Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81998:56063&catid=1572&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:00:06+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 170677, July 31, 2013 - VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES, INC. AND DOLORES BAELLO TEJAD, Respondents.
VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNIWIDE SALES, INC. AND DOLORES BAELLO TEJAD, Respondents.
(3) Respondent Dolores Baello is ordered to pay just and reasonable compensation for the occupancy and use of the land of petitioner VSD Realty and Development Corporation in the amount of P58,333.30 per month from September 12, 1994 until the Decision is final and executory, with legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the filing of the Complaint on June 8, 1995 until the finality of this Decision. Thereafter, respondent Uniwide Sales, Inc. is jointly and severally liable with Dolores Baello for the payment to petitioner VSD Realty and Development Corporation of monthly rental in the amount of P58,333.30 from the finality of this Decision until the land is actually vacated, with twelve percent (12%) interest per annum.
(4) The award of attorney's fees is deleted. No costs.
We recapitulate the facts. On June 8, 1995, petitioner VSD Realty and Development Corporation (VSD) filed a Complaint for annulment of title and recovery of possession of property against respondents Uniwide Sales, Inc. (Uniwide) and Dolores Baello3 with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 126 (trial court). Petitioner sought the nullification of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (35788) 12754 in the name of Dolores Baello and the recovery of possession of property that is being occupied by Uniwide by virtue of a contract of lease with Dolores Baello.
Petitioner VSD alleged that it is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Caloocan City, with an area of 2,835.30 square meters, more or less, and covered by TCT No. T-2853124 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City. VSD bought the said property from Felisa D. Bonifacio, whose title thereto, TCT No. 265777, was registered by virtue of an Order5 dated October 8, 1992 authorizing the segregation of the same in Land Registration Commission (LRC) Case No. C-3288. Petitioner also alleged that its right to the subject property and the validity and correctness of the technical description and location of the property are duly established in LRC Case No. C-3288.6 Petitioner alleged that its title, TCT No. 285312, is the correct, valid and legal document that covers the subject property, since it is the result of land registration proceedings in accordance with law.
Petitioner alleged that respondent Baello’s title, TCT No. 35788, covering the same property, is spurious and can only be the result of falsification and illegal machinations, and has no legal basis to establish any right over the subject property. Moreover, the technical description of Baello’s title is so general that it is impossible to determine with certainty the exact location of the property covered by it. Petitioner further alleged that the technical description has no legal basis per the records of the Lands Management Bureau and the Bureau of Lands. It added that Baello’s title described the property to be Lot 3-A of subdivision plan Psd 706, but an examination of Psd 706 shows that there is no Lot 3-A in plan Psd 706. Petitioner contends that in view of the foregoing reasons, Baello has no legal basis to claim the subject property, and Baello’s title, TCT No. 35788, is spurious and illegal and should be annulled. Thus, petitioner sought recovery of possession of the subject property and the payment of rent from respondents.
Respondent Baello filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the complaint stated no cause of action, and that the demand for annulment of title and/or conveyance, whether grounded upon the commission of fraud or upon a constructive trust, has prescribed, and is barred by laches. The trial court denied Baello’s motion to dismiss as well as Baello's subsequent motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Thereafter, respondent Baello filed an Answer, alleging that the subject property was bequeathed to her through a will by her adoptive mother, Jacoba Galauran. She alleged that during the lifetime of Jacoba Galauran, the subject property was originally surveyed on January 24-26, 19237 and, thereafter, on December 29, 1924.8 Baello alleged that after Jacoba Galauran died in 1952, her will was duly approved by the probate court, the Court of First Instance, Pasig, Rizal. Baello stated that she registered the subject property in her name, and TCT No. (35788) 127549 was issued in her favor on September 6, 1954. In 1959, she had the subject property surveyed. On July 15, 1988, she entered into a Contract of Lease10 with respondent Uniwide, which erected in full public view the building it presently occupies. Baello stated that she has been religiously paying realty taxes for the subject property,11 and that the Complaint should be dismissed as she enjoys a superior right over the subject property because the registration of her title predates the registration of petitioner’s title by at least 40 years.
The deposition of respondent Baello, which was taken on October 1, 1998 at the Philippine Consular Office in San Francisco, California, United States of America, affirmed the same facts stated in her Answer.
On October 2, 2000, the trial court rendered a Decision12 in favor of petitioner. The trial court held that the evidence for petitioner showed that it is the rightful owner of the subject lot covered by TCT No. 285312 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City. The lot was purchased by petitioner from Felisa D. Bonifacio, who became the owner thereof by virtue of her petition for segregation of the subject property from Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal in LRC Case No. C-3288. TCT No. 265777 was issued to Felisa Bonifacio pursuant to an Order dated October 8, 1992 by the RTC of Caloocan City in LRC Case No. C-3288. The trial court stated that it cannot question the Order (in LRC Case No. C-3288) issued by a co-equal court in this respect, considering that Regional Trial Courts now have 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 from such applications or petitions.
4. Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay attorney's fees of P200,000.00.
Respondents appealed the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered a Decision dated May 30, 2005 in favor of respondents, and reversed and set aside the Decision of the RTC and dismissed petitioner’s complaint.
The Court of Appeals stated that the main issue to be resolved was whether or not there was a valid ground to annul respondent Baello's TCT No. (35788) 12754 to warrant the reconveyance of the subject property to petitioner. The Court of Appeals stated that based on existing jurisprudence, a certificate of title may be annulled or cancelled by the court under the following grounds: (1) when the title is void because (a) it was procured through fraud, (b) it was issued for a land already covered by a prior Torrens title, (c) it covers land reserved for military, naval or civil public purposes, and (d) it covers a land which has not been brought under the registration proceeding; (2) when the title is replaced by one issued under a cadastral proceeding; and (3) when the condition for its issuance has been violated by the registered owner.15 The Court of Appeals averred that while petitioner sought to annul respondent Baello's TCT No. 35788 on the ground that the same was spurious, it failed to prove that Baello’s title was indeed spurious.
The appellate court also noted that the trial court’s decision never mentioned that Baello's title was spurious. It further stated that any doubt or uncertainty as to the technical description contained in a certificate of title is not a ground for annulment of title. It held that since there was no legal basis for the annulment of Baello's TCT No. 35788, the trial court erred in declaring the said title null and void. It stated that well settled is the rule that a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that it was regularly issued and valid.16 Hence, respondent Baello's TCT No. 35788 enjoys the presumption of validity.
This Court discussed the pertinent issues raised with the main issues: whether or not petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the subject property; and, whether or not the title of respondent Baello may be annulled.
The Court upheld the decision of the trial court that petitioner was able to establish through documentary and testimonial evidence that the technical description of its Torrens title, embodying the identity of the land claimed, covers the property that is being occupied by respondent Uniwide by virtue of a lease contract with respondent Baello, and that a comparison of the technical description of the land covered by the title of petitioner and the technical description of the land covered by the title of Baello shows that they are not the same. Hence, the Court granted the petition, and reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration; and the Decision of the RTC was reinstated with modification. The dispositive portion of the Court's decision has been cited earlier.
1) This honorable Court erred in not holding that petitioner VSD's Title (Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-285312) is null and void and that the same cannot give rise to any claim of ownership or possession over the subject property, having been derived from the fake and non- existent Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 dated 19 April 1917, which purportedly covered the non-existent Maysilo estate.
(a) Whether respondent Baello's title covers the subject property was never the issue in this case. In praying for the annulment of respondent Baello's title, the basic underlying premise and basis of such action is that the two titles, petitioner VSD's title and respondent Baello's title, cover the same property. Even if VSD's action is considered as one for reconveyance, the same hinges on the validity of the title of VSD.
(b) A determination of whether a certificate of title's technical description covers a particular area of land is a matter involving technical expertise, which this Honorable Court does not have. Such a determination can only be resolved through a survey conducted by a licensed and reputable geodetic engineer.
(c) In any case, records of the case show that respondent Baello was able to establish through positive evidence that her title covers the subject property.
3) This honorable Court erred in finding that petitioner VSD was able to prove that it has a better right to the subject property by mere presentation of TCT No. T-28512 registered under its name and by showing that the technical descriptions contained in TCT No. T-28512 correctly described the subject property. On the contrary, the evidence presented by petitioner VSD is insufficient to overcome the presumptive title of respondent Baello, who has been in possession of the subject property for more than fifty years. Thus, this instant action for reconveyance of the subject property initiated by petitioner VSD must fail.
4) This honorable Court erred in not holding that respondent Baello enjoys a superior right to the disputed property because the registration of her title predated the registration of petitioner VSD's title by at least 40 years.
Petitioner VSD was required to file a comment on the motion for reconsideration. In its Comment on the motion for reconsideration and the supplemental motion for reconsideration, petitioner contends that a valid title can arise even from an allegedly void title if a buyer in good faith, like petitioner, intervenes; that the alleged nullity of its title cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; that additional evidence cannot be presented for the first time on appeal, more so in a motion for reconsideration before this Court; and that respondent Baello failed to prove that her title covers the subject property, among others.
In the main, respondent Baello contends that the Court erred in not declaring petitioner VSD's TCT No. T-285312 as null and void, considering that it is derived from Felisa Bonifacio's TCT No. 265777/T-1325, which, in turn, is derived from the false and fictitious OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917. The records of this case, however, show that Felisa Bonifacio's TCT No. 265777/T-1325 and VSD's TCT No. T-285312 are derived from the legitimate OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, which date has been held as the correct date of registration of the said OCT in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation.28 In her Motion for Leave and Time to File Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Felino Cortez and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court granted, respondent Baello contends that she has additional evidence showing that the copy of Felisa Bonifacio's TCT No. 265777/T-1325 that was presented to the Register of Deeds of Caloocan, for the purpose of the issuance of petitioner VSD's TCT No. T-285312, was tampered with to fraudulently reflect that it was derived from the legitimate and authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917. It is alleged that the original microfilm copy retained by the LRA shows that Felisa Bonifacio's TCT No. 265777/T-1325 did not originate from the legitimate and authentic OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917, but was instead derived from OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1912. Baello cited Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation,29 which allowed the presentation of evidence before a Special Division of the Court of Appeals to ascertain which of the conflicting claims of title should prevail, even though the case had already been decided; and the additional evidence was presented in connection with a motion for reconsideration of this Court's decision.
The Court notes that in Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation,30 the Court pronounced that there is only one OCT No. 994, which is correctly registered on May 3, 1917, and that any title that traces its source to OCT No. 994 dated April 17, 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent.
Under Section 6 of Rule 46, which is applicable to original cases for certiorari, the Court may, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues, delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its members or to an appropriate court, agency or office. The delegate need not be the body that rendered the assailed decision.
The Court of Appeals generally has the authority to review findings of fact. Its conclusions as to findings of fact are generally accorded great respect by this Court. It is a body that is fully capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual matters, including documentary evidence.
In fact, the Court had actually resorted to referring a factual matter pending before it to the Court of Appeals. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, this Court commissioned the former Thirteenth Division of the Court of Appeals to hear and receive evidence on the controversy, more particularly to determine “the actual area reclaimed by the Republic Real Estate Corporation, and the areas of the Cultural Center Complex which are ‘open spaces’ and/or ‘areas reserved for certain purposes,’ determining in the process the validity of such postulates and the respective measurements of the areas referred to.” The Court of Appeals therein received the evidence of the parties and rendered a “Commissioner’s Report” shortly thereafter. Thus, resort to the Court of Appeals is not a deviant procedure.
Accordingly, the Court hereby remands this case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals 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.
Such other matters necessary and proper in determining which of the conflicting claims of title should prevail.
WHEREFORE, this case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in accordance with the two preceding paragraphs of this Resolution.
Please take notice that on July 31, 2013 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on August 13, 2013 at 1:45 p.m.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.