Primary Holding

The Supreme Court remanded the consolidated cases to a Special Division of the Court of Appeals to conduct further proceedings and factually determine which of the contending parties' titles, if any, are validly derived from the genuine Original Certificate of Title No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, and to resolve other factual issues crucial to determining rightful land ownership. Titles purportedly derived from a non-existent OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 are declared void.

Background

The dispute centers on ownership claims over portions of the vast Maysilo Estate, all purportedly originating from OCT No. 994. Conflicting claims arose between Manotok Realty and Manotok Estate Corporation versus CLT Realty Development Corporation in one case, and Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. versus the Heirs of Jose B. Dimson in the other. These cases reached the Supreme Court after conflicting decisions in the lower courts and the Court of Appeals concerning the validity of the parties' titles. Prior Supreme Court decisions in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals had previously addressed claims emanating from OCT No. 994, but inconsistencies and new factual evidence necessitated a re-examination.

Facts

• 1. Two consolidated petitions involve claims to land within the Maysilo Estate, purportedly derived from OCT No. 994.
• 2. CLT Realty claims ownership of Lot 26 based on a title tracing back to Jose Dimson and ultimately to OCT No. 994, allegedly registered on April 19, 1917.
• 3. Manotok Realty and Manotok Estate Corporation claim ownership of Lot 26 based on titles also tracing back to OCT No. 994, allegedly registered on May 3, 1917, but through a different chain of transfers and asserting technical defects in CLT's title and prior titles.
• 4. Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. claims ownership to portions of the Maysilo Estate based on titles also linked to OCT No. 994 but determined by lower courts to be spurious and originating from a different decree number and location.
• 5. Jose Dimson and his heirs claim ownership based on a title also derived from OCT No. 994, alleging Araneta's occupation was illegal.
• 6. A crucial fact emerged that only one Original Certificate of Title No. 994 exists in the records of the Land Registration Authority, with Decree No. 36455 issued on April 19, 1917 and transcribed in the Registry of Deeds on May 3, 1917.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. They challenged the validity of the respondent's titles, claiming they were irregularly issued and void.
• 2. Manotoks argued their titles are validly derived from OCT No. 994 through a different chain of transfers and highlighted technical infirmities in CLT's titles.
• 3. Araneta argued their titles were superior and that they had a better right of possession.
• 4. They argued that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court's decision based on the majority commissioners' report and overlooking relevant facts in the minority report.
• 5. They contended that there were flaws in the titles of CLT and Dimson, specifically concerning the technical descriptions, survey dates, and the language used.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. CLT Realty sought to recover possession of Lot 26 from Manotoks, asserting their valid title derived from OCT No. 994.
• 2. Heirs of Dimson sought recovery of possession and damages from Araneta, asserting their valid title derived from OCT No. 994.
• 3. They claimed their titles were validly derived from OCT No. 994 and were superior to the petitioners' titles.
• 4. They argued for the validity of OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917, as initially indicated in previous court decisions.
• 5. CLT eventually conceded that there is only one OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, but argued that the effective registration date should still be April 19, 1917, the decree issuance date.

Issues

• 1. Which of the Certificates of Title of the contending parties are valid? Specifically, are the Petitioner's titles (Manotok & Araneta) or Respondent's titles (CLT Realty & Heirs of Dimson) valid?
• 2. Can the Supreme Court overturn its previous decisions in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) v. Court of Appeals and Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals which sustained the validity of OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917?
• 3. How should the reports of the Department of Justice and the Senate Fact-Finding Committee, concluding the valid title is OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, affect the disposition of the cases?
• 4. Is it necessary to remand the cases to determine the validity of the Certificates of Title, and if so, to which court?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled that there is only one valid OCT No. 994, registered on May 3, 1917, the date of transcription in the Registry of Deeds, and not April 19, 1917, the date of decree issuance.
• 2. Titles derived from a supposed OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 are void, as such a title is inexistent.
• 3. The Court acknowledged that previous decisions in MWSS and Gonzaga erroneously relied on the existence of an OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917, and these decisions, while final concerning the parties and properties therein, cannot govern the present cases in light of the corrected factual predicate.
• 4. The Court emphasized that the date of transcription, May 3, 1917, is the operative date of registration for OCT No. 994.
• 5. The cases were remanded to the Court of Appeals Special Division to determine which titles, if any, are validly derived from the genuine OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 and to resolve other factual issues.

Doctrines

• 1. Torrens System: The stability and integrity of the Torrens system are paramount, and the Court’s duty is to purge illicit titles and uphold legitimate ones.
• 2. Date of Registration: The date of registration of an Original Certificate of Title is the date of transcription of the decree of registration in the Registration Book by the Register of Deeds, not the date of decree issuance.
• 3. Indefeasibility of Title: Certificates of title become incontrovertible after one year from entry of the decree of registration, aimed at guaranteeing title security.
• 4. Jurisdiction in Rem (Land Registration): Land registration proceedings are in rem, binding upon the whole world, not just specific individuals.
• 5. Stare Decisis: While generally followed, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply when the factual predicate of previous rulings is proven erroneous, particularly concerning a fundamental factual error like the existence of two distinct OCT No. 994s.
• 6. Judicial Notice: Courts cannot take judicial notice of factual matters in controversy, especially not findings in non-judicial proceedings (like DOJ and Senate reports) to override judicial decisions.
• 7. Finality of Judgment: While judgments attaining finality are immutable, this principle does not prevent correcting underlying factual errors that fundamentally undermine the basis of those judgments in subsequent, distinct cases.
• 8. Commissioner's Report: Trial courts can rely on commissioners' reports, especially in cases involving complex factual issues like land title overlaps, and Rule 32 of the Rules of Court authorizes such reliance.

Key Excerpts

• 1. “The stability of the country's Torrens system is menaced by the infestation of fake land titles and deeds.”
• 2. “The controversy attending the lands of OCT No. 994 has not eluded this Court. Since 1992, our findings and ruling in MWSS v. Court of Appeals have stood as the Rosetta Stone in deciphering claims emanating from OCT No. 994.”
• 3. “Certain immutable truths reflected on the face of OCT No. 994 must emerge and gain vitality, even if we ruffle feathers in the process.”
• 4. "Justice delayed is justice denied.” (Dissenting Opinion)
• 5. “Justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay.” (Dissenting Opinion)

Precedents Cited

• 1. MWSS v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992): Initially upheld validity of OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, but later re-evaluated in the current case due to factual error.
• 2. Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 96259, September 3, 1996): Reaffirmed MWSS but similarly affected by the erroneous factual premise about OCT No. 994.
• 3. Alfonso v. Office of the President (G.R. No. 150091, April 2, 2007): Penalized a Register of Deeds for altering the date of registration of OCT No. 994, reinforcing the significance of the correct date.
• 4. Pelaez v. Auditor General (122 Phil. 963 (1965)): Discussed the principle of not disturbing settled doctrines but also allowing for adjustments when new facts emerge.
• 5. City of Manila v. Lack (19 Phil. 324, 331 (1911)): Cited regarding the method of giving a paper title in land registration.
• 6. Antiporda v. Mapa (55 Phil. 89, 91 (1930)): Reinforced distinction between entry of decree and entry of certificate of title.
• 7. PNB v. Tan (51 Phil. 317, 321 (1927)): Reinforced distinction between entry of decree and entry of certificate of title.
• 8. Republic v. Court of Appeals (359 Phil. 530 (1998)): Case where the Court referred a factual matter to the Court of Appeals for determination.
• 9. Pepsico, Inc. v. Lacanilao (G.R. No. 146007. June 15, 2006): Cited for the doctrine of stare decisis.
• 10. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank (G.R. No. 144705, November 15, 2005): Cited for the doctrine of stare decisis.
• 11. Galicia v. Manliquez (G.R. No. 155785, 13 April 2007): Cited principle that strangers to a case are not bound by judgment.
• 12. Pamintuan v. San Agustin (43 Phil. 558 (1922)): Jurisdiction of cadastral courts over previously registered lands.
• 13. Timbol v. Diaz (44 Phil. 587 (1923)): Limited jurisdiction of cadastral courts.
• 14. Sideco v. Aznar (92 Phil. 952 (1953)): Validity of cadastral court order for new titles.
• 15. Herrera v. Bollos: Judicial notice requires supporting evidence.
• 16. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: Points not raised in lower court need not be considered on appeal.
• 17. Vera v. Avelino: Limitations of judicial power to remedy all wrongs.
• 18. St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC: Supreme Court not a trier of fact.
• 19. Asia Trust Development Bank v. Concepts Trading Corporation: Supreme Court not a trier of fact; Rule 45 limitations.
• 20. Duremdes v. Duremdes: Findings of fact of trial and appellate courts accorded great respect.
• 21. Tabuena v. Court of Appeals: Judicial notice requisites.
• 22. Spouses Badillo v. Tayag: Court cannot take judicial notice of factual matter in controversy.
• 23. State Prosecutors v. Judge Muro: Requisites for judicial notice.
• 24. Licaraos v. Sandiganbayan: Speedy disposition of cases.
• 25. Matias v. Plan: Speedy disposition of cases.
• 26. Silvestre v. Court of Appeals: Burden of proof in annulment and reconveyance cases.
• 27. Pisalbon v. Balmoja: Burden of proof in recovery of possession.
• 28. Nolan v. Jalandoni: Burden of proof in ejectment actions.
• 29. Republic vs. Intermediate Appellate Court: Void ab initio titles cannot ripen into private ownership.
• 30. Re: Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Benjamin A. Bongolan of the RTC: Judicial delay admonishment.
• 31. Tan v. Estoconing: Judicial delay admonishment.
• 32. De la Rama Steamship Co. v. National Development Co.: Failure to object to commissioner's report bars review.
• 33. Santos v. De Guzman and Martinez: Failure to object to referee's report bars review.
• 34. CCC Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals: Rule regarding objections to commissioner's report.
• 35. Po Sun Tun v. Price and Provincial Government of Leyte: Definition of Registration.
• 36. Ching v. Court of Appeals: Irrevocability of title.
• 37. Vda. De Medina v. Cruz: Irrevocability of title.
• 38. Director of Lands v. Gan Tan: Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked.
• 39. Guingona v. Court of Appeals: Justiciable controversy definition.
• 40. Velarde v. Social Justice Society: Justiciable controversy definition.
• 41. Iglesia ni Cristo v. CFI of Nueva Ecija: Land Registration is in rem.
• 42. Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals: Land Registration is in rem.
• 43. Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court: Priority of issuance in successive registrations.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act):
• 2. Section 41: Procedure for transcription of decree and issuance of Original Certificate of Title.
• 3. Section 42: Effectivity of the Original Certificate of Title.
• 4. Section 2: Land registration proceedings are in rem.
• 5. Section 38: Binding effect of decree of registration.
• 6. Section 58: Requirements for subdivision plans.
• 7. Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree):
• 8. Section 48: Certificate not subject to collateral attack.
• 9. Section 2: Judicial proceedings in land registration are in rem.
• 10. Section 53 (formerly Sec. 55 of Act No. 496): Endorsement requirement for new certificates.
• 11. 1987 Constitution:
• 12. Section 16, Article III (Bill of Rights): Right to speedy disposition of cases.
• 13. Section 1, Article VIII: Judicial power defined.
• 14. Rules of Court:
• 15. Rule 32, Section 2: Reference to a commissioner authorized.
• 16. Rule 32, Section 3: Powers of commissioner on reference.
• 17. Rule 32, Section 9: Commissioner to submit report.
• 18. Rule 32, Section 11: Court action upon commissioner's report.
• 19. Rule 43, Section 6: Authority of Court of Appeals to review findings of fact.
• 20. Rule 45, Section 1: Supreme Court not a trier of facts.
• 21. Rule 46, Section 6: Delegation of reception of evidence in certiorari cases.
• 22. Rule 56, Section 2: Procedure in original cases for certiorari.
• 23. Rule 129, Section 1: Judicial notice mandatory for official acts of legislative and executive departments.
• 24. Rule 135, Section 1: Duty of court to declare what is deemed law.
• 25. Republic Act No. 113: Allows Registrar of Land Titles to use only the seal of his office.
• 26. Civil Code, Article 364: Cited regarding burden of proof in actions to recover property.