Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

165863 April 10, 2013 ALBERT CHUA, J MM! CHUA CH LEONG "#$ SPOUSES E%UAR%O SOL S AN% GLOR A & CTA, Petitioners, vs. B.E. SAN % EGO, NC., Respondent. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! G.R. No. 1658'5 LOREN(ANA )OO% CORPORAT ON, Petitioner, vs. B.E. SAN % EGO, NC., Respondent. D"#ISION MEN%O(A, J.: These cases $ere alread% disposed of $ith finalit% b% the #ourt on &pril '', ())*, but $ere reconsidered, re+anded to the #ourt of &ppeals ,#&- for reevaluation and elevated to this #ourt a.ain for another revie$. It appears fro+ the records that on &pril '', ())*, /.R. No. (010'2, a case for annul+ent of title, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation, 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon., &lbert #hua, and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa v. #ourt of &ppeals and 7.". San Die.o, Inc., $as dis+issed b% the #ourt.( On 6une '0, ())*, the #ourt stood b% its &pril '', ())* Decision b% den%in. the +otion for reconsideration filed b% 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation ,35#- and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa ,Spouses Solis-. On Nove+ber (8, ())*, the #ourt issued a resolution orderin. the entr% of 9ud.+ent. Insistent, 35# filed its Petition to Re!open #ase $hile 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. ,6i++%and &lbert #hua ,&lbert- filed their Second Motion for Reconsideration, both see:in. to set aside the &pril '', ())* Decision and the 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())* Resolutions of the #ourt. On March (;, ())8, the #ourt issued its Resolution ' favorabl% .rantin. both pleadin.s statin. that the <petitioners alle.ed ne$ facts and sub+itted pertinent docu+ents puttin. in doubt the correctness of our factual findin.s and le.al conclusions,< = and orderin. the re+and of the case to the #& for another round of evaluation.

7.". San Die.o, Inc. ,San Die.o- filed an O+nibus Motion (- to Recall the Resolution of March (;, ())8> and '- to Refer the #ase to the #ourt "n 7anc> and =- to Set #ase for Oral &r.u+ent> but the #ourt denied it on March =, ())2. On 6ul% (*, '00*, after considerin. all the evidence presented b% the parties, the #& rendered another decision,* the dispositive portion of $hich reads? @H"R"5OR", after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b% both parties, this #ourt hereb% holds, as follo$s? a- The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. ;0!(2 and 7#V ;(!(; are hereb% DISMISS"D. b- The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs, that is, T#T Nos. ;;*82, ;;*8;, (0*'*; and (0*'*), as $ell as the title of Spouses Solis, T#T No. )*=;), are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of their spurious nature. c- The validit% of the title of defendant 7.". San Die.o is hereb% APH"3D. No pronounce+ent as to costs. SO ORD"R"D.1 &.ain, not in confor+it%, the petitioners co+e to this #ourt $ith t$o separate petitions, challen.in. the 6ul% (*, '00* Decision of the #& and the October '), '00* Resolution, den%in. their +otion for reconsideration. The first petition, doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;8= $as filed b% &lbert, 6i++% and Spouses Solis. The other one, doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;21, $as filed b% 35#.
8 2

T*+ )",-. Records sho$ that three ,=- civil cases for Buietin. of Title involvin. tracts of land located in 7acoor, #avite, $ere filed before the Re.ional Trial #ourt, 7ranch CIC, 7acoor, #avite and doc:eted as (. #ivil #ase 7#V!;0!(2 entitled <3oren4ana 5ood #orporation vs. 7.". San Die.o, Inc., et al.< '. #ivil #ase 7#V!;(!(; entitled <6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and &lbert #hua vs. 7.". San Die.o, Inc.< =. #ivil #ase 7#V!;=!2) entitled <7.". San Die.o, Inc. vs. "duardo Solis.<

The factual and procedural antecedents of this lon.!dra$n controvers% $ere succinctl% su++ari4ed b% the #ourt in its &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #ourt of &ppeals, as follo$s? The ob9ects of the controvers% are several portions of a lar.e tract of land located in the +unicipalit% of 7acoor, #avite. The lar.e tract of land is clai+ed to be ori.inall% o$ned b% one 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco, $ho had it surve%ed $a% bac: in ()((. The land itself is traversed b% railroad trac:s dividin. the land into t$o ,'- parcels. On 5ebruar% '(, ()'', 6uan #uenca $as issued Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 ," hibit <H<coverin. the t$o parcels, desi.nated as 3ots ( and '. Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 $as later reconstituted as O.#.T. No. ,(0'0- RO!), containin. the technical descriptions of 3ots ( and '. On &pril (*, ()';, a separate ori.inal certificate of title for 3ot (, referrin. to the parcel north of the railroad trac:s, $as issued to 6uan #uenca as O.#.T. No. ,(;);- RO!1; ," hibit <D<-. 3ot ( itself $as divided into thirteen ,(=- parcels, eleven ,((- of $hich $ere described therein as situated in the barrios of Talaba, Dapote, and Malicsi, $hile t$o ,'parcels $ere situated in the poblacion of 7acoor, #avite. Apon the de+ise of 6uan #uenca, an action for partition of his properties $as filed b% 6ose #uenca, one of the survivin. heirs. On 5ebruar% '(, ()8), a pro9ect of partition $as approved b% the 3and Re.istration #o++ission ," hibit <"""<-, and on &pril (0, ()8), the court ordered the Re.ister of Deeds of the Province of #avite to issue individual titles for t$elve ,('- parcels of 3ot ' ," hibit <//-. Three ,=- parcels thereof? 3ot '!&, '!E, and '! 3, $ere titled ,T.#.T. Nos. =1)8=, =1)2= and =1)2*, respectivel%and re.istered in the na+e of 6uan #uenca ," hibits <E<, <TTT!(< and <TTT!'<- on &pril '(, ()8). &ll three titles stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. RO!) on 5ebruar% '(, ()'' ," hibits <E<, </< and <H<-. 3ot '!& of 6uan #uenca $as later subdivided into seven ,2- lots in ()8). Of these seven subdivided parcels, one parcel ,3ot '!&!=- $as ad9udicated to his heir, Pura #uenca, $ho $as issued Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(101 on 5ebruar% '*, ()20 ," hibit <3-. The said T.#.T. No. *(101 stated that the land covered therein $as ori.inall% re.istered as Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';, and Transfer #ertificate of Title No. RO!1;!I $as cancelled b% virtue thereof. One other parcel ,3ot '! &!*- $as ad9udicated to another heir, 3adisla$ #uenca, $ho $as issued Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(108 ,&nne <M<- on 5ebruar% '*, ()20. 3i:e$ise, T.#.T. No. *(108 stated that the land covered therein $as ori.inall% re.istered as Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';, and that T.#.T. No. RO!1;!I $as cancelled b% virtue thereof. @e interpose at this point the observation that althou.h the transfer certificates of title issued to Pura and 3adisla$ #uenca stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. (;);, hence, referrin. to 3ot ( located at the northern portion of 6uan #uencaFs lar.e tract of land, the technical description

appearin. in said transfer certificates of title $ere ta:en or lifted fro+ O.#.T. No. ,(0'0RO!) coverin. 3ot ', referrin. to the southern portion of the ori.inal tract of land. In the +eanti+e, 3ots '!E and '!3 ,T.#.T. Nos. =1)2= and =1)2*- in the na+e of 6uan #uenca, $ere consolidated and, in turn, $ere subdivided into ei.ht ,;- lots. 3ot * $as ad9udicated to Pura #uenca, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. *(*); ," hibit <TTT!1<- on 5ebruar% '*, ()20. 3ot = $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$ #uenca, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. *(*)2 ," hibit <TTT!*<- on the sa+e date. 3ot 8 $as ad9udicated to 6ose #uenca, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. *(10( $ith the inscription therein that the land covered b% said titles $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';, and that T.#.T. No. RO!1;!I $as cancelled thereb%, referrin. to 3ot ( of the ori.inal tract. Ho$ever, the technical descriptions inscribed therein $ere lifted fro+ O.#.T. No. ,(0'0RO!) coverin. 3ot ' of the ori.inal tract of land. Apon the deaths of Pura and 3adisla$ #uenca, the ad+inistrators of their respective testate estates $ere .iven authorit% b% the court to dispose of so+e parcels of land. 3ot '!&!= of Pura #uenca covered b% T.#.T. No. *(101, and 3ot '!&!* of 3adisla$a #uenca covered b% T.#.T. No. *(108, $ere eventuall% sold to herein appellee 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation on 5ebruar% *, ()22 ,&nne es, <OOO<, <###< and <AA!(<-. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(101 $as cancelled b% T.#.T. No. ;;*8; issued to, and re.istered in favor of, 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation ,&nne <D<-. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(108 $as cancelled b% T.#.T. No. ;;*82 ," hibit <'<- on 5ebruar% (;, ()22. 7oth T.#.T. Nos. ;;*82 and ;;*8; also stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. (;);, but contained portions of the technical description appearin. in O.#.T. No. ,(0'0- RO!). On the other hand, 3ot = of the consolidated 3ots '!E and '!3, as part of the testate estate of 3adisla$ #uenca, $as sold to herein appellee 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon.. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. (0*'*; ," hibit <&<- $as issued to and re.istered in his na+e on Ma% ), ()2), cancellin. T.#.T. No. *(*)2. 3ot *, bein. part of the testate estate of Pura #uenca, $as sold to &lbert #hua, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. T!(0*'*) on Ma% ), ()2) ," hibit <7<-, cancellin. T.#.T. No. *(*);. 3ot 8 $as sold b% 6ose #uenca to "duardo Solis, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. T!)*=;), cancellin. T.#.T. No. T! *(10(. #o++on to the titles of 6i++% #hua #hin. 3eon., &lbert #hua and "duardo Solis is the inscription that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O.#.T. No. (;); on &pril (*, ()';. &nother co++on feature of all these succeedin. titles is the description that the propert% therein described is situated in the barrio of Talaba, 7acoor, #avite. 3oo:in. bac:, the records sho$ that the ori.inal tract of land o$ned b% 6uan #uenca $as bounded on the north b% #alle Real de Talaba, on the south and southeast b% Sapa Nio., and on the $est, b% #alle Nio.. &s +entioned earlier, the land $as divided into t$o ,'- b% the railroad trac:s runnin. fro+ and .oin. to east and $est. The area located north of the railroad trac:s, borderin. #alle Real de Talaba $as later titled as O.#.T. ,(;);- 10!1;, said parcel straddlin. the barrios of Talaba, Dapote and Milicsi, as $ell as the poblacion proper.

On the other hand, the portion located south of the railroad trac:s $as desi.nated as 3ot '. Traversin. this land is $hat used to be a national road, no$ called the &.uinaldo Hi.h$a%, lin:in. Ta.a%ta% #it% to Metro Manila. This parcel $as later titled as O.#.T. No. ,(0'0- RO!). The sub!divided parcels afore+entioned, b% their technical descriptions are located at the south to southeast portions of 3ot ', bounded on the south, b% Sapa Nio. and #alle Nio. on the $est. Nevertheless, the said parcels $ere described as situated in the barrio of Talaba. The controvers% arose $hen herein appellees learned that the sa+e parcels $ere bein. clai+ed b% herein appellant, 7.". San Die.o, Incorporated. 7.". San Die.oFs clai+ $as based on t$o ,'- titles re.istered in its na+e. The first parcel $as covered under T.#.T. No. T!(28'( ,&nne <#<- issued on March ', ()88, $hich ori.inated fro+ O.#.T. No. 0! *)0 re.istered on Dece+ber '', ()81. The said title described <a parcel of land Plan Psu!'(('*1, pursuant to 3.R.#. #ase No. N!*82, ,3R#- Record No. N!'2)'=, situated in the 7arrio of Nio., Municipalit% of 7acoor.< The second parcel $as titled under O.#.T. No. 0!8**, re.istered on 6anuar% 1, ()82, pursuant to 3R# #ase No. N!112, ,3R#Record No. N!=08*2, describin. <a parcel of land ,3ot (, Plan Psu!''=)'0-, situated in 7arrio of Nio.< ," hibit <)<-. &ll parties resolutel% see:in. to enforce their respective clai+s over the sub9ect properties, three ,=- civil suits for Guietin. of title $ere filed before the Re.ional Trial #ourt of 7acoor, #avite, 7ranch CIC. The first case, doc:eted as 7#V!;0!(2 $as filed b% 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation versus 7.". San Die.o, Incorporated, and other defendants. The second civil case, 7#V!;(!(;, $as filed b% 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and &lbert #hua, also a.ainst 7.". San Die.o, Inc., et al., as defendants. The last case, 7#V!;=!2) $as filed b% 7.". San Die.o, Inc., a.ainst spouses "duardo and /loria Solis, as defendants. In #ivil #ase No. 7#V!;0!(2, 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation clai+ed e clusive o$nership over the t$o ,'- parcels covered b% T.#.T. Nos. ;;*82 and ;;*8;, issued to it on 5ebruar% (;, ()22. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation alle.ed that it too: i++ediate possession of the said propert% and even contracted to prepare the land for develop+ent. It is alle.ed that it $as onl% %ears later that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation learned that 7.". San Die.o, Inc. $as clai+in. o$nership over portions of the said parcels b% virtue of O.#.T. No. 0!8**. It is 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs contention that the O.#.T. No. 0!8**, in 7.". San Die.oFs na+e is null and void because 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs title e+anated fro+ an O.#.T. issued +ore than thirt%!nine ,=)%ears prior to the issuance of 7.". San Die.oFs ori.inal certificate of title. In ans$er, 7.". San Die.o countered that it and its predecessors!in!interest have been in the open continuous and adverse possession in concept of o$ner of the sub9ect propert% for +ore than fift% ,10- %ears prior to 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs purchase of the t$o ,'- parcels. It also ar.ued that Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. 0!8** $as not null and void since it $as issued upon application and proper proceedin.s in ,3R##ase No. N!112 and N!=08*2, before the then #ourt of 5irst Instance of #avite.

Pursuant to its issuance, the said propert% $as declared b% 7.". San Die.o for ta purposes ," hibits <B< and <1!5<- since 6une '', ()88. 7.". San Die.o clai+s it bou.ht the sub9ect propert% fro+ Teodora Do+in.ue4 on 5ebruar% 8, ()88 ," hibit <1!D<- and the absolute deed of sale $as sub+itted in ,3R##ase No. N!122. It $as further ar.ued that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation $as erroneousl% clai+in. the sub9ect propert% because 3oren4anaFs titled propert% is described to be located in 7arrio Talaba, $hile 7.". San Die.oFs propert% is situated in 7arrio Nio.. Den%in. that 3oren4ana 5ood #orporationFs predecessor!in!interest had been in possession of the sub9ect propert%, 7.". San Die.o clai+ed that in ()2), b% force, inti+idation, threat, stealth, and strate.%, 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation entered and occupied the sub9ect propert%, despite barbed $ire fencin. $ith $arnin. si.ns, and securit% .uards posted b% 7.". San Die.o. In #ivil #ase No. 7#V!;(!(;, plaintiffs 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and &lbert #hua clai+ o$nership over the parcels the% respectivel% purchased fro+ the heirs of 6uan #uenca, as evidenced b% Transfer #ertificates of Titles Nos. T!(0*'*; and T!(0*'*), issued on 6anuar% '0 and =0, ()2), respectivel%. 7.". San Die.o, for its part, clai+ed the propert% b% virtue of Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T!(28'( issued on March ', ()88, $hich cancelled Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. 0!*)0 ori.inall% issued to Teodora Do+in.ue4, $ho sold the sa+e propert% to 7.". San Die.o. &.ain, 7.". San Die.o ar.ued that, as appearin. in their respective titles, 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon.Fs and &lbert #huaFs properties $ere located in 7arrio Talaba $hile that of 7.". San Die.o $as located in 7arrio Nio.. The last case, 7#V!;=!2) $as initiated b% 7.". San Die.o a.ainst the Solis spouses $ho, accordin. to the for+er, unla$full% entered a portion of its propert% titled under Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T!(28'(. The Solis spouses, +ean$hile, clai+ the said portion b% virtue of their Transfer #ertificate of Title No. T!)*=;), issued pursuant to their purchase of said portion fro+ 6ose #uenca.
;

T*+ R/li#0 o1 -*+ RTC On 6ul% (1, ();8, after a lon. trial, the RT# handed do$n its 6oint Decision ) in favor of 35#, 6i++%, &lbert, and Spouses Solis, and declared the titles of San Die.o null and void. The pertinent portions of the RT# decision reads? Proceedin. in the li.ht of the fore.oin. evidence, the #ourt finds that the three lots of San Die.o $hich are presentl% covered b% O.#.T. No. 0!8** and T#T No. T!(28'(, are $ithin 3ot ', Psu!'021 and overlapped the lots in Guestion of 3oren4ana, #hua and Solis. The fact that it appears in the titles of San Die.o that its lots are situated in Nio., and not in Talaba, cannot prevail over the findin.s in the verification surve%s conducted b% the 7ureau of 3ands. &side fro+ this, these t$o barrios are ad9oinin. and that the land described in plan Psu!'021 of #uenca is bounded b% #alle Real de Talaba and #alle Nio. and Sapa Nio..

Since the titles of 3oren4ana, #hua and Solis e+anated fro+ the title of 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco issued on 5ebruar% '(, ()'', these titles should prevail over O.#.T. No. 0! 8** issued on 6anuar% 1, ()82 and O.#.T. No. 0!*)0 alle.edl% issued on Dece+ber '', ()81, not to +ention the fact that the authenticit% of O.#.T. No. 0!*)0 of Teodora Do+in.ue4 predecessor!in!interest of San Die.o, is Guestionable, for the ori.inal thereof appears to be re.istered under the na+e of &ntonio Sentero. The rule is $ell! settled that a decree orderin. the re.istration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to a future application for re.istration coverin. or affectin. said lot ,3e.arda vs. Saleeb%, =( Phil 1)0-. Thus, $here t$o certificates of title are issued to different persons coverin. the sa+e land in $hole or in part, the earlier in date +ust prevail as bet$een ori.inal parties and in case of successive re.istration $here +ore than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holdin. under the prior certificate is entitled to the land a.ainst the person $ho rel% on the second certificate ,De Villa vs. Trinidad, 3!'*)(;, March '0, ()8;, '' S#R& ((82, /atioon vs. /affud, 3!'()1=, March ';, ()8), '2 S#R& 28)-. (0

Thereafter, San Die.o filed an appeal $ith the #&, $hich $as doc:eted as #&!/.R. #V No. (=1*0, based on the follo$in. assi.n+ents of error? I The trial court erred in findin. that the three lots of the appellant are $ithin and overlapped the lots in Guestion of the appellees. II The trial court erred in declarin. <null and void< and orderin. the cancellation of appellantHs titles and orderin. to pa% appellees su+s of +one%, attorne%Hs fees and costs. III The trial court erred in not orderin. 9ud.+ent for the appellant. (( 5irst Rulin. of the #& On Dece+ber '*, ())(, the #& rendered its Decision (' in #&!/.R. #V No. (=1*0, reversin. the RT# Decision. The #& ruled that the titles held b% 35#, 6i++%, &lbert, and Spouses Solis $ere defective $hile those of San Die.o sho$ed no defects. Hence, it ordered the nullification and cancellation of the T#Ts in the na+es of 35# ,T#T Nos. T!;;*82(= and T!;;*8;(*-, 6i++% and &lbert ,T#T Nos. T!(0*'*;(1 and T!(0*'*)(8and Spouses Solis ,T#T No. T!)*=;)-> and dis+issed #ivil #ase No. 7#V!;0!(2 and #ivil #ase No.7#V!;(!(; orderin. Spouses Solis to vacate the sub9ect pre+ises. The relevant portions of the #& decision read? 5irst I In this case, $here there is a so!called <overlappin.< or <overla%in.< of titles, the best evidence are the certificates of title the+selves. @hile the titles of all the contendin. parties, at first blush, see+ to have been re.ularl% issued, a closer e a+ination bares the peculiar co++on defects in the titles of the appellees. These defects are?

a. The appelleesH titles are annotated $ith the inscription that the land described therein $as ori.inall% re.istered under O#T No. (;);, but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO! ). b. The appelleesH titles state that the properties are located in the barrio of Talaba $hen the properties described therein are situated in the 7arrio of Nio.. On the other hand, the appellantHs titles sho$ no defect.

Thus, even thou.h the appellees can trace their titles as havin. been ori.inall% re.istered on 5ebruar% '(, ()'', the succeedin. titles, issued on 5ebruar% '*, ()20, $ere all defective. @h% no effort $as e erted to correct the alle.ed <clerical errors< on the part of the appelleesH predecessors!in!interest, has not been e plained. Second I Not onl% $ere the appellantsH titles not ble+ished b% an% defect and $ere re.ularl% issued, its valid title $as coupled $ith open, adverse and continuous possession of the sub9ect propert%. 7esides, the land possessed b% the appellant is, as described in its titles, in the barrio of Nio.. On the other hand, the appelleesH titles describe their properties as located in the barrio of Talaba, but the land the% clai+ is located in 7arrio Nio.. The appellant is $here it should be, as decreed in its titles. The appellees are clai+in. properties that are not in the location stated in their respective titles.

Third I the lo$er court lar.el% relied on the testi+on% and reco++endation of the 7ureau of 3ands surve%or $ho $as ordered to conduct a verification surve%. The surve%orHs report declared that the appellantHs propert% overlapped those of the appellees. Apon Guestionin., ho$ever, the sa+e surve%or ad+itted that his verification surve% $as 9ust based on the technical descriptions appearin. in the opposin. partiesH titles. The 7ureau of 3andsH verification and reco++endation, therefore, does not prove that onl% the appellees have the ri.ht to clai+ the propert%, to the e clusion of others. The surve% did not even pretend to resolve the issue of $hether or not the titles issued to the (2 appellees $ere perfect or defective. Not in confor+it%, 35#, 6i++%, &lbert and Spouses Solis +oved for reconsideration but their +otions $ere denied b% the #&. )ir.- P+-i-io# -o -*+ Co/r-

On 6une 1, ())', 35#, 6i++%, &lbert and Spouses Solis filed a petition for revie$ on certiorari before this #ourt, doc:eted as /.R. No. (010'2, raisin. the follo$in. issues? I The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in reversin. the decision of the lo$er court to uphold the validit% of the land titles of private respondent in spite of the fact that these $ere issued so+e fort%!si ,*8- %ears later than the titles of petitioners and their predecessors!in!interest. II The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in .ivin. +ore si.nificance to the annotation than the technical description in identif%in. the lots in dispute. III The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts, a+ountin. to reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in holdin. in its resolution den%in. petitionersH +otion for reconsideration that petitioners failed to +a:e proper correction of their titles. IV The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted .rave abuse of discretion $hen it failed to pass 9ud.+ent on the liabilities of the estates of Pura #uenca and 3adislao #uenca, predecessors!in!interest ,sellers- of the petitioners. On &pril '', ())*, the #ourt dis+issed the petition and subseGuentl% issued Resolutions, dated 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())*, den%in. $ith finalit% the petitionersH +otions for reconsideration. On March (;, ())8, ho$ever, the #ourt issued a Resolution (; .rantin. (- 35#Hs Petition to Re!open #ase> and '- 6i++% and &lbertHs Second Motion for Reconsideration and settin. aside the Decision, dated &pril '', ())*, and the Resolutions dated 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())*. The #ourt, thus, declared? Petitioners no$ assail the correctness of the factual bases of our Decision, i.e., that their titles faciall% contain irre.ularities $hile the titles of private respondent are unble+ished. The% also den% that 7arrios Talaba and Nio. are one and a half :ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other. To prove their clai+, petitioners have attached the follo$in. docu+ents? ,(- certified true copies of the titles of 6uan #uenca, petitioners and private respondents> ,'- a historical stud% of ho$ San Die.o acGuired its titles ,O#T No. 0!*)0 and O#T No. 0!8**- and a certification dated &u.ust '), ())* fro+ the Re.ister of Deeds that the ori.inal of O#T No. 0!*)0 in the na+e of

Teodora Do+in.ue4, San Die.oHs predecessor, did not e ist in the Re.istr% file and did not for+ part of their records> ,=- a state+ent that O#T No. 0!*)( ,not O#T No. *)0- in the na+e of Teodora Do+in.ue4 no$ e ists in the records of the Re.ister of Deeds of #avite $ith a true cop% of said O#T No. 0!*)( certified on 5ebruar% '*, ())1> ,*- a certification and s:etch fro+ the 3and Re.istration &uthorit% that the lot described in the alle.ed O#T No. 0!*)0 of Teodora Do+in.ue4 sits upon and encroaches on the National Hi.h$a% ,&.uinaldo Hi.h$a%-> ,1- surve%, s:etch plans and certifications fro+ the 3and Re.istration &uthorit% indicatin. that the land in O#T No. 0!8** of San Die.o overlaps $ith the land covered b% O#T No. (0'0 ,RO!)- of 6uan #uenca> ,8- flo$ charts tracin. the subdivision and partition of #uencaHs land into the present parcels of land purchased b% petitioners fro+ the heirs of #uenca hi+self> the partitions $ere +ade $ith approval of the court> ,2- a historical outline and .raphic stud% of the transactions over #uencaHs land $hich sho$s ho$ petitioners ca+e to purchase their lots> ,;- a factual representation that O#T No. (0'0 ,RO!)-, #uencaHs title, and O#T No. (;); ,RO!1;- inscribed in petitionersH titles cover different parcels of land> and that O#T No. (;); is not the sa+e as O#T Nos. 0! 8** and 0!*)0 of San Die.o> ,)- a certification b% the Municipal Plannin. and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor, #avite that 7arrio Nio. and 7arrio Talaba are actuall% ad9acent to each other> ,(0- order dated 6anuar% '8, ();( of the #ourt of 5irst Instance, 7ranch 1, 7acoor, #avite, decreein. the correction of the #huasH transfer certificates of title. The court declared that the certification in the face of the #huasH titles $as an error and, therefore, ordered its a+end+ent to reflect the true fact that the titles $ere derived fro+ O#T No. (0'0 ,RO!)- of #uenca <ori.inall% re.istered on the '(st da% of 5ebruar%, in the %ear nineteen hundred and t$ent% t$o < not O#T (;); as ori.inall% inscribed therein. Per annotation in the second pa.e of the #huasH titles, the order of the #ourt $as recorded and the correction dul% +ade on 6anuar% '), ();( prior to the institution b% the #huas of #ivil #ase No. 7#V!;(!(; a.ainst San Die.o. The .eneral rule is that no part% is allo$ed a second +otion for reconsideration of a final order or 9ud.+ent. &fter the pro+ul.ation of our Decision, ho$ever, petitioners

alle.ed ne$ facts and sub+itted pertinent docu+ents puttin. in doubt the correctness of our factual findin.s and le.al conclusions. @e cannot be insensitive to these alle.ations for this #ourt is co++itted to render 9ustice on the basis of the truth. Pursuant to this postulate, this #ourt has held ti+e and a.ain that rules of procedure are but +ere tools desi.ned to facilitate the attain+ent of 9ustice. The% are not the end in the+selves. Ander e tre+e circu+stances, $e have suspended the rules and e cepted a particular case fro+ their operation to respond to the hi.her interests of 9ustice. In the cases at bar, the location of the contested lots, the nu+ber of people affected and the i+pact of the liti.ation on the peace of the co++unit% 9ustif% its reopenin. to .ive all the parties full opportunit% to prove their clai+s. () On March =, ())2, the #ourt issued another resolution den%in. San Die.oHs O+nibus Motion (- to Recall the Resolution of March (;, ())8> '- to Refer the #ase to the #ourt "n 7anc> and =- to Set #ase for Oral &r.u+ent. 7ac: to the #ourt of &ppeals In accordance $ith this #ourtHs Resolutions, dated March (;, ())8 and March =, ())2, the #& $as tas:ed to receive evidence and resolve the follo$in. issues? I @hether or not there is overlappin. of titles of the petitioners $ith those of the private respondent> and II @hether or not the apparent defective transfer certificates of title of the petitioners, alle.edl% co+in. fro+ Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0, can $ithstand the ri.ors of le.al scrutin%. S+,o#$ R/li#0 o1 -*+ CA On 6ul% (*, '00*, after considerin. all the evidence presented b% the parties, the #& rendered another decision a.ain in favor of San Die.o, the dispositive portion of $hich reads? @H"R"5OR", after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b% both parties, this #ourt hereb% holds, as follo$s? a- The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. ;0!(2 and 7#V ;(!(; are hereb% DISMISS"D. d- The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs, that is, T#T Nos. ;;*82, ;;*8;, (0*'*; and (0*'*), as $ell as the title of Spouses Solis, T#T No. )*=;), are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of their spurious nature. e- The validit% of the title of defendant 7.". San Die.o is hereb% APH"3D.

No pronounce+ent as to costs. SO ORD"R"D.'0 The #& co+posed of a ne$ set of 6ustices,'( a.ain found that first, there $as no overlappin. of titles bet$een those of the petitionersH and those of the respondent because the sub9ect properties described in the separate titles $ere located in separate and different barrios. The certificates of title of the petitioners indicated that the properties covered therein $ere located in 7arrio Talaba, 7acoor, #avite, $hile those of the respondent sho$ed that its properties $ere located in 7arrio Nio.. 7arrio Talaba and 7arrio Nio. $ere t$o separate and distinct localities $hose boundaries $ere clearl% defined and delineated. Moreover, copies of the application for re.istration and confir+ation of title filed b% 6uan #uenca ,6uan- before the then #ourt of 5irst Instance ,#5I- of the Province of #avite specificall% indicated that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba, Dapote, Malicsi, and Poblacion in 7acoor, #avite. The notices of hearin. for his application li:e$ise identified the sub9ect lots as located in the afore+entioned barrios, $ithout an% +ention of a propert% in 7arrio Nio.. Second, the #& stated that, e cept for T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*), the titles relied upon b% the petitioners all indicated that the% ca+e fro+ O#T No. (;);. '' It appeared, ho$ever, that the technical descriptions of the properties therein referred to the parcels of land previousl% covered b% O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!). On the other hand, the surve% plans presented b% San Die.o consistentl% sho$ed that its propert% $as located in 7arrio Nio. and these surve% plans appeared to be re.ular and in order. Third, the #& noted that T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert, respectivel%, contained alterations, in violation of Section (0; of Presidential Decree ,P.D.- No. (1'), considerin. that the nu+ber (;); in the O#T $as altered to reflect R0! ). &dditionall%, 6i++% and &lbert failed to notif% San Die.o, as a part%!in!interest, $hen the% filed a petition for correction of entries in their respective titles before the then #5I of #avite, despite their :no$led.e of its clai+ over the sub9ect propert%. 5ourth, the #& ruled that the docu+ents presented b% the petitioners $ere not e actl% <ne$l% discovered evidence< because all of the+ could have been previousl% obtained and presented at the hearin. before the lo$er court. The petitioners failed to e ert their best efforts to obtain these alread% available docu+ents to buttress their clai+. 1wphi1 7ac: to the #ourt Obviousl% not satisfied $ith the 6ul% (*, '00* #& Decision, the petitioners a.ain filed separate petitions before this #ourt. The first petition, entitled &lbert #hua, 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa v. 7.". San Die.o, Inc., $as doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;8=. The second, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. 7.". San Die.o, Inc., $as doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;21.

On March ), '001, upon +otion of the parties, the #ourt issued a Resolution '= directin. the consolidation of /.R. No. (81;21 $ith /.R. No. (81;8=. On 6une 8, '002, the #ourt issued the Resolution '* den%in. due course to the petitions. On March 1, '00;, actin. on the separate +otions for reconsideration of the petitioners and other supple+ental pleadin.s, the #ourt resolved to .rant the +otions, reinstate the petitions and reGuire the parties to sub+it their respective +e+oranda. '1 In effect, this disposition is a revie$ of the #ourtHs &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2.'8 In their respective petitions, 35#, 6i++%, &lbert, and Spouses Solis anchored their pra%er for the reversal of the #& decision on the follo$in.? 5or &lbert #hua, 6i++% #hua and Spouses Solis ,/.R. No. (81;8=-? &SSI/NM"NT O5 "RRORS I The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$, erroneous conclusion of facts and .rave abuse of discretion $hen it upheld the validit% of the titles of San Die.o considerin. that the said titles cover tracts of land that have been previousl% re.istered and titled under the na+e 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco. II The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in rulin. that the t$o titles of San Die.o are unble+ished b% an% defect. III The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts a+ountin. to .rave abuse of discretion in holdin. that O#T (;); RO!1; is a separate title for 3ot!( of O#T (0'0 RO!) that $as issued on &pril (*, ()';. IV The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts, a+ountin. to reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion, in holdin. that the titles of the petitioners ori.inated fro+ O.#.T. (;); RO!1;. V

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in holdin. that the titles of the petitioners are defective because the technical description of the land stated therein ca+e fro+ O#T (0'0 RO!) and not fro+ O#T (;); RO!1;. VI The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and .rave abuse of discretion in holdin. that the correction +ade on the titles of 6i++% #hua and &lbert #hua are null and void. 5or 35# ,/.R. No. (81;21-? /ROANDS & The #ourt of &ppeals .rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin. that petitioner failed to establish a better ri.ht to the sub9ect properties even after petitioner $as able to trace its title fro+ one issued prior to the title relied upon b% respondent. (. Petitioner established the identit% of the Sub9ect Properties and that the% are overlapped b% the propert% described in respondentHs O#T No. O!8**. '. Petitioner clearl% established its o$nership of the Sub9ect Properties. 7 The #ourt of &ppeals .rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin. that respondentHs title rests on solid support despite the latterHs failure to establish ho$ it acGuired o$nership over the propert% covered b% O#T No. O!8**. # The #ourt of &ppeals .rievousl% co++itted a reversible error $hen it relied upon a superficial co+parison of the respective certificates of title of the parties in concludin. that respondent had superior title to the sub9ect properties. (. The presence or absence of errors on the face of the certificates of title is irrelevant in an action for Guietin. of title. '. In rulin. that there $as no overlappin. of titles in this case, the #ourt of &ppeals disre.arded the principle that it is the description of the boundaries of a propert% that is essential for its identification.

=. The errors in petitionerHs certificates of title that $ere hi.hli.hted in the &ssailed Decision $ere adeGuatel% e plained. D Petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to protection under the la$. PetitionersH consolidated ar.u+ents The petitioners ar.ue that their land titles should prevail over those of the respondent because the lands covered b% their titles $ere previousl% re.istered under the na+e of their predecessor!in!interest, 6uan, as earl% as 5ebruar% ()''. Specificall%, O#T No. ,(0'0-!RO!), fro+ $hich the% derived their titles, $as ori.inall% re.istered on 5ebruar% '(, ()'' in the na+e of 6uan $hile those of the respondent $ere re.istered onl% in ()81 and ()82, respectivel%. The sub9ect properties are 3ots '!&!= ,T#T No. T!;;*8;- and '!&!* ,T#T No. T!;;*82of plan Psd!((0);0. The technical descriptions found in T#T Nos. T!;;*8; and T! ;;*82, $hich $ere transferred fro+ T#T Nos. *(101 '2 and *(108,'; identif% the lots the% cover as 3ots '!&!= and '!&!*, respectivel%, of plan Psd!((0);0 and define the +etes and bounds thereof. The petitioners insist that the titles of the respondent overlap their titles. The evidence ad+itted in the RT# sho$ed the respondentHs properties, covered b% O#T No. O!8** issued in ()82> and T#T No. (28'(') fro+ O#T No. O!*)0=0 issued in ()81 to Teodora Do+in.ue4, overlappin. the National Hi.h$a% and Sapan. Nio. and the properties covered b% the titles of the petitioners $hich $ere traced to have ori.inated fro+ 3ot!' of O#T No. (0'0 RO!) issued to 6uan in ()''. The overlappin. $as ad+itted b% the respondentHs o$n counsel. The 7ureau of 3ands, throu.h "n.r. 5elipe Vene4uela ,"n.r. Vene4uela-, the #hief of Technical Services Section, identified the sub9ect properties $ith the use of the technical descriptions in T#T Nos. T!;;*82 and T!;;*8; in a verification surve% conducted in co+pliance $ith the RT# order. The Report of the 7ureau of 3ands on the verification surve%, dated 6ul% (, ();0, disclosed that there $as an overlappin. bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described in the respondentHs O#T No. O!8**. The sa+e report sho$ed that of the ),';2 sGuare +eters of land co+prisin. 3ot '!&!= of Psd!((0);0 ,T#T No. T!;;*8;-, 1,8'; sGuare +eters $ere overlapped b% the respondentHs O#T No. O!8**> $hile 2,*;) sGuare +eters of the ),';; sGuare +eter area of 3ot '!&!* ,T#T No. T!;;*82- $ere overlapped b% O#T No. O!8**. This overlappin. $as confir+ed b% the 3and Re.istration &uthorit% ,3R&throu.h its #ertification,=( dated 5ebruar% (*, ())1. The petitioners further ar.ue that $hat defines the land is the technical description as plotted on the .round and that the location should be based on the technical description and not on the basis of the barrio indicated therein.

The% clai+ that the errors in their certificates of title $ere adeGuatel% e plained in the sense that the propert% of 6uan covered b% O#T No. (0'0 $as principall% located in 7arrio Talaba, $hich $as ad9acent to 7arrio Nio., as sho$n b% the #ertification, dated Ma% '', ())1, issued b% the Municipal Plannin. and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor, #avite. The sub9ect properties once for+ed part of a lar.e tract of land covered b% O#T No. (0'0, and $hen 6uanHs land $as partitioned or subdivided throu.h the %ears, the resultin. lots $ere +ista:enl% described as bein. located in 7arrio Talaba, althou.h the% $ere actuall% situated in the ad9acent 7arrrio Nio.. &t an% rate, petitioner 35# ar.ues that it is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to protection under the la$ considerin. that the sub9ect properties $ere purchased $ith the approval of the court in the course of the probate proceedin.s and $ere not in possession of an%one. It $as 9ustified in rel%in. upon T#T Nos. T!*(101 and T!*(108 since it $as not under an% obli.ation to .o be%ond $hat appeared on the face of these titles. RespondentHs ar.u+ent Respondent San Die.o counters that the petitionersH clai+ of o$nership over the sub9ect properties $as not sufficientl% proven. The% $ere not able to prove the superiorit% of their titles over their titles. It .ave the follo$in. reasons? 5irst, the petitionersH titles have defects, as follo$s? (. The% $ere annotated $ith the inscription that the land described therein $as ori.inall% re.istered under O#T No. (;);, but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!)> '. The inscriptions on the petitionersH titles state that the properties are located in 7arrio Talaba $hen the properties described therein are situated in 7arrio Nio.> Second, T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert, respectivel%, $ere altered. The nu+ber (;); in the O#T space $as chan.ed to reflect RO!) instead. Their petitions for correction of entries in their titles filed before the #5I of #avite failed to co+pl% $ith the 9urisdictional reGuire+ents of Section (0; of P.D. No. (1'), one of $hich $as to .ive notice to a part% in interest of oneHs application or petition for a+end+ent or alteration to a title. Third, even assu+in. that the petitionersH titles ori.inated fro+ O#T No. (0'0, the petitions $ould still not prosper because O#T No. (0'0 $as never offered as evidence in court. 3i:e$ise, the petition for reconstitution filed b% 3adisla$ #uenca ,3adisla$-, dated 6anuar% '8, ()1), $as void on its face because it did not contain all the essential data reGuired b% la$ such as the location, area and boundaries of the properties> the nature and description of the buildin.s or i+prove+ents, if an%, $hich did not belon. to the o$ners of the land, the na+es and addresses of the o$ners of such buildin.s and

i+prove+ents> the na+es and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the propert%> the na+es of the o$ners of the ad9oinin. properties> and the na+es of all persons $ho +i.ht have an% interest in the propert%. 5ourth, the alle.ed <ne$ evidence< presented b% the petitioners before the #& cannot support their clai+ of o$nership because said <ne$ evidence< $ere not ne$ because the sa+e could have been easil% presented and produced durin. the trial. "ven if the sa+e $ere ne$l% discovered, the% did not affect, +uch less i+pin.e on, the indefeasibilit% of the respondentHs titles. 5ifth, the respondentHs titles $ere le.all% issued. O#T No. O!8** $as issued pursuant to Decree No. N!((''=) in 3R# No. 112 of the then #5I of #avite, 3R# Record No. N! =08*2, and T#T No. (28'( $as derived fro+ O#T No. O!*)0 in the na+e of Do+in.ue4 $hich $as issued pursuant to Decree No. N!(08*;0, 3R# #ase No. N!*82, 3R# Record No. N!'2)'=. &dditionall%, the respondent contends that 35# cannot raise for the first ti+e on appeal the ar.u+ent that it is an innocent purchaser for value. T*+ Co/r-2. R/li#0 & person, $ho see:s re.istration of title to a piece of land, $ho clai+s that he has a better ri.ht to the propert%, or $ho pra%s for its recover%, +ust prove his assertion b% clear and convincin. evidence, and is dut% bound to identif% sufficientl% and satisfactoril% the propert%.=' &fter cautiousl% .oin. over the volu+inous records of these consolidated cases and appl%in. the pertinent la$ and 9urisprudence on the +atter, the #ourt holds that the respondentHs clai+ over the disputed properties prevails over those of the petitioners. The consolidated records reveal that the sub9ect properties undeniabl% co+e fro+ a lar.e land area consistin. of '2(,'8* sGuare +eters ,PSA!'021- located in the Municipalit% of 7acoor, #avite, $hich $as ori.inall% o$ned b% and re.istered in the na+e of 6uan. PSA!'021 $as traversed b% a railroad trac: dividin. it into t$o lots? 3ot ( coverin. the northern portion and 3ot ' coverin. the southern portion. On 5ebruar% (1, ()'', upon application for re.istration, O#T No. (0'0 $hich covered 3ots ( and ' of PSA!'021 $as issued to 6uan. 3ater, on 6une 2, ()1), O#T No. (0'0 $as ad+inistrativel% reconstituted after a fire .utted the #avite Provincial Hall, and 6uan $as issued O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!)== $hich also contained the technical descriptions of 3ots ( and ' of PSA!'021. On &pril (*, ()';, a separate O#T I O#T No. (;); ! $as issued to 6uan coverin. 3ot (, North of the railroad trac:. Si+ilarl%, in 6une ()1), O#T No. (;); $as ad+inistrativel% reconstituted due to the fire that .utted the #avite Municipal Hall and 6uan $as issued O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;.

O#T No. ,(;);-RO!1; $as divided into (= lots. "leven ,((- $ere located in the barrios of Talaba, Dapote, and Malicsi, and t$o ,'- in the Poblacion of 7acoor, #avite. On &pril (8, ()8), after 6uanHs death, 3ot ' of O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!) $as subdivided into (' lots as approved b% the #5I of #avite, in an action for partition filed b% 6ose #uenca ,6ose-, a survivin. heir. Thereafter, (' ne$ titles $ere issued to each of these lots $hich included T#T No. =1)8==* for 3ot '!&> T#T No. =1)2==1 for 3ot '!E> and T#T No. =1)2*=8 for 3ot '!3. These = lots I 3ot '!&, 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 I $ere titled and re.istered in the na+e of 6uan. &ll these titles $ere inscribed as ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!). On Septe+ber ), ()8), 3ot '!& $as subdivided into 2 lots and ne$ individual titles $ere issued to each lot includin. T#T No. *(101=2 for 3ot '!&!=, $hich $as ad9udicated to Pura #uenca ,Pura-, another heir> and T#T No.*(108 for 3ot '!&!*, $hich $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$, also another heir. &ll these titles $ere inscribed as ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;, and not as T!=1)8=, ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!). &lthou.h the titles issued to Pura and 3adisla$ stated that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. (;);, $hich $as 3ot ( of the northern portion of 6uanHs lar.e tract of land, the technical descriptions in the said T#Ts $ere ta:en or lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!), $hich $as 3ot ' or the southern portion of 6uanHs lar.e tract of land. 3i:e$ise, 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 $ere consolidated and further subdivided into ; lots. These ; lots $ere issued ne$ individual titles $hich included T#T No. *(*)2 =; for 3ot =, $hich $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$> T#T No. *(*); =) for 3ot *, $hich $as ad9udicated to Pura> and T#T No. *(100 for 3ot 8, $hich $as ad9udicated to 6ose. &ll these ne$ titles $ere inscribed as ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;, not as T!=1)2= and T!=1)2*, ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!). On October '(, ()28, after the death of Pura and 3adisla$, the #5I of #avite approved the sale of 3ot '!&!= $ith T#T No. *(101 and 3ot '!&!* $ith T#T No. *(108 to 35#. The ne$ titles $ere eventuall% issued in the na+e of 35#. T#T No. ;;*8; and T#T No. ;;*82, $hich $ere also inscribed as ori.inall% issued as O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;. On Ma% ), ()2), the #5I of #avite approved the sale of 3ot = $ith T#T No. *(*)2 and 3ot * $ith T#T No. *(*); to 6i++% and &lbert, respectivel%, and ne$ titles $ere issued, T#T No.(0*'*; for 6i++% and T#T No. (0*'*) for &lbert. The ne$ titles $ere inscribed as ori.inall% issued as O#T No. ,(;);-RO!1;. 3ot 8 $ith T#T No. *(100 $as sold b% 6ose to Spouses Solis and a ne$ title, T#T No. )*=;), $as issued to the+. There $ere t$o co++on features present in the titles of 6i++%, &lbert and Spouses Solis? (- the co++on inscription in their titles $as that the lands covered therein $ere ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No.(;); on &pril (*, ()';> and '- the co++on description that the properties therein $ere located in the 7arrio of Talaba, 7acoor, #avite.

The le.al sGuabble in this case started $hen San Die.o ca+e into the picture and clai+ed o$nership of the sub9ect parcels of land for $hich titles $ere also re.istered in its na+e, based on O#T No. O!8**, issued upon application and proper proceedin.s in 3R# #ase Nos. N!112 and N!=08*2 before the then #5I of #avite and T#T No.T!(28'( $hich cancelled O#T No. 0!*)0 $hich, in turn, $as ori.inall% issued to Do+in.ue4, $ho sold the sa+e propert% to it throu.h an absolute deed of sale, *0 dated 5ebruar% '8, ()88. To recapitulate, the parcels of land in dispute are those covered b% (- T#T No. ;;*82 and T#T No. ;;*8; issued in favor of 35#> '- T#T No. T!(0*'*; and T#T No. T! (0*'*) issued in favor of 6i++% and &lbert> =- T#T No. T!)*=;) issued in favor of Spouses Solis> *- T#T No. T!(28'( $hich cancelled O#T No. O!*)0 and issued in favor of San Die.o> and 1- O#T No. 0!8** issued in favor of San Die.o. Specificall%, on the 35# clai+ of e clusive o$nership over the t$o ,'- parcels of land covered b% T#T Nos. ;;*82 and ;;*8;, issued on 5ebruar% (;, ()22, San Die.o insists that it has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of an o$ner of these parcels of land for +ore than fift% ,10- %ears before the% $ere purchased b% 35#. San Die.o bou.ht the sub9ect propert% fro+ Do+in.ue4 on 5ebruar% 8, ()88 and the absolute deed of sale $as sub+itted in 3R# #ase No. N!112. It has also been declarin. said propert% for ta purposes. @ith respect to the clai+s of o$nership b% 6i++% and &lbert over the parcels of land covered b% T#T No. T!(0*'*; and T#T No. T!(0*'*) issued on 6anuar% '0 and =0, ()2), respectivel%, San Die.o ar.ues that it acGuired the sa+e parcels b% virtue of T#T No. T!(28'( issued on March ', ()88 $hich cancelled O#T No. O!*)0 ori.inall% issued to Do+in.ue4, $ho sold the sa+e propert% to San Die.o. On their part, Spouses Solis clai+ that the% purchased a portion of the propert% titled under T#T No. T!(28'( in favor of San Die.o fro+ 6ose for $hich T#T No. T!)*=;) $as issued to the+. Petitioners failed to prove the superiorit% of their titles over those of the respondent In civil cases, the part% havin. the burden of proof +ust establish his case b% a preponderance of evidence. <Preponderance of evidence< is the $ei.ht, credit, and value of the a..re.ate evidence on either side and is usuall% considered to be s%non%+ous $ith the ter+ <.reater $ei.ht of the evidence< or <.reater $ei.ht of the credible evidence.< It is a phrase $hich, in the last anal%sis, +eans probabilit% of the truth. It is evidence $hich is +ore convincin. to the court as $orth% of belief than that $hich is offered in opposition thereto. *( In the consolidated cases at bench, the petitioners failed to dischar.e the burden of provin. the superiorit% of their titles over those of the respondent. #ontrar% to the petitionersH ar.u+ents, the evidence on record un+ista:abl% sho$ that their titles have co++on defects. These are (J the petitionersH titles are annotated $ith the inscription

that the land described therein $as ori.inall% re.istered under O#T No. (;);, but the technical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!)> and '- the petitionersH titles specificall% state that the sub9ect properties are located in the 7arrio of Talaba, 7acoor, #avite, $hen the properties described therein are actuall% situated in the 7arrio of Nio., $hich is a separate and distinct localit%. These defects $ere carried over fro+ the defective titles of their predecessors!in! interest, na+el%, Pura and 3adisla$, $hich contained technical descriptions $hich, ho$ever, did not correspond $ith the recital of facts in the certification portion. It +a% be recalled that $hen T#T NO. *(101 $as ad9udicated to Pura, and T#T No. *(108 to 3adisla$ on Septe+ber ), ()8), both titles $ere inscribed as ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;, and not as T!=1)8=, ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(0'0-RO!). The defects of these titles are evident fro+ the fact that O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!) is different fro+ O#T No. (;);. O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!) $as an ad+inistrativel% reconstituted title fro+ O#T No. (0'0 issued to 6uan on 5ebruar% (1, ()''. On the other hand, O#T No. (;); $as a separate O#T issued to 6uan on &pril (*, ()';. O#T No. (;); covered 3ot (, the northern portion of 6uanHs vast tract of land, $hile O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!) covered its southern portion. The sa+e defects also sho$ed in T#T No. *(*)2 issued in favor of 3adisla$> T#T No. *(*); issued in favor of Pura> and in T#T No. *(100 issued in favor of 6ose. &ll these titles $ere li:e$ise inscribed as ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(;);- RO!1;, and not as T!=1)2= and T!=1)2*, ori.inall% re.istered as O#T No. ,(0'0-RO!). Since T#T No. *(101 and T#T No. *(108 $ere defective titles issued on Septe+ber ), ()8) to Pura and 3adisla$, respectivel%, it necessaril% follo$s that 35#Hs T#T No. ;;*8; and T#T No. ;;*82, $hich cancelled said titles, $ere li:e$ise defective. The sa+e is true $ith the title issued to Spouses Solis, T#T No. )*=;), $hich cancelled T#T No. *(100. #learl%, the +is+atch in the technical descriptions and the recital of facts in the certification on the face of the petitionersH titles creates a serious cloud of doubt on the inte.rit% of the said titles. The obvious disparities +a:e it difficult to e actl% deter+ine the sub9ect parcels of land covered b% the said titles in the sense that the technical descriptions therein referred to the area south of 6uanHs tract of land $hile the recital of facts in the certification therein refers to the area north of 6uanHs tract of land. It +ust be stressed that the northern and southern portions of 6uanHs tract of land have separate titles, O#T No. (;); for the northern portion and O#T No. (0'0 for the southern portion. In effect, the petitionersH alle.ed o$nership ri.hts over the sub9ect properties have not been satisfactoril% and conclusivel% proven due to such inconsistencies. The petitioners, ho$ever, ar.ue that the errors or disparities in the inscriptions on the face of their respective titles $ere 9ust clerical and, therefore, cannot affect the inte.rit% of their titles. In this re.ard, the #ourt adopts the initial rulin. of the #& on the +atter

and other related points in its Dece+ber '*, ())( Decision in #& /.R. No. (=1*0, $hich reads? The appellees ,petitioners- ar.ue, ho$ever, that the annotations appearin. in their respective titles are +ere clerical errors and that the technical descriptions contained therein should prevail. This ar.u+ent, ho$ever, cannot find application to the case at bar because the opposin. parties have in their possession titles referrin. to the sa+e propert%, and $hose technical descriptions pertain to the said propert%. The appelleesH clai+ that it is the annotations in their titles that are erroneous is not supported b% the evidence. On the contrar%, their ad+ission that the ori.inal titles of their predecessors! in!interest $ere reconstituted casts doubts on the appelleesH clai+ that the technical description should prevail over the annotations. Our conclusion that the appelleesH titles are defective is bolstered b% the fact that the titles of their predecessors!in!interest $ere alread% defective, as a result of the partition of the propert%. &s narrated in the fore.oin. facts, pursuant to a partition of the estate of 6uan #uenca, separate titles $ere issued to the heirs Pura, 3adisla$a and 6ose #uenca. One parcel ad9udicated to Pura #uenca covered b% T#T No. *(101 $as issued on 5ebruar% '*, ()20 ,&nne <3<-. This title $as defective in the +anner alread% +entioned, that is, the annotation states that the ori.in of the said transfer certificate of title $as O.#.T. No. (;);, but the technical description $as lifted fro+ O.#.T. ,(0'0RO!). &nother parcel, ad9udicated to 3adisla$a #uenca $as covered b% T.#.T. No. *(108 ,&nne <M<-. This, title, li:e$ise, contained the sa+e defect. These t$o parcels $ere eventuall% sold to appellee 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation and the defect $as carried over to the ne$ titles issued to it. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. *(*); issued to Pura #uenca ," hibit <TTT!1<- coverin. still another parcel also carried the sa+e defect. This parcel $as later sold to appellee &lbert #hua, and his ne$ title, in turn, continued to contain the sa+e defect. Moreover, T#T No. *(*=2 ," hibit <TTT!*<-, coverin. a parcel ad9udicated to 3adis$ala #uenca, $as also defective. @hen sold to appellee 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon., the ne$ title issued to hi+ also carried the sa+e defect. The last sub9ect parcel $as ad9udicated to 6ose #uenca, $hose T#T No. *(10( $as also defective. &ccordin.l%, the ne$ title issued to the appellee spouses Solis, $ho bou.ht said parcel, $as also defective. Thus, even thou.h the appellees can trace their titles as havin. been ori.inall% re.istered on 5ebruar% '(, ()'', the succeedin. titles, issued on 5ebruar% '*, ()20, $ere all defective. @h% no effort $as e erted to correct the alle.ed <clerical errors< on the part of the appelleesH predecessors!in!interest, has not been e plained. The uncorrected defects in the appelleesH titles have brou.ht about this present controvers%. Not$ithstandin., the appellantHs ,respondent- O.#.T. No. 0!8** and T.#.T. No. T!(28'( $ere issued $a% before the defective titles $ere issued to Pura, 3adisla$a and 6ose #uenca. &nd +ore so, the appellantHs titles $ere issued and re.istered lon. before the appellees purchased the sub9ect parcels fro+ the #uencas. &s a.ainst the perfect and

re.ularl% issued titles of the appellant, the appelleesH belated and defective titles +ust .ive $a%.*' 5urther+ore, the titles issued so+eti+e in ()2), ,T#T No. (0*'*;, to 6i++% $hich cancelled T#T No. *(*)2, and T#T No. (0*'*), to &lbert $hich cancelled T#T No. *(*);- are li:e$ise defective due to the apparent +aterial alterations in the certification portion of their respective titles. The certifications $ere altered to +a:e the nu+ber (;); appear as RO!) in the O#T space of the titles. The #& $as correct in sa%in. that +aterial alterations affected the inte.rit% of these titles. 6i++% and &lbert +anifested that the% filed a petition for the correction of entries in their respective titles before the then #5I of #avite and that the said court .ranted their petition. The records, ho$ever, failed to sho$ sufficient proof that 6i++% and &lbert faithfull% co+plied $ith the basic notice reGuire+ent under Section (0; of P.D. No. (1'), $hich provides as follo$s? Sec. (0;. &+end+ent and alteration of certificates. K No erasure, alteration, or a+end+ent shall be +ade upon the re.istration boo: after the entr% of a certificate of title or of a +e+orandu+ thereon and the attestation of the sa+e b% the Re.ister of Deeds, e cept b% order of the proper #ourt of 5irst Instance. & re.istered o$ner or other person havin. an interest in re.istered propert%, or, in proper cases, the Re.ister of Deeds $ith the approval of the #o++issioner of 3and Re.istration, +a% appl% b% petition to the court upon the .round that the re.istered interests of an% description, $hether vested, contin.ent, e pectant or inchoate appearin. on the certificate, have ter+inated and ceased> or that a ne$ interest not appearin. upon the certificate have arisen or been created> or that an o+ission or error $as +ade in enterin. a certificate or an% +e+orandu+ thereon, or on an% duplicate certificate> or that the na+e of an% person on the certificate has been chan.ed> or that the re.istered o$ner has +arried, or, if re.istered as +arried, that the +arria.e has been ter+inated and no ri.ht or interest of heirs or creditors $ill thereb% be affected> or that a corporation $hich o$ned re.istered land and has been dissolved has not conve%ed the sa+e $ithin three %ears after its dissolution> or upon an% other reasonable .round> and the court +a% hear and deter+ine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and +a% order the entr% or cancellation of a ne$ certificate, . L"+phases suppliedJ The above provision reGuires that all interested parties +ust be dul% notified of the petitionerHs application for a+end+ent or alteration of the certificate of title. Relief under the said le.al provision can onl% be .ranted if there is unani+it% a+on. the parties, or that there is no adverse clai+ or serious ob9ection on the part of an% part% in interest. *= @ithout doubt, San Die.o, a part%!in!interest $ith an adverse clai+, $as not dul% notified of the said petition. The records reveal that despite their :no$led.e about its adverse clai+ over the sub9ect properties, 6i++% and &lbert never notified San Die.o about their application or petition for a+end+ent or alteration of title. This #ourt a.rees $ith the #& that the lac: of notice to San Die.o placed in serious Guestion the validit% of the #5I 9ud.+ent or its enforceabilit% a.ainst it. &n a+end+entMalteration effected

$ithout notice to the affected o$ners $ould not be in co+pliance $ith la$ or the reGuire+ents of due process.** The record sho$s that &lbert $as a$are of San Die.oHs adverse clai+ on his propert%. Despite said :no$led.e, there $as still no due notice .iven to it. Thus? &tt% 7ernardo? B &fter %ou purchased this propert% did %ou ta:e possession thereofN & Oes, sir. B Did an% person disturb %our propert%N & Oes, sir. 7% &tt%. 7ernardo ,To the $itnessB Did %ou co+e to :no$ $ho is that personN & Oes, sir. B @hoN & The +en of 7artolo+e San Die.o, sir. B Did %ou co+e to :no$ $h% the% disturb %our possessionN & Oes, sir. B @hatN & 7ecause the% clai+ed that the% are also the o$ner of the lot, sir. B &fter :no$in. that 7artolo+e ". San Die.o is clai+in. to be the o$ner of %our lot, $hat did %ou doN & I $ent to +% attorne% and he instructed +e also to locate for the ori.inal title fro+ $here this lot ca+e fro+. ,TSN, pp. (1!(8, 6ul% (), ();=- *1 There is no overlappin. of the properties covered b% the titles of the parties The petitioners ar.ue that an overlappin. of titles $as established b% their evidence. Surve%s and s:etch plans*8 $ere presented sho$in. the relative positions of the sub9ect properties as $ell as their histor%*2 $hich $ere traced all the $a% bac: to their +other title, O#T No. (0'0. Moreover, the 7ureau of 3ands, throu.h the #hief of its Technical

Services Section, "n.r. Vene4uela, identified the sub9ect properties usin. the technical descriptions in T#T Nos. T!;;*82 and T!;;*8; in a verification surve% conducted in co+pliance $ith the order of the trial court. His Report, dated 6ul% (, ();0, stated that there $as an overlappin. bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described in the respondentHs O#T No. O!8**. The report sho$ed that of the ),';2 sGuare +eters of land co+prisin. 3ot '!&!= Psd!((0);0 ,T#T No. T!;;*8;-, 1,8'; sGuare +eters $ere overlapped b% the respondentHs O#T No. O!8**, $hile 2,*;) sGuare +eters of the ),';; sGuare +eter of 3ot '!&!* ,T#T No. T!;;*82- $ere overlapped b% O#T No. O! 8**. This report $as the basis of the #ertification, dated 5ebruar% (*, ())1, of the 3R&, to the effect that 3ots ( and ' situated in 7arrio Nio., 7acoor, #avite, decreed in 3R# #ase No. N!112, Record No. N!=08*2 under Decree No. N!((''=) issued on 6anuar% *, ()82 in favor of the respondent, $ere parcels of land covered b% O#T No. O!8**, and $hen plotted in the +unicipal inde sheet throu.h its tie line, $ould fall inside subdivision plan ,3R#- Psd!))8)2, 3ot!'!&, $hich included the sub9ect properties. The respondent, ho$ever, asserts that overlappin. is i+possible because the properties in Guestion are located in different barrios> the petitionersH properties are in 7aran.a% Talaba, $hile those of the respondent are situated in 7aran.a% Nio.. #onsiderin. the criticall% defective certificates of title, there can be no clear evidence of overlappin.. &s the petitioners the+selves 9udiciall% ad+itted, their respective certificates of title $ere defective because (J the +other title, indicated therein, $as O#T No. (;);, containin. descriptions lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!), a reconstituted title> 'J the location of the properties as indicated in their titles $as 7arrio Talaba> and =J the technical descriptions contained in their T#Ts pertain to properties specified in O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!). These defects are ver% +aterial that it cannot be ar.ued that the% are 9ust clerical in nature. The fla$s in their titles are +a9or defects that cannot 9ust be dis+issed as t%po.raphical and innocuous. The defects pertain to the essential core of a title and definitel% affect their inte.rit%. 7ein. si.nificantl% defective, these cannot serve as indubitable and valid bases for a clear and convincin. delineation of the +etes and bounds of the properties. The #ourt alread% debun:ed this ar.u+ent in its &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2. Thus? Petitioners $ould +ini+i4e the i+port of the defects in their titles b% describin. the+ as <clerical.< The plea does not persuade for the self!contradictions in petitionersF titles infract their inte.rit%. "rrors that relate to the lotsF +other title, their technical descriptions and their locations cannot be dis+issed as clerical and har+less in character. @ith these errors, the titles of the petitioners do not deserve the sanctit% .iven to torrens title. These errors precisel% created and cast the cloud of doubt over petitionersF titles and precipitated the case at bench. *; The apparent defects in the certificates of title prove that the petitioners are clai+in. the $ron. propert%, as evidenced b% the #ertification *) of the Office of the Municipal Plannin. and Develop+ent #oordinator, 7acoor, #avite. In other $ords, the petitioners

are clai+in. o$nership of parcels of land not in the location stated in their respective titles. The properties, presentl% in possession of San Die.o, are located in 7arrio Nio., as described in their titles. &lthou.h 7arrio Talaba and 7arrio Nio. are ad9acent to each other, their respective boundaries are clearl% defined and delineated fro+ the plans, +aps and surve%s on record. It has not been sho$n, so far, that the said barrios $ere one and the sa+e at so+e point in ti+e. 7asic is the rule that a person, $ho clai+s that he has a better ri.ht to the propert% or pra%s for its recover%, +ust prove his assertion b% clear and convincin. evidence and is dut% bound to identif% sufficientl% and satisfactoril% the propert%.10 #onsistentl%, the notices of hearin. of 6uanHs applications for re.istration and confir+ation of title in #ase No. ('), /3RO Record No. ')'(0 1( and #ase No. 8), /3RO Record No.(;;'8,1' before the #5I of the Province of #avite, specificall% indicated therein that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba, Dapote, Malicsi, and Poblacion, in 7acoor, #avite. There $as no +ention $hatsoever of an% propert% located in 7arrio Nio.. It is for this reason that the #ourt finds difficult% in acceptin. the petitionersH theor% that the propert% that the% have been clai+in. +a% have been erroneousl% classified as situated in 7arrio Talaba, $hen the% are actuall% located in 7arrio Nio.. The verification surve% is unreliable 3i:e the petitionersH titles, the #ourt finds the verification surve% conducted b% "n.r. Vene4uela of the 7ureau of 3ands unreliable. It is so because "n.r. Vene4uela ad+itted that his table surve% $as +erel% based on the technical description of the defective titles. Naturall%, an overlappin. $ould be e pected on this basis. &.ain, the #ourt reiterates its position in this re.ard $hich appears in its &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2. Thus? To be sure, these defects $ere 9udiciall% ad+itted b% the petitioners. The% attached their defective titles to their co+plaints in the trial court. &s aforestated, their titles sho$ed on their ver% face that the% covered lots located in 7arrio Talaba, +unicipalit% of 7acoor $hereas the lots of private respondent are in 7arrio Nio. of the sa+e +unicipalit%. The t$o barrios are one and a half :ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other. 3i:e$ise, the face of their titles sho$ that the% e+anated fro+ O#T No. (;); or fro+ 3ot ( constitutin. the northern portion of 6uan #uencaFs propert% before its subdivision. Nonetheless, the technical descriptions of the lots appearin. in their titles $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. ,(0'0- RO!) or fro+ 3ot ' for+in. the southern portion of 6uan #uencaFs land. No less than petitionersF $itness, "n.. Vene4uela, confir+ed these blatant defects $hen he testified, thus? 7O &TTO. V&SBA"D? ,to the $itnessB Oou said %ou referred to these titles in connection $ith %our verificationN

@ITN"SS? & Oes, sir. B No$, I presu+e %ou also sa$ the +atters stated in the second para.raph of the first pa.e of the titles, I a+ referrin. . . . particularl% to the fact that as stated in both of these titles, this land $as ori.inall% re.istered on &pril (*, ()'; as Ori.inal #ertificate of Title (;); pursuant to Decree No. ==;'1) 3R# Record No. ')'(*, did %ou notice thoseN @ITN"SS? & I noticed that, sir.

7O &TTO. V&SBA"D? ,To the $itnessB In the report that %ou sub+itted to this #ourt on %our verification surve%, $e find in para.raph ;, No, para.raph *, subpara.raph f, the follo$in. state+ent $hich I read, <TH&T &S P"R T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTIONS &PP"&RIN/ ON T#T NO. ;;*82 &ND T#T NO. ;;*8; R"/IST"R"D IN TH" N&M" O5. . . . . . 3OR"ND&N& 5OOD #ORPOR&TION, TH" PROP"RTO 5&33S IN TH" 7&RRIO O5 NIO/, 7&#OOR, #&VIT",< #ONTR&DI#TIN/ TO TH" 3O#&TION ST&T"D IN TH" TIT3" @HI#H IS 7&RRIO T&3&7&, I R"&D 5ARTH"R, <IT M&O 7" DA" TO TH" 5&#T TH&T S&ID TIT3" ORI/IN&T"D 5ROM ORI/IN&3 #"RTI5I#&T" NO TIT3" NO. (;); D"#R""D AND"R NO. ==;'1) @HI#H IS &#TA&33O 3O#&T"D IN 7&RRIO T&3&7&, 7&#OOR, #&VIT". MO BA"STION IS, 7&RRIO T&3&7& &ND 7&RRIO NIO/ &R" DI55"R"NT 7&RRIOSN @ITN"SS? & O"S, SIR. B &nd %ou have apparentl% noticed that the state+ent contained in the second para.raph of the title of plaintiff statin. that the land supposed to be covered b% said titles is derived fro+ O#T No. (;);N & Oes, sir. B &re $e to understand that the land covered b% O#T No. (;); is not the sa+e land covered b% the titles of the 3oren4anaN

& In a sense it is not actuall%, the title O#T (;); is located on northern portion of O#T No. (0'0, in fact I +ade here a $or:in. sheet sho$in. the titles, the one Ori.inal #ertificate of Title (0'0 and Ori.inal #ertificate .... of Title (;); and I have here a s:etch plan of the positions. .

7O &TTO. V&SBA"D? ,To the $itnessB Oou are +entioned O#T No. (;); and O#T No. (0'0, %ou $ill tell the #ourt of these t$o ,'- titles cover different parcels of landN @ITN"SS? & &s per +% s:etch sheet plan, Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 is located at the southern portion of the Ori.inal of Title No. (;);, +eanin. to sa% that the% are far apart fro+ each other. B No$, this technical description that %ou utili4ed to plot the land described in the title or titles of the plaintiff, $hich title did %ou use, (;); or (0'0N & I 9ust follo$ed the title as issued, as ordered b% the #ourt. I based +% verification based on the title as reGuired b% the #ourt. B TH" BA"STION IS, &##ORDIN/ TO OOA .... V"RI5I#&TION, TH" 3&ND 7"IN/ #3&IM"D 7O TH" P3&INTI55, IS IT #OV"R"D 7O (;); OR (0'0N @ITN"SS? & @"33, IT IS &3R"&DO #3"&R ON TH" TIT3" TH&T IT @&S T&E"N 5ROM O#T (;);. B I $ill not ar.ue to that fact that the title of 3oren4ana $as ta:en fro+ (;); but I a+ as:in. %ou the plottin. of the technical description as described on the title of the plaintiff is referrin. to a land covered b% ori.inal certificate of title (;); or (0'0N & It is ver% clear on +% plan that the t$o ,'- titles of 3oren4ana happened to fall to Ori.inal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0. B IN OTH"R @ORDS, I5 @" /O 7O TH" TIT3", IT @OA3D &PP"&R TH&T THIS TIT3" O5 TH" 3OR"ND&N&S @&S D"RIV"D 5ROM (;); 7AT TH" T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTION ..... @&S 5ROM &NOTH"R TIT3" SP"#I5I#&33O (0'0N @ITN"SS?

& O"S, SIR, 7O ASIN/ TH" T"#HNI#&3 D"S#RIPTION ,pp. =*!=1, =2!*0, *(!*=, tsn, ('!)!;0, bold letters supplied-. His atte+pt to reconcile the defects and inconsistencies appearin. on the faces of petitionersF titles did not i+press the respondent court and neither are $e. His opinion lac:s authoritativeness for his verification surve% $as not +ade on the land itself. It $as a +ere table surve% based on the defective titles the+selves. 1= L"+phasis suppliedJ San Die.oHs titles have no +ar:ed defect and acco+panied b% an open, adverse and continuous possession In contrast, San Die.o $as able to sufficientl% prove their clai+ of o$nership of the sub9ect properties. Its certificates of title coverin. the sub9ect properties have no +ar:ed defects and the description of the properties therein coincides $ith the annotations appearin. thereon. Thus, its titles state that the sub9ect properties are located in 7arrio Nio. and the parcels of land it clai+s are also located in the sa+e barrio. There is si+pl% no discrepanc% bet$een its titles and the actual location of the sub9ect properties bein. clai+ed and possessed b% it. Moreover, San Die.o has in its favor the fact that it has been in open, adverse and continuous possession of the sub9ect properties since it purchased the sa+e on 5ebruar% 8, ()88. Their prior and la$ful possession of their titled properties is further bolstered b% the fact that the% have been pa%in. the propert% ta es thereon since their purchase in ()88.1* The docu+ents of petitioners are not ne$l% discovered evidence The #ourt sustains the rulin. of the #& that the alle.ed ne$ docu+ents sub+itted b% the petitioners cannot be considered as ne$l% discovered evidence. The docu+ents attached b% the petitioners in their petition to re!open $ere the follo$in.? (J #ertified true copies of notices of hearin. pertainin. to 6uanHs application for re.istration and confir+ation of title> 'J #ertification b% the Municipal Plannin. and Develop+ent #oordinator of 7acoor, #avite, that 7arrios Nio. and Talaba are ad9acent> and =certification fro+ the 3R& re.ardin. the encroach+ent of San Die.oHs propert%. These are not ne$l% discovered and the% cannot affect the #ourtHs rulin. in its &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2. The #ourt Guotes $ith approval the rulin. of the #& on this +atter? & co++on characteristic shared b% all the fore.oin. docu+ents is that the% are not e actl% <ne$l% discovered evidence< as plaintiffsH clai+ the% are. 7% their nature, all of the+ could have been previousl% obtained and presented b% plaintiffs at the hearin.s before the lo$er court. 5or plaintiffsH failure to present these docu+ents there is no one else to bla+e but the+selves. It appears that the% did not e ert their best efforts to .et hold of evidence $hich $as alread% available, or at the ver% least, obtainable, to

buttress their clai+. To allo$ the presentation of evidence on a piece!+eal basis, thereb% needlessl% causin. a dela% in the resolution of the case $ould be anathe+a to the purpose of deliverin. 9ustice.11 In vie$ of the fore.oin., the #ourt can safel% state that San Die.oHs O#T No. O!8** and T#T No. T!(28'( ,fro+ O#T No. O!*)0- are +ore reliable than 35#Hs T#T No. ;;*82 and T#T No. ;;*8;> 6i++% and &lbertHs T#T T!(0*'*; and T#T T!(0*'*), respectivel%> and Spouses SolisHs T#T No. T!)*=;). 1wphi1 5inall%, as to 35#Fs assertion that it is an innocent purchaser for value,> suffice it to state that this doctrine is not applicable as the contendin. titles do not refer to one and the sa+e propert%. The #ourt, once a.ain, restates its position on an% clai+ of da+a.es a.ainst its predecessors!in!interest. Thus? In a last s$in. a.ainst the disputed Decision, petitioners contend that the respondent court co++itted .rave abuse of discretion $hen it failed to pass 9ud.+ent on the liabilities of the estates of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$ #uenca, their predecessors!in! interest. The contention deserves scant attention. The records sho$ that the trial court dis+issed petitionersF #o+plaint a.ainst the "states of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$ #uenca in #ivil #ase Nos. 7#V!;0!(2 and 7#V!;(!(;. The% alle.ed that the said "states breached their $arranties as sellers of the sub9ect lots. Petitioners 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation as $ell as 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon. and &lbert #hua did not appeal the dis+issal of their #o+plaints a.ainst these "states. The dis+issal has beco+e final and petitioners cannot resurrect the "statesF alle.ed liabilit% in this petition for revie$ on certiorari.18 /rantin. ar.uendo that the% are so, the re+ed% of the petitioners is to see: co+pensation fro+ the &ssurance 5und. @H"R"5OR", the consolidated petitions are hereb% D"NI"D for lac: of +erit. SO ORD"R"D. JOSE CATRAL MEN%O(A &ssociate 6ustice @" #ON#AR? PRESB TERO J. &ELASCO, JR. &ssociate 6ustice #hairperson % OS%A%O M. PERALTA &ssociate 6ustice ROBERTO A. ABA% &ssociate 6ustice

MAR& C MAR O & CTOR ). LEONEN &ssociate 6ustice &TT"ST&TION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi.ned to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourtHs Division. PRESB TERO J. &ELASCO, JR. &ssociate 6ustice #hairperson, Third Division #"RTI5I#&TION Pursuant to Section (=, &rticle VIII of the #onstitution and the Division #hairpersonFs &ttestation, I certif% that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case $as assi.ned to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourtFs Division. MAR A LOUR%ES P. A. SERENO #hief 6ustice

)oo-#o-+. '=( S#R& 2(=. ,Penned b% then &ssociate 6ustice Re%nato S. Puno and concurred in b% #hief 6ustice &ndres R. Narvasa, &ssociate 6ustice Teodoro R. Padilla, and &ssociate 6ustice 5loren4 D. Re.alado.
( '

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. *(*!*'=. Id. at *'(.

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (0!'1. ,Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R. 7ello, 6r. and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Re.alado ". Maa+bon. and &ssociate 6ustice 3ucenito N. Ta.le* 1

Id. at '*!'1. Id. at (0!'1. Id. at '2!';.

'=( S#R& 2(=, 2(1!2(). Buotin. fro+ the Dece+ber '*, ())( #& Decision in #&!/.R. #V No. (=1*0.
;

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. (8*!()=. Id. at (;)!()(. Id. at )'!)=.

(0

((

Id. at ()*!'0;> penned b% &ssociate 6ustice Venancio D. &ldecoa and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice 6ose #. #a+pos and &ssociate 6ustice 5ile+on H. Mendo4a.
(' (=

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '01!'08. Id. at ())!'00. Id. at (;1!(;8. Id. at ()(!()'. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. '0=!'08. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. *(*!*'=. Id. at *()!*''. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '*!'1.

(*

(1

(8

(2

(;

()

'0

Id. at (0!'1. ,Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R. 7ello, 6r. and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Re.alado ". Maa+bon. and &ssociate 6ustice 3ucenito N. Ta.le'( ''

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '0)!'(8. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, p. '*=. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. =(2. Id. at *';. 3oren4ana 5ood #orp. v. #&, '=( S#R& 2(=. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. ()1. Id. at '0(. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. 88=!88*.

'=

'*

'1

'8

'2

';

')

=0

Id. at 88'. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (('.

=(

Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. Had9i Serad Min.ca 3antud, /.R. No. (8=11(, 6ul% (;, '0((,81* S#R& =8, 1(> Republic v. Spouses "nriGue4, /.R. No. (80))0, Septe+ber ((, '008, 10( S#R& *=8, **2> and Spouses Divina.racia v. 3eonidisa N. #o+eta, /.R. No. (1)880, 5ebruar% '0, '008, *;' S#R& 8';, 81;!81).
=' ==

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. (*1!(*2. Id. at (8=. Id. at (21. Id. at (28. Id. at ()1. Id. at (;(. Id. at (;2. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. 888!88;. "ncinas v. National 7oo:store, Inc., *;1 Phil. 8;=, 8)1,'00*-. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;21-, pp. '0=!'01.

=*

=1

=8

=2

=;

=)

*0

*(

*'

Ta.a%ta%!Taal Tourist Develop+ent #orporation v. #&, ==) Phil. =22, =;) ,())2-.
*=

3ife Ho+es Realt% #orporation v. #&, /.R. No. ('0;'2, 5ebruar% (1, '002, 1(8 S#R& 8, (*.
** *1

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. )0!)(. Id. at (0*!((;. Id. at (*(. 3oren4ana 5ood #orp. v. #&, supra note '8 at 2'8. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (0=.

*8

*2

*;

*)

Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. Had9i Serad Min.ca 3antud, /.R. No. (8=11(, 6ul% (;, '0((,81* S#R& =8, 1(> Republic v. Spouses "nriGue4, /.R. No. (80))0, Septe+ber ((, '008, 10( S#R& *=8, **2> and Spouses Divina.racia v. 3eonidisa N. #o+eta, /.R. No. (1)880, 5ebruar% '0, '008, *;' S#R& 8';, 81;!81).
10 1(

Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, p. '(2. Id. at (*). 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #&, supra note '8, at 2'*!2'8. Rollo ,/.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. (=1!(=8. Id. at )'. 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #&, supra note '8 at 2'2.

1'

1=

1*

11

18