Barque v. Heirs of Manotok

7/31/2019 Barque v. Heirs of Manotok

1/20

FIRST DIVISION

SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605

FROILAN M. MANOTOK,

FERNANDO M. MANOTOK,

FAUSTO MANOTOK III, MA.MAMERTA M. MANOTOK,

PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA

L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III,

MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK,

MARY ANN MANOTOK, FELISA

MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO

MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V.

MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK

III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUELA.B. SISON, GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA,

MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP

L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE

L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L.

MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK,

JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE

MANOTOK, JR. and MA. THERESA L.

MANOTOK, represented by their

Attorney-in-fact, Rosa R. Manotok,

Petitioners, Present:

Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),

- versus - Quisumbing,

Ynares-Santiago,

Carpio, and

Azcuna,JJ.


2/20

HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE,represented by TERESITA Promulgated:

BARQUE HERNANDEZ,Respondents. December 12, 2005

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x


3/20

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.:

These consolidated petitions for review assail, in G.R. No. 162335, the

February 24, 2004 Amended Decision[1]

of the Third Division of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City

to cancel petitioners TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration

Authority (LRA) to reconstitute respondents TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No.

162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision[2]

of the Special Division of

Five of the Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing theRegister of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners TCT No. RT-22481, and

the LRA to reconstitute respondents TCT No. T-210177 and theMarch 12,

2004 Resolution[3]

denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals[4]

are as follows:

Petitioners, (respondents herein) as the surviving heirs of the late Homer

Barque, filed a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the

original copy of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name of Homer L. Barque, whichwas destroyed in the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall, including the Office of

the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In support of the

petition, petitioners submitted the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177,real estate tax receipts, tax declarations and the Plan FLS 3168 D covering the

property.

Upon being notified of the petition for administrative reconstitution,

private respondents (petitioners herein) filed their opposition thereto claiming that

the lot covered by the title under reconstitution forms part of the land covered bytheir reconstituted title TCT No. RT-22481, and alleging that TCT No. 210177 in

the name of petitioners predecessors-in-interest is spurious.

On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting officer,

denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 210177[5]

on grounds that:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn1


4/20

1. Lots 823-A and 823-B, Fls-3168-D, containing areas of 171,473

Sq. Mtrs. and 171,472 Sq. Mtrs., respectively, covered by TCT No. 210177,appear to duplicate Lot 823 Piedad Estate, containing an area of 342,945 Sq.

Mtrs., covered by TCT No. 372302 registered in the name of Severino M.

Manotok, et. al., reconstituted under Adm. Reconstitution No. Q-213 dated

February 01, 1991;

2. The submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a spurious document as

categorically stated by Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief, Geodetic SurveysDivision, Land Management Bureau, in his letter dated February 19, 1997.[6]

Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied in an

order[7]

dated February 10, 1998 hence they appealed to the LRA.

The LRA ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have required the

submission of documents other than the owners duplicate certificate of title as

bases in denying the petition and should have confined himself with the owners

duplicate certificate of title.[8]

The LRA further declared:

Based on the documents presented, petitioners have established by clear

and convincing evidence that TCT NO. 210177 was, at the time of the destructionthereof, valid, genuine, authentic and effective. Petitioners duly presented the

original of the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 210177 .... The logbook of the

Register of Deeds of Quezon City lists TCT No. 210177 as among the titles lost

.... The Register of Deeds of Quezon City himself acknowledged the existence

and authenticity of TCT No. 210177 when he issued a certification to the effectthat TCT No. 210177 was one of the titles destroyed and not salvaged from the

fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall on 11 June 1988 ....

It is likewise noteworthy that the technical description and boundaries of

the lot reflected in TCT No. 210177 absolutely conform to the technicaldescription and boundaries of Lot 823 Piedad Estate ... as indicated in the B. L.

Form No. 28-37-R dated 11-8-94 and B. L. Form No. 31-10 duly issued by the

Bureau of Lands ....

It therefore becomes evident that the existence, validity, authenticity and

effectivity of TCT No. 210177 was established indubitably and irrefutably by thepetitioners. Under such circumstances, the reconstitution thereof should be given

due course and the same is mandatory.[9]

.

It would be necessary to underscore that the certified copy of Plan FLS

3168 D was duly issued by the office of Engr. Ernesto Erive, Chief, Surveys


5/20

Division LMS-DENR-NCR whose office is the lawful repository of survey plans

for lots situated within the National Capital Region including the property inquestion. Said plan was duly signed by the custodian thereof, Carmelito Soriano,

Chief Technical Records and Statistics Section, DENR-NCR. Said plan is

likewise duly supported by Republic of the Philippines Official Receipt No.

2513818 Q dated 9-23-96 .... Engr. Erive in his letter dated 28 November 1996addressed to Atty. Bustos confirmed that a microfilm copy of Plan FLS 3168D

is on file in the Technical Records and Statistics Section of his office. Engr.

Dalire, in his letter dated 2 January 1997 addressed to Atty. Bustos even

confirmed the existence and authenticity of said plan.

.

The claim of Engr. Dalire in his letter dated 19 February 1997 that his

office has no records or information about Plan FLS 3168-D is belied by the

certified copy of the computer print-out duly issued by the Bureau of Lands

indicating therein that FLS 3168D is duly entered into the microfilm records ofthe Bureau of Lands and has been assigned Accession Number 410436 appearing

on Page 79, Preliminary Report No. 1, List of Locator Cards and Box Number0400 and said computer print-out is duly supported by an Offical Receipt .

The said Plan FLS 3168D is indeed authentic and valid coming as it doesfrom the legal repository and duly signed by the custodian thereof. The

documentary evidence presented is much too overwhelming to be simply brushed

aside and be defeated by the fabricated statements and concoctions made by Engr.

Dalire in his 19 February 1997 letter. [10]

Nevertheless, notwithstanding its conclusion that petitioners title was

fraudulently reconstituted, the LRA noted that it is only the Regional Trial Court

(RTC) which can declare that the same was indeed fraudulently reconstituted. It

thus opined that respondents title may only be reconstituted after a judicial

declaration that petitioners title was void and should therefore be cancelled.[11]

The dispositive portion of the LRAs decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered thatreconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque, Sr. shall begiven due course after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name

of Manotoks upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.[12]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn10


6/20

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by

respondents with a prayer that reconstitution be ordered immediately.

On June 14, 2001, petitioners motion for reconsideration and respondents

prayer for immediate reconstitution were denied.[13]

From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review[14]

with the Court

of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 and praying that the LRA be

directed to immediately reconstitute TCT No. 210177 without being subjected to

the condition that petitioners TCT No. RT-22481 [372302] should first be

cancelled by a court of competent jurisdiction.[15]

Petitioners likewise filed a

petition for review with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66642.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals

rendered a Decision[16]

on September 13, 2002, the dispositive portion of which

reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered the assailed Resolution

of the LRA dated June 24, 1998 is AFFIRMED in toto and the petition for reviewis ordered DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[17]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn13


7/20

Respondents moved for reconsideration.[18]

On November 7, 2003, the

Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division rendered an Amended

Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, our decision dated 13 September 2002 is hereby

reconsidered. Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby

directed to cancel TCT No. RT-22481 of private respondents and the LRA is

hereby directed to reconstitute forthwith petitioners valid, genuine and existingCertificate of Title No. T-210177.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[19]

Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the amended decision in CA -G.R.

SP No. 66700 was denied,[20]

hence, this petition docketed as G.R. No. 162605.

Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, the Third Division of the Court of

Appeals rendered a Decision[21]

on October 29, 2003, the dispositive portion of

which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the

LRA dated 24 June 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.[22]

In so ruling, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals declared that the

LRA correctly deferred in giving due course to the petition for reconstitution since

there is yet no final judgment upholding or annulling respondents title.[23]

Respondents motion for reconsideration was granted by the Third Division

of the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2004, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.The Decision of this Court dated 29 October 2003 is RECONSIDERED and a

new one is entered ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel

petitioners TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the LRA to reconstitute forthwith

respondents TCT No. T-210177.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn18


8/20

SO ORDERED.[24]

From the foregoing decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.

66700 and CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, petitioners filed separate petitions for reviewbefore this Court docketed as G.R. No. 162605 and G.R. No. 162335, respectively.

In G.R. No. 162605, petitioners argue that:

I

THE MAJORITY JUSTICES ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN

ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF PETITIONERS EXISTING TITLE,

CONSIDERING THAT:

a. THEY ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF TITLE DESPITE THE

FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT PART OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN

A RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS.

b. THEY ALLOWED A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A TORRENS

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; and

c. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN RESOLVING AN APPEAL OF THE

DECISION OF THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DOES

NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE CANCELLATION OFTITLE, SINCE ONLY A PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CAN

ORDER THE ANNULMENT/CANCELLATION OF A TORRENS

TITLE. BY ALLOWING A SHORT CUT, THE MAJORITY

JUSTICES DEPRIVED THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR PROPERTYAND THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO DUE

PROCESS OF LAW.

II

THE MAJORITY JUSTICES GRAVELY MISAPPLIED THE RULING OFTHIS HONORABLE COURT IN ORTIGAS V. VELASCO, CONSIDERING

THAT:

a. IN THE ORTIGAS CASE, THERE WERE TWO TITLES EXISTINGOVER THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, AS A RESULT OF THE

RECONSTITUTED TITLE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MOLINA. IN

THE INSTANT CASE, ONLY PETITIONERS HOLD TITLE TO THEPROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS RESPONDENTS ARE MERELY

TRYING TO HAVE TITLE RECONSTITUTED IN THEIR NAMES.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn24


9/20


10/20

IV. THE LRA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETIONAMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ORDERING

THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE TITLE OF HOMER BARQUE, SR.

SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITION THAT THE TITLE OF

PETITIONERS MANOTOK SHOULD FIRST BE ORDERED CANCELLEDBY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE FACE OF THE

GLARING FACTS THAT SAID TITLE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND BEARS

BADGES OF FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION AND THEREFORE NOOTHER LOGICAL AND CREDIBLE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN

EXCEPT THAT IT IS A FAKE AND SPURIOUS TITLE.

V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF IN EXCESS

OF JURISDICTION IN ALLOWING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME.[26]

On August 2, 2004, the petition in G.R. No. 162605 was consolidated with

the petition in G.R. No. 162335.[27]

In sum, petitioners contend that (a) the LRA has no authority to annul their

title; (b) the reconstitution of respondents Torrens title would be a collateral attack

on petitioners existing title; (c) they were not given the opportunity to be heard,

specifically the chance to defend the validity of their Torrens title; (d) the Court of

Appeals, in resolving the appeal from the LRA, has no jurisdiction to order the

cancellation of petitioners title; and (e) the ruling in Ortigas was misapplied.

The petitions must be denied.

The LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have confined

himself to the owners duplicate certificate of title prior to the reconstitution.

Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26[28]

clearly provides:

Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the

sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;

....
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn26


11/20


12/20

respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that this Court is essentially

not a trier of facts.[30]

Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded

probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not theproofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a

proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact. Whether or not the body

of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary

evidence submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and

convincing; whether or not certain documents presented by one side should be

accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by

the other side; whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of

such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight all these are issuesof fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by this court which, as a rule,

confines its review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to questions of

law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set forth.[31]

A petition for review

should only cover questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.[32]

InDolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite,[33]

this Court

categorically declared:

Second. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals made a factualfinding that petitioners title to the land is of doubtful authenticity.

Having jurisdiction only to resolve questions of law, this Court is bound

by the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals....

In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to remand the case to the

RTC for the determination of which title, petitioners' or respondents', is valid or

spurious. This has been ruled upon by the LRA and duly affirmed by the two

divisions of the Court of Appeals.

The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative

reconstitution. It has the authority to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on

appeal the decision of the reconstituting officer. The function is adjudicatory in

nature it can properly deliberate on the validity of the titles submitted for


13/20

reconstitution. Logically, it can declare a title as sham or spurious, or valid on its

face. Otherwise, if it cannot make such declaration, then there would be no basis

for its decision to grant or deny the reconstitution. The findings of fact of the

LRA, when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case, shall be binding on

the Court of Appeals.[34]

In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to determine from the

evidence submitted which between or among the titles is genuine and existing to

enable it to decide whether to deny or approve the petition. Without such

authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed only with mechanical

powers.

The Court of Appeals also properly exercised its appellate jurisdiction overthe judgment of the LRA. Under Sections 1 and 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,

the appellate court has jurisdiction on appeals from judgments or final orders of the

LRA, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of

fact and law.

Indeed, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case to the RTC to

determine anew which of the two titles is sham or spurious and thereafter appeal

the trial courts ruling to the Court of Appeals. After all, the LRA and the two

divisions of the appellate court have already declared that petitioners title isforged. InMendoza v. Court of Appeals,

[35]we ruled that:

Now, technically, the revocation and cancellation of the deed of sale and

the title issued in virtue thereof in de los Santos favor should be had inappropriate proceedings to be initiated at the instance of the

Government. However, since all the facts are now before this Court, and it is

not within de los Santos power in any case to alter those facts at any other

proceeding, or the verdict made inevitable by said facts, for this Court to

direct at this time that cancellation proceedings be yet filed to nullify the sale

to de los Santos and his title, would be needlessly circuitous and would

unnecessarily delay the termination of the controversy at bar, .... This Court

will therefore make the adjudication entailed by the facts here and now,

without further proceedings, as it has done in other cases in similar premises.

No useful purpose will be served if a case or the determination of an issue in

a case is remanded to the trial court only to have its decision raised again to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn34


14/20

Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. The remand of the case or of an

issue to the lower court for further reception of evidence is not necessary where the

Court is in position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it and

particularly where the ends of justice would not be subserved by the remand

thereof.[36]

The Register of Deeds, the LRA and the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction

to act on the petition for administrative reconstitution. The doctrine laid down

inAlabang Dev. Corp., et al. v. Hon. Valenzuela, etc., et al.[37]

does not apply in

the instant case. InAlabang,the Court stressed that:

[L]ands already covered byduly issued existing Torrens Titles cannot be

the subject of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed

by third parties without firstsecuring by final judgment the cancellation of suchexisting titles. The courts simply haveno jurisdiction over petitions by

such third parties for reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands

that are already covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their dulyregistered owners. The very concept ofstability and indefeasibility of titles

covered under the Torrens System of registration rules out as anathema the

issuance of two certificates of title over the same land to two different holders

thereof. [38]

TheAlabang ruling was premised on the fact that the existing Torrens title

was duly issued and that there is only one title subsisting at the time the petition

for reconstitution was filed. In the instant case, it cannot be said that petitioners

title was duly issued much less could it be presumed valid considering the findings

of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the same is sham and spurious.

The Court of Appeals properly applied the doctrine laid down in Ortigas in

refusing to remand the case to the trial court. As expressly declared in Ortigas &

Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco:[39]

Ordinarily, the relief indicated by the material facts would be the remand

of the reconstitution case (LRC No. Q-5405) to the Court of origin with

instructions that Ortigas and the Solicitor Generals appeals from the judgmentrendered therein, which were wrongly disallowed, be given due course and the

records forthwith transmitted to the appellate tribunal. This, in fact, is a reliefalternatively prayed for by petitioner Ortigas. Considering however the fatal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn36


15/20

infirmities afflicting Molinas theory or cause of action, evident from the records

before this Court, such a remand and subsequent appeal proceedings would bepointless and unduly circuitous. Upon the facts, it is not possible for Molinascause to prosper. To defer adjudication thereon would be unwarranted and unjust.

The same rationale should apply in the instant case. As already discussed,

the validity of respondents and petitioners title have been squarely passed upon

by the LRA and reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which factual

findings are no longer reviewable by this Court.

A careful examination of the case ofSpouses Cayetano, et al. v. CA, et

al.,[40]

where this Court, as claimed by petitioners, have affirmed their title over the

disputed property, would reveal that the sole issue resolved therein is whether or

not a tenancy relationship exists between the parties.[41] There was no adjudication

on ownership. In fact, it cannot even be discerned if the property subject of

the Spouses Cayetano case refers to the property subject of the instant controversy.

There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of their

property without due process of law when the Court of Appeals ordered the

cancellation of theirTorrens title, even without a direct proceeding in the RTC. As

already discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the RTC for a re-

determination on the validity of the titles of respondents and petitioners as thesame has been squarely passed upon by the LRA and affirmed by the appellate

court. By opposing the petition for reconstitution and submitting their

administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authority and

jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the LRA and the Court of Appeals, and

recognized their authority to pass judgment on their title. All the evidence

presented was duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus no basis to

petitioners claim that they were deprived of their right to be heard and present

evidence, which is the essence of due process.

As held in Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian:[42]

Therefore, it appearing from the records that in the previous petition forreconstitution of certificates of title, the parties acquiesced in submitting the issue

of ownership for determination in the said petition, and they were given the full

opportunity to present their respective sides of the issues and evidence in support
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn40


16/20

thereof, and that the evidence presented was sufficient and adequate for rendering

a proper decision upon the issue, the adjudication of the issue of ownership wasvalid and binding.

The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on petitioners titlewhich was irregularly and illegally issued in the first place.

[43] As pertinently held

inDolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite:[44]

The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed valid

and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not apply wherethe certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin.

In this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise that her title

to the subject property is indefeasible because of the presumption that her

certificate of title is authentic. However, this presumption is overcome by theevidence presented, consisting of the LRA report that TCT No. T-320601 was

issued without legal basis

.

Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate of title.

It bears emphasis that the Torrens system does not create or vest title but only

confirms and records one already existing and vested. Thus, while it may be true,

as petitioner argues, that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcelsof land already covered by a certificate of title, it is equally true that this rule

applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to the authenticity of thecertificate.

Under similar circumstances, this Court has ruled that wrongly reconstituted

certificates of title secured through fraud and misrepresentation cannot be the

source of legitimate rights and benefits.[45]

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. In G.R. No. 162335, the

February 24, 2004 Amended Decision of the Third Division of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City

to cancel petitioners TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration

Authority to reconstitute respondents TCT No. 210177; and inG.R. No. 162605,

the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision of the Special Division of Five of the

Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds

of Quezon City to cancel petitioners TCT No. RT-22481, and the Land
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftn43


17/20

Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents TCT No. T-210177 and

the March 12, 2004 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration,

are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGOAssociate Justice


18/20

WE CONCUR:

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.Chief Justice

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING ANTONIO T. CARPIOAssociate Justice Associate Justice

ADOLFO S. AZCUNAAssociate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified

that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the

case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.

Chief Justice


19/20

[1]Rollo of G.R. No. 162335, pp. 113-118. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by

Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam.[2]

Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 56-66. Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero and concurred in by

Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr., Edgardo P. Cruz and Danilo B. Pine. Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.,

dissented.[3]

Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 71-73.[4]

In CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 56-57.[5]

Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, p. 86.[6]

Id.[7]

Id. at 87.[8]

Id. at 90.[9]

Id. at 91.[10]

Id. at 92.[11]

Id. at 94.[12]

Id. at 95.[13]

Id. at 97.[14]Id. at 99-121.[15]

Id. at 119.[16]

Id. at 236-240. Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices

Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Eloy R. Bello, Jr.[17]

CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, p. 240.[18]

Id. at 273-293.[19]

Id. at 65.[20]

Id. at 73.[21]

CA-G.R SP No. 66642, Rollo of G.R. No. 162335, pp. 106-111. Penned by Associate Justice Eubulo G. Verzola

and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam.[22]

Id. at 110.[23]

Id.[24]

Id. at 117.[25]

Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, pp. 22-23.[26]Rollo of G.R. No. 162335, pp. 35-37.

[27]Rollo of G.R. No. 162605, p. 386.

[28]AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TORRENS

CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED.[29]

Section 3 of RA No. 26 provides:

Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder

enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owners, mortgagees, or lessees duplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of

deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds,

containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that itsoriginal had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title

was issued;

(e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the

description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an

authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and

proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.[30]Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Corp. v. NLRC, 336 Phil. 193, 204 [1997].[31]

Paterno v. Paterno, G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990, 183 SCRA 630, 636-637.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref1


20/20

[32]Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 439, 449.

[33]G.R. No. 133465, September 25, 2000, 341 SCRA 58, 62-63.

[34]Section 10, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

[35]G.R. No. L-62089, March 9, 1988, 158 SCRA 508, 514.

[36]Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91385, January 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 15,

29.[37]

201 Phil. 727 [1982].[38]Id. at 744.[39]

G.R. Nos. 109645 & 112564, July 25, 1994, 234 SCRA 455, 500-501.[40]

215 Phil. 430 [1984].[41]

Id. at 436.[42]

149 Phil. 688, 709 [1971].[43]

Heirs of Pael v. Court of Appeals, 423 Phil. 67, 69 [2001].[44]

Supra at 63 & 66.[45]

Jose v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85157, December 26, 1990, 192 SCRA 735, 741.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/162335.htm#_ftnref32

Barque v. Heirs of Manotok

Documents

Transcript of Barque v. Heirs of Manotok