VIRGINIA CALALANG vs

a parcel of land Lot 671-A of the Piedad Estate located in Barrio Culiat, Diliman.
he petitioners are indi!idual lot o"ners "ho claim to ha!e #ou$ht their respecti!e portions from Amando Clemente in the
1%&'(s.
a#out )1,16' s*uare meters "ho con!erted it into a su#di!ision +no"n as Clem!ille ,u#di!ision.
the *uestioned sale #- Lucia dela Cru. to the /01 "as upheld.
he !alidit- of the sale of Lucia to the /01 "as there#- upheld and the title of /01 to the su#2ect realt- 3Lot 6714 "as
!alidated as "ell.
petitioner 5ir$inia Calalan$ alle$ed that she is the re$istered o"ner of a portion of Lot 671-A 3
Petitioner Calalan$ lost no time in in*uirin$ into the status of the land and learned a#out the pendin$consulta case
his consulta came a#out "hen the 6e$ister of Deeds dou#ted the re$istra#ilit- of the documents presented #efore it in the
li$ht of his findin$s that the land affected "as co!ered #- t"o 374 sets of titles issued in the names of different o"ners.
a consulta case 8"here the onl- *uestion to #e determined is the re$istra#ilit- of the document presented for re$istration.8
a+in$ the cue from the Administrator that present certificates of title must #e cancelled to a!oid duplication, the 6e$ister
of Deeds, instead of filin$ its comment initiated cancellation proceedin$s of more than 1'' titles, a$ainst )1 defendants
"hich included herein petitioner on the #asis of this Court(s declaration in the case of dela Cruz that the reconstituted title
of respondent Lucia dela Cru. is the !alid title.
/n the meantime, fire $utted the records of the 6e$ister of Deeds in 9ue.on Cit-, so respondent :ud$e re*uired the parties
to a$ree to a stipulation of facts instead of trial.
he- alle$ed that the- too+ ph-sical possession of their lots in Clem!ille ,u#di!ision #- actuall- occup-in$ the same,
declarin$ them in their names for ta; purposes, fencin$ or mar+in$ them off and entrustin$ their care to 8+ati"alas8. <rom
the time the- ac*uired their orrens itle the- and the- alone to the e;clusion of /01 e;ercised all acts of undistur#ed,
peaceful and uninterrupted o"nership and possession includin$ the pa-ment of their realt- ta;es.
<rom the e;chan$e of "ritten ar$uments and the authorities cited, it appears that the
petitioners( titles "hich "ere issued some ten -ears earlier than that of respondent(s
emanated from a reconstituted C 0o. 6-&7, "hich co!ered portion of Lot 671 of the
Piedad Estate of 9ue.on Cit-. Petitioner(s parcels of land are "ithin that estate. his
reconstituted C 0o. 6-&7 "as the su#2ect of a case, 8De la Cru. !. De la Cru.8, 1=' ,C6A
66 >1%)?@, "herein the Aonora#le ,upreme Court declared the said reconstituted title null
and !oid.
he petitioners ar$ue that the dela Cruz case could not #e applied to them since the- "ere not parties in that case nor
"ere the- e!er notified of such case pendin$ #et"een the parties. he petitioners e;plained that the de la Cruz case "as a
case amon$ the heirs of Policarpio de la Cru.. ,ince the- ac*uired their properties from an entirel- different person,
Amando Clemente and not from an- of the heirs of Policarpio de la Cru., the- could not #e considered pri!ies to an- of
them.
/n den-in$ applica#ilit-, ho"e!er, the petitioners assail the Court(s rulin$ that 8the reconstituted title of Lucia dela Cru.
o!er Lot 671 3C 0o. 6 &)4 "as !alid. As the re$istered and ri$htful o"ner, Lucia dela Cru. had the perfect and le$al
ri$ht to sell, assi$n, and con!ert the propert- to respondent /01 "ho as purchaser for !alue in $ood faith holds the same
free from all encum#rances e;cept those noted in said certificate.8
Apparentl-, there is no mention of Amando Clemente in the a#o!e recital of facts.
hus, Amando Clemente(s predecessors-in-interest are Eu$enia dela Pa. and Dorotea dela Cru. "hom the Court found to
ha!e lost their ri$hts o!er Lot 671 #- !irtue of the sale made to Lucia dela Cru..
he 6e$ister of Deeds correctl- o#ser!ed that this is a clear case "here there is a duplication or o!erlappin$ of titles issued
to different names o!er the same land "hich there#- compelled him to file the consulta case "ith the 0LD6AB
,ince it is the act of re$istration "hich transfers o"nership of the land sold
Lot 671 "as alread- o"ned #- Lucia dela Cru. as earl- as 1%?=.
he fact that Amando Clemente possessed a certificate of title does not necessaril- ma+e him the true o"ner.
the petition for reconstitution of title #- Lucia dela Cru. "hich the court held to #e !alid "as a proceedin$ in rem./t is "ell
esta#lished that in rem proceedin$s such as land re$istration constitute constructi!e notice to the "hole "orld.
A orrens itle is $enerall- a conclusi!e e!idence of the o"nership of the land referred to therein.
the ar$uments and issues raised #- the petitioner re*uire ad2udication of facts "hich, under the circumstances of this case,
"e are not prepared to do as this Court is not a trier of facts.
he le$alit- or !alidit- of /01(s title o!er Lot 671 has #een settled.
petitions in C. 6. 0os. 7676& and )=7)' are here#-D/,D/,,ED for lac+ of merit.