appellee has been deprived of his property without due process of law, in violation of section 5 of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, known as the Philippine Bill," which provides "that no law shall be enacted in the said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Land Registration Act requires that all occupants be named in the petition and given notice by registered mail. This did not do the appellee any good, as he was not notified; but he was made a party defendant, as we have said, by means of the publication "to all whom it may concern." If this section of the Act is to be upheld this must be declared to be due process of law. Before examining the validity of this part of the Act it might be well to note the history and purpose of what is known as the "Torrens Land Registration System." This system was introduced in South Australia by Sir Robert Torrens in 1857 and was there worked out in its practicable form. The main principle of registration is to make registered titles indefeasible. As we have said, upon the presentation in the Court of Land Registration of an application for the registration of the title to lands, under this system, the theory of the law is that all occupants, adjoining owners, adverse claimants, and other interested persons are notified of the proceedings, and have have a right to appear in opposition to such application. In other words, the proceeding is against the whole word. This system was evidently considered by the Legislature to be a public project when it passed Act No. 496. The interest of the community at large was considered to be preferred to that of private individuals. At the close of this nineteenth century, all civilized nations are coming to registration of title to land, because immovable property is becoming more and more a matter of commercial dealing, and there can be no trade without security. (Dumas's Lectures, p. 23.)

The registered proprietor will no longer have reasons to fear that he may evicted because his vendor had, unknown to him, already sold the and to a third person. . . The registered proprietor may feel himself protected against any defect in his vendor's title. (Id., p. 21.) The following summary of benefits of the system of registration of titles, made by Sir Robert Torrens, has been fully justified in its use: First. It has substituted security for insecurity. Second. It has reduced the costs of conveyances from pounds to shillings, and the time occupied from months to days. Third. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and verbiage. Fourth. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered the "three R's" can transact his own conveyancing. Fifth. It affords protection against fraud. Sixth. It has restored to their just value many estates held under good holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults. (Sheldon on Land Registration, pp. 75, 76.) The boldest effort to grapple with the problem of simplification of title to land was made by Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Torrens, a layman, in South Australia in 1857. . . . In the Torrens system title by registrationtakes the place of "title by deeds" of the system under the "general" law. A sale of land, for example, is effected by a registered transfer, upon which a certificate of title is issued. The certificate is guaranteed by statute, and, with certain exceptions, constitutes indefeasible title to the land mentioned therein. Under the old system the same sale would be effected by a conveyance, depending for its validity, apart from intrinsic flaws, on the correctness of a long series of prior deeds, wills, etc. . . . The object of the Torrens system, them, is to do away with the delay, uncertainty, and expense of the old conveyancing system. (Duffy & Eagleson on The Transfer of Land Act, 1890, pp. 2, 3, 5, 7.) By "Torrens" system generally are meant those systems of registration of transactions with interest in land whose declared object . . . is, under governmental authority, to establish and certify to the ownership of an absolute and indefeasible title to realty, and to simplify its transfer. (Hogg on Australian Torrens system,supra, pp. 1, 2.) Compensation for errors from assurance funds is provided in all countries in which the Torrens system has been enacted. Cases of error no doubt will always occur. The percentage of errors, as compared with the number of registered dealings in Australia, is very small. In New South Wales there were, in 1889, 209, 894 registered dealings, the average risk of error being only 2 cents for each dealing. In Queensland the risk of error was only 1 cents, the number of registered dealings being 233,309. In Tasmania and in Western Australia not a cent was paid for compensation for errors during the whole time of operation, (Dumas's Lectures, supra, p. 96.) This system has been adopted in various countries of the civilized world, including some of the States of the American Union, and practical experience has demonstrated that it has been successful as a public project. The validity of some of the provisions of the statutes adopting the Torrens system has been the subject of judicial decision in the courts of the United States. (People vs. Chase, 165 Ill., 527; State vs. Guilbert, 56 Ohio St., 575; People vs. Simon, 176 Ill., 165; Tyler vs. Judges, 175 Mass., 71.) Act No. 496 of the Philippine Commission, known as the "Land Registration Act," was copied substantially from the Massachussetts law of 1898. The Illinois and Massachusetts statutes were upheld by the supreme courts of those States. It is not enough to show a procedure to be unconstitutional to say that we never heard of it before. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra; Hurtado vs. California, 110 U. S., 516.) Looked at either from the point of view of history or of the necessary requirements of justice, a proceeding in rem dealing with a tangible res may be instituted and carried to judgment without personal service upon claimants within the State or notice by name to those outside of it, and not encounter any provision of either constitution. Jurisdiction is secured by the power of the court over the res. As we have said, such a proceeding would be impossible, were this not so, for it hardly would do to make a distinction between the constitutional rights of claimants who were known and those who were not known to the plaintiff, when the proceeding is to bar all. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra.) This same doctrine is annunciated in Pennoyer vs. Neff (95 U. S., 714); The Mary (9 Cranch, 126); Mankin vs. Chandler (2 Brock., 125); Brown vs. Levee Commission (50 Miss., 468); 2 Freeman, Judgments, 4th ed., secs. 606, 611. If the technical object of the suit is to establish a claim against some particular person, with a judgment which generally, in theory at least, binds his body, or to bar some individual claim or objection, so that only certain persons are entitled to be heard in defense, the action is in personam, although it may concern the right to or possession of a tangible thing. If, on the other hand, the object is to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established, and if anyone in the world has a right to be heard on the strenght of alleging facts which, if true, show an inconsistent interest, the proceeding is in rem. (Tyler vs. Judges, supra.) In the case of Hamilton vs. Brown (161 U. S., 256) a judgment of escheat was held conclusive upon persons notified by advertisement to all persons interested. In this jurisdiction, by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. 190, a decree allowing or disallowing a will binds everybody, although the only notice of the proceedings given is by general notice to all persons interested. The supreme court Massachusetts, in the case of Tyler vs. Judges (supra), did not rest its judgment as to the conclusive effect of the decree upon the ground that the State has absolute power to determine the persons to whom a man's property shall go at his death, but upon the characteristics of a proceeding in rem. So we conclude that the proceedings had in the case at bar, under all the facts and circumstances, especially the absolute lack on the part of the petitioners of any dishonest intent to deprive the appellee of any right, or in any way injure him, constitute due process of law. As to whether or not the appellee can succesfully maintain an action under the provisions of sections 101 and 102 of the Land Registration Act (secs. 2365, 2366, Compilation) we do not decide.

For these reasons we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the judgment appealed from should be, and the same is hereby reversed and judgment entered in favor of the petitioners in conformity with the decree of the lower court of February 12, 1908, without special ruling as to costs. It is so ordered. Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson and Moreland, JJ., concur. G.R. No. L-46439 April 24, 1984 ANDREA M. MOSCOSO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMINA L. MORON, respondents. GUERRERO, J.:+.wph!1 Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the defunct Court of Appeals 1 (now the Intermediate Appellate Court) in CAGR No. 52187-B entitled "Application for Land Registration Under Act No. 496-Andrea M. Moscoso, applicant-appellant versus Maximina L. Moron, et al., oppositors-appellees" which affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Tacloban City in Land Registration Case No. N 134. Sometime on March 22, 1966, petitioner applied for land registration of a 1,147 square meters residential lot situated in the poblacion of the municipality of Palo, province of Leyte, bounded and described in Survey Plan Psu-54699 of the then General Land Registration Office as verified and approved under date June 16, 1927. Her application substantially stated that petitioner is the owner in fee simple of the land and improvements thereon as her acquisition by inheritance from her father, the late Pascual Monge y Vigera who died on June 9, 1950, and that the same parcel of land is her share in a partial partition of estate she and her brothers and sisters executed on May 22, 1964 at Palo, Leyte (Exhibit "K"); that she and her predecessors in interest have been in continuous, public, actual and adverse possession of the land applied for since time immemorial until the present; that at the last assessment for taxation, said lot was assessed in her name under Tax Declaration No. 28260 dated May 24, 1964 (Exhibit H and that the taxes are fully paid up to the current year; that to the best of her knowledge and belief, there is no incumbrance or any kind whatsoever affecting said land nor any other person having interest therein, legal or equitable, in posession, remainder, reversion or expectancy; and that the land is now being rented by lessees of the applicant, namely, Angel Encenares, Olanda Bribe, Timoteo Noblejas, Felisa Adre, Celestina Solana, Baltazar Collado, all of Palo, Leyte. After due publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing of the petition in the Official Gazette, Vol. 62, Nos. 46 and 47, issues dated November 14 and 21, 1966 (Exhibit "C"), only the Highway District Engineer of Leyte as public oppositors, and Concordia Lanuncia, Flaviano L. Marchadesch, Jr., and herein private respondent Maximina L. Moron as private oppositors appeared for the initial hearing before the trial court. The trial court summarily dismissed the opposition of the Highway District Engineer who merely sought to secure a reservation for a road right-of-way in favor of the national government in view of petitioner's willingness to annotate the same on the certificate of title which might issue. The opposition of the private parties thus remained. The written opposition substantially allege that they, including one Mrs. Apolonia L. Marchadesch who died in 1963 and survived by her only issue, oppositor Flaviano L. Marchadesch, are the illegitimate children of the late Zenona Lanuncia and the recognized natural children of the late Pascual Monge who died in 1950 and father of applicant Andrea M. Moscoso; that the late Zenona Lanuncia, from the age of three, became a protegee of the late spouses, Saturnino Monge and Isidra Vigera Monge, letigimate parents of Pascual Monge and Juan Monge, now deceased; that Isidra Vigera Monge was the original owner of the parcel of land applied for; that Isidra Monge, long before she died on April 15, 1915, and after Pascual Monge legally got married to the mother of the applicant and brother and sisters, and in order to provide a home and subsistence to the oppositors, their sister and mother, all of which are girls, effected a verbal partition of her lands with her sons, Pascual, Juan and with the herein oppositor, who were already at their teens, which, by virtue of said partition, the land herein applied for registration passed to the hands of the oppositors for their home; that the oppositors have no knowledge that this parcel of land forms part of the inheritance of the applicant and of a partial partition among the applicant and her brother and sisters; that the oppositors have, if not legal, an equitable title to the land as judged from the circumstances surrounding the oppositors' case; they deny the allegation that applicant and her predecessors in interest have been in continuous, public, actual and adverse possession of the land from time immemorial, the truth being that the oppositors exercised exclusive dominion over the land and are in actual and continuous possession over it from time immemorial to the present and that should the verbal partition effected before the death of Isidra Vigera Monge in 1915 being insufficient to pass title to the oppositor, then by virtue of acquisitive prescription caused by the open, continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful and adverse possession in favor of oppositors, they are entitled to the land invoking the benefits of Chapter VIII of Commonwealth Act No. 141. 2 Upon the termination of the hearing on the merits, the Hon. Jesus N. Borromeo, then Presiding Judge of the CFI, Tacloban City, rendered his decision dated December 22, 1971, directing that the title over the land should not be registered exclusively in the name of the applicant since "it has been overwhelmingly established by them (the private oppositors) that they and their sister Apolonia, who died in 1963, are the children of Zenona Lanuncia and Pascual Monge resulting from the relations between the two prior to the marriage of the latter with Guadalupe Oliver, mother of herein petitioner and her brothers, Elpidio, Salvador, Remedios, Ruperto, and Abelardo (deceased), all surnamed Monge. 3 Hence, the judgment decreed: t.hqw IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the registration of title over the parcel of land situated in the poblacion of the municipality of Palo, Province of Leyte, as described in the Plan Psu-54699, Exhibit "E", and the technical description Exhibit "F", in the name of the co-ownership of: (1) Andrea M. Moscoso, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Salvador Moscoso, with postal address at Bupsong, Antique for three-fourth (3/4) share; (2) Concordia Lanuncia, Filipino citizen, of legal age, single, and a resident of Palo, Leyte, for one-twelfth (1/12) share; (3) Maximina L. Moron, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married, and a resident of Palo, Leyte, for (1/12) share; and, (4)

Flaviano L. Marchadesch, Jr., son of the late Apolonia L. Marchadesch, for one-twelfth (1/12) share, subject to a reservation of a road right-of-way in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. After this judgment shall have become final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued. SO ORDERED. 4 The trial court ruled that the verbal donation made by Isidra Vigera Vda, de Monge in favor of Zenona Lanuncia and the latter's daughters by Pascual Monge because they are of weaker sex, was ineffectual to transmit title of ownership over the land in question and that their adverse claim of ownership even under extraordinary prescription of over thirty years could not favor them because such claim is disputable due to their failure to declare the property for tax purposes in their name after the death of Isidra Monge. The trial court, however, gave significant weight to the carbon copy of a power of attorney executed and signed by the late Pascual Monge on February 11, 1945 (Exhibit "2", "2-A" to "2-C" in favor of Maximina L. Moron, wherein he stated that Maximins is his daughter and appointed her as his Attorney-in-Fact to transact with the United States Armed Forces in the Philippines in his behalf for the collection of rentals and other war damage claims due and payable to him. The court ruled that the power of attorney was an authentic writing wherein Maximina Lanuncia was voluntarily recognized as the daughter of Pascual Monge. As found by the trial court thus, t.hqw Precisely, it would appear that, in his power of attorney executed on February 11, 1945 in favor of Maximina L. Moron, Exhibit "2", Pascual Monge stated that Maximina is his daughter. The contention of petitioner that said power of attorney was fraudulently altered in order to inse therein the words "my daughter . . ." does not seem to be well-taken because, from an examination of the document, the Court does not notice concrete indications of alteration having been made in order to suit the ends of the herein oppositors. Thus, the Court is of the view that the late Pascual Monge, who had no impediment to marry Zenona Lanuncia when Maximina was conceived (Art. 119, Old Civil Code; Art, 269, New Civil Code) had voluntarily recognized Maximina Lanuncia Moron as his child when in his power of attorney executed on February 11, 1945, he mentioned her as his daughter. ... 5 Petitioner assailed the Court's decision in his motion for reconsideration, contending that the disposition of the estate should be governed by the Old Civil Code (Spanish Civil Code of 1889) since he died on June 9, 1950 while the New Civil Code took effect only on August, 1950; that assuming that the New Civil Code applies in the case at bar the power of attorney (Exhibit "2") is not an authentic document to support voluntary recognition because the words "my daughter" reveals a clear sign of erasure and is a product of falsification as presented in the rebuttal testimony of her brother Elpidio Monge and that said document is not even a public document because it was merely acknowledged by the Municipal Mayor of Palo, Leyte who had no authority to authenticate writings as public documents which could be done only by a notary public. Acting upon the aforesaid motion for reconsideration, the Court modified its decision in the Order dated May 25, 1972 with the following dispositive portion: t.hqw IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment of December 22, 1971 is hereby amended in the sense that the Court hereby orders the registration of title over the parcel of land situated in the poblacion of the municipality of Palo, Province of Leyte, as described in the Plan Psu-54699, Exhibit "E", and the technical description Exhibit "F" in the name of the co- ownership of (1) Andrea M. Moscoso, Filipino citizen, of legal age, married to Salvador Moscoso, with postal address at Bugasong, Antique, for 13/14 share; and (2) Maximina L. Moron for for share, subject to the reservation of a road right-of-way in favor of the government of the Philippines. After this judgment shall have become final, let the corresponding decree of registration be issued. SO ORDERED.1wph1.t Not satisfied with the amended judgment, petitioner elevated the case to the defunct Court of Appeals which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Hence, the instant petition before Us. Petitioner assigns practically the same errors allegedly committed by the trial court which were presented before the respondent Court of Appeals, to wit: t.hqw I. The lower court erred in holding that Pascual Monge voluntarily recognized Maximina Lanuncia Moron as his natural child by virtue of the power of attorney (Exhibit "2") executed by him in favor of the latter. II. The lower court erred in holding that said power of attorney (Exhibit "2") is not materially altered when in fact it was erased to suit the ends of the oppositors. III. The lower court erred in appreciating said power of attorney (Exhibit "2") as a public document. IV. The lower court erred in making judicial pronouncements that Maximina Lanuncia Moron as the acknowledged natural child of Pascual Monge conferring upon her legal right to inherit from the whole estate of the late Pascual Monge who died on June 9, 1950 when her claim over the land subject of this land registration proceeding is that it was given to their mother Zenona Lanuncia by Isidra Vigera and for their long continuous possession acquired the same by acquisitive prescription. V. The lower court erred in making judicial pronouncement of recognition without a formal complaint, hearing on the merit and neither has Maximina Lanuncia Moron the status of a continuous possession of a natural child. VI. The lower court erred in ordering the registration of the land applied for registration in favor of the applicant, Andrea M. Moscoso, only 13/14 share and to oppositor Maximina Lanuncia Moron 1/14 share in co-ownership. The principal or decisive issue to be resolved herein is whether or not oppositor-appellee Maximina L. Moron had been acknowledged by her illegitimate father, Pascual Monge (now deceased) in view of which, as held by the trial court and affirmed by the respondent appellate court, being an acknowledged natural daughter, she would be entitled to 1/14 share in the land in question as her inheritance. In resolving this issue, We are guided and must comply with the wellestablished rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals may not be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an appeal by certiorari where such findings are ably supported by substantial evidence on record, the same being binding, final and conclusive. 6

Hence, the finding of the appellate court that the power of attorney, Exhibit "2", was not materially altered before the same was presented to the court below; that it is "more likely that a mistake was committed in the preparation thereof; that the person who typed the document had to make a slight erasure and correction in typing correctly the word "daughter" and that t e power of attorney, as corrected, was then given to Pascual Monge and Maximina L. Moron for their signature. As such, the correction cannot be considered a deliberate alteration or falsification as depicted by appellant", is a finding of fact which cannot be disturbed. We agree with the court that said power of attorney is an authentic writing wherein the father, Pascual Monge, voluntarily recognized Maximina L. Moron as his daughter, and since Pascual Monge had the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of the conception, Maximina is a natural child, entitled to share in the inheritance of the property in question. It may be so as argued by the petitioner that where the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, a minute scrutiny by the Supreme Court is in order and resort to the duly proven evidence becomes necessary, citing Gonlalez vs. CA, G.R. No. 37453, May 25, 1979, 90 SCRA 183 and cases cited therein. We have in fact noted that the trial court found no alteration in the power of attorney, Exhibit "2", when it ruled that "from an examination of the document, the court does not notice concrete indication of alteration having been made therein in order to suit the ends of the herein oppositor." (Decision, pp. 21-22, Record on Appeal), whereas respondent appellate court held that "(w)e find it more likely that a mistake was committed in the preparation of the power of attorney that the person who typed the document had to make a slight erasure and correction in typing correctly the word "daughter" and that the power of attorney, as corrected was then given to Pascual Monge and Maximina L. Moron for their signature. As such, correction cannot be considered a deliberate falsification, as depicted by appellant. "(CA Decision, p. 8) We have indeed scrutinized minutely the documentary evidence in question, Exhibit "2", as We have ordered the elevation of the original records before Us. We affirm the holding of the appellate court that "What clearly appears to be the case, upon clear examination, is that there is no erasure of the portion whereon "my" was typed. If, really, such 14-letter word was erased and in lieu thereof the word "daughter" was typed or superimposed, the erasure would be very noticeable and visible as the word "daughter", which is shorter by six letters, cannot fully cover the space occupied by 1, administratrix". This could be easily seen by the naked eye when the document, as in the instant case, was executed more than 25 years ago and has turned yellow with age. But this is not the case." There is no inconsistency between the two findings of the trial and appellate courts. Both support the authenticity of the document in ruling that there was no deliberate falsification, which We uphold. Petitioner's contention that the Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration court, has no jurisdiction to pass upon the issue whether the oppositor is the acknowledged natural child of Pascual Monge, is untenable. We have a number of cases that answer petitioner's position. Thus, in the case of Florentino vs. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-27697, Sept. 30,1977, 79 SCRA 193, 204-205, We ruled: t.hqw Petitioner-appellants' third assignment of error is not well taken. Firstly, the otherwise rigid rule that the jurisdiction of the Land Registration Court, being special and limited in character and proceedings thereon summary in nature, does not extend to cases involving issues properly litigable in other independent suits or ordinary civil actions, has time and again been relaxed in special and exceptional circumstances, (See Government of P.I. vs. Serafica, 61 Phil. 93 (1934); Caoibes vs. Sison, 102 Phil. 19 (1957); Luna vs. Santos, 102 Phil. 588 (1957); Cruz vs. Tan, 93 Phil. 348 (1953); Gurbax Singh Pabla and Co. vs. Reyes, 92 Phil. 117 (1952)). From these cases, it may be gleaned and gathered that the peculiarity of the exceptions is based not alone on the fact that the Land Registration Courts are likewise the same Courts of First Instance, but also the following premises: (1) Mutual consent of the parties or their acquiescence in submitting the aforesaid issues for the determination by the court in the registration proceedings; (2) Full opportunity given to the parties in the presentation of their respective sides of the issues and of the evidence in support thereto; (3) Consideration by the court that the evidence already of record is sufficient and adequate for rendering a decision upon these issues. (Aglipay vs. De Los Reyes, L-12776, March 23, 1960) ... Upon a scrutiny of the proceedings in the trial court, We find that petitioner filed a Motion for New Trial and/or Reconsideration wherein she assailed the ruling of the trial court that based upon Exhibit "2", the power of attorney, the oppositor was an acknowledged natural child of the late Pascual Monge and entitled to a portion of the land subject of the land registration proceedings. She claimed that the document was not authentic and not a public document. In effect, petitioner acquiesced in submitting the issue as to the status of the oppositor as an acknowledged natural child entitled to successional rights and had the full opportunity to dispute the authenticity of the document in question as in fact, applicant's brother, Elpidio Monge, gave rebuttal testimony to support petitioner's theory that the document was a product of a falsification, which the trial court did not believe. Moreover, the court considered and deemed the evidence already of record sufficient and adequate for rendering a decision upon the issue thus raised. In doing so, We find no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court. In addition, considerations of speedy justice and avoidance of multiplicity of suits impel Us to hold and rule that under the facts of the case at bar, the trial court, acting as a land registration court, may adjudicate the land sought to be registered to either or both of the applicant and oppositor, in whole or in part, based on evidence submitted to the court showing that the party has proper title for registration. (Section 37, Act 496.) In any event, as the Supreme Court said in Nicanor T. Santos vs. Rosa Ganayo, L-31854, Sept. 9. 1972, 116 SCRA 431, "Whether a particular matter should be resolved by the Court of First Instance in the exercise of its general jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special court (Probate, Land Registration, etc.) is in reality not a jurisdictional question. It is in essence a procedural question involving a mode of p- practice which may be waived." In meeting the issue raised by the oppositor as to her status as an acknowledged natural child as a result of her voluntary recognition appearing in Exhibit "2", the oppositor (now the petitioner herein) had waived the procedural question and she may not be allowed to raise the same in the present petition. The proceedings for the registration of title to land under the Torrens system is an action in rem not in personamhence, personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction to deal with

and dispose of the res, and neither may lack of such personal notice vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the land situated within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a proceeding in rem or in the nature of a proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon all persons, known or unknown. (City of Manila vs. Lack et al., 19 Phil. 324, 337; Roxas vs. Enriquez, 29 Phil. 31; Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil. 120; Aguilar vs. Caogdan, 105 Phil. 661). Under the above doctrine, petitioner's assailment that "(t)he judicial pronouncement (referring to the holding that the oppositor Maximins L. Moron is the acknowledged natural child of Pascual Monge) which will become conclusive and far-reaching and in effect binds the other heirs of Pascual Monge consisting of the brothers and sisters as well as the nephews and nieces of the petitioner who are not parties in this prayer proceedings " is untenable. Earlier, We have affirmed the ruling of the appellate court that Exhibit "2" which is the power of attorney is an authentic writing wherein the father, Pascual Monge, voluntarily recognized Maximina L. Moron as his daughter, applying the provisions of Article 278, New Civil Code, which provides that recognition shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. We apply Article 278, New Civil Code retroactively to the case of Maximina L. Moron although she was born before the effectivity of the New Civil Code in view of the provisions of Article 2260 of the New Civil Code, which states: t.hqw Art. 2260. The voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this Code, even if the child was born before the effectivity of this body of laws. The reason for giving retroactive effect to Article 2260 is indicated in the Report of the Code Commission, page 169, thus: "The liberalized mode of recognition is in harmony with the aim of the proposed code to do justice to illegitimate children. Hence, its retroactive effect." (See Civil Code Annotated by Padilla, Vol. VII, 1975 Ed., p. 709). In Caridad Cruz Vda. de Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals and Jose Pedro Reynaldo Sy-Quia, G.R. No. 62283, Nov. 25, 1983, the Supreme Court squarely held: t.hqw ... Article 2260 of (the Civil Code of the Philippines) provides that 'the voluntary recognition of a natural child shall take place according to this Code, even if the child was born before the effectivity of this body of laws' or before August 30, 1950. Hence, Article 278 may be given retroactive effect (p. 169, Report of the Code Commission, 7 Padilla, Civil Code, 1975 Ed., p. 709). Under the Spanish Civil Code of 1889, an acknowledged natural child is entitled to ... "3. To receive the hereditary portion determined by this Code." (Article 134). This hereditary portion is fixed under Article 840 which states: t. hqw Art. 840. When the testator leaves legitimate children or descendants, and also natural children, legally acknowledged, each of the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the portion pertaining to each of the legitimate children who have not received any betterment, provided that it may be included within the freely disposable portion, from which it must be taken after the burial and funeral expenses have been paid. The same share which is one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants is given to each of the acknowledged natural children under Article 895 of the New Civil Code, which reads: t.hqw Art. 895. The legitime of each of the acknowledged natural children and each of the natural children by legal fiction shall consist of one-half of the legitime of each of the legitimate children or descendants. The final adjudication made by the trial court in its Order dated May 25, 1975 (affirmed by the Court of Appeals) directed the registration of the land in question in the name of the co-ownership of petitioner Andrea M. Moscoso for 13/14 share and Maximina L. Moron, the oppositor, for 1/14 share in view of the court's realization that no documentary evidence was presented to prove that the other oppositors, Concordia Lanuncia and Apolonia Lanuncia (decease) and mother of oppositor Flaviano Marchadesch, Jr. were acknowledged by Pascual Monge, In the interest of justice, We must modify the above sharing in order to give the legal share of the oppositor as an acknowledged natural child. Since there are six (6) legitimate children including the petitioner Andrea M. Moscoso who had previously acquired the shares of her five (5) co-heirs, and one (1) acknowledged natural child, the oppositor Maximina L. Moron, herein private respondent who is entitled to one-half (1/2) the share of each of the legitimate children (Article 840, Spanish Civil Code; Article 895, New Civil Code), the proper sharing should be 12/13 to Andrea M. Moscoso and 1/13 to Maximina L. Moron. WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that the adjudication of the land subject of the land registration proceedings shall be in the co-ownership of petitioner-applicant Andrea M. Moscoso for 12/13 share and to oppositor-private respondent Maximina L. Moron for 1/13 share. In all other aspects, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.1wp h1.t

MELENCIO VS. CA, GR NO. 148846

DECISION NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2]dated March 30, 2001 and praying that the Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City, dated February 18, 1993, be upheld. The Facts

The subject property is a 30,351 square meter parcel of land (subject property) particularly denominated as Lot No. 3368, located at Suba-basbas, Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, and part of a total area of 30,777 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 20626 [4] (entire property) in the name of the late petitioner Go Kim Chuan (Go Kim Chuan).[5] The entire property was originally owned by Esteban Bonghanoy[6] who had only one child, Juana BonghanoyAmodia,[7] mother of the late Leoncia Amodia and petitioners Cecilia Amodia Vda. de Melencion, Veneranda Amodia, Felipe Amodia, and Eutiquio Amodia[8] (the Amodias). The entire property was brought under the operation of the Torrens System.[9] However, the title thereto was lost during the Second World War. On July 10, 1964, the Amodias allegedly executed an Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale[10] whereby they extra-judicially settled the estate of Esteban Bonghanoy and conveyed the subject property to respondent Aznar Brothers Realty Company (AZNAR) for a consideration of P10,200.00. On August 10, 1964, the said Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered under Act 3344[11] as there was no title on file at the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City (Register of Deeds). Thereafter, AZNAR made some improvements and constructed a beach house thereon. On February 18, 1989, petitioners Cecilia Amodia Vda. de Melencion, Veneranda Amodia, Felipe Amodia and Eutiquio Amodia[12] (petitioners Amodias) executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale, [13] conveying the subject property in favor of Go Kim Chuan for and in consideration of P70,000.00. The lost title covering the subject property was reconstituted pursuant to Republic Act (RA) No. 26. [14] A reconstituted title particularly designated as Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-2899 was issued in the name of Esteban Bonghanoy[15] and, subsequently, a derivative title (TCT No. 20626) was issued in the name of Go Kim Chuan on December 1, 1989. Thereafter, Go Kim Chuan exercised control and dominion over the subject property in an adverse and continuous manner and in the concept of an owner. On February 14, 1990, AZNAR wrote a letter[16] to petitioners Amodias asking the latter to withdraw and/or nullify the sale entered into between them and Go Kim Chuan. On the same date, a Notice of Adverse Claim [17] was annotated by AZNAR on TCT No. 20626. Because petitioners did not heed AZNAR's demand, on April 25, 1990, AZNAR filed a case against petitioners Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for Annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 20626 [18] alleging that the sale to Go Kim Chuan was an invalid second sale of the subject property which had earlier been sold to it. Petitioners Amodias denied that they executed the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of AZNAR, claiming that their purported signatures thereon were forged.[19] Trial on the merits ensued. The RTC's Decision On February 18, 1993, the RTC dismissed AZNAR's complaint and declared Go Kim Chuan as the real owner of the subject property. The RTC ratiocinated that the signatures of the Amodias in the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale executed in favor of AZNAR were found by the document examiner of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory to be forged, thus, the said deed did not convey anything in favor of AZNAR. Moreover, the subject property had been brought under the Land Registration Act; hence, all transactions involving the same should have complied with the said law. Finally, the RTC held that AZNAR failed to show that Go Kim Chuan acquired the subject property in bad faith. Aggrieved, AZNAR appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.[20] The CA's Decision On March 30, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision holding that the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the Amodias in favor of AZNAR was registered ahead of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan, thus, pursuant to Article 1544 of the New Civil Code, the former deed should be given preference over the latter; that AZNAR's adverse claim was annotated earlier than the execution of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan; hence, the latter should have respected said adverse claim and should have made inquiries as to possible defects that may exist in the title over the subject property; and that in the absence of a final determination by a court of proper jurisdiction on the alleged forged signatures of the Amodias in the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale, the finding of the document examiner was insufficient for the RTC to rule in favor of the petitioners. The CA disposed of the case in this wise: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed decision dated February 18, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court of LapuLapu City, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 2254-L is hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby entered as follows: (1) Declaring plaintiff-appellant Aznar Brothers Realty Company as the real owner of the land in question;

(2) Declaring both the Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale dated February 1, 1989 executed by Felipe Amodia, Cecilia Amodia, Veneranda A. Ibag and Eustaquio Amodia in favor of Go Kim Chuan and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20626 in the name of Go Kim Chuan as NULL AND VOID; (3) Ordering Go Kim Chuan to deliver to the aforesaid plaintiff-appellant the possession of the land in question and to execute a registrable deed of conveyance of the subject property to the said plaintiff-appellant. No costs. SO ORDERED.[21] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[22] which the CA denied in its Resolution[23] dated June 5, 2001. Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: I Lot 3368 was already a registered land under Act 496, thus, the registration by respondent of the Deed of Sale in 1964 under Act 3344 produces no legal effect whatsoever; II Even assuming arguendo that the lot in question was duly registered under Act 3344 as an unregistered land, it is without prejudice to better rights and the provision of Article 1544 of the New Civil Code would be inapplicable; III The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in holding that an adverse claim was already existing at the time the subject land was sold to petitioner Go Kim Chuan; on the contrary, the latter had purchased the said land in good faith and for value, without notice of any fact that would reasonably impel a closer inquiry as to the possibility of a defect in the vendor's title; and IV The Court of Appeals has misapplied the case of Heirs of Severa Gregorio v. CA, 300 SCRA 565, cited in support of its ruling that the court a quo committed error in appreciating the testimony of an expert witness as to the forgery of the first Deed of Sale.[24] In its Comment[25] dated September 18, 2001, AZNAR argued, among others, that the Petition is dismissible because the Verification and Certification of Non-forum Shopping were not signed by all the petitioners, invoking this Court's Decision in the case of Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman,[26] and that the same were signed only by one April Socorro Go, daughter of the late Go Kim Chuan, who did not even appear to be authorized to file the instant case in behalf of the other petitioners. In their Reply[27] dated October 22, 2001, petitioners contended that April Socorro Go is one of the legitimate children and an heir of the late Go Kim Chuan and, as such, she has personal knowledge of the truth of the facts alleged in the Petition. Petitioners submitted that they substantially complied with the Rules of Court by attaching the required Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping and since the same are required simply to facilitate and promote the orderly administration of justice, compliance therewith should not be imposed with absolute literalness. On December 19, 2001, petitioners, through counsel, filed a Motion [28] for Leave to Admit Amended Petition [29] for Review on Certiorari (Amended Petition). Petitioners manifested that they were seeking to correct a defect in the designation of parties and prayed that the Heirs of Go Kim Chuan, namely, Estrella S. Go, Sonia Beth Go-Reynes, Daryl Go, and April Socorro Go be impleaded as petitioners instead of the earlier designated petitioners, Cecilia Amodia Vda. de Melencion, Veneranda Amodia, Felipe Amodia, Eutiquio Amodia, and Go Kim Chuan. Counsel for petitioners admitted that he inadvertently included the petitioners Amodias in the initial Petition for Review on Certiorari (Original Petition), as they were parties before the RTC and CA. The counsel also manifested that he was only representing the Heirs of Go Kim Chuan in this case. Lastly, he claimed that other than the substitution of the original petitioners, both the Original Petition and Amended Petition uniformly raised the same issues and should be given due course in the greater interest of justice and that the instant Motion was not interposed for delay. Per directive of the Court,[30] AZNAR filed its Comment[31] on the said motion wherein AZNAR manifested that it had no serious objection to the admission of the Amended Petition if the same was intended merely to implead the

Heirs of Go Kim Chuan as petitioners. However, AZNAR interposed strong opposition to the Amended Petition's admission since the names of the petitioners Amodias were deleted without their written consent. In their Reply,[32] the Heirs of Go Kim Chuan, through counsel, claimed that petitioners Amodias were excluded from the Amended Petition because they can no longer be located despite diligent efforts exerted by counsel. The counsel claims that after the rendition of the assailed CA Decision, he sent several letters to petitioners Amodias but they did not reply; hence, the Heirs of Go Kim Chuan, left with no choice, filed the instant case before this Court on their own. The Court issued a Resolution[33] dated September 16, 2002 giving due course to the Petition and requiring the parties to submit their respective Memoranda. In their Memorandum,[34] petitioners Heirs of Go Kim Chuan reiterate the same issues raised in the Original Petition and the Amended Petition. They argue that Act 3344 only refers to transactions affecting lands or interests therein not previously registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law or under the Torrens system; that if AZNAR could not have registered the sale in 1964 under Act 496 because the title over the subject property was lost, AZNAR should have availed itself of the remedy of reconstitution; that registration under Act 3344 is without legal effect and could not operate as constructive notice to petitioners and third persons, hence, may not be used as basis for the application of Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code; that the Notice of Adverse Claim of AZNAR was annotated on TCT No. 20626 only on February 14, 1990 after the execution of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan on February 18, 1989, hence, the CA erred when it held that Go Kim Chuan was not a buyer in good faith for supposedly having knowledge of such adverse claim; and that the doctrine laid down in Heirs of Severa Gregorio v. CA[35] is inapplicable since it referred to a case wherein the original copy of the document under review was not produced in evidence while in the instant case, the original copy of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the Amodias in favor of AZNAR was presented before the trial court judge. On the other hand, in its Memorandum,[36] AZNAR maintains that the Original Petition is dismissible because the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping thereof were not signed by all the petitioners. AZNAR further claims that the Amended Petition was filed in order to cure a fatal defect which should not be countenanced by this Court. AZNAR also contends that Go Kim Chuan was a buyer in bad faith as he had prior constructive notice that the subject property was sold to AZNAR because the sale was registered with the Register of Deeds under Act 3344; that the 1964 sale was registered under Act 3344 because the subject property was not actually covered by a Torrens title at the time; that there was no other mode of registration except under Act 3344; that Go Kim Chuan had to wait for the reconstitution of the lost title, hence, it could not be said that he examined any certificate of title and could feign ignorance of the sale in favor of AZNAR; that the second sale did not transfer the subject property to Go Kim Chuan since it was no longer within the vendors' power to convey; that with respect to the issue of forgery, the finding of the document examiner is not conclusive; and that such issue was belied by petitioner Veneranda Amodia herself when she declared that the negotiated sale in 1964 between AZNAR and the Amodias was not consummated because the latter did not receive the full consideration for the subject property. Before resolving the main issues raised, the Court shall first deal with an apparent procedural lapse in this case. Counsel for petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Petition for Review on Certiorari in order to implead the Heirs of the late Go Kim Chuan as the new petitioners and to delete the names of petitioners Amodias because they could no longer be located. Said petitioners sought the relaxation of the rules so that in the interest of justice, the case can be decided on the merits. AZNAR opposes the Amended Petition because it was allegedly filed to cure a fatal defect in the original petition non-compliance with the rules on Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. In this regard, the case of Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada[37] is instructive, viz.: The purpose of verification is simply to secure an assurance that the allegations of the petition (or complaint) have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, not merely speculative. This requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of pleadings, and noncompliance therewith does not necessarily render it fatally defective. Indeed, verification is only a formal, not a jurisdictional requirement. The issue in the present case is not the lack of verification but the sufficiency of one executed by only one of plaintiffs. This Court held in Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, that the verification requirement is deemed substantially complied with when, as in the present case, only one of the heirs-plaintiffs, who has sufficient knowledge and belief to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition (complaint), signed the verification attached to it. Such verification is deemed sufficient assurance that the matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, not merely speculative. The same liberality should likewise be applied to the certification against forum shopping. The general rule is that the certification must be signed by all plaintiffs in a case and the signature of only one of them is insufficient. However, the Court has also stressed in a number of cases that the rules on forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and thus should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective. The rule of substantial compliance may be availed of with respect to the contents of the certification. This is because the requirement

of strict compliance with the provisions merely underscores its mandatory nature in that the certification cannot be altogether dispensed with or its requirements completely disregarded. Thus, we held in Iglesia ni Cristo that the commonality of interest is material and crucial to relaxation of the Rules. In the case at bench, the petitioners in the Amended Petition are Heirs of the late Go Kim Chuan. They represent their predecessor-in-interest in whose favor a title was issued covering the subject property and said title is sought to be canceled by AZNAR. Clearly, there is presence of the commonality of interest referred to in Iglesia ni Cristo. Under the circumstances, the rules may be reasonably and liberally construed to avoid a patent denial of substantial justice, because it cannot be denied that the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the merits after all parties are given full opportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.[38] The Issues We now proceed to the merits of the case. From the issues raised, there are ultimately two questions that require resolution: First, did the CA misapply the doctrine in Heirs of Severa Gregorio v. CA in ruling that the RTC committed an error in appreciating the testimony of an expert witness as to the forgery of the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale? Second, who between Go Kim Chuan and AZNAR has the better right over the subject property? We resolve the first question in the negative. Forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery. Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them. But 1resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[39] The RTC's finding with respect to the issue of forgery reads: After a thorough study of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the court finds that preponderance of evidence heavily tilts in favor of the defendants. The document relied upon by the plaintiff in its claim of ownership over the land in question, the extrajudicial partition and sale, has been found by the document examiner of the PC Crime Laboratory to be a forgery. Being a forgery, said document conveyed nothing in favor of the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff's claim of ownership over the same has no more leg to stand on. x x x[40] While it is true that the original document was produced before the RTC, the finding of forgery relies wholly on the testimony of the document examiner. It falls short of the required independent examination to be conducted by the trial court judge. Other than the statement of the document examiner, the RTC decision contains no other basis to support its conclusion of the existence of forgery. Accordingly, the CA was correct in rejecting the RTCs finding and in applying the doctrine laid down in the case of Heirs of Severa Gregorio v. CA. However, we resolve the second question in favor of Go Kim Chuan. Without doubt, we have here a case of double sale of registered land. Apropos is Article 1544 of the New Civil Code which provides: ART. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. We have already ruled that the registration contemplated in this provision refers to registration under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative act[41] that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.[42] This rule precisely applies to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties. [43] Thus, we held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the same.[44]

In the case at bench, it is uncontroverted that the subject property was under the operation of the Torrens System even before the respective conveyances to AZNAR and Go Kim Chuan were made. AZNAR knew of this, and admits this as fact. Yet, despite this knowledge, AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344 on the contention that at the time of sale, there was no title on file. We are not persuaded by such a lame excuse. Act 3344 provides for the system of recording of transactions or claims over unregistered real estate[45] without prejudice to a third party with a better right.[46] But if the land is registered under the Land Registration Act (and therefore has a Torrens Title), and it is sold and the sale is registered not under the Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such sale is not considered registered, as the term is used under Art. 1544 of the New Civil Code.[47] In this case, since the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of AZNAR was registered under Act No. 3344 and not under Act No. 496, the said document is deemed not registered. [48] Rather, it was the sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan which was registered under Act No. 496. AZNAR insists that since there was no Torrens title on file in 1964, insofar as the vendors, AZNAR, and the Register of Deeds are concerned, the subject property was unregistered at the time. The contention is untenable. The fact that the certificate of title over the registered land is lost does not convert it into unregistered land. After all, a certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular property described therein. [49] This Court agrees with the petitioners that AZNAR should have availed itself of the legal remedy of reconstitution of the lost certificate of title, instead of registration under Act 3344. We note that in Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, [50] AZNAR, beset with the similar problem of a lost certificate of title over a registered land, sought the reconstitution thereof. It is unfortunate that, in the instant case, despite the sale of the subject property way back in 1964 and the existence of the remedy of reconstitution at that time, AZNAR opted to register the same under the improper registry (Act 3344) and allowed such status to lie undisturbed. From 1964 to 1989, AZNAR did not bother to have the lost title reconstituted or even have the subject property declared under its name for taxation purposes. Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Laws must come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleepy.[51] Although it is obvious that Go Kim Chuan registered the sale in his favor under Act 496 while AZNAR did not, we still cannot make an outright award of the subject property to the petitioners solely on that basis. For the law is clear: mere registration of title is not enough. Good faith must accompany the registration. Thus, to be able to enjoy priority status, the second purchaser must be in good faith, i.e., he must have no knowledge of the previous alienation of the property by the vendor to another. Notably, what is important for this purpose is not whether the second buyer is a buyer in good faith, but whether he registers the second sale in good faith, meaning, he does so without knowledge of any defect in the title over the property sold. [52] To fully resolve the second question, therefore, it is imperative that we determine whether Go Kim Chuan was a registrant in good faith. The CA found that AZNAR registered its Notice of Adverse Claim ahead of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan. Because of this, the CA declared that Go Kim Chuan was not a buyer in good faith, because he should have respected such adverse claim or, at least, inquired into the validity thereof. We do not agree. While factual issues are not within the province of this Court, as it is not a trier of facts and is not required to examine the oral and documentary evidence de novo, this Court has the authority to review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower courts in the following instances: (a) when the findings of fact of the trial court are in conflict with those of the appellate court; (b) when the judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts; and, (c) when the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[53] The instant case falls squarely within the foregoing exceptions. Concededly, inscription of an adverse claim serves as a warning to third parties dealing with a piece of real property that someone claims an interest therein or that there is a right superior to that of the titled owner. [54] However, as pointed out by petitioners and as admitted by AZNAR, the Notice of Adverse Claim was annotated on TCT No. 20626 only on February 4, 1990, after the lost certificate of title was reconstituted and after the issuance of said TCT in the name of Go Kim Chuan on December 1, 1989. It is, therefore, absurd to say that Go Kim Chuan should be bound by an adverse claim which was not previously annotated on the lost title or on the new one, or be shackled by a claim which he did not have any knowledge of. Citing Santiago v. Court of Appeals,[55] AZNAR contends that even if the adverse claim was annotated on TCT No. 20626 only on February 4, 1990, the prior registration of the sale in its favor under Act 3344 served as constructive notice to Go Kim Chuan and thus negates the latter's claim of good faith, since the Court held in that case,

Registration, however, by the first buyer under Act 3344 can have the effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in good faith. AZNAR's reliance on Santiago is misplaced. In Santiago, the first buyers registered the sale under the Torrens System, as can be inferred from the issuance of the TCT in their names. There was no registration under Act 3344. Conversely, in the instant case, AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344 despite its full knowledge that the subject property is under the operation of the Torrens System. To repeat, there can be no constructive notice to the second buyer through registration under Act 3344 if the property is registered under the Torrens system.[56] Moreover, before buying the subject property, Go Kim Chuan made verifications with the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City and the Register of Deeds. He likewise visited the premises of the subject property and found that nobody interposed any adverse claim against the Amodias. After he decided to buy the subject property, he paid all taxes in arrears, caused the publication of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in a newspaper of general circulation, caused the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and caused the issuance of the assailed TCT in his name.[57] Given these antecedents, good faith on the part of Go Kim Chuan cannot be doubted. We also note that AZNAR's complaint for cancellation of title contains no allegation that the (second) purchaser was aware of defects in his title. In the absence of such an allegation and proof of bad faith, it would be grossly inappropriate for this Court to render judgment against the purchaser who had already acquired title not only because of lack of evidence, but also because of the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of such title.[58] Finally, it is worth stressing that the Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to insure their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of losing his acquisition. If this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership.[59] WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51814 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 27, in Civil Case No. 2254-L, is REINSTATED. No costs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL VS. DIGNOS-SORONO, GR NO. 148846

DECISION CARPIO MORALES, J.: Assailed via petition for review on certiorari is the April 23, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals [3] affirming that of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-lapu City, Branch 54.[4] Lot Nos. 2296 and 2316 of the Cadastral Survey of Opon, Lapu-lapu City were adjudicated on December 7, 1929 by the then Court of First Instance of Cebu in favor of the following in four equal shares: a) Francisca Dignos, married to Blas Sorono share in the two lots; b) Tito Dignos, married to Candida Torrebillas share in the two lots; c) Isabel Dignos, married to Fabiano Amores; Donata Dignos, married to Estanislao Fuentes; Segunda Dignos, married to Demetrio Cortes; Gregoria Dignos, married to Severo Fuentes; Domingo Dignos, married to Venturada Potot; and Isabelo Dignos, married to Petronilla Gamallo share in the two lots; and d) Silveria Amistuoso, married to Melecio Tumulak; Mario Amistuoso, married to Rufina Tampus; Juan Amistuoso, married to Narcisa Cosef; Brigilda Amistuoso, married to Casimiro Yagong; and Pastor Amistuoso, widower share in the two lots.[5] It appears that the two lots were not partitioned by the adjudicatees. It appears further that the heirs of Tito Dignos, who, as reflected above, was awarded share in the two lots, sold for P2,565.59 the entire two lots to the then Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) via a public instrument entitled

Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale executed on October 11, 1957, without the knowledge of respondents whose predecessors-in-interest were the adjudicatees of the rest of the portion of the two lots.[6] In 1996, CAAs successor-in-interest, the Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA), erected a security fence traversing Lot No. 2316 and relocated a number of families, who had built their dwellings within the airport perimeter, to a portion of said lot to enhance airport security in line with the standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Federal Aviation Authority. MCIAA later caused the issuance in its name of Tax Declaration No. 00548 covering Lot No. 2296 and Tax Declaration No. 00568 covering Lot No. 2316. Respondents soon asked the agents of MCIAA to cease giving third persons permission to occupy the lots but the same was ignored. Respondents thereupon filed on January 8, 1996 a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Legal Redemption with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against MCIAA before the RTC of Lapu-lapu City,[7] alleging that the existence of the tax declarations would cast a cloud on their valid and existing titles to the lots. They alleged that corresponding original certificates of title in favor of the decreed owners were . . . issued but the same could no longer be found and located, and in all probability, were lost during the Second World War. [8] (This claim was not specifically denied by petitioner in its Answer with Counterclaim.)[9] Respondents further alleged that neither they nor their predecessors-in-interests sold, alienated or disposed of their shares in the lots of which they have been in continuous peaceful possession. Respondents furthermore alleged that neither petitioner nor its predecessor-in-interest had given them any written notice of its acquisition of the share of Tito Dignos. Respondents thus prayed as follows: 1) Upon the filing of this complaint, that a restraining order be issued enjoining the defendant and any of its officers, agents, employees, and any third person acting on their behest, to desist from occupying their portions of Lots 2296 and 2316, Opon Cadastre, and upon due notice and hearing, to issue the corresponding writ of preliminary injunction for the same purpose; 2) To declare the tax declarations of the defendant or any of its predecessors-in-interests covering Lots 2296 and 2316, Opon Cadastre, to be null and void: 3) To grant unto the plaintiffs the right of preemption in the sale of the one-fourth share of Tito Dignos in the abovementioned parcels of land under the provisions of Articles 1620 and 1623 of the Civil Code; 4) To order the defendant to reimburse plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 acceptance fee, the sums of P1,000.00 per appearance fee, the sum of P10,000.00 for costs of litigation; 5) To order the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P100,000.00 for moral damages. Plaintiffs further pray for such orders as may be just and equitable under the premises.[10] (Underscoring supplied) Republic of the Philippines, represented by the MCIAA (hereafter petitioner), in its Answer with Counterclaim, [11] maintained that from the time the lots were sold to its predecessor-in-interest CAA, it has been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession thereof; through acquisitive prescription, it had acquired valid title to the lots since it was a purchaser in good faith and for value; and assuming arguendo that it did not have just title, it had, by possession for over 30 years, acquired ownership thereof by extraordinary prescription. At all events, petitioner contended that respondents action was barred by estoppel and laches. The trial court found for respondents. It held that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest were in peaceful and continuous possession of their shares in the lots, and were disturbed of such possession only in 1996 when petitioner put up the security fence that traversed Lot No. 2316 and relocated families that had built their houses within the airport perimeter to a portion of said lot. On petitioners claim that it had acquired ownership by extraordinary prescription, the trial court brushed it aside on the ground that registered lands cannot be the subject of acquisitive prescription. Neither, held the trial court, had respondents action prescribed, as actions for quieting of title cannot prescribe if the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in question, as in the case of herein respondents. On petitioners defense of laches, the trial court also brushed the same aside in light of its finding that respondents, who have long been in possession of the lots, came to know of the sale only in 1996. The trial court added that

respondents could not be charged with constructive notice of the 1957 Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of the lots to CAA as it was erroneously registered under Act No. 3344, [12] the law governing recording of instruments or deeds relating to real estate which are not registered under the Torrenssystem. The subject lots being registered, the trial court found, the registration of the deed should have been made under Act No. 496, [13] the applicable law in 1957. In fine, the trial court held that the registration of the deed under Act No. 3344 did not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.[14] Concluding, the trial court held that the questioned sale was valid only with respect to Tito Dignos share of the lots, and that the sale thereof was subject to the right of legal redemption by respondents following Article 1088 of the Civil Code, reading: Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. In light of its finding that the heirs of Tito Dignos did not give notice of the sale to respondents, the trial court held that the period for legal redemption had not yet lapsed; and the redemption price should be of the purchase price paid by the CAA for the two lots. The trial court thus disposed: WHEREFORE, all premises considered, the Court rules in favor of plaintiffs and hence renders judgment: a) Declaring Tax Declarations Nos. 00915 and 00935, as well as all other tax declarations covering Lot 2296 and Lot 2316 under the names of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, the Bureau of Air Transportation and the defendant Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority, as null and void and directing the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City to cancel them; b) Declaring the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale affecting Lot 2296 and Lot 2316 (Exhibit H for plaintiffs) as void and ineffective as regards the three-fourth[s] (3/4) shares of plaintiffs in both lots and declaring the herein plaintiffs as owners of such three fourth[s] shares and; c) Ordering the defendant to resell to plaintiffs for a total price of Six Hundred forty Pesos (P640.00) the one-fourth (1/4) shares in Lot 2296 and Lot 2316 it had purchased from the heirs of the late Tito Dignos in 1957; No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. [15] As priorly stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari which proffers the following GROUNDS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION WHEN RESPONDENTS NO LONGER HAVE ANY RIGHT TO RECOVER LOTS 2296 AND 2316 DUE TO THE PRIOR SALE THEREOF TO THE REPUBLIC AND UPON THE EQUITABLE GROUNDS OF ESTOPPEL AND LACHES.[16] The petition fails. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides: Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation of the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Apropos is the following pertinent portion of this Courts decision in Bailon-Casilao v. CA: As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consentto the sale [Punsalan v. Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 (1923)]. This is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned

in common. [Ramirez v. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528 (1909)]. Consequently, by virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid with respect to their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in the sale to private respondent Celestino Afable, the said Afable thereby became a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court since the sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment thereof [Mainit v. Bandoy, 14 Phil. 730 (1910)]. From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Petitioners predecessor-in-interest CAA thus acquired only the rights pertaining to the sellers-heirs of Tito Dignos, which is only undivided share of the two lots. Petitioners insistence that it acquired the property through acquisitive prescription, if not ordinary, then extraordinary, does not lie. The trial courts discrediting thereof is well taken. It bears emphasis at this juncture that in the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale forged by CAA and Tito Dignos heirs in 1957, the following material portions thereof validate the claim of respondents that the two lots were registered: xxxx 4. That since the Original Transfer Certificate of Title of the above-mentioned property/ies has/have been lost and/or destroyed, or since the said lot/s is/are covered by Cadastral Case No. 19, and a decree issued on March 19, 1930, bearing Decree No./s 474824 & 474825, and the VENDEE hereby binds itself to reconstitute said title/s at its own expense and that the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs, successors and assigns bind themselves to help in the reconstitution of title so that the said lot/s may be registered in the name of the VENDEE in accordance with law[.][18] xxxx The trial courts discrediting of petitioners invocation of laches and prescription of action is well-taken too. As for petitioners argument that the redemption price should be of the prevailing market value, not of the actual purchase price, since, so it claims, (1) they received just compensation for the property at the time it was purchased by the Government; and, (2) the property, due to improvements introduced by petitioner in its vicinity, is now worth several hundreds of millions of pesos,[19] the law is not on its side. Thus, Article 1088 of the Civil Code provides: Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Court may take judicial notice of the increase in value of the lots. As mentioned earlier, however, the heirs of Tito Dignos did not notify respondents about the sale. At any rate, since the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale stipulates, thus: That the HEIRS-VENDORS, their heirs, assigns and successors, undertake and agree to warrant and defend the possession and ownership of the property/ies herein sold against any and all just claims of all persons whomsoever and should the VENDEE be disturbed in its possession, to prosecute and defend the same in the Courts of Justice[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), petitioner is not without any remedy. This decision is, therefore, without prejudice to petitioners right to seek redress against the vendors-heirs of Tito Dignos and their successors-in-interest. WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing disquisition, DENIED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915 CONSUELO LEGARDA, VS N.M. SALEEBY, JOHNSON, J.: From the record the following facts appear: First. That the plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as owners, adjoining lots in the district of Ermita in the city of Manila.

Second. That there exists and has existed a number of years a stone wall between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the plaintiffs. Third. That the plaintiffs, on the 2d day of March, 1906, presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their lot. After a consideration of said petition the court, on the 25th day of October, 1906, decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be registered and issued to them the original certificate provided for under the torrens system. Said registration and certificate included the wall. Fourth. Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of the lot now occupied by him. On the 25th day of March, 1912, the court decreed the registration of said title and issued the original certificate provided for under the torrens system. The description of the lot given in the petition of the defendant also included said wall. Fifth. Several months later (the 13th day of December, 1912) the plaintiffs discovered that the wall which had been included in the certificate granted to them had also been included in the certificate granted to the defendant .They immediately presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed by including said wall in the registered title of each of said parties. The lower court however, without notice to the defendant, denied said petition upon the theory that, during the pendency of the petition for the registration of the defendant's land, they failed to make any objection to the registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the defendant. Sixth. That the land occupied by t he wall is registered in the name of each of the owners of the adjoining lots. The wall is not a joint wall. Under these facts, who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied by it? The decision of the lower court is based upon the theory that the action for the registration of the lot of the defendant was a judicial proceeding and that the judgment or decree was binding upon all parties who did not appear and oppose it. In other words, by reason of the fact that the plaintiffs had not opposed the registration of that part of the lot on which the wall was situate they had lost it, even though it had been theretofore registered in their name. Granting that theory to be correct one, and granting even that the wall and the land occupied by it, in fact, belonged to the defendant and his predecessors, then the same theory should be applied to the defendant himself. Applying that theory to him, he had already lost whatever right he had therein, by permitting the plaintiffs to have the same registered in their name, more than six years before. Having thus lost hid right, may he be permitted to regain it by simply including it in a petition for registration? The plaintiffs having secured the registration of their lot, including the wall, were they obliged to constantly be on the alert and to watch all the proceedings in the land court to see that some one else was not having all, or a portion of the same, registered? If that question is to be answered in the affirmative, then the whole scheme and purpose of the torrens system of land registration must fail. The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would seem that once a title is registered the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. Of course, it can not be denied that the proceeding for the registration of land under the torrens system is judicial (Escueta vs. .Director of Lands, 16 Phil. Rep., 482). It is clothed with all the forms of an action and the result is final and binding upon all the world. It is an action in rem. (Escueta vs. Director of Lands (supra); Grey Alba vs. De la Cruz, 17 Phil. rep., 49 Roxas vs. Enriquez, 29 Phil. Rep., 31; Tyler vs. Judges, 175 Mass., 51 American Land Co. vs. Zeiss, 219 U.S., 47.) While the proceeding is judicial, it involves more in its consequences than does an ordinary action. All the world are parties, including the government. After the registration is complete and final and there exists no fraud, there are no innocent third parties who may claim an interest. The rights of all the world are foreclosed by the decree of registration. The government itself assumes the burden of giving notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the registration proceeding (and they are all the world) to again litigate the same questions, and to again cast doubt upon the validity of the registered title, would destroy the very purpose and intent of the law. The registration, under the torrens system, does not give the owner any better title than he had. If he does not already have a perfect title, he can not have it registered. Fee simple titles only may be registered. The certificate of registration accumulates in open document a precise and correct statement of the exact status of the fee held by its owner. The certificate, in the absence of fraud, is the evidence of title and shows exactly the real interest of its owner. The title once registered, with very few exceptions, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in some direct proceeding permitted by law. Otherwise all security in registered titles would be lost. A registered title can not be altered, modified, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding and not even by a direct proceeding, after the lapse of the period prescribed by law. For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No. 496) providing for the registration of titles under the torrens system affords us no remedy. There is no provision in said Act giving the parties relief under conditions like the present. There is nothing in the Act which indicates who should be the owner of land which has been registered in the name of two different persons. The rule, we think, is well settled that the decree ordering the registration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to future litigation over the same between the same parties .In view of the fact that all the world are parties, it must follow that future litigation over the title is forever barred; there can be no persons who are not parties to the action. This, we think, is the rule, except as to rights which are noted in the certificate or which arise subsequently, and with certain other exceptions which need not be dismissed at present. A title once registered can not be defeated, even by an adverse, open, and notorious possession. Registered title under the torrens system can not be defeated by prescription (section 46, Act No. 496). The title, once registered, is notice to the world. All persons must take notice. No one can plead ignorance of the registration.

The question, who is the owner of land registered in the name of two different persons, has been presented to the courts in other jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, where the "torrens" system has been adopted, the difficulty has been settled by express statutory provision. In others it has been settled by the courts. Hogg, in his excellent discussion of the "Australian Torrens System," at page 823, says: "The general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the land comprised in the latter certificate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate. (Oelkers vs. Merry, 2 Q.S.C.R., 193; Miller vs. Davy, 7 N.Z.R., 155; Lloyd vs. Myfield, 7 A.L.T. (V.) 48; Stevens vs. Williams, 12 V.L. R., 152; Register of Titles, vs. Esperance Land Co., 1 W.A.R., 118.)" Hogg adds however that, "if it can be very clearly ascertained by the ordinary rules of construction relating to written documents, that the inclusion of the land in the certificate of title of prior date is a mistake, the mistake may be rectified by holding the latter of the two certificates of title to be conclusive." (See Hogg on the "Australian torrens System," supra, and cases cited. See also the excellent work of Niblack in his "Analysis of the Torrens System," page 99.) Niblack, in discussing the general question, said: "Where two certificates purport to include the same land the earlier in date prevails. ... In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior certificates is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof. While the acts in this country do not expressly cover the case of the issue of two certificates for the same land, they provide that a registered owner shall hold the title, and the effect of this undoubtedly is that where two certificates purport to include the same registered land, the holder of the earlier one continues to hold the title" (p. 237). Section 38 of Act No. 496, provides that; "It (the decree of registration) shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description "To all whom it may concern." Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree (of registration), provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. It will be noted, from said section, that the "decree of registration" shall not be opened, for any reason, in any court, except for fraud, and not even for fraud, after the lapse of one year. If then the decree of registration can not be opened for any reason, except for fraud, in a direct proceeding for that purpose, may such decree be opened or set aside in a collateral proceeding by including a portion of the land in a subsequent certificate or decree of registration? We do not believe the law contemplated that a person could be deprived of his registered title in that way. We have in this jurisdiction a general statutory provision which governs the right of the ownership of land when the same is registered in the ordinary registry in the name of two persons. Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides, among other things, that when one piece of real property had been sold to two different persons it shall belong to the person acquiring it, who first inscribes it in the registry. This rule, of course, presupposes that each of the vendees or purchasers has acquired title to the land. The real ownership in such a case depends upon priority of registration. While we do not now decide that the general provisions of the Civil Code are applicable to the Land Registration Act, even though we see no objection thereto, yet we think, in the absence of other express provisions, they should have a persuasive influence in adopting a rule for governing the effect of a double registration under said Act. Adopting the rule which we believe to be more in consonance with the purposes and the real intent of the torrens system, we are of the opinion and so decree that in case land has been registered under the Land Registration Act in the name of two different persons, the earlier in date shall prevail. In reaching the above conclusion, we have not overlooked the forceful argument of the appellee. He says, among other things; "When Prieto et al. were served with notice of the application of Teus (the predecessor of the defendant) they became defendants in a proceeding wherein he, Teus, was seeking to foreclose their right, and that of orders, to the parcel of land described in his application. Through their failure to appear and contest his right thereto, and the subsequent entry of a default judgment against them, they became irrevocably bound by the decree adjudicating such land to Teus. They had their day in court and can not set up their own omission as ground for impugning the validity of a judgment duly entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. To decide otherwise would be to hold that lands with torrens titles are above the law and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts". As was said above, the primary and fundamental purpose of the torrens system is to quiet title. If the holder of a certificate cannot rest secure in this registered title then the purpose of the law is defeated. If those dealing with registered land cannot rely upon the certificate, then nothing has been gained by the registration and the expense incurred thereby has been in vain. If the holder may lose a strip of his registered land by the method adopted in the present case, he may lose it all. Suppose within the six years which elapsed after the plaintiff had secured their title, they had mortgaged or sold their right, what would be the position or right of the mortgagee or vendee? That mistakes are bound to occur cannot be denied, and sometimes the damage done thereby is irreparable. It is the duty of the courts to adjust the rights of the parties under such circumstances so as to minimize such damages, taking into consideration al of the conditions and the diligence of the respective parties to avoid them. In the present case, the appellee was the first negligent (granting that he was the real owner, and if he was not the real owner he can not complain) in not opposing the registration in the name of the appellants. He was a party-defendant in an action for the registration of the lot in question, in the name of the appellants, in 1906. "Through his failure to appear and to oppose such registration, and the subsequent entry of a default judgment against him, he became irrevocably bound by the decree adjudicating such land to the appellants. He had his day in court and should not be permitted to set up his own omissions as the ground for impugning the validity of a judgment duly entered by a court of competent jurisdiction." Granting that he was the owner of the land upon which the wall is located, his failure to oppose the registration of the

same in the name of the appellants, in the absence of fraud, forever closes his mouth against impugning the validity of that judgment. There is no more reason why the doctrine invoked by the appellee should be applied to the appellants than to him. We have decided, in case of double registration under the Land Registration Act, that the owner of the earliest certificate is the owner of the land. That is the rule between original parties. May this rule be applied to successive vendees of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the other of the parties, before the error is discovered, transfers his original certificate to an "innocent purchaser." The general rule is that the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate. We find statutory provisions which, upon first reading, seem to cast some doubt upon the rule that the vendee acquires the interest of the vendor only. Sections 38, 55, and 112 of Act No. 496 indicate that the vendee may acquire rights and be protected against defenses which the vendor would not. Said sections speak of available rights in favor of third parties which are cut off by virtue of the sale of the land to an "innocent purchaser." That is to say, persons who had had a right or interest in land wrongfully included in an original certificate would be unable to enforce such rights against an "innocent purchaser," by virtue of the provisions of said sections. In the present case Teus had his land, including the wall, registered in his name. He subsequently sold the same to the appellee. Is the appellee an "innocent purchaser," as that phrase is used in said sections? May those who have been deprived of their land by reason of a mistake in the original certificate in favor of Teus be deprived of their right to the same, by virtue of the sale by him to the appellee? Suppose the appellants had sold their lot, including the wall, to an "innocent purchaser," would such purchaser be included in the phrase "innocent purchaser," as the same is used in said sections? Under these examples there would be two innocent purchasers of the same land, is said sections are to be applied .Which of the two innocent purchasers, if they are both to be regarded as innocent purchasers, should be protected under the provisions of said sections? These questions indicate the difficulty with which we are met in giving meaning and effect to the phrase "innocent purchaser," in said sections. May the purchaser of land which has been included in a "second original certificate" ever be regarded as an "innocent purchaser," as against the rights or interest of the owner of the first original certificate, his heirs, assigns, or vendee? The first original certificate is recorded in the public registry. It is never issued until it is recorded. The record notice to all the world. All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains. All persons dealing with the land so recorded, or any portion of it, must be charged with notice of whatever it contains. The purchaser is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which the record discloses .This rule is so well established that it is scarcely necessary to cite authorities in its support (Northwestern National Bank vs. Freeman, 171 U.S., 620, 629; Delvin on Real Estate, sections 710, 710 [a]). When a conveyance has been properly recorded such record is constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal and equitable, included therein. (Grandin vs. Anderson, 15 Ohio State, 286, 289; Orvis vs. Newell, 17 Conn., 97; Buchanan vs. Intentional Bank, 78 Ill., 500; Youngs vs. Wilson, 27 N.Y., 351; McCabe vs. Grey, 20 Cal., 509; Montefiore vs. Browne, 7 House of Lords Cases, 341.) Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption is irrebutable. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation. While there is no statutory provision in force here requiring that original deeds of conveyance of real property be recorded, yet there is a rule requiring mortgages to be recorded. (Arts. 1875 and 606 of the Civil Code.) The record of a mortgage is indispensable to its validity. (Art .1875.) In the face of that statute would the courts allow a mortgage to be valid which had not been recorded, upon the plea of ignorance of the statutory provision, when third parties were interested? May a purchaser of land, subsequent to the recorded mortgage, plead ignorance of its existence, and by reason of such ignorance have the land released from such lien? Could a purchaser of land, after the recorded mortgage, be relieved from the mortgage lien by the plea that he was a bona fide purchaser? May there be a bona fide purchaser of said land, bona fide in the sense that he had no knowledge of the existence of the mortgage? We believe the rule that all persons must take notice of what the public record contains in just as obligatory upon all persons as the rule that all men must know the law; that no one can plead ignorance of the law. The fact that all men know the law is contrary to the presumption. The conduct of men, at times, shows clearly that they do not know the law. The rule, however, is mandatory and obligatory, notwithstanding. It would be just as logical to allow the defense of ignorance of the existence and contents of a public record. In view, therefore, of the foregoing rules of law, may the purchaser of land from the owner of the second original certificate be an "innocent purchaser," when a part or all of such land had theretofore been registered in the name of another, not the vendor? We are of the opinion that said sections 38, 55, and 112 should not be applied to such purchasers. We do not believe that the phrase "innocent purchaser should be applied to such a purchaser. He cannot be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" because of the facts contained in the record of the first original certificate. The rule should not be applied to the purchaser of a parcel of land the vendor of which is not the owner of the original certificate, or his successors. He, in nonsense, can be an "innocent purchaser" of the portion of the land included in another earlier original certificate. The rule of notice of what the record contains precludes the idea of innocence. By reason of the prior registry there cannot be an innocent purchaser of land included in a prior original certificate and in a name other than that of the vendor, or his successors. In order to minimize the difficulties we think this is the safe rule to establish. We believe the phrase "innocent purchaser," used in said sections, should be limited only to cases

where unregistered land has been wrongfully included in a certificate under the torrens system. When land is once brought under the torrens system, the record of the original certificate and all subsequent transfers thereof is notice to all the world. That being the rule, could Teus even regarded as the holder in good fifth of that part of the land included in his certificate of the appellants? We think not. Suppose, for example, that Teus had never had his lot registered under the torrens system. Suppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and had included in his deed of transfer the very strip of land now in question. Could his vendee be regarded as an "innocent purchaser" of said strip? Would his vendee be an "innocent purchaser" of said strip? Certainly not. The record of the original certificate of the appellants precludes the possibility. Has the appellee gained any right by reason of the registration of the strip of land in the name of his vendor? Applying the rule of notice resulting from the record of the title of the appellants, the question must be answered in the negative. We are of the opinion that these rules are more in harmony with the purpose of Act No. 496 than the rule contended for by the appellee. We believe that the purchaser from the owner of the later certificate, and his successors, should be required to resort to his vendor for damages, in case of a mistake like the present, rather than to molest the holder of the first certificate who has been guilty of no negligence. The holder of the first original certificate and his successors should be permitted to rest secure in their title, against one who had acquired rights in conflict therewith and who had full and complete knowledge of their rights. The purchaser of land included in the second original certificate, by reason of the facts contained in the public record and the knowledge with which he is charged and by reason of his negligence, should suffer the loss, if any, resulting from such purchase, rather than he who has obtained the first certificate and who was innocent of any act of negligence. The foregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all the difficulties resulting from double registration under the torrens system and the subsequent transfer of the land. Neither do we now attempt to decide the effect of the former registration in the ordinary registry upon the registration under the torrens system. We are inclined to the view, without deciding it, that the record under the torrens system, supersede all other registries. If that view is correct then it will be sufficient, in dealing with land registered and recorded alone. Once land is registered and recorded under the torrens system, that record alone can be examined for the purpose of ascertaining the real status of the title to the land. It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have acquired equal rights in the same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it first and who has complied with all the requirements of the law should be protected. In view of our conclusions, above stated, the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to the court now having and exercising the jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land court, with direction to make such orders and decrees in the premises as may correct the error heretofore made in including the land in the second original certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all other duplicate certificates issued. Without any findings as to costs, it is so ordered. G.R. No. 171531 January 30, 2009 GUARANTEED HOMES, INC., Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF MARIA P. VALDEZ, D E C I S I O N Tinga, J.: This is a petition for review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals Decision dated 22 March 20052 and Resolution dated 9 February 20063 in CA-G.R. CV No. 67462. The Court of Appeals reversed the 12 November 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 73 4 which granted the motion to dismiss filed by Guaranteed Homes, Inc. (petitioner). The appellate court denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The factual antecedents are as follows: Respondents, who are the descendants of Pablo Pascua (Pablo), filed a complaint seeking reconveyance of a parcel of land with an area of 23.7229 hectares situated in Cabitaugan, Subic, Zambales and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 404 in the name of Pablo. 5 In the alternative, the respondents prayed that damages be awarded in their favor.6 OCT No. 4047 was attached as one of the annexes of respondents complaint. It contained several annotations in the memorandum of encumbrances which showed that the property had already been sold by Pablo during his lifetime to Alejandria Marquinez and Restituto Morales. Respondents also attached copies of the following documents as integral parts of their complaint: Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-8241,8 TCT No. T-8242,9TCT No. T-10863,10 the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales11 executed by Cipriano Pascua, Sr. (Cipriano), and the Deed of Sale with Mortgage12 between spouses Albino Rodolfo and Fabia Rodolfo (spouses Rodolfo) and petitioner. In their complaint,13 respondents alleged that Pablo died intestate sometime in June 1945 and was survived by his four children, one of whom was the deceased Cipriano. 14 On 13 February 1967, Cipriano executed a document denominated as "Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales,"15 wherein he declared himself as the only heir of Pablo and confirmed the sales made by the decedent during his lifetime, including the alleged sale of the disputed property to spouses Rodolfo. Respondents likewise averred that on the following day 14 February 1967, TCT No. T-8241 16 was issued in the name of Cipriano "without OCT No. 404 having been cancelled." 17 However, TCT No. T-8241 was not signed by the Register of Deeds. On the same day, TCT No. T-8242 was issued in the name of the spouses Rodolfo and TCT No. T-8241 was thereby cancelled.18 Subsequently, on 31 October 1969, the spouses Rodolfo sold the disputed property to petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Mortgage. Consequently, on 5 November 1969, TCT No. T-8242 was cancelled and TCT No. T-1086319 was issued in the name of petitioner.20 It was further averred in the complaint that Jorge Pascua, Sr., son of Cipriano, filed on 24 January 1997 a petition before the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 75, for the issuance of a new owners duplicate of OCT No. 404, docketed as

Other Case No. 04-0-97.21 The RTC denied the petition.22 The trial court held that petitioner was already the owner of the land, noting that the failure to annotate the subsequent transfer of the property to it at the back of OCT No. 404 did not affect its title to the property. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss23 the complaint on the grounds that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations, more than 28 years having elapsed from the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 up to the filing of the complaint, and that the complaint states no cause of action as it is an innocent purchaser for value, it having relied on the clean title of the spouses Rodolfo. Impleaded as defendants, the heirs of Cipriano filed an answer to the complaint in which they denied knowledge of the existence of the extrajudicial settlement allegedly executed by Cipriano and averred that the latter, during his lifetime, did not execute any document transferring ownership of the property.24 The Register of Deeds and the National Treasurer filed, through the Office of the Solicitor General, an answer averring that the six (6)-year period fixed in Section 102 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 for the filing of an action against the Assurance Fund had long prescribed since the transfer of ownership over the property was registered through the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 in favor of petitioner as early as 1969. They also claimed that respondents have no cause of action against the Assurance Fund since they were not actually deprived of ownership over the property, as they could have recovered the property had it not been for their inaction for over 28 years.25 The RTC granted petitioners motion to dismiss. 26 Noting that respondents had never claimed nor established that they have been in possession of the property and that they did not present any evidence to show that petitioner has not been in possession of the property either, the RTC applied the doctrine that an action to quiet title prescribes where the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. The trial court found that the complaint per its allegations presented a case of implied or constructive trust on the part of Cipriano who had inaccurately claimed to be the sole heir of Pablo in the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate which led to the issuance of TCT No. T- 8241 in his favor. As the prescriptive period for reconveyance of a fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the title, the trial court held that the action for reconveyance had already prescribed with the lapse of more than 28 years from the issuance of TCT No. T-10863 on 5 November 1969 as of the filing of the complaint on 21 November 1997. The RTC added that it is an enshrined rule that even a registered owner of property may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches. The RTC further held that petitioner had the right to rely on TCT No. T- 8242 in the name of spouses Rodolfo. Petitioner is not obliged to go beyond the title considering that there were no circumstances surrounding the sale sufficient to put it into inquiry. Concerning the Assurance Fund, the RTC held that the claim against it had long prescribed since Section 102 of P.D. No. 1529 provides for a six-year period within which a plaintiff may file an action against the fund and in this case the period should be counted from the time of the issuance of the challenged TCT No. T-10863 on 5 November 1969 and thus expired in 1975. Undaunted, respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals.27 The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs order.28 In ordering the reinstatement of the complaint, the appellate court ruled that the averments in respondents complaint before the RTC make out a case for quieting of title which has not prescribed. Respondents did not have to prove possession over the property since petitioner as the movant in a motion to dismiss hypothetically admitted the truth of the allegations in the complaint. The appellate court found that possession over the property was sufficiently alleged in the complaint which stated that "neither petitioner nor the Rodolfo spouses ever had possession of the disputed property" as "a number of the Pascua heirs either had been (still are) in actual, continuous and adverse possession thereof or had been enjoying (still are enjoying) the use thereof."29 By the same token, laches had not set in, the Court of Appeals added. The appellate court further held that the ruling of the RTC that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value is contrary to the allegations in respondents complaint. Hence, the present petition for review. The sole issue before this Court revolves around the propriety of the RTCs granting of the motion to dismiss and conversely the tenability of the Court of Appeals reversal of the RTCs ruling. The petition is meritorious. It is well-settled that to sustain a dismissal on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action, the insufficiency of the cause of action must appear on the face of the complaint, and the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint to constitute a cause of action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. For the purpose, the motion to dismiss must hypothetically admit the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint.30 The admission, however, is limited only to all material and relevant facts which are well pleaded in the complaint.31 The factual allegations in respondents complaint should be considered in tandem with the statements and inscriptions on the documents attached to it as annexes or integral parts. In a number of cases, the Court held that in addition to the complaint, other pleadings submitted by the parties should be considered in deciding whether or not the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action.32 Likewise, other facts not alleged in the complaint may be considered where the motion to dismiss was heard with the submission of evidence, or if documentary evidence admitted by stipulation discloses facts sufficient to defeat the claim. 33 For while the court must accept as true all well pleaded facts in the complaint, the motion does not admit allegations of which the court will take judicial notice are not true, nor does the rule apply to legally impossible facts, nor to facts inadmissible in evidence, nor to facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded.34 In the case at bar, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss. At the hearing, the parties presented documentary evidence. Among the documents marked and offered in evidence are the annexes of the complaint.35

Based on the standards set by this Court in relation to the factual allegations and documentary annexes of the complaint as well as the exhibits offered at the hearing of the motion to dismiss, the inescapable conclusion is that respondents complaint does not state a cause of action against petitioner. Firstly, the complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in the name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioners predecessors-in-interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be inferred that petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would impel it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo. 36 It is basic that a person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Since "the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned," it follows that where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and nugatory. The public shall then be denied of its foremost motivation for respecting and observing the Torrens system of registration. In the end, the business community stands to be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.37 Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT No. 404 was expressly cancelled by TCT No. T-8241. The alleged nonsignature by the Register of Deeds Soliman Achacoso, , does not affect the validity of TCT No. T-8241 since he signed TCT No. T- 8242 and issued both titles on the same day. There is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. The presumption is further bolstered by the fact that TCT No. T-8241 was certified to be on file with the Registry of Deeds and registered in the name of Cipriano. It is enough that petitioner had examined the latest certificate of title which in this case was issued in the name of the immediate transferor, the spouses Rodolfo. The purchaser is not bound by the original certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom he had purchased the property.38 Secondly, while the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales executed by Cipriano alone despite the existence of the other heirs of Pablo, is not binding on such other heirs, nevertheless, it has operative effect under Section 44 of the Property Registration Decree, which provides that: SEC. 44. Statutory Liens Affecting Title. Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on said certificate and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting, namely: xxxx Even assuming arguendo that the extrajudicial settlement was a forgery, the Court still has to uphold the title of petitioner. The case law is that although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title, there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title. 39 And one such instance is where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate. 40 The Court cannot give credence to respondents claims that the Extrajudicial Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales was not registered and that OCT No. 404 was not cancelled by the Register of Deeds. The Register of Deeds of Zambales certified that the extrajudicial settlement was recorded on 14 February 1967, per Entry No. 18590. This is in compliance with Section 56 of Act No. 496, 41 the applicable law at the time of registration, which provides that: Sec. 56. Each register of deeds shall keep an entry book in which he shall enter in the order of their reception all deeds and other voluntary instruments, and all copies of writs and other process filed with him relating to registered land. He shall note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they are received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument when made on the certificate of title to which it refers shall bear the same date. [Emphasis supplied] Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall be, if registered, filed or entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.42 Thirdly, respondents cannot make out a case for quieting of title since OCT No. 404 had already been cancelled. Respondents have no title to anchor their complaint on.43 Title to real property refers to that upon which ownership is based. It is the evidence of the right of the owner or the extent of his interest, by which means he can maintain control and, as a rule, assert right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property.44 Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint which specified that the respondents were in possession of the property. They merely alleged that the occupants or possessors are "others not defendant Spouses Rodolfo" 45who could be anybody, and that the property is in actual possession of "a number of the Pascua heirs"46 who could either be the respondents or the heirs of Cipriano. The admission of the truth of material and relevant facts well pleaded does not extend to render a demurrer an admission of inferences or conclusions drawn therefrom, even if alleged in the pleading; nor mere inferences or conclusions from facts not stated; nor conclusions of law; nor matters of evidence; nor surplusage and irrelevant matters.47 The other heirs of Pablo should have filed an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust within ten (10) years from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.48 The legal relationship between Cipriano and the other heirs of Pablo is governed by Article 1456 of the Civil Code which provides that if a property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

From the above discussion, there is no question that petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value; hence, no cause of action for cancellation of title will lie against it.49 The RTC was correct in granting petitioners motion to dismiss. Lastly, respondents claim against the Assurance Fund also cannot prosper. Section 101 of P.D. No. 1529 clearly provides that the Assurance Fund shall not be liable for any loss, damage or deprivation of any right or interest in land which may have been caused by a breach of trust, whether express, implied or constructive. Even assumingarguendo that they are entitled to claim against the Assurance Fund, the respondents claim has already prescribed since any action for compensation against the Assurance Fund must be brought within a period of six (6) years from the time the right to bring such action first occurred, which in this case was in 1967. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67462 isREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The 12 November 1999 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 73 in Civil Case No. 432-097 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 177181 July 7, 2009 RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM, Respondent. DECISION NACHURA, J.: Before this Court is a Petition 1 for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision2 dated June 29, 2006, which reversed and set aside the Decision 3of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, Branch 41, dated June 3, 2004. The Facts Petitioner Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation (petitioner), a domestic corporation, is a holder of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-885134 covering the subject property particularly identified as Lot 395, Pls 47, with an area of 211,372 square meters more or less, and located at Barangay (Brgy.) Conrazon, Bansud, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro (subject property). Respondent Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS) is a government corporation, which manages the pension fund of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and is duly organized under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 361,5 as amended by P.D. No. 16566 (respondent). Respondent is a holder of TCT No. T-513827 covering the same subject property. On September 1, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint8 for Quieting of Title and/or Removal of Cloud from Title before the RTC. Trial on the merits ensued. Petitioner averred that on September 6, 1955, Free Patent No. V-195359 (Free Patent) was issued in the name of Jose Castromero (Jose). On June 1, 1982, the Free Patent was registered, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P261210 covering the subject property was issued in the name of Jose. Sometime in the first half of 1982, Jose sold the subject property to Spouses Sigfriedo and Josephine Veloso11 (spouses Veloso), and TCT No. T-1710412 was issued in favor of the latter. Spouses Veloso, in turn, sold the subject property to petitioner for the sum of P634,116.00 on January 17, 1997,13 and TCT No. T-88513 was issued in petitioners name. Petitioner alleged that it was the lawful owner and possessor of the subject property. Traversing the complaint, respondent, in its Answer,14 claimed that its title over the subject property was protected by the Torrens system, as it was a buyer in good faith and for value; and that it had been in continuous possession of the subject property since November 1989, way ahead of petitioner's alleged possession in February 1997. Respondent stated that on April 30, 1966, Homestead Patent No. 113074 (Homestead Patent) was issued in the name of Charles Soguilon (Charles). On May 27, 1966, the Homestead Patent was registered 15 and OCT No. RP-110 (P6339)16 was issued in Charles's name, covering the same property. On October 18, 1982, Charles sold the subject property to JMC Farm Incorporated (JMC), which was then issued TCT No. 18529. 17 On August 30, 1985, JMC obtained a loan from respondent in the amount of P7,000,000.00, with real estate mortgage over several parcels of land including the subject property. 18 JMC failed to pay; hence, after extra-judicial foreclosure and public sale, respondent, being the highest bidder, acquired the subject property and was issued TCT No. T-51382 in its name. Respondent contended that from the time it was issued a title, it took possession of the subject property until petitioner disturbed respondent's possession thereof sometime in 1997. Thus, respondent sent petitioner a Demand Letter 19 asking the latter to vacate the subject property. Petitioner replied that it was not aware of respondent's claim. 20 Presently, the subject property is in the possession of the petitioner.21 The RTC's Ruling On June 3, 2004, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner's title emanated from a title older than that of the respondent. Moreover, the RTC held that there were substantial and numerous infirmities in the Homestead Patent of Charles. The RTC found that there was no record in the Bureau of Lands that Charles was a homestead applicant or a grantee of Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon inquiry, the RTC also found that a similar Homestead Patent bearing No. V-113074 was actually issued in favor of one Mariano Costales over a parcel of land with an area of 8.7171 hectares and located in Bunawan, Agusan in Mindanao, per Certification 22issued by the Lands Management Bureau dated February 18, 1998. Thus, the RTC held that Charles's Homestead Patent was fraudulent and spurious, and respondent could not invoke the protection of the Torrens system, because the system does not protect one who committed fraud or misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith. The RTC disposed of the case in this wise: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, as follows:

1. DECLARING as valid OCT No. P-2612, in the name of Jose Castromero, and the subsequent TCT No. T-17104 in the name of the spouses, Siegfriedo A. Veloso and Josephine Sison Veloso and TCT No. T-88513, in the name of plaintiff Rabaja Ranch & Development Corporation; 2. DECLARING plaintiff as the true and lawful owner of the lot in question covered by TCT No. T-88513; 3. DECLARING as null and void OCT No. RP-110 (P-6339), in the name of Charles Soguilon and its derivative titles, TCT No. T- 18529 registered in the name of J.M.C. Farm Incorporated and TCT No. T-51392, in the name of the defendant AFP Retirement Separation and Benefits System; 4. DIRECTING the Register of Deeds, City of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, to cancel TCT No. T-51392, in the name of defendant AFP Retirement Separation & Benefits System and its registration from the Records of the Registry of Deeds; 5. NO PRONOUNCEMENT as to damages and attorney's fees for plaintiff and defendant's counterclaim is hereby dismissed. No Cost. SO ORDERED. Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the CA.23 The CA's Ruling On June 29, 2006, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision upon the finding that Charles's Homestead Patent was earlier registered than Jose's Free Patent. The CA held that Jose slept on his rights, and thus, respondent had a better right over the subject property. Further, the CA opined that while "it is interesting to note that petitioner's claim that Homestead Patent No. V-113074 was issued to Mariano Costales, per Certification issued by the Lands Management Bureau, there is nothing on record which would show that said Homestead Patent No. V-113074 and Homestead Patent No. 113074 granted to Charles were one and the same." Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,24 which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution25 dated March 26, 2007. The Issues Hence, this Petition based on the following grounds: a) The CA decided a question of substance not in accordance with existing law and jurisprudence. b) The CA Decision was based on a gross misapprehension or non-apprehension of facts. Petitioner asseverates that Homestead Patent No. 113074 is not found in the files of the Land Management Bureau, nor does Charles's name appear as an applicant or a patentee; that, similarly, Homestead Patent No. V-113074 was actually issued to Mariano Costales over a parcel of land in Mindanao and not in Mindoro; that, being fake and spurious, Charles's Homestead Patent is void ab initio and, as such, does not produce or transmit any right; that the CA completely ignored the RTC's factual findings based on documentary and testimonial evidence, particularly of the invalidity and infirmities of the Homestead Patent; that said Homestead Patent does not legally exist, hence, is not registrable; that respondent's assertion -- that since the issuance of the Homestead Patent in 1966, records and documents have not been properly kept -- should be discarded, as petitioner's Free Patent which was issued way back in 1955 is still intact and is of record; that a Homestead Patent, being a contract between the Government and the grantee, must bear the consent of the Government; and, Charles's Homestead Patent being a simulation, cannot transmit any right; that the earlier registration of the Homestead Patent has no legal effect, as the same is merely simulated; and that OCT No. No. RP-110 (P-6339) and all derivative titles issued, including respondent's title, are null and void. Petitioner submits that it has a better right over the subject property than respondent.26 Respondent takes issue with petitioners claim that the Homestead Patent is spurious or fake, the same being a question of fact not proper in a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. Respondent also posits that the factual findings of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court, as such findings are based on record; that respondent has a better right over the subject property because only the certified copy and not the original copy of the Free Patent was transcribed and registered with the Register of Deeds of Calapan, Oriental Mindoro; that the Homestead Patent was duly transcribed on May 27, 1966, way ahead of the registration of the Free Patent on June 1, 1982; that the CA was correct in ruling that Section 12227 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act) as amended by Section 10328 of P.D. No. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) provides that registration of the Patent with the Register of Deeds is the operative act to affect and convey the land; and that the fact that the Homestead Patent was duly registered, said Patent became indefeasible as a Torrens Title. Moreover, respondent avers that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the Homestead Patent is spurious or fake. Respondent maintains that it is the Free Patent which is spurious since what was registered was only the certified and not the original copy of the Free Patent.29 The issues may, thus, be summed up in the sole question of

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S TITLE WHICH ORIGINATED FROM A FAKE AND SPURIOUS HOMESTEAD PATENT, IS SUPERIOR TO PETITIONER'S TITLE WHICH ORIGINATED FROM A VALID AND EXISTING FREE PATENT.30
Simply put, the issue is who, between the petitioner and respondent, has a better right over the subject property. Our Ruling The instant Petition is bereft of merit. While this Court, is not a trier of facts and is not required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence de novo, nonetheless, it may review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower courts when the

findings of fact of the trial court are in conflict with those of the appellate court. 31 In this case, we see the need to review the records. The special circumstances attending this case cannot be disregarded. Two certificates of title were issued covering the very same property, deriving their respective authorities from two different special patents granted by the Government. The Free Patent was issued to Jose on September 6, 1955 as opposed to the Homestead Patent which was issued to Charles on April 30, 1966. The latter was registered on May 27, 1966, ahead of the former which was registered only on June 1, 1982. Each patent generated a certificate of title issued to a different set of individuals. Over the years, the subject property was eventually sold to the contending parties herein, who both appear to be buyers in good faith and for value. Petitioner now seeks relief before this Court on the main contention that the registered Homestead Patent from which respondent derived its title, is fake and spurious, and is, therefore, void ab initio because it was not issued, at all, by the Government. We are not convinced. Our ruling in Republic v. Guerrero,32 is instructive: Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private confidence, even though the act is not done with an actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other persons. Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud were or could have been litigated therein. The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant. The distinctions assume significance because only actual and extrinsic fraud had been accepted and is contemplated by the law as a ground to review or reopen a decree of registration. Thus, relief is granted to a party deprived of his interest in land where the fraud consists in a deliberate misrepresentation that the lots are not contested when in fact they are; or in willfully misrepresenting that there are no other claims; or in deliberately failing to notify the party entitled to notice; or in inducing him not to oppose an application; or in misrepresenting about the identity of the lot to the true owner by the applicant causing the former to withdraw his application. In all these examples, the overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court or from presenting his case. The fraud, therefore, is one that affects and goes into the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly held that relief on the ground of fraud will not be granted where the alleged fraud goes into the merits of the case, is intrinsic and not collateral, and has been controverted and decided. Thus, we have underscored the denial of relief where it appears that the fraud consisted in the presentation at the trial of a supposed forged document, or a false and perjured testimony, or in basing the judgment on a fraudulent compromise agreement, or in the alleged fraudulent acts or omissions of the counsel which prevented the petitioner from properly presenting the case.33 No actual and extrinsic fraud existed in this case. In our jurisdiction, fraud is never presumed. 34 Mere allegations of fraud are not enough. Intentional acts to deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner, injure him must be specifically alleged and proved. 35 The burden of proof rests on petitioner, and the petitioner failed to discharge the burden. Petitioner did not convincingly show that the Homestead Patent issued to Charles is indeed spurious. More importantly, petitioner failed to prove that respondent took part in the alleged fraud which dated back as early as 1966 when Charles supposedly secured the fake and spurious Homestead Patent. In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic, 36 citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,37 this Court stressed the fact that it was never proven that private respondent St. Jude was a party to the fraud that led to the increase in the area of the property after it was sub-divided. In the same case, citing Republic v. Umali,38 we held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value. This conclusion rests very firmly on Section 32 of P.D. No. 1529, which states: SECTION 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgment, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein whose rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value. Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other person responsible for the fraud. (Underscoring ours) Settled is the rule that no valid TCT can issue from a void TCT, unless an innocent purchaser for value had intervened. An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the purchase or before receipt of any notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. The protection given to

innocent purchasers for value is necessary to uphold a certificate of title's efficacy and conclusiveness, which the Torrens system ensures.39 Clearly, respondent is an innocent purchaser in good faith and for value. Thus, as far as respondent is concerned, TCT No. 18529, shown to it by JMC, was free from any flaw or defect that could give rise to any iota of doubt that it was fake and spurious, or that it was derived from a fake or spurious Homestead Patent. Likewise, respondent was not under any obligation to make an inquiry beyond the TCT itself when, significantly, a foreclosure sale was conducted and respondent emerged as the highest bidder. In Republic v. Court of Appeals,40 this Court distinguished a Homestead Patent from a Free Patent, to wit: Homestead Patent and Free Patent are some of the land patents granted by the government under the Public Land Act. While similar, they are not exactly the same. A Homestead Patent is one issued to: any citizen of this country; over the age of 18 years or the head of a family; who is not the owner of more than twenty-four (24) hectares of land in the Philippines or has not had the benefit of any gratuitous allotment of more than twenty-four (24) hectares of land since the occupation of the Philippines by the United States. The applicant must show that he has complied with the residence and cultivation requirements of the law; must have resided continuously for at least one year in the municipality where the land is situated; and must have cultivated at least one-fifth of the land applied for. On the other hand, a Free Patent may be issued where the applicant is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines; not the owner of more than twelve (12) hectares of land; that he has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interests, a tract or tracts of agricultural public lands subject to disposition for at least 30 years prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6940; and that he has paid the real taxes thereon while the same has not been occupied by any person.41 It bears stressing that a Homestead Patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens Title.42 Verily, Section 103 of P.D. No. 1529 mandates the registration of patents, and such registration is the operative act to convey the land to the patentee, thus: Sec. 103. . . . . . The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree. (Emphasis supplied) The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is merely a system of registration of titles to lands. However, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State's agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that may arise subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.43 The general rule that the direct result of a previous void contract cannot be valid will not apply in this case as it will directly contravene the Torrens system of registration. Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, this Court cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such outright cancellation will be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title. The sanctity of the Torrens system must be preserved; otherwise, everyone dealing with the property registered under the system will have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly issued, contrary to the evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing with the registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law will, in no way, oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the property.44 Respondent's transfer certificate of title, having been derived from the Homestead Patent which was registered under the Torrens system on May 27, 1966, was thus vested with the habiliments of indefeasibility. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED and the assailed Court of Appeals Decision is AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED . G.R. No. 147928 January 11, 2005 EMMANUEL F. CONCEPCION, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE F. CONCEPCION, D E C I S I O N GARCIA, J.: Under consideration is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the decision dated November 27, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 28665, dismissing, for lack of merit, the appeal thereto taken by the herein petitioners contra an earlier order dated January 22, 1988 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch V, Cebu City, then sitting as a land registration court. All the parties in this case are descendants of the late spouses Regino Concepcion, Sr. and Concepcion Famador. Petitioner Emmanuel is a son of the late spouses while the other petitioners Betty, Jimmy, Rosario and Jernie (all surnamed Concepcion) and the respondents Antonio Concepcion, Lourdes C. Watts and Ida C. Horvat are grandchildren of the spouses. The deceased spouses Regino Concepcion, Sr. and Concepcion Famador had seven children namely: Jose (father of respondents Antonio Concepcion, Lourdes Watts and Ida Horvat), Jesus (father of petitioners Betty Concepcion and Jimmy Concepcion), Maria, Vicente, Regino, Jr. (father of petitioners Rosario Vda. De Concepcion and Jernie Concepcion), Elena and Emmanuel. During their marriage, the couple acquired the following real properties: 1. A parcel of land situated at Zulueta Street, Cebu City containing an area of 110 sq. meters, more or less, and with an assessed value of P11,000.00 hereinafter referred to as the Zulueta property, the realty involved in this case;

2. A parcel of agricultural land situated at Pit-os, Cebu City, now known as Lot No. 10110, covered by Tax Dec. No. 007441, with an assessed value of P2,732.00; 3. A parcel of agricultural land also situated at Pit-os, Cebu City, now known as Lot No. 10132, covered by Tax Dec. No. III-05158, with an assessed value of P740.00; and 4. A parcel of agricultural land likewise situated at Pit-os, Cebu City, now known as Lot No. 10129 and covered by Tax Dec. No. 23728 with an assessed value of P223.00. Regino, Sr. died in 1944. Ten (10) years later or in 1954, his wife, Concepcion Famador, also passed away. Upon the latters death, she left a will1 disposing of all her paraphernal properties as well as her share in the conjugal partnership of gains. The will was subjected to probate in Special Proceedings No. 1257-R of the then Court of First Instance of Cebu City. Jose, one of the sons of the late spouses and father of the herein respondents, contested the probate on the ground that the disposition made therein impaired his legitime. Eventually, the will was allowed probate. However, on July 6, 1960, the probate court motu proprio dismissed the probate proceedings because Jesus, as the estates executor, neglected to perform his duties after the will was probated. Consequently, the probate court was not able to adjudicate to the heirs their respective shares in the estate. On account thereof, Jose filed a complaint for partition with damages against his six (6) brothers and sisters before the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch XIII, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. R-13850. In a decision2dated August 10, 1978, said court rendered judgment as follows: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the plaintiff (i.e., Jose) entitled to a share of 1,183.57 square meters as his legitime from his mothers estate and 1,829 square meters as his intestate share from the estate of Regino Concepcion, Sr.; 2. Ordering defendants Regino, Jesus and Emmanuel Concepcion to contribute proportionately to the completion of plaintiffs legitime. 3. Confirming the titles of the additional defendants over the properties conveyed to them. SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied) The decision became final and executory as no appeal was taken there from by the herein petitioners. Thereafter, the same court (CFI-Cebu, Branch XIII) issued a writ of execution3 dated February 23, 1982. However, the writ was returned unsatisfied. Hence, on February 12, 1987, said court issued an alias writ of execution.4 To this, aSheriffs Report was submitted stating, among others, that the "writ of execution is only partially complied with pending the turn over of the share of the plaintiff (Jose) by the defendants (Jesus, Regino, Jr. and Emmanuel)." Inasmuch as the herein respondents have not yet complied with the aforementioned August 10, 1978 decision of CFICebu, Branch XIII, the same court issued an Order dated 27 May 1987 5 , directing its branch sheriff Candido A. Gadrinab to execute a deed of conveyance covering the Zulueta property in favor of Jose. Complying with the above, Sheriff Gadrinab executed a Deed of Conveyance over the Zulueta property in favor of Jose. Unfortunately, when Jose presented the same deed for registration, the Register of Deeds required him to surrender the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-52227 covering the Zulueta property, which title was then in the possession of the petitioners. Despite demands, petitioners refused delivery of the title.1awphi1.nt Hence, Jose filed with the Regional Trial Court at Cebu City, Branch V, then sitting as a land registration court, aPetition for the Cancellation of TCT No. T-52227. In an Order dated January 22, 19886 , said court granted Joses petition thus: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, defendant Mr. Jesus F. Concepcion, defendant in Civil Case No. R13850, is hereby ordered to surrender and/or deliver to the Register of Deeds of the City of Cebu the owners copy of TCT No. 52227 covering Lot No. 204-B-SWO-24914 [Zulueta property] within ten (10) days after this Order becomes final and executory.l^vvphi1.net SO ORDERED. There from, herein petitioners went to the Court of Appeals via an ordinary appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 28665. As stated at the threshold hereof, the Court of Appeals, in the herein assailed decision dated November 27, 2000,7 dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioners are now with us via the present recourse, on their following submissions: I. THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN CA G.R.-CV NO. 28665 AND SUBJECT HEREOF IS A TOTAL DEPARTURE FROM ESTABLISHED DOCTRINES, EXPRESS LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF LAW; THUS SAID APPELLATE COURT, IN SUSTAINING THE FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT, GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO A WANT, IF NOT TOTAL LACK, OF JURISDICTION; II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO REVERSIBLY ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IGNORING AND DEFYING THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR PETITIONERS (OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS THEREAT) WHICH SHOW THE GLARING VIOLATION OF SAID COURT IN ITS DECISION OVER THE BASIC RIGHTS OF HEREIN PETITIONERS. It is petitioners thesis that the cadastral court (RTC, Cebu City, Branch V), had no authority to order the surrender and/or delivery to the respondents of the owners copy of TCT No. T-52227 covering the Zulueta property, because the parcel of land subject thereof had been devised to them by their common ascendant, the late Concepcion Famador, as indicated in her will. The pivotal issue, then, is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioners appeal in CA-G.R. CV 28665, thereby effectively sustaining the cadastral courts order dated January 22, 1988.8 We resolve the issue in the affirmative. Before going any further, we find it necessary to speak herein on the jurisdiction of cadastral courts in the light of what transpired in this case prior to the issuance of the questioned order of January 22, 1988.

The pleadings before us disclose that in the proceedings before the cadastral court, petitioners filed an opposition claiming that the action of Sheriff Gadrinab in levying the Zulueta property was with grave abuse of authority since said property is not within the scope of the dispositive portion of the decision dated August 10, 1978 of CFI-Cebu, Branch XIII, in Civil Case No. R-13850. In dismissing said opposition and in eventually ordering the surrender and/or delivery of the title covering the Zulueta property, the cadastral court explained in its same order of January 22, 1988: "The matters brought out by the oppositors in their written opposition are not within the province of this Court to resolve, acting as a Cadastral Court with special and limited jurisdiction. Oppositors complaint on the way the decision in said civil case was executed must be brought before the Court which tried the civil case and which have already resolved the issue of ownership between the parties therein", a view evidently shared by the Court of Appeals in its impugned decision of November 27, 2000. In Junio vs. De Los Santos and Register of Deeds of Pangasinan,9 we made clear the following: [d]octrinal jurisprudence holds that the Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), as a Land Registration Court, can hear cases otherwise litigable only in ordinary civil actions, since the Court of First Instance are at the same time, [c]ourts of general jurisdiction and could entertain and dispose of the validity or invalidity of respondents adverse claim, with a view to determining whether petitioner is entitled or not to the relief that he seeks. (Emphasis supplied) In Ligon vs. Court of Appeals,10 we even went further by saying: Under Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529, it is now provided that Courts of First Instance (now Regional Trial Courts) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of titles to lands, including improvements and interest therein and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The above provision has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. (Emphasis supplied) Clear it is from the foregoing that both the cadastral court and the Court of Appeals gravely erred in holding that the former is without jurisdiction to entertain and resolve the opposition thereat filed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, it is, to us, improper for the cadastral court to issue its order of January 22, 1988, directing the petitioners to surrender and/or deliver the title covering the Zulueta property. That order is void and definitely without force and effect. As it were, said order is premised on an earlier order issued on May 27, 1987 by the RTC-Cebu (former CFI-Cebu) Branch XIII in its Civil Case No. R-13850, which latter order is very much challenged by the herein petitioners. Accordingly, the propriety or validity of the cadastral courts order of January 22, 1988 is, in turn, dependent on the propriety or validity of the order dated May 27, 1987 of RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, in Civil Case No. R-13850. It is undisputed that the August 10, 1978 decision of RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, in the main case (Civil Case No. R-13850) has long become final and executory. In fact, a writ of execution as well as two (2) alias writs of execution have been previously issued by the same court. It was the non-satisfaction of these writs that prompted said court to issue its order dated May 27, 1987, directing Branch Sheriff Gadrinab to execute a deed of conveyance on theZulueta property in favor of Jose Concepcion. By issuing its order of May 27, 1987, RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, sought to amend its August 10, 1978 decision. We must emphasize, however, that there is nothing in the August 10, 1978 decision of said court which authorizes the surrender and/or delivery of the title covering the Zulueta property. It merely required the defendants therein to "contribute proportionately to the completion of the plaintiffs legitime." In fact, said court has previously denied a "Motion for Projected Partition and Execution of Judgment" filed before it by the respondents precisely because, according to it, to allow partition of the Zulueta property will "in effect amend or alter the decision (referring to its earlier decision dated August 10, 1978) which has long become final and executory." The subsequent issuance of the order dated May 27, 1987 which amends the final and executory decision dated August 10, 1978 cannot be allowed. We have repeatedly held that a judgment that has become final and executory can no longer be amended or corrected except for clerical errors and mistakes. This rule holds true regardless of whether the modification is to be made by the magistrate who rendered the judgment or by an appellate tribunal which reviewed the same. 11 Doubtless, then, the order dated May 27, 1987 of RTC-Cebu, Branch XIII, in Civil Case No. R-13850 is a nullity. And because a spring cannot rise higher than its source, it follows that the cadastal courts order of January 22, 1988 which merely seeks to implement the earlier void order dated May 27, 1987 in Civil Case No. R-13850 is infected with the same nullity. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision dated November 27, 2000 of the Court of Appeals VACATED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-19615 December 24, 1964 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF LAND. LEONOR DE LOS ANGELES, FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., applicants-appellants, vs. ISIDORO O. SANTOS BENGZON, JP, J.:

Squarely before this Court in this appeal is the important and fundamental question of whether a land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction over a parcel of land for registration of title thereto could be divested of said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering the same parcel of land. The court a quo held in effect that it could be, as it dismissed the application to register title to the land in its order brought here on appeal. On November 21, 1959 an application for registration of title to 12 parcels of land in Ampid San Mateo Rizal was filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by Leonor de los Angeles and seven co-applicants. Among other things it alleged that "applicants are owners pro-indiviso and in fee simple of the aforesaid land." The required notices were given in which May 27, 1960 was set for the initial hearing. On March 3, 1960 the Director of Lands filed an opposition stating that the land "is a portion of the public domain". The Province of Rizal also interposed an opposition on May 24, 1960, asserting "the required 3.00 meters strips of public easement" on lots along Ampid River and a creek. At the initial hearing on May 27, 1960 an order of general default was issued except as against the Director of Lands, the Province of Rizal and eleven private oppositors who appeared therein. On July 10, 1960 the aforesaid private oppositors, Julio Hidalgo among them, filed their written opposition claiming they "are the lawful owners of the parcels of land in question for having acquired homestead patents over said lots". On July 25, 1961 a "Report" was filed in court by the Land Registration Commissioner, stating: 1. That the parcel of land described as Lot 11 of plan Psu-158857, applied for in the above-entitled land registration case, is a portion of that described on plan Psu-148997, previously patented on June 12, 1961 under Patent No. 95856 in the name of Julio Hidalgo; and 2. That Case No. N-2671, LRC Record No. N-18332, was set for hearing on May 27, 1960 but no decision has as yet been received by this Commissioner. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended to this Honorable Court that Case No. N-2671, LRC Record No. N-18332, be dismissed with respect to Lot 11 of plan Psu-158857 only, giving due course, however, to the other lots in the application. Acting thereon, the court required applicants in its order of July 29, 1961, to show cause why their application should not be dismissed as to Lot 11 (10.6609 hectares). On August 15, 1961 applicants filed an "opposition to motion to dismiss". But on September 18, 1961 the court issued an order dismissing the application with respect to Lot 11 "without prejudice on the part of applicants to pursue the corresponding remedy in any ordinary action". After a motion for reconsideration was filed and denied, applicants appealed to this Court. As lone assignment of error it is alleged that "the lower, court grievously erred in dismissing the application for registration as regards Lot No. 11, over which a homestead patent was issued by the Director of Lands during the pendency of the registration proceeding". (Emphasis supplied.) To start with, it is well settled that the Director of Lands' jurisdiction, administrative supervision and executive control extend only over lands of the public domain and not to lands already of private ownership. (Susi vs. Razon, 48 Phil. 424; Vital vs. Anore 53 O.G. 3739; Republic vs. Heirs of Carle L-12485, July 31, 1959; Director of Lands vs. De Luna, L1441, Nov. 23, 1960.) Accordingly, a homestead patent issued by him over land not of the public domain is a nullity, devoid of force and effect against the owner (Zarate vs. Director of Lands, 34 Phil. 416; Vital vs. Anore supra). Now, in the land registration proceedings applicants contended that as of November 21, 1959 the date they applied for registration they were already "owners pro-indiviso and in fee simple of the aforesaid land". As a result, if applicants were to successfully prove this averment, and thereby show their alleged registrable title to the land, it could only result in the finding that when Julio Hidalgo's homestead patent was issued over Lot 11 on June 12, 1961 said lot was no longer public. The land registration court, in that event, would have to order a decree of title issued in applicants' favor and declare the aforesaid homestead patent a nullity which vested no title in the patentee as against the real owners (Rodriguez vs. Director of Lands, 31 Phil. 273; Zarate vs. Director of Lands,supra; Lacaste vs. Director of Lands, 63 Phil. 654). Since the existence or non-existence of applicants' registrable title to Lot 11 is decisive of the validity or nullity of the homestead patent issued as aforestated on said lot the court a quo's jurisdiction in the land registration proceedings could not have been divested by the homestead patent's issuance. Proceedings for land registration are in rem whereas proceedings for acquisition of homestead patent are not (De los Reyes vs. Razon, 38 Phil. 480; Philippine National Bank vs. Ortiz Luis, 53 Phil. 649). A homestead patent, therefore, does not finally dispose of the public or private character of the land as far as courts upon proceedingsin rem are concerned (De los Reyes vs. Razon, supra). Applicants should thus be given opportunity to prove registrable title to Lot 11. WHEREFORE, we hereby set aside the orders appealed from and remand the case to the court a quo for further proceedings, without costs. So ordered. G.R. No. L-56232 June 22, 1984 ABELARDO CRUZ (deceased) substituted by Heirs Consuelo C. Cruz, Claro C. Cruz and Stephen C. Cruz, per Resolution, petitioners, vs. LEODEGARIA CABANA, TEOFILO LEGASPI , ILUMINADA CABANA and THE HONOR- ABLE COURT OF APPEALS,* respondents. TEEHANKEE, J.:

The Court affirms the questioned decision of the now defunct Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province, but directs that the seller, respondent Leodegaria Cabana who sold the property in question twice, first to her co-respondents Teofilo Legaspi and Iluminada Cabana and later to petitioner Abelardo Cruz (now deceased), should reimburse to petitioner's heirs the amounts of P2,352.50, which the late petitioner Abelardo Cruz paid to the Philippine National Bank to discharge the mortgage obligation of said respondent Leodegaria Cabana in favor of said bank, and of P3,397.50, representing the amount paid by said Abelardo Cruz to her as consideration of the sale with pacto de retro of the subject property. This is a simple case of double sale of real property. Respondent appellate court in its decision of August 13, 1980 stated the background facts and resolved the issue in favor of defendants- appellees, first buyers- respondents herein, and against plaintiff-appellant Abelardo Cruz, petitioner herein (substituted by his heirs), as follows: Defendants' evidence shows that on October 21, 1968, defendant Leodegaria Cabana sold the land in question to defendants-spouses Teofilo Legaspi and Iluminada Cabana (Exh. 1). The said defendants-spouses attempted to register the deed of sale but said registration was not accomplished because they could not present the owner's duplicate of title which was at that time in the possession of the PNB as mortgage. Likewise, when plaintiff tried to register the deed of sale executed by Leodegaria Cabana on September 3, 1970, said plaintiff was informed that the owner thereof had sold the land to defendants-spouses on October 21, 1968. Plaintiff was able to register the land in his name on February 9, 1971 (Exh. A). With the admission of both parties that the land in question was sold to two persons, the main issue to be resolved in this appeal is as to who of said vendees has a better title to said land. There is no dispute that the land in question was sold with right of repurchase on June 1, 1965 to defendants- spouses Teofilo Legaspi and Iluminada Cabana (Exh. 1). The said document 'Bilihang Muling Mabibili' stipulated that the land can be repurchased by the vendor within one year from December 31, 1966 (see par. 5, Exh. 1).lwphl@it Said land was not repurchased and in the meantime, however, said defendants-spouses took possession of the land. Upon request of Leodegaria Cabana, the title of the land was lent to her in order to mortgage the property to the Philippine National Bank. Said title was, forthwith, deposited with the PNB. On October 21, 1968, defendant Leodegaria Cabana sold the land by way of absolute sale to the defendants- spouses (Exh. 2). However, on November 29, 1968 defendant sold the same property to herein plaintiff and the latter was able to register it in his name. The transaction in question is governed by Article 1544 of the Civil Code. True it is that the plaintiff was able to register the sale in his name but was he in good faith in doing so? While the title was registered in plaintiff- appellant's name on February 9, 1971 (Exh. A), it appears that he knew of the sale of the land to defendants-spouses Legaspi as he was informed in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon. It appears that the defendants-spouses registered their document of sale on May 13, 1965 under Primary Entry No. 210113 of the Register of Deeds (Exh. 2). Under the foregoing circumstances, the right of ownership and title to the land must be resolved in favor of the defendants- spouses Legaspi on three counts. First, the plaintiff-appellant was not in good faith in registering the title in his name. Consistent is the jurisprudence in this jurisdiction that in order that the provisions of Article 1544 of the new Civil Code may be invoked, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power to dispose of it (10 Manresa 170, 171). It cannot be set up by a second purchaser who comes into possession of the property that has already been acquired by the first purchaser in full dominion (Bautista vs. Sison, 39 Phil. 615), this not withstanding that the second purchaser records his title in the public registry, if the registration be done in bad faith, the philosophy underlying this rule being that the public records cannot be covered into instruments of fraud and oppression by one who secures an inscription therein in bad faith (Chupinghong vs. Borreros, 7 CA Rep. 699). A purchaser who has knowledge of fact which would put him upon inquiry and investigation as to possible defects of the title of the vendor and fails to make such inquiry and investigation, cannot claim that he is a purchaser in good faith. Knowledge of a prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in bad faith and his knowledge of such transfer vitiates his title acquired by virtue of the latter instrument of conveyance which creates no right as against the first purchaser (Reylago vs. Jarabe, L-20046, March 27, 1968, 22 SCRA 1247). In the second place, the defendants-spouses registered the deed of absolute sale ahead of plaintiff- appellant. Said spouses were not only able to obtain the title because at that time, the owner's duplicate certificate was still with the Philippine National Bank. In the third place, defendants-spouses have been in possession all along of the land in question. If immovable property is sold to different vendees, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of property; and should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession (Soriano, et al. vs. The Heirs of Domingo Magali et al., L-15133 , July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 489). Priority of possession stands good in favor of herein defendants-spouses (Evangelista vs. Abad, [CA] 36 O.G. 2913; Sanchez vs. Ramos, 40 Phil. 614, Quimson vs, Rosete, 87 Phil. 159). The Court finds that in this case of double sale of real property, respondent appellate court, on the basis of the undisputed facts, correctly applied the provisions of Article 1544 of the Civil Code that Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. There is no question that respondents-spouses Teofilo Legaspi and Iluminada Cabana were the first buyers, first on June 1, 1965 under a sale with right of repurchase and later on October 21, 1968 under a deed of absolute sale and that they had taken possession of the land sold to them; that petitioner was the second buyer under a deed of sale

dated November 29, 1968, which to all indications, contrary to the text, was a sale with right of repurchase for ninety (90) days. 1 There is no question either that respondents legaspi spouses were the first and the only ones to be in possession of the subject property. Said respondents spouses were likewise the first to register the sale with right of repurchase in their favor on May 13, 1965 under Primary Entry No. 210113 of the Register of Deeds. They could not register the absolute deed of sale in their favor and obtain the corresponding transfer certificate of title because at that time the seller's duplicate certificate was still with the bank. But there is no question, and the lower courts so found conclusively as a matter of fact, that when petitioner Cruz succeeded in registering the later sale in his favor, he knew and he was informed of the prior sale in favor of respondents-spouses. Respondent appellate court correctly held that such "knowledge of a prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in bad faith and his knowledge of such transfer vitiates his title acquired by virtue of the latter instrument of conveyance which creates no right as against the first purchaser." As the Court held in Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals 2 "it is essential that the buyer of realty must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale to merit the protection of the second paragraph of [the above quoted] Article 1544." As the writer stressed in his concurring opinion therein, "(T)he governing principle here is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's rights except only as provided by the Civil Code and that is where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in conversoknowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first buyer; that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's rights) from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession. The second buyer must show continuing good faith and innocence or lack of knowledge of the first sale until his contract ripens into full ownership through prior registration as provided by law." Petitioner's prayer for alternative relief for reimbursement of the amount of P2,352.50 paid by him to the bank to discharge the existing mortgage on the property and of the amount of P3,397.50 representing the price of the second sale are well taken insofar as the seller Leodegaria Cabana is concerned. These amounts have been received by the said seller Leodegaria Cabana on account of a void second sale and must be duly reimbursed by her to petitioner's heirs, but the Legaspi spouses cannot be held liable therefor since they had nothing to do with the said second sale nor did they receive any benefit therefrom. Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of the amount of P102.58 as real estate taxes paid on the property is not well taken because the respondents Legaspi spouses had been paying the real estate taxes on the same property since June 1, 1969. 4 ACCORDINGLY, the appealed judgment of respondent appellate court, upholding respondents-spouses Teofilo Legaspi and Iluminada Cabana as the true and rightful owners of the property in litigation and ordering the issuance of a new title with the cancellation as null and void of Title No. T- 99140 obtained by petitioner Abelardo C. Cruz, is hereby affirmed in toto. In accordance with the partial grant of petitioner's prayer for alternative relief as stated in the preceding paragraph hereof, the Court hereby orders and sentences respondent Leodegaria Cabana to reimburse and pay to petitioner's heirs the total sum of P5,750.00. Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and De la Fuente, JJ., concur. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------G.R. No. 77770 December 15, 1988 ATTY. JOSE S. GOMEZ, DELFINA GOMEZ ESTRADA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents. PADILLA, J.: The present case originated with the filing by petitioners on 30 August 1968 in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, of an application for registration of several lots situated in Bayambang, Pangasinan. The lots applied for were Lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1 0, 11 and 12 of Plan Psu-54792 Amd.-2. The lots were among those involved in the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran, 1 wherein this Court declared Consolacion M. Gomez owner of certain lots in Sitio Poponto Bayambang, Pangasinan. Petitioners are the heirs of Teodoro Y. Gomez (father of Consolacion) who, together with Consolacion's son, Luis Lopez, inherited from her parcels of land when Consolacion Gomez died intestate. Petitioners alleged that after the death of Teodoro Y. Gomez, they became the absolute owners of the subject lots by virtue of a Quitclaim executed in their favor by Luis Lopez. The lots (formerly portions of Lots 15,16, 34 and 41 covered by Plan Ipd-92) were subdivided into twelve lotsLots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The subdivision plan was duly approved by the Bureau of Lands on 30 November 1963. Petitioners agreed to allocate the lots among themselves. After notice and publication, and there being no opposition to the application, the trial court issued an order of general default. On 5 August 1981, the court rendered its decision adjudicating the subject lots in petitioners' favor. 2 On 6 October 1981, the trial court issued an order 3 expressly stating that the decision of 5 August 1981 had become final and directed the Chief of the General Land Registration Office to issue the corresponding decrees of registration over the lots adjudicated in the decision of 5 August 1981. On 11 July 1984, respondent Silverio G. Perez, Chief of the Division of Original Registration, Land Registration Commission (now known as the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration), submitted a report to the

court a quo stating that Lots 15, 16, 34 and 41 of Ipd-92 were already covered by homestead patents issued in 1928 and 1929 and registered under the Land Registration Act. He recommended that the decision of 5 August 1981, and the order of 6 October 1981 be set aside. Petitioners opposed the report, pointing out that no opposition was raised by the Bureau of Lands during the registration proceedings and that the decision of 5 August 1981 should be implemented because it had long become final and executory. After hearing, the lower court rendered a second decision on 25 March 1985 setting aside the decision dated 5 August 1981 and the order dated 6 October 1981 for the issuance of decrees. 4 Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by respondent judge on 6 August 1985 for lack of merit. 5 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with this Court which in turn referred the petition to the Court of Appeals. 6 On 17 September 1986, the appellate court rendered judgment, 7 dismissing the petition and stating, among others, thus In resum, prior to the issuance of the decree of registration, the respondent Judge has still the power and control over the decision he rendered. The finality of an adjudication of land in a registration or cadastral case takes place only after the expiration of the one-year period after entry of the final decree of registration (Afalla vs. Rosauro, 60 Phil. 622; Valmonte vs. Nable, 85 Phil. 256; Capio vs. Capio, 94 Phil. 113). When the respondent Judge amended his decision after the report of the respondent officials of the Land Registration office had shown that homestead patents had already been issued on some of the lots, respondents cannot be faulted because land already granted by homestead patent can no longer be the subject of another registration (Manalo vs. Lukban, et al., 48 Phil. 973). WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, We resolve to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated 10 March 1987. 8Hence, this recourse. Several issues are raised by petitioners in this petition. The more important issues before the Court are: (a) whether or not respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the decision of 25 March 1985 which set aside the lower court's earlier decision of 5 August 1981 and the order of 6 October 1981; (b) whether or not the respondents Acting Land Registration Commissioner and Engr. Silverio Perez, Chief, Division of Original Registration, Land Registration Commission, have no alternative but to issue the decrees of registration pursuant to the decision of 5 August 1981 and the order for issuance of decrees, dated 6 October 1981, their duty to do so being purely ministerial; (c) whether or not "the law of the case" is the decision in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Abran,supra, which held that the lands adjudicated to Consolacion Gomez were not public lands, and therefore they could not have been acquired by holders of homestead titles as against petitioners herein. It is not disputed that the decision dated 5 August 1981 had become final and executory. Petitioners vigorously maintain that said decision having become final, it may no longer be reopened, reviewed, much less, set aside. They anchor this claim on section 30 of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) which provides that, after judgment has become final and executory, the court shall forthwith issue an order to the Commissioner of Land Registration for the issuance of the decree of registration and certificate of title. Petitioners contend that section 30 should be read in relation to section 32 of P.D. 1529 in that, once the judgment becomes final and executory under section 30, the decree of registration must issue as a matter of course. This being the law, petitioners assert, when respondent Judge set aside in his decision, dated 25 March 1985, the decision of 5 August 1981 and the order of 6 October 1981, he clearly acted without jurisdiction. Petitioners' contention is not correct. Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration. 9 This Court, in several decisions, has held that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it. 10 Petitioners contend that the report of respondent Silverio Perez should have been submitted to the court a quobefore its decision became final. But were we to sustain this argument, we would be pressuring respondent land registration officials to submit a report or study even if haphazardly prepared just to beat the reglementary deadline for the finality of the court decision. As said by this Court in De los Reyes vs. de Villa: 11 Examining section 40, we find that the decrees of registration must be stated in convenient form for transcription upon the certificate of title and must contain an accurate technical description of the land. This requires technical men. Moreover, it frequently occurs that only portions of a parcel of land included in an application are ordered registered and that the limits of such portions can only be roughly indicated in the decision of the court. In such cases amendments of the plans and sometimes additional surveys become necessary before the final decree can be entered. That can hardly be done by the court itself; the law very wisely charges the Chief Surveyor of the General Land Registration Office with such duties (Administrative Code, section 177). Thus, the duty of respondent land registration officials to render reports is not limited to the period before the court's decision becomes final, but may extend even after its finality but not beyond the lapse of one (1) year from the entry of the decree. Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land registration officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial. It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court. 12 They are specifically called upon to "extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings ." 13

The foregoing observations resolve the first two (2) issues raised by petitioners. Petitioners next contend that "the law of the case" is found in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran, et al., supra, where it was decided by this Court that the lands of Consolacion M. Gomez, from whom petitioners derive their ownership over the lots in question, were not public lands. A reading of the pertinent and dispositive portions of the aforesaid decision will show, however, that the lots earlier covered by homestead patents were not included among the lands adjudicated to Consolacion M. Gomez. The decision states: With respect to the portions of land covered by homestead certificates of title, we are of opinion thatsuch certificates are sufficient to prevent the title to such portion from going to appellants aforesaid, for they carry with them preponderating evidence that the respective homesteaders held adverse possession of such portions, dating back to 1919 or 1920, accordingly to the evidence, and the said appellants failed to object to that possession in time. (Emphasis supplied) Wherefore modifying the judgment appealed from, it is hereby ordered that the lots respectively claimed by Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg, be registered in their name, with the exclusion of the portions covered by the homestead certificates ... . (Emphasis supplied.) 14 The report of respondent land registration officials states that the holders of the homestead patents registered the lots in question in the years 1928 and 1929. The decision in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran was promulgated on 31 December 1931. Hence, the subject lots are specifically excluded from those adjudicated by the aforesaid decision to Consolacion M. Gomez. It is a settled rule that a homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act, becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and may no longer be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding. 15 The aforecited case of Government vs. Abran, therefore, is not "the law of the case", for the lots in question were not private lands of Consolacion M. Gomez when homestead patents were issued over them in 1928-1929. There is sufficient proof to show that Lots 15, 16, 34 and 41 of Ipd-92 were already titled lands way back in 1928 and 1929 as shown by Annexes "A", "B", "C", and "D" of respondents' Memorandum. 16 Lastly, petitioners claim that if the decision of 5 August 1981 of the lower court is sustained, the homestead title holders may still vindicate their rights by filing a separate civil action for cancellation of titles and for reconveyance in a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction. Conversely, the same recourse may be resorted to by petitioners. "(T)he true owner may bring an action to have the ownership or title to land judicially settled, and if the allegations of the plaintiff that he is the true owner of the parcel of land granted as free patent and described in the Torrens title and that the defendant and his predecessor-in-interest were never in possession of the parcel of land and knew that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession thereof be established, then the court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, without ordering the cancellation of the Torrens title issued upon the patent, may direct the defendant, the registered owner, to reconvey the parcel of land to the plaintiff who has been found to be the true owner thereof." 17 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioners-appellants. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 142549 March 9, 2010 FIDELA R. ANGELES, Petitioner, vs. The SECRETARY OF JUSTICE,., Respondents. DECISION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: The property involved in this case is covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994, which encompasses One Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Two (1,342) hectares of the Maysilo Estate, previously described by this Court En Banc as a "vast tract of land [that] stretches over three cities, comprising an area larger than the sovereign states of Monaco and the Vatican."1 What we have before us now is touted as "one of the biggest and most extensive landgrabbing incidents in recent history."2 The existence of several cases already decided by this Court dealing with this infamous estate has made the job of deciding this particular petition easy, on one hand, as there are cases squarely on point and at the outset, applicable; but complicated, on the other hand, as such applicability must be determined with thoroughness and accuracy to come up with a just, equitable, and fair conclusion to a controversy that has now lasted for almost forty-five (45) years. Submitted for Decision is a petition for mandamus seeking respondents Secretary of Justice, the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to comply with the Order3 dated January 8, 1998 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City in Civil Case No. C-424, entitled Bartolome Rivera, et al. v. Isabel Gil de Sola, et al. (the RTC Order), which was issued a Certificate of Finality on March 12, 1998. On May 3, 1965, petitioner, together with other individuals, all of them claiming to be the heirs of a certain Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, and alleging that they are entitled to inherit her proportional share in the parcels of land located in Quezon City and in the municipalities of Caloocan and Malabon, Province of Rizal, commenced a special civil action for partition and accounting of the property otherwise known as Maysilo Estate covered by OCT No. 994, allegedly registered on April 19, 1917 with the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City. This was docketed as Civil Case No. C-424 in the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 120. Some of said alleged heirs were able to procure Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) over portions of the Maysilo Estate. They also had led this Court to believe that OCT No. 994 was registered twice, thus, in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) v. Court of Appeals,4 reiterated in Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court Of Appeals, 5 the Court

held that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, and not May 3, 1917, was the valid title by virtue of the prior registration rule. In the RTC Order sought to be implemented, Judge Jaime D. Discaya granted the partition and accounting prayed for by plaintiffs in that case; directed the respective Registers of Deeds of Caloocan City and Quezon City to issue transfer certificates of title in the names of all the co-owners, including petitioner, for twelve (12) parcels of land with an aggregate area of One Hundred Five Thousand and Nine Hundred Sixty-Nine square meters (105,969 sq. m.), more or less; and ordered that said parcels of land be sold, subject to the confirmation of the Court, and the proceeds be divided among the plaintiffs in proportion to their respective interests in the property. The dispositive portion of said Order reads as follows: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the recommendation of the Commissioners in their Joint Commissioners Report dated October 21, 1997 and Supplemental Commissioners Report dated December 30, 1997 that the following lots with transfer certificates of title to be issued by the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City in the names of all co-owners be sold and the proceeds thereof divided among themselves in proportion to their respective interest in the property, is approved. The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and of Quezon City are hereby directed to issue transfer certificates of title in the names of all the co-owners for the following lots, namely: xxxx Any sale of above-mentioned lots shall be subject to confirmation by this Court pursuant to Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.6 Petitioner alleges that the respective Registers of Deeds of Caloocan City and Quezon City refused to comply with the RTC Order because they were still awaiting word from the LRA Administrator before proceeding. Counsel for petitioner then requested the LRA Administrator to direct said Registers of Deeds to comply with the Order. The LRA Administrator, Mr. Alfredo R. Enriquez, sent counsel for petitioner a letter-reply7 dated March 27, 2000, with two attachments: 1) the 1st Indorsement8 dated September 22, 1997 (the 1st Indorsement) issued by then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. (respondent Guingona), and 2) LRA Circular No. 97119 issued to all Registers of Deeds. The letter-reply reads in part: We regret to inform you that your request cannot be granted in view of the directive of the Department of Justice in its 1st Indorsement dated 22 September 1997, copy enclosed, as a result of the inquiry conducted by the Composite FactFinding Committee (created under DOJ Department Order No. 137) finding that there is only one OCT No. 994 which was issued by the Rizal Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917 (and not on 19 April 1919) pursuant to Decree No. 36455 in Land Registration Case No. 4429. Pursuant to this DOJ directive, this Authority issued LRA Circular No. 97-11 to all Registers of Deeds, copy attached, stating the following: xxxx In compliance with the DOJ directive, this Authority, in its 1st Indorsement dated 27 March 1998, x x x had recommended to the Office of the Solicitor General the filing of an appropriate pleading relative to the said Order dated 8 January 1998. The findings of the DOJ on OCT No. 994 are in fact sustained by the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights and Urban Planning in its Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated 25 May 1998 x x x.10 (Emphasis ours.) The LRA Administrator likewise wrote that in Senate Committee Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998, the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights and Urban Planning came up with the following findings: i. There is only one Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 and this was issued or registered on May 3, 1917[.] ii. The [OCT] No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is non-existent. It was a fabrication perpetrated by Mr. Norberto Vasquez, Jr., former Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City. iii. The alleged surviving heirs could not have been the true and legal heirs of the late Maria de la Concepcion Vidal as government findings showed the physical and genetic impossibility of such relationship[.] iv. Mr. Norberto Vasquez, Jr., former Deputy Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City, acted maliciously, fraudulently and in bad faith, by issuing "certifications" and/or written statements to the effect that OCT No. 994 was issued or registered on April 19, 1917 when in truth and in fact it was issued or registered on May 3, 1917. v. Atty. Yolanda O. Alfonso, Registrar of Deeds of Caloocan City, likewise acted maliciously, fraudulently and in bad faith, when she signed the TCTs issued in the name of Eleuteria Rivera which bear a wrong date of the registration of OCT No. 994. Malice was evident because she had previously issued certificates of title in the names of other individuals which were derived from OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917 and she had in fact questioned the falsity of April 19, 1917 as the correct date of the registration of OCT No. 994.11(Underscoring in the original.) The letter-reply further stated that OCT No. 994 was intact and was being kept in the LRA "to prevent its alteration and tampering." We quote the last portion of said letter-reply: As found by the Senate Committees, the mess caused by the former Register of Deeds and Deputy Register of Deeds in making it appear that OCT No. 994 was issued in 19 April 1917, thus giving the wrong impression that there were two (2) OCT No. 994, resulted in the double, if not multiple, issuance of transfer certificates of title covering the subdivided portions of the Maysilo Estate, including the parcels of land mentioned in the subject Order dated 8 January 1998. Our Authority, as the protector of the integrity of the Torrens title is mandated to prevent anomalous titling of real properties and put a stop to further erode the confidence of the public in the Torrens system of land registration. With due respect, the Order dated 8 January 1998 which directs the issuance of transfer certificates of title as direct transfer from OCT No. 994, suffers from certain deficiencies, to wit: OCT No. 994 had long been cancelled totally by the issuance of various certificates of title in the names of different persons; and that the plan and descriptions of the lands were not based on a subdivision plan duly approved by the proper government agency but merely sketch plans, in violation of Section 50 of PD 1529. Obviously, compliance with the Order will result to duplication of certificates of title covering land previously registered in the names of other persons. Besides, in MWSS vs. CA, the Supreme Court did not declare the nullity of the certificates of title which emanated from OCT No. 994 issued on 3 May 1917. It merely

invalidates the title of MWSS and recognizes as valid the title of Jose B. Dimson. There was no such declaration as to the various transfer certificates of title emanating from OCT No. 994. Under the law, there must be a separate action in court for the declaration of nullity of certificates of title pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution. As observed by the Supreme Court in Republic vs. Court of Appeals (94 SCRA 874), "there are too many fake titles being peddled around and it behooves every official of the government whose functions concern the issuance of legal titles to see to it that this plague that has made a mockery of the Torrens system is eradicated right now through their loyalty, devotion, honesty and integrity, in the interest of our country and people at large."12 Petitioner avers that respondent Guingona, in issuing the 1st Indorsement,13 made a substantive modification of the ruling made by this Court in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Luis Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals. She further avers that "[n]ot even the Secretary of Justice has the power or authority to set aside or alter an established ruling made by the highest Court of the land." According to petitioner, respondent Guingona claimed to have made his own finding that there is only one OCT No. 994 which was issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on May 3, 1917, and not on April 19, 1917, and this finding is a reversal of the decisions of this Court on "what is the valid OCT No. 994." Petitioner contends that "[t]he rule is well settled that once a decision becomes final[,] the Court can no longer amend, modify, much less set aside the same" and that respondent Guingona usurped judicial functions and did a prohibited act which rendered the Order of no effect.14 Petitioner claims that respondent Guingona was the one who caused the issuance by the LRA Administrator of Circular No. 97-11 dated October 3, 1997, which had the same legal effect on other cases similarly situated without hearing or notice to the parties-in-interest, and that this was contemptuous and contumacious and calls for "condemnation and reproof of the highest degree."15 Petitioner alleges that compliance with a final judicial order is a purely ministerial duty, that she and her co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. C-424 cannot avail of the benefits granted to them by the Order, and that she has no "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than this action." In his Comment,16 respondent Guingona raises the following grounds for denial of the petition: 1. Petitioner has no cause of action against respondent Guingona in that the latter is no longer the Secretary of Justice. 2. The issuance of the 1st Indorsement dated September 22, 1997 was pursuant to the report dated August 27, 1997 made by the committee created by Department Order No. 137 dated April 23, 1997 after conducting an independent fact-finding investigation. It did not in any way alter or modify any judgment of this Honorable Court. 3. Petitioner was not denied due process as her rights, if any, under the Order dated January 18, 1998 were not yet in existence at the time the 1st Indorsement was issued. 4. Mandamus is not the appropriate remedy to enforce claims of damages.17 Respondent Guingona contends that he was no longer the Secretary of Justice, therefore, he did not anymore possess the mandatory duties being compelled to be performed in this case by way of a writ of mandamus; he had no more duty resulting from the said position and could not perform an act that pertained to said duty, even if he wanted to; and since he did not have the powers and duties of the Secretary of Justice, he was therefore not a real party-ininterest in this case. Respondent Guingona avers that he was prompted to issue DOJ Department Order No. 137 dated April 13, 1997 creating a committee due to several complaints received by the Office of the Secretary of Justice in February 1997. Among others, the complaints prayed for the investigation of certain actions taken by the LRA officials and personnel in connection with transactions involving the Maysilo Estate. According to him, the committee was tasked for the purpose of initiating a fact-finding inquiry: "(1) to ascertain the circumstances surrounding the issuance of original Certificate(s) of Title (OCT) No. 994 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal purporting to cover a mass of land encompassing Malabon, Caloocan City and Quezon City as well as the issuance and regularity of Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCTs) derived therefrom; (2) in the event of a finding of the irregular issuance of any such [TCTs], (a) to determine the involvement of and to recommend the actions to be taken against person(s) and/or officials and employees of this Department or its agencies who may appear to have participated therein, and (b) to recommend the administrative and/or judicial actions, if any, that may directly be undertaken by this Department, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Land Registration Authority, and other units and attached agencies of this Department, with respect to such irregularly issued Transfer Certificates of Title, taking into account the final decisions of the courts affecting the Maysilo Estate."18 Respondent Guingona contends that it can be gleaned from the purpose of the creation of the committee that its factfinding investigation was merely administrative to formulate and recommend policies, procedures and courses of action which the DOJ, the LRA, the Office of the Solicitor General and other agencies of the DOJ can adopt with regard to the problem of the proliferation of fake land titles, including those that relate to the Maysilo Estate. He alleges that based on this committees report dated August 27, 1997, he issued the subject 1st Indorsement which spelled out the policies, procedures, and courses of action which the LRA, an agency under the DOJ, must follow not only with respect to OCT No. 994 and its derivative titles covering the Maysilo Estate but to all other original or transfer certificates of title as well. He contends that the 1st Indorsement was merely an administrative issuance of the DOJ; thus, it could not be said that it altered or supplanted any judgment of this Court. Respondent Guingona further states that the 1st Indorsement dated September 22, 1997 was issued long before the Order dated January 18, 1998, thus it could not be said that petitioner was denied due process as her rights and interests were non-existent at that time. Furthermore, respondent Guingona alleges that petitioner was accorded due process when the LRA Administrator gave an opportunity to petitioners counsel to present petitioners case to the LRA legal staff. Respondent Guingona claims that such opportunity to be heard satisfies the requirements of due process, as the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. 19 With regard to the claim for damages, respondent Guingona argues that it is a factual issue which the petitioner must prove in the course of a trial where petitioners claim for damages can be fully litigated. This Honorable Court, however, is not a trier of facts. Such being the case, it is inappropriate for petitioner to include in her petition for

mandamus a claim for damages the amount of which she did not even specify. As it is, such claim should be denied by this Honorable Court. There is also no showing that petitioner paid the required docket fees for her claims for damages. On this score alone, such a claim should be outrightly dismissed.20 In her Reply,21 petitioner contends that former DOJ Secretary Guingona has to be named as private respondent because he was the cause of public respondents failure to comply with their ministerial duty. A private respondent is "the person interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondent to appear and defend, both in his own behalf and in behalf of the public respondents affected by the proceedings x x x." He is not charged with any improper act, but he is a necessary party as the grant of relief prayed for by petitioner shall require private respondents active participation. 22 Anent private respondents argument that the 1st Indorsement did not in any way alter or modify any judgment of this Honorable Court, petitioner counters that the 1st Indorsement and "pertinent acts of private respondent x x x resulted in the altering or supplanting of a judgment of this Court." The complaints praying that an investigation be conducted on the irregular issuance of titles in the Maysilo Estate were made to the private respondent by parties who held titles derived from OCT No. 994 on May 3, 1917, after the Supreme Court had rendered its decision in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues that contrary to private respondents claim, she is entitled to file a petition for mandamus as she and her co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. C-424 has been suffering from damages and losses incapable of quantification, because of the wrongful act of the respondents. Petitioner cites the following provisions of the Rules of Court in support of her argument: RULE 65 xxxx SECTION 9. Service and enforcement of order or judgment. A certified copy of the judgment rendered in accordance with the last preceding section shall be served upon the court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person concerned in such manner as the court may direct, and disobedience thereto shall be punished as contempt. An execution may issue for any damages or costs awarded in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 39. RULE 39 SECTION 1. Execution upon final judgments or orders. Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected. If the appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved, the execution may forthwith be applied for in the court of origin, on motion of the judgment obligee, submitting therewith certified true copies of the judgment or judgments or final order or orders sought to be enforced and of the entry thereof, with notice to the adverse party. The appellate court may, on motion in the same case, when the interest of justice so requires, direct the court of origin to issue the writ of execution. Petitioner avers that private respondent seemed to assume a function that did not belong to the Executive Department, because he had caused the issuance of an LRA Circular that forbade compliance with a court order that had already become final and executory. Petitioner likewise avers that the doctrine of separation of powers called for each branch of government to be left alone to discharge its functions within its jurisdiction, as it saw fit.23 Public respondents Secretary of Justice, the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City filed their Comment24 on November 16, 2000. Public respondents claim that petitioner and her co-plaintiffs are not the rightful owners of the property subject of said complaint for partition. Their allegation in the complaint that they are the heirs and successors-in-interest of the late Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, co-owner of the parcels of land described in OCT No. 994, and are therefore entitled to the proportionate share, ownership, and possession of the parcels of land described in paragraphs XI to XV of the complaint, is an untrue statement made with intent to deceive. This is because the findings embodied in the Report of the Fact Finding Committee created by the DOJ, which are the result of the joint undertaking of the Department proper, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the LRA, support the conclusion that petitioner and her co-plaintiffs are not entitled to the issuance of new transfer certificates of title in their names.25 Public respondents claim the following as facts: The DOJ Report became the subject of [a] Senate investigation. On May 25, 1998, the Honorable Senate of the Tenth Congress of the Republic of the Philippines reached the conclusion that petitioner and her co-plaintiffs are not and cannot be true heirs of the late Maria de la Concepcion Vidal (par. 3, p. 33, Senate Report). x x x. As early as 1917, subject property of the instant case had already been partitioned and divided among the true owners, namely, Gonzalo Tuason y Patino, Jose Rato y Tuason, Luis Vidal y Tuason, Concepcion Vidal y Tuason, Pedro Baos, Maria de la Concepcion Vidal, Trinidad Jurado, Bernardino Hernandez, Esperanza Tuason Chua Jap, Isabel Tuason Chua, Juan Jose Tuason de la Paz, Maria Teresa Tuason y de la Paz, Mariano Severo Tuason y de la Paz, Demetrio Asuncion Tuason y de la Paz, Augusto Hoberto Tuason y de la Paz, Maria Soterrana Tuason y de la Paz, Benito Legarda y de la Paz, Consuelo Legarda y de la Paz, Rita Legarda y de la Paz, Benito Legarda y Tuason, Emilia Tuason y Patio, Maria Rocha de Despujols, Sofia OFarrell y Patio, German Franco y Gonzales, Concepcion Franco y Gonzales, Domingo Franco y Gonzales, Guillerma Ferrer y Tuason, Vicente Ferrer y Tuason, Josefa Tuason vda. de Flores, and heirs of Filemon Tuazon in proportion to their respective shares, as evidenced by the document entitled PROYECTO DE PARTICION DE LA HACIENDA DE MAYSILO (PARTITION PLAN OF HACIENDA MAYSILO) consisting of fiftytwo (52) pages which is attached as Annex "D", and its faithful translation into English consisting of forty-nine (49) pages attached as Annex "E", and both made integral parts hereof. As a result of said partition, transfer certificates of titles covering the same subject parcels of land were legally issued in the names of above-enumerated true owners. The Register of Deeds of Quezon City and Caloocan City, through the undersigned counsel, filed the aforestated Motion for Reconsideration of the questioned Order of the lower court.

The resolution of said motion and other incidents in related cases pending before the lower court has been held in abeyance to await the resolution by higher courts of other cases involving the Maysilo Estate.26 We are thus faced with the issue of whether public respondents unlawfully neglected to perform their duties by their refusal to issue the questioned transfer certificates of title to petitioner and her co-plaintiffs (in Civil Case No. C-424) or have unlawfully excluded petitioner from the use and enjoyment of whatever claimed right, as would warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus against said public respondents. Considering the factual background and recent jurisprudence related to this controversy as will be discussed below, we find that it was not unlawful for public respondents to refuse compliance with the RTC Order, and the act being requested of them is not their ministerial duty; hence, mandamus does not lie and the petition must be dismissed. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: SECTION 3. Petition for mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent, immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. It is settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute or to which a substantial doubt exists. 27 It is nonetheless likewise available to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either.28 Therefore, we must look into the alleged right of petitioner and see if compliance with the RTC Order is compellable by mandamus; or, in the alternative, find out if substantial doubt exists to justify public respondents refusal to comply with said Order. Did public respondents have sufficient legal basis to refuse to grant petitioners request? In this regard, we find our discussion in Laburada v. Land Registration Authority29 instructive, to wit: That the LRA hesitates in issuing a decree of registration is understandable. Rather than a sign of negligence or nonfeasance in the performance of its duty, the LRA's reaction is reasonable, even imperative. Considering the probable duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose, and thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of registration. xxxx x x x Likewise, the writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioners' legal right to the performance of the particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. If the right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections raising merely technical questions will be disregarded. But where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, as in this case, mandamus cannot issue.30 (Emphasis ours.) As can be gleaned from the above discussion, the issuance by the LRA officials of a decree of registration is not a purely ministerial duty in cases where they find that such would result to the double titling of the same parcel of land. In the same vein, we find that in this case, which involves the issuance of transfer certificates of title, the Register of Deeds cannot be compelled by mandamus to comply with the RTC Order since there were existing transfer certificates of title covering the subject parcels of land and there was reason to question the rights of those requesting for the issuance of the TCTs. Neither could respondent LRA Administrator be mandated by the Court to require the Register of Deeds to comply with said Order, for we find merit in the explanations of respondent LRA Administrator in his letterreply that cites the 1st Indorsement issued by respondent Guingona, LRA Circular No. 97-11, and Senate Committee Report No. 1031, as reasons for his refusal to grant petitioners request. 31 There was, therefore, sufficient basis for public respondents to refuse to comply with the RTC Order, given the finding, contained in the cited documents, that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, on which petitioner and her co-plaintiffs in the civil case clearly anchored their rights, did not exist. It is important to emphasize at this point that in the recent case resolved by this Court En Banc in 2007, entitled Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation32 (the 2007 Manotok case), as well as the succeeding resolution33 in the same case dated March 31, 2009 (the 2009 Manotok case), the controversy surrounding the Maysilo Estate and the question of the existence of another OCT No. 994 have been finally laid to rest. All other cases involving said estate and OCT No. 994, such as the case at bar, are bound by the findings and conclusions set forth in said resolutions. As stated earlier, petitioner anchors her claim on previous cases decided by this Court 34 which have held that there are two existing OCT No. 994, dated differently, and the one from which she and her co-plaintiffs (in Civil Case No. C-424) derived their rights was dated earlier, hence, was the superior title. Regrettably, petitioners claim no longer has a leg to stand on. As we held in the 2007 Manotok case: The determinative test to resolve whether the prior decision of this Court should be affirmed or set aside is whether or not the titles invoked by the respondents are valid. If these titles are sourced from the so-called OCT No. 994 dated 17 April 1917, then such titles are void or otherwise should not be recognized by this Court. Since the true basic factual predicate concerning OCT No. 994 which is that there is only one such OCT differs from that expressed in the MWSS and Gonzaga decisions, said rulings have become virtually functus officio except on the basis of the "law of the case" doctrine, and can no longer be relied upon as precedents.35 Specifically, petitioner cannot anymore insist that OCT No. 994 allegedly issued on April 19, 1917 validly and actually exists, given the following conclusions made by this Court in the 2007 Manotok case:

First, there is only one OCT No. 994. As it appears on the record, that mother title was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917, and that should be the date which should be reckoned as the date of registration of the title. It may also be acknowledged, as appears on the title, that OCT No. 994 resulted from the issuance of the decree of registration on [19] April 1917, although such date cannot be considered as the date of the title or the date when the title took effect. Second. Any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent. The fact that the Dimson and CLT titles made specific reference to an OCT No. 994 dated [19] April 1917 casts doubt on the validity of such titles since they refer to an inexistent OCT. x x x. Third. The decisions of this Court in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals cannot apply to the cases at bar, especially in regard to their recognition of an OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, a title which we now acknowledge as inexistent. Neither could the conclusions in MWSS or Gonzaga with respect to an OCT No. 994 dated 19 April 1917 bind any other case operating under the factual setting the same as or similar to that at bar.36 (Emphases supplied.)1avvphi1 To be sure, this Court did not merely rely on the DOJ and Senate reports regarding OCT No. 994. In the 2007 Manotok case, this Court constituted a Special Division of the Court of Appeals to hear the cases on remand, declaring as follows: Since this Court is not a trier of fact[s], we are not prepared to adopt the findings made by the DOJ and the Senate, or even consider whether these are admissible as evidence, though such questions may be considered by the Court of Appeals upon the initiative of the parties. x x x The reports cannot conclusively supersede or overturn judicial decisions, but if admissible they may be taken into account as evidence on the same level as the other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties. The fact that they were rendered by the DOJ and the Senate should not, in itself, persuade the courts to accept them without inquiry. The facts and arguments presented in the reports must still undergo judicial scrutiny and analysis, and certainly the courts will have the discretion to accept or reject them. There are many factual questions looming over the properties that could only be threshed out in the remand to the Court of Appeals. x x x. xxxx The Special Division is tasked to hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to this Court a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three (3) months from finality of this Resolution.37 Thus, in the 2009 Manotok case, this Court evaluated the evidence engaged in by said Special Division, and adopted the latters conclusions as to the status of the original title and its subsequent conveyances. This case affirmed the earlier finding that "there is only one OCT No. 994, the registration date of which had already been decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917" and categorically concluded that "OCT No. 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and void." In the case at bar, petitioner is the last surviving co-plaintiff in Civil Case No. C-424 originally filed on May 3, 1965. The records bear several attempts of different individuals to represent her as counsel, a matter that could be attributed to her advanced age and potential access to a vast sum of money, should she get a favorable decision from this case. It appears, however, that the partition and accounting of a portion of the Maysilo Estate that she and her co-plaintiffs prayed for can no longer prosper because of the conclusive findings quoted above that the very basis of their claim, a second, albeit earlier registered, OCT No. 994, does not exist. The requirements under Rule 65 for the issuance of the writ of mandamus not having been proven by petitioner to exist, we dismiss the petition for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. G.R. No. L-3970 October 29, 1952 GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., petitioners-appellees, vs. HERMOGENES REYES LABRADOR, J.: This is an appeal prosecuted by the respondents-appellants against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated November 29, 1949, compelling them to surrender owner's duplicates of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 8071 and 8072, so that the contract of lease entered into between petitioners-appellees and the owner of the land covered by said certificates of title be annotated thereon. John Tan Chin Eng is the owner of the land covered by the abovementioned certificates of title, and on July 23, 1948, he entered into a contract (Exhibit A) with the petitionerappellees, under the terms of which petitioners-appellees were to construct thereon a three-story building of concrete and of strong materials valued at from P80,000 to P90,000. The contract also provided that the building shall become the exclusive property of the owner of the land, but that the petitioner-appellees were to occupy, hold, or possess it as lessees for a period of three years and six months from its completion, without paying any rentals therefor, the sum spent in the construction being considered as the rentals; that after the above period of three years and six months petitioners-appellees were to continue occupying the said building for another two years at a monthly rental of P2,000. This contract of lease was filed and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila on August 10, 1948, under Primary Entry No. 3352, Volume 15. At the time that the contract was entered into there was an existing mortgage over the land in favor of Jose Calvo and Carlos Calvo for the sum of P110,000. This mortgage in favor of the Calvos was cancelled, and a new mortgage was executed by the owner in favor of respondents-appellants herein, Honorable Hermogenes Reyes and his spouse Teodora Tantoco, dated March 8, 1949, which was registered on the same date in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila under Primary Entry No. 5014. On May 14, 1949, the original contract of lease, Exhibit A, was amended by Exh. C, by virtue of which the period under which the lessees were to hold any occupy the property without rentals was extended to seven years and four months, and the rental for the

additional two years thereafter reduced to P1,148. This amended contract of lease, Exhibit C, was also registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila under Primary Entry No. 5014, Volume 16, on May 20, 1949. On May 25, 1949, counsel for petitioners-appellees wrote respondents-appellants requesting them to allow him to take the certificates of title to the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation of the contracts of lease entered into by the owner with them (Exhibit D), and on May 27, 1949, the son of respondents-appellants acknowledged receipt of the said letter but informed counsel for the petitioner-appellees that the request could not be granted without the written consent of the owner of the certificates of title (Exhibit E). On June 16, 1949, respondentsappellants' son wrote the owner of the land (Exhibit M) demanding the payment of the overdue interest on the mortgage with the following statement: . . . For this reason, I wish to request that you come over to my office before 12:00 noon to pay the said interest before we can deliver your Transfer Certificate of Title to Atty. Manuel P. Calanog who will take charge of registering the lease contract between Mr. Singh Pabla and your goodself. On June 3, 1949, the petitioners-appellees filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Manila praying that an order issue to the owner for the delivery of the owner's duplicates of transfer certificates of title Nos. 8071 and 8072 to the petitioners in order that the Register of Deeds of Manila may be able to make the annotation thereon of the contract of lease, Exhibit A, and its amendment, Exhibit C. Against this petition Hermogenes Reyes and Teodora Tantoco filed an opposition, alleging that they had no knowledge whatsoever of the contract of lease, Exhibit A, or of its amendments, Exhibit C, and that the execution of the amendment, Exhibit C, violated the express provision of the mortgage, to the effect that the owner could not sell, assign, or encumber the mortgaged premises without the written consent of the mortgages. It is to be noted that with respect to the original contract of lease, Exhibit A, no allegation is made in the opposition of the respondents-appellants that they were not aware of the existence of the contract, Exhibit A, their only allegation being that the only annotation on the certificates of title at the time they entered into the contract of mortgage was the mortgage in favor of Jose Calvo and Carlos Calvo. It is also to be noted that respondents-appellants do not deny an express allegation of paragraph 13 of the amended petition to the effect that notice was given to the public by a big sign board placed on the premises while the building was under construction that petitioners-appellees are the owners of the building. The amended petition further states, without denial on the part of the respondentsappellants, that as early as October 9, 1948, the Register of Deeds of Manila had demanded in writing from the owner of the land the submission of his duplicate certificates of title Nos. 8071 and 8072 in order that the lease executed by him in favor of the petitioners-appellees may be given due course. At the hearing of the motion no oral evidence was submitted; only documentary evidence was presented. Thereafter the Court of First Instance of Manila issued the order already mentioned above, directing respondents to surrender the certificates of title to the Register of Deeds of Manila in order that petitioners-appellees' contract of lease may be noted thereon. It expressly found that respondents-appellants had knowledge of the lease contract, Exhibit A, but that respondents' deed of mortgage of March 8, 1949, has priority over petitioner's amended contract of lease, Exhibit C. As regards the (supposed) prohibition contained in the contract of mortgage, the court held that the prohibition gives a right of foreclosure; in other words, that in spite of the prohibition the amended contract of lease, Exhibit C, may not be considered as null and void. In this court on appeal claim is made on behalf of the respondents-appellants that the court a quo erred in holding that respondents-appellants had knowledge of the contract of lease, Exhibit A; that it erred in holding that Tirso T. Reyes is the attorney-in-fact of the respondents-appellants; that it erred in ordering the registration of the contract of lease, Exhibit A; and that it erred in not holding that the registration of the contracts, Exhibits A and C, will prejudice the rights and interest of respondents-appellants. It should be noted that all that the petitioners demand or pray for is the surrender of the titles to the Register of Deeds so that their contracts of lease, Exhibits A and C, may be noted thereon. The only issue, therefore, is whether petitioners have a right to have said deeds registered. It is not denied that the contracts have been executed by the registered owner of the land, or that they have been lawfully executed, or that they have all the qualities of registerable documents. Indeed, the owner is agreeable to the registration. The objections interposed by respondents, who are mortgagees merely, that they had no knowledge of the contract of lease, or that their mortgage has priority, or that they will be prejudiced, are beside the issue. The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons (section 51, Act No. 496); it is not intended by the proceedings for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered rights over the land, subsisting or existing at the time of the registration. The rights of these parties, who have registered their rights, are not put in issue when an instrument is subsequently presented for registration; nor are its effects on other instruments previously registered put in issue by the procedure of registration. Thus, the objections raised by respondents-appellants that they had no knowledge of the contract of lease, Exhibit A, before the property was mortgaged to them, or that the same violates their contract of mortgage with the owner of the land these are not passed upon by the order for the registration of petitioners-appellees' contract of lease. The objections, as well as the relative rights of all parties who have registered their deeds, shall be decided in the proper suit or proceeding when the opportune occasion arises; but they are not now in issue, nor may they be adjudicated upon, simply because petitioners-appellees have applied for the registration of their contract of lease. The impropriety and inconvenience of proceeding to determine completely and in advance all the possible consequences of a document, upon all parties affected thereby, in the proceeding for its registration becomes apparent when, as in this case, important and complicated questions of fact and of law were presented by the respondents-appellants about their alleged lack of knowledge of the contracts of lease and the invalidity thereof. The court a quo passed upon vital issues of fact upon the motion and the opposition thereto, and upon the documents, letters, and receipts presented, without any other evidence than the above. Yet the question of knowledge is mainly a question of fact and requires inquiry into many and complicated circumstances, which can not be satisfactorily shown except by testimony.

On the other hand, the supposed invalidity of the contracts of lease is no valid objection to their registration, because invalidity is no proof of their non-existence or a valid excuse for denying their registration. The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. How can parties affected thereby be supposed to know their invalidity before they become aware, actually or constructively, of their existence or of their provisions? If the purpose of registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It must follow as a necessary consequence that registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards. The foregoing, however, must not be understood as an absolute and invariable rule of procedure, for parties may, by mutual consent, submit issues for determination at the time of the proceeding to register a document. But the court should only proceed therewith (determination of the issues) upon giving all the parties concerned sufficient opportunity to present their respective sides and the evidence in support thereof, and that if this can not be done, the determination of the issues should be reserved in a subsequent proceeding and the registration of the document ordered. In accordance with the above opinion, we find that the issues raised by respondents-appellants, namely, that the contracts of lease, Exhibits A and C, are invalid because they violate the contracts of mortgage executed in favor of the owner of the land, that Tirso T. Reyes is not the attorney-in-fact of the respondents-appellants, and that the respondents-appellants had no knowledge of the execution of the contract of lease, Exhibits A and C these issues were not properly investigated because respondents-appellants did not have the opportunity to present evidence thereon and did not even present copy of their mortgage at the hearing, and the trial court decided the questions without full and complete investigation. The ruling of the trial court on the above issues should, therefore, be set aside and their determination reserved in a proper proceeding. Wherefore, the opposition to the motion for the surrender of the certificates of title to the Register of Deeds of Manila is overruled, and the order appealed from, in so far as it orders the surrender of the certificates of title for the registration of the contracts of lease, is hereby affirmed, but the other rulings are reversed, and the other issues raised by respondents-appellants reserved for determination in a proper proceeding. With costs against the respondentsappellants. Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor and Jugo, JJ., concur G.R. No. L-20611 May 8, 1969 AURELIO BALBIN and FRANCISCO BALBIN, petitioners, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR, respondent. MAKALINTAL, J.: Appeal from the resolution of the Commissioner of Land Registration in LRC Consulta No. 366. On November 15, 1961 petitioners presented to the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the registered owner's certificate of title (OCT No. 548) and an instrument entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos," with the request that the same be annotated on the title. Under the terms of the instrument sought to be annotated one Cornelio Balbin, registered owner of the parcel of land described in OCT No. 548, appears to have donated intervivos an undivided two-thirds (/) portion thereof in favor of petitioners. The entire area of the land is 11.2225 hectares. The register of deeds denied the requested annotation for being "legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law." It appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on the certificate are three separate sales of undivided portions of the land earlier executed by Cornelio Balbin in favor of three different buyers. The pertinent entries read: Entry No. 5658. Sales. Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the registered owner, conveying an undivided portion of an area of 3,710 square meters only in favor of Florentino Gabayan, this Original Certificate of Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled with respect to said area of 3,710 square meters and in lieu thereof, the name of the vendee ... is hereby substituted to succeed to all rights, participation in interest of the vendor. ... Date of Instrument: January 25, 1955, ... xxx xxx xxx Entry No. 5659. Sale of portion. Sale for the sum of P100.00 executed by the registered owner, conveying an undivided portion of an area of 16,713 square meters in favor of Roberto Bravo, this Original Certificate of Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled with respect to said undivided portion ... and in lieu thereof the name of the vendee ... is hereby substituted to succeed to all rights, participation and interest of the vendor ... Date of Instrument: June 9, 1953. ... Entry No. 5660. Sale of portion. Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the registered owner, conveying an undivided portion of an area of 15,000 square meters in favor of Juana Gabayan, this Certificate of Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled with respect to said undivided portion ... and in lieu thereof the name of the vendee ... is hereby substituted to succeed to all rights, participation and interest of the vendor ... Date of Instrument: February 12, 1952. ... The final part of the annotations referring to the abovementioned sales contains an additional memorandum stating that "three co-owner's duplicate certificates of title No. 548 have been issued (by the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur) in the name of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and Juana Gabayan upon verbal request of Mr. Andres Cabeldo, Notary Public of Caoayan, I. Sur, for and in the name of the vendees, this 5th day of January, 1956 at Vigan, I. Sur." Mainly because these three other co-owner's copies of the certificate of title No. 548 had not been presented by petitioners, the Register of Deeds refused to make the requested annotation.

Unsatisfied, petitioners referred the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration, who subsequently upheld the action of the Register of Deeds in a resolution dated April 10, 1962. With respect to the principal point in controversy, the Commissioner observed: (1) It appears that the donor is now merely a co-owner of the property described in the Original Certificate of Title No. 548, having previously sold undivided portions thereof on three different occasions in favor of three different buyers. Consequently, aside from the owner's duplicate issued to Cornelio Balbin, there are now three co-owner's duplicates which are presumably in the possession of the three buyers. Accordingly, in addition to the owner's duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. 548, the three co-owner's duplicates must likewise be surrendered. The claim of counsel for the donees that the issuance of the three co-owner's duplicates was unauthorized is beside the point. Unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules to the contrary, these titles are presumed to have been lawfully issued.lawphi1.et Without presenting those three (3) other duplicates of the title, petitioners would want to compel annotation of the deed of donation upon the copy in their possession, citing section 55 of Act 496, which provides that "the production of the owner's duplicate certificate of title whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the register of deeds to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument." Under this provision, according to petitioners, the presentation of the other copies of the title is not required, first, because it speaks of "registered owner" and not one whose claim to or interest in the property is merely annotated on the title, such as the three vendees-co-owners in this case; and secondly, because the issuance of the duplicate copies in their favor was illegal or unauthorized. We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section 55, supra, obviously assumes that there is only one duplicate copy of the title in question, namely, that of the registered owner himself, such that its production whenever a voluntary instrument is presented constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register of deeds to make the corresponding memorandum of registration. In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title were in existence, presumably issued under section 43 * of Act 496. As correctly observed by the Land Registration Commissioner, petitioners' claim that the issuance of those copies was unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its legality being presumed until otherwise declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. There being several copies of the same title in existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be adversely affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is annotated on one copy and not on the others. The law itself refers to every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the original, which means that both must contain identical entries of the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the land covered by the title. If this were not so, if different copies were permitted to carry differing annotations, the whole system of Torrens registration would cease to be reliable. One other ground relied upon by the Land Registration Commissioner in upholding the action taken by the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur is that since the property subject of the donation is presumed conjugal, that is, property of the marriage of the donor, Cornelio Balbin, and his deceased wife, Nemesia Mina, "there should first be a liquidation of the partnership before the surviving spouse may make such a conveyance." This legal conclusion may appear too general and sweeping in its implications, for without a previous settlement of the partnership a surviving spouse may dispose of his aliquot share or interest therein subject of course to the result of future liquidation. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied that, if the conjugal character of the property is assumed, the deed of donation executed by the husband, Cornelio Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of its registration, namely, the fact that the two-thirds portion of said property which he donated was more than his one-half share, not to say more than what remained of such share after he had sold portions of the same land to three other parties. It appears that there is a case pending in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (CC No. 2221), wherein the civil status of the donor Cornelio Balbin and the character of the land in question are in issue, as well as the validity of the different conveyances executed by him. The matter of registration of the deed of donation may well await the outcome of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the interested parties could be protected by filing the proper notices of lis pendens. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decisions of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur and that of the Commissioner of Land Registration are affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur. Capistrano, J., took no part. Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave. G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968 TEODORO ALMIROL, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN, respondent-appellee. CASTRO, J.: On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Esperanza, province of Agusan, and covered by original certificate of title P-1237 in the name of "Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo." Sometime in May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of the Register of Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to register the deed of sale and to secure in his name a transfer certificate of title. Registration was refused by the Register of Deeds upon the following grounds, inter alia, stated in his letter of May 21, 1962: 1. That Original Certificate of Title No. P-1237 is registered in the name of Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal presumption, is considered conjugal property; 2. That in the sale of a conjugal property acquired after the effectivity of the New Civil Code it is necessary that both spouses sign the document; but 3. Since, as in this case, the wife has already died when the sale was made, the surviving husband can not dispose of the whole property without violating the existing law (LRC Consulta No. 46 dated June 10, 1958).

To effect the registration of the aforesaid deed of absolute Sale, it is necessary that the property be first liquidated and transferred in the name of the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased wife by means of extrajudicial settlement or partition and that the consent of such other heir or heirs must be procured by means of another document ratifying this sale executed by their father. In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of First Instance of Agusan on a petition for mandamus (sp. civ. case 151), to compel the Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale and to issue to him the corresponding transfer certificate of title, and to recover P5,000 in moral damages and P1,000 attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. It is Almirol's assertion that it is but a ministerial duty of the respondent to perform the acts required of him, and that he (Almirol) has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In his answer with counterclaim for P10,000 damages, the respondent reiterated the grounds stated in his letter of May 21, 1962, averred that the petitioner has "other legal, plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law by appealing the decision of the respondent to the Honorable Commissioner of Land Registration," and prayed for dismissal of the petition. In its resolution of October 16, 1963 the lower court, declaring that "mandamus does not lie . . . because the adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of Rep. Act 1151", dismissed the petition, with costs against the petitioner. Hence the present appeal by Almirol. The only question of law tendered for resolution is whether mandamus will lie to compel the respondent to register the deed of sale in question. Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent evince a sincere desire on his part to maintain inviolate the law on succession and transmission of rights over real properties, these do not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to register the deed. Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the register of deeds to determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.1 Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of Deeds to decide, but a court of competent jurisdiction. (Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, et al., L-17956, Sept. 30, 1953). . . . the supposed invalidity of the contracts of lease is no valid objection to their registration, because invalidity is no proof of their non-existence or a valid excuse for denying their registration. The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. How can parties affected thereby be supposed to know their invalidity before they become aware, actually or constructively, of their existence or of their provisions? If the purpose of registration is merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It must follow as a necessary consequence that registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards. (Gurbax Singh Pablo & Co. vs. Reyes and Tantoco, 92 Phil. 182183). Indeed, a register of deeds is entirely precluded by section 4 of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when confronted with the problem of whether to register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is invalid. For under the said section, when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken with respect to any deed or other instrument presented to him for registration, all that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the Commissioner of Land Registration who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful question. Section 4 of R.A. 1151 reads as follows: Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of Land Registration. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration either upon the certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the suggestion in writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by the records certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His decision in such cases shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a party in interest disagrees with the ruling or resolution of the Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law, said decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty days from and after receipt of the notice thereof. The foregoing notwithstanding, the court a quo correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. Section 4 abovequoted provides that "where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds . . . the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration," who thereafter shall "enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made," which shall be "conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds." This administrative remedy must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts. ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution of the lower court of October 16, 1969, is affirmed, at petitioner's cost.1wph1.t Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. Concepcion, C.J., is on leave. Sanchez, J., concurs in the result.