G.R. No. 155405, March 18, 2015
THE HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. NAMELY, OSCAR M. LOPEZ, MANUEL M. LOPEZ AND PRESENTACION L. PSINAKIS, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE FRANCISCO QUERUBIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO, BRANCH 74, THE HEIRS OF ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND HIS WIFE ROSA RUIZ, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. IMELDA RIVERA, Respondents.
[G.R. No. 164092]
HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND ROMAN OZAETA, JR., Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
The two consolidated cases before this Court involve a protracted dispute over the registration of two parcels of land that was initiated decades ago by the forbears of the parties herein.
G.R. No. 155405 is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which was filed by the heirs of Eugenio Lopez2 (Lopez heirs) to challenge the Decision3 dated January 22, 2002 and the Resolution4 dated September 24, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 58162. The Decision of the appellate court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari5 filed by the Lopez heirs, which prayed for the setting aside of the Order6 dated March 24, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 74, in LRC No. 98-2225; while the Resolution of the appellate court denied the Motion for Reconsideration of the Lopez heirs on the Court of Appeals Decision.
G.R. No. 164092 is likewise a Petition for Review on Certiorari7 filed by the Lopez heirs,8 which seeks the reversal of the Decision9 dated September 9, 2003 and the Resolution10 dated June 18, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67515. The Decision of the appellate court denied the appeal of the Lopez heirs from the three Orders of the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 152, sitting as a land registration court, in LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887. Two of the RTC Orders were dated June 24, 1999,11 while the other one was dated March 3, 2000.12 The Resolution of the appellate court, on the other hand, denied the Motion for Reconsideration13 and the Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration14 filed by the Lopez heirs on the Court of Appeals Decision.
From the records of the above cases, the following facts emerge:
Application for Registration of Title
(LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887)
On April 6, 1960, Alfonso Sandoval and Roman Ozaeta, Jr. (applicants Sandoval and Ozaeta) filed an Application for Registration of Title15 for two parcels of land designated as Lots 1 and 2 of plan Psu-177091, which were situated in Barrio Mambugan, Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal (subject properties). The application was docketed as LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch II. The Director of Lands filed an Opposition16 to the application, but this was eventually withdrawn.17
On May 31, 1966, the CFI of Rizal rendered a Decision,18 the dispositive portion of which provides:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the applicant ALFONSO SANDOVAL and his wife, ROSA RUIZ; applicant ROMAN OZAETA, JR. and his wife, MA. SALOME LAO, all of legal age, Filipinos, and residents of Rizal Province, the true and absolute owners in equal pro-indiviso shares of Lots 1 and 2 of plan Psu-177091 (Exhibit D), and orders the registration thereof in their names.On September 23, 1970, prior to the issuance of the decrees of registration, the spouses Sandoval and spouses Ozaeta sold the subject properties to Eugenio Lopez. In the Deed of Absolute Sale20 executed by the spouses, they warranted that they would file the corresponding motion or manifestation in LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887 in order that the original certificates of title over the subject properties will be issued in the name of Eugenio Lopez, his heirs, administrators, or assigns. Eugenio Lopez then entered into possession of the subject properties.x x x x
Once this decision becomes final, let an order for the issuance of decree issue.19
This Decree is issued pursuant to the Decision dated 31st day of May, 1966 of the Hon. Pedro C. Navarro, Judge of [Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch II, Pasig, Rizal], and the Honorable Briccio C. Ygafta, this 3rd day of July, 1998.In their motion, the Lopez heirs prayed for the declaration of nullity of Decree Nos. N-217643 and N-217644 and OCT Nos. O-1603 and O-1604. They alleged that the issuance of the decrees and the certificates of title preempted the trial court in resolving their Motion dated April 28, 1997 where they were asking for the recognition of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Eugenio Lopez as authorized under Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Also, the decrees were supposedly issued on October 20, 1997 but their issuance was made pursuant to the Order dated July 3, 1998 of Judge Briccio C. Ygaña. In other words, the Lopez heirs questioned the anomalous issuance of the decrees supposedly prior to the court order authorizing the same. Moreover, the Lopez heirs pointed out that the decrees were issued under the signature of LRA Administrator Alfredo R. Enriquez before he assumed office.
Issued at the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration, Quezon City, this 20th day of October, in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-seven at 8:02 a.m.(Signed) ALFREDO R. ENRIQUEZ
NATIONAL LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Entered in the "Registration Book"
for the Marikina, pursuant to the provisions
of section 39 of P.D. No. 1529, on the 18th
day of August nineteen hundred and ninety-
eight, at 1:16 p.m.(Signed)
Register of Deeds37 (Emphases ours.)
1 December 1998The Lopez heirs further submitted in court a copy of the appointment letter40 of LRA Administrator Enriquez dated July 3, 1998 and two certifications41 from the Quezon City Central Post Office both dated December 22, 1998, which stated that copies of the Lopez heirs' Motions dated April 28, 1997 and July 21, 1998 were duly received by the LRA before said office issued the decrees.
x x x x
This concerns your letter requesting the recall of Decree Nos. N-217643 and N-217644 issued in Land Registration Case No. N-2858, LRC Record No. N-18887, both in the names of Alfonso Sandoval and his wife, Rosa Ruiz, and Roman Ozaeta, Jr. and his wife, Ma. Salome Lao.
Records of this Authority show that aforesaid decrees of registration were prepared on October 20, 1977 [sic] pursuant to the decision of the court dated May 31, 1966 and the order for issuance of decree dated August 24, 1993. Said decrees were forwarded to the Office of the Administrator on August 8, 1998 and was [sic] released therefrom on August 13, 1998. Consequently, said decrees were signed sometime between August 8 and 13, 1998 and definitely not on October 20, 1997 as what is reflected thereon because the undersigned Administrator assumed office only on July 8, 1998. Apparently, at the time the decrees were signed it was not noticed, through oversight, that they were dated October 20, 1977 [sic]. It is therefore hereby clarified that Decree Nos. N-217643 and N-217644 were actually issued sometime between August 8 and 13, 1998 and not on October 20, 1997.
Regarding the claim that these decrees were prematurely issued as the motion for the issuance of the decrees in favor of the [Lopez heirs], the properties involved having been sold to him by the applicants, is still pending with the court, it is informed that no copy of said motion nor of the order directing this Office to comment thereon appears on file in the records of the case. Hence, these matters could not have been taken into consideration in the issuance of the decrees. Had the Administration been apprised of these incidents, perhaps the issuance of the decrees could have been held in abeyance until the court has resolved the same.
As to the recall of the decrees of registration, we regret to inform you that since the certificates of title transcribed pursuant to said decrees have already been issued and released by the Registrar of Deeds concerned, it is now beyond our authority to recall them unless duly authorized by the court.
We hope that we have satisfactorily disposed of the concerns raised in your letter.Very truly yours,
ALFREDO R. ENRIQUEZ
Administrator (Emphases ours.)
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to the [Lopez heirs] filing the appropriate case in order to enforce their rights over the titled property in question under the Deed of Sale in their favor.48The Court of Appeals ruled that the doctrine of laches was inapplicable against the Lopez heirs. The appellate court found that after the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, Eugenio Lopez entered into continuous possession of the subject properties. The Court of Appeals added that the Lopez heirs should not be faulted for the failure of the vendors' counsel to discharge the obligation they warranted in the Deed of Absolute Sale. The appellate court ruled, however, that the RTC of Pasig City properly denied the remedy sought by the Lopez heirs. Although Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 mandates that a person purchasing property from an applicant may move for the decree to be issued in his name directly, he may not ask for any other positive relief such as the voiding of a decree already registered in another person's name. The Motion dated November 25, 1998 was also a collateral attack on the titles to the subject properties, which was prohibited by Section 4849 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Still, the Court of Appeals clarified that its ruling was without prejudice to the right of the Lopez heirs to file the proper action and litigate their case in a trial initiated for that purpose.
Implying that the spouses Sandoval were the only registered owners of the subject properties covered by OCT Nos. O-1603 and O-1604, Rivera prayed for the trial court to issue the necessary writ of possession in order for the Sandoval heirs to take physical possession of the subject properties. Atty. Dimaano likewise appeared in this case as counsel for Rivera.
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That I, EVELYN T. SANDOVAL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ALFONSO SANDOVAL, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and presently residing at Brgy. Langgam, San Pedro, Laguna, have named, constituted and appointed by these presents, do name, constitute and appoint IMELDA V. RIVERA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married and presently residing at No. 490 Dr. Sixto Antonio Ave., Maybunga, Pasig City, to be my true and lawful Attorney-In-Fact, for me and in my name, place and stead and for my own use and benefits, to do and perform any and all of the following acts and things:
GIVING AND GRANTING UNTO my said Attorney-in-Fact full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing whatsoever, requisite and necessary to [be] done in and about [the] premises, as fully to all intents and purpose as I might or could do if personally present hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of the presents.53
- TO authorize my Attorney-In-Fact to sell a parcel of land situated in Mambugan, Antipolo, Rizal covered by TAX DECLARATION NO. 05-0795, containing an area of FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY[-]THREE (5,863) SQ. METERS, more or less; and TAX DECLARATION NO. 05-0859, containing an area of TWO THOUSAND (2,000) SQ. METERS, more or less;
- TO receive payment in cash or in check and to negotiate, endorse and encash the same.
; and to witness in Court.
- TO perform other related matters which are necessary for the fulfillment of the said authority so granted.
On the other hand, in G.R. No. 155405, the Lopez heirs submit the following arguments:
- WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS (MOVANTS-APPELLANTS) ARE PROPERLY PARTIES-LITIGANTS IN THE LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS.
- WHETHER OR NOT THE MOTION DATED NOVEMBER 25, 1998 IS PROPER FOR PURPOSES OF IMPUGNING THE QUESTIONED DECREES AND THE CORRESPONDING ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE.76
G.R. No. 164092
- WHETHER THE PENDENCY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL FROM THE ORDERS OF THE REGISTRATION COURT (Regional Trial Court, Branch 1 2 in Pasig City), DATED June 24, 1999 AND March 3, 2000, BOTH DENYING THE PETITIONERS' MOTION TO DECLARE DECREES NOS. N-217643 AND N- 217644 AND THE CORRESPONDING OCT NOS. O-1603 AND O-1604 NULL AND VOID BARS THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION.
- WHETHER THE PETITION (for the issuance of the Writ of Possession) IS DISMISSIBLE UNDER RULE 16, PARAGRAPH (D) OF THE 1997 RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE ON THE GROUND THAT RESPONDENT IMELDA RIVERA HAD NO LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE.
- WHETHER PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY OF FORUM SHOPPING WHEN SHE FILED THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION BEFORE THE RTC BRANCH 74, IN ANTIPOLO CITY, ALTHOUGH THE LAND REGISTRATION CASE INVOLVING THE QUESTIONED PROPERTIES IS STILL PENDING BEFORE RTC BRANCH 152, IN PASIG CITY.
- WHETHER THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND ROSA RUIZ, REPRESENTED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT, ARE BOUND NOT ONLY BY THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE EXECUTED BY SAID DECEDENTS BUT ALSO BY THE UNDERTAKING CONTAINED THEREIN.
- WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT HAS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, AND THERE IS NO APPEAL, OR ANY PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW.
- WHETHER THE INSTANT PETITION INVOLVES LEGAL ISSUES AS WELL.
- WHETHER ESTOPPEL OR LACHES HAS SET IN[.]77
SEC. 22. Dealings with land pending original registration.—After the tiling of the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration, the land therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent instruments together with the subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of transfer of portions thereof, and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by said instruments, or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments.In Mendoza v. Court of Appeals,78 the Court had occasion to explain Section 29 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act),79 which is substantially incorporated in Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, such that:
It is clear from the above-quoted provision that the law expressly allows the land, subject matter of an application for registration, to be "dealt with", i.e., to be disposed of or encumbered during the interval of time between the filing of the application and the issuance of the decree of title, and to have the instruments embodying such disposition or encumbrance presented to the registration court by the "interested party" for the court to either "order such land registered subject to the encumbrance created by said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments. The law does not require that the application for registration be amended by substituting the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" for the applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case, x x x. (Citation omitted.)Clearly, Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 expressly allows the disposition of lands subject matter of a registration proceeding and the subsequent registration thereof in the name of the person to whom the land was conveyed. As required by the law, the pertinent instruments of conveyance must be presented to the court and that prior notice is given to the parties in the land registration case. After said requisites are complied with, the court shall either order the land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance, or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the property was conveyed. The buyer of the property may be a total stranger to the land registration case and it is not even required for him to substitute the original applicant in order that the decree of registration may be issued in his name. Such is the import of our ruling in Mendoza. Contrary to the Lopez heirs' position, nowhere can it be inferred in Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 or in our discussion in Mendoza that the buyer of the property automatically becomes a party to the land registration case after complying with the requirements of the aforesaid provision of law. Nonetheless, the same provision of law authorizes the land registration court to accord certain reliefs in favor of the person to whom the property has been conveyed.
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. (Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)The Court of Appeals, however, overlooked the fact that the Lopez heirs never attacked the Decision dated May 31, 1966 of the then CFI of Rizal in LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887, i.e., the judgment pursuant to which the decrees of registration were issued. Far from it, the Lopez heirs actually recognized the validity of said judgment. In filing their first motion to have the Deed of Absolute Sale recognized prior to the issuance of the decrees, the Lopez heirs do not question the final judgment of the land registration court that the subject properties were owned by the spouses Sandoval and the spouses Ozaeta for they derived their own right to the properties from said applicants. When the decrees of registration were still issued in the names of said original applicants, due to peculiar circumstances that occurred outside the proceedings in the land registration court, petitioners were unjustly deprived of the opportunity to enforce the remedy accorded to them under Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
SEC. 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. - No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same by the Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interests not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, that this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section.Plainly, Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 authorizes a person having interest in a registered property to ask for the amendment and alteration of a certificate of title or the entry of a new certificate if "new interests not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created," "an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon," or "upon any other reasonable ground."
All petitions or motions filed under this section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered. (Emphasis ours.)
We have held that under Section 2 of the Property Registration Decree, the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, sitting as a land registration court, is no longer as circumscribed as it was under Act No. 496, the former land registration law. We said that the Decree "has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court." The amendment was "[a]imed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the required trial courts 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.'" At any rate, we have also stated that the limited-jurisdiction-rule governing land registration courts is subject to recognized exceptions, to wit, (1) where the parties mutually agreed or have acquiesced in submitting controversial issues for determination; (2) where they have been given full opportunity to present their evidence; and (3) where the court has considered the evidence already of record and is convinced that the same is sufficient for rendering a decision upon such controversial issues. By the same token, it has been held that the rule is not, in reality, one of jurisdiction, but rather, of mere procedure, which may be waived. It is not amiss to state likewise that where the issue, say, of ownership, is ineluctably tied up with the question of right of registration, the cadastral court commits no error in assuming jurisdiction over it, as, for instance, in this case, where both parties rely on their respective exhibits to defeat one another's claims over the parcels sought to be registered, in which case, registration would not be possible or would be unduly prolonged unless the court first decided it. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.)In the land registration case involved herein, the parties already acquiesced in submitting the said controversial issues to the land registration court and were in the process of presenting their respective evidence but the ruling of the trial court on the merits was preempted by the untimely issuance of the decrees of registration. To be sure, whether there is any serious opposition to the Lopez heirs' prayer to have the property registered in their name is precisely still to be determined by the land registration court.
It is clear from [Article 1311 of the Civil Code] that whatever rights and obligations the decedent have over the property were transmitted to the heirs by way of succession, a mode of acquiring the property, rights and obligations of the decedent to the extent of the value of the inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs cannot escape the legal consequence of a transaction entered into by their predecessor-in-interest because they have inherited the property subject to the liability affecting their common ancestor. Being heirs, there is privity of interest between them and their deceased mother. They only succeed to what rights their mother had and what is valid and binding against her is also valid and binding as against them. The death of a party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract which involves a property right and the rights and obligations thereunder pass to the personal representatives of the deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not excused by the death of the party when the other party has a property interest in the subject matter of the contract. (Emphasis ours, citations omitted.)As for respondent Imelda Rivera, whose former counsel Atty. Dimaano participated in both the land registration case (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887) and the writ of possession case (LRC No. 98-2225), she should be impleaded in the proceedings below to accord her the opportunity to prove that she is a purchaser for value in good faith entitled to protection under Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Accordingly, petitioners may avail of the remedy provided under Section 108 of PD 1529. This, however, does not necessarily mean that they are automatically entitled to the relief prayed for ~ the cancellation of the title issued in the name of Louis P. Dawson and the issuance of new titles. It is incumbent upon them to satisfy the requirements and conditions prescribed under the statutory provision. (Emphasis ours.)In the interest of fairness, the Lopez heirs should be allowed to amend their motion to conform to the requirements and conditions under Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. Thus, this case is remanded to the land registration court for further proceedings, subject to the Lopez heirs' compliance with the requisites of Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
ART. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.Thus, one who claims to be the owner of a property that is possessed by another must bring the appropriate judicial action for its physical recovery. The term "judicial process" could mean no less than an ejectment suit or reinvindicatory action in which the ownership claims of the contending parties may be properly heard and adjudicated.92
OCT No. O-1603Notably, Rivera failed to explain the disparity in the above descriptions and the descriptions of the properties subject of the SPA, while the RTC of Antipolo City and the Court of Appeals largely ignored the same. This was error on the part of the lower courts. Angeles v. Philippine National Railways96 dictates that "[a] power of attorney must be strictly construed and pursued. The instrument will be held to grant only those powers which are specified therein, and the agent may neither go beyond nor deviate from the power of attorney." Thus, the varying descriptions of the properties mentioned in the SPA and that of the subject properties seriously put into question the authority of Rivera to file the petition for the ex parte issuance of a writ of possession over the subject properties. More importantly, the fact that Evelyn Sandoval - the principal who executed the SPA in favor of Rivera - categorically manifested that she did not authorize any person to file the said petition should have raised doubts as to the authority of Rivera to file the same. All the same, the Court has already previously settled the impropriety of the issuance of the writ of possession in this case.
"A parcel of land (Lot 1 Plan Psu-177091, LR Case No. N-2858, LRC Record No. N-18887), situated in the Barrio of Mambugan, Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon x x x containing an area of TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY[-]NINE (2,479) SQUARE METERS, more or less, x x x."
OCT No. O-1604
"A parcel of land (Lot 2 Plan Psu-177091, LR Case No. N-2858, LRC Record No. N-18887), situated in the Barrio of Mambugan, Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Island of Luzon x x x containing an area of SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY[-]ONE (6,341) SQUARE METERS, more or less, x x x."95
** Per Special Order No. 1952 dated March 18, 2015.
1Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), pp. 8-42.
2 Eugenio Lopez is also referred to as Eugenio Lopez, Sr. in other parts of the records. The petitioners specifically named therein were Oscar M. Lopez, Manuel M. Lopez, and Presentacion L. Psinakis.
3Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), pp. 44-64; penned by Associate Justice Teodoro P. Regino with Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Eloy R. Bello, Jr., concurring, and Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, dissenting.
4 Id. at 66-67.
5 Id. at 68-89.
6 Id. at 90-92; penned by Judge Francisco A. Querubin.
7Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 10-40.
8 The petitioners referred to themselves as the heirs of Eugenio Lopez but the persons who signed the petition were Oscar M. Lopez and Manuel M. Lopez.
9Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 42-49; penned by Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Reyes, Jr., concurring.
10 Id. at 51-55.
11 Id. at 76-82; penned by Judge Danilo S. Cruz.
12 CA rollo (CA-G.R. CV No. 67515), p. 86.
13 Id. at 104-124.
14 Id. at 135-173.
15 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), pp. 1-2.
16 Id. at 18-19.
17 Id. at 76-77.
18 Id. at 95-98; penned by Judge Pedro C. Navarre
19 Id. at 97-98.
20Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 56-57.
21 Id. at 171-172.
22 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), pp. 105-106.
23 Id. at 108.
24 Id. at 107.
25 Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, provides:
SEC. 39. Preparation of Decree and Certificate of Title. — After the judgment directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated for entry in his registration book.
26 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), pp. 142-146.
27 Id. at 164.
28 Id. at 272.
29 The heirs specifically named were Eugenio Lopez, Jr., Manolo Lopez, Oscar Lopez, and Presentacion L. Psinakis.
30Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 60-63.
31Section 22 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states:
SEC. 22. Dealings with land pending original registration.—After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration, the land therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent instruments together with a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of transfer of portions thereof, and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by said instruments, or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments.
32 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), pp. 169-172.
33Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 65-67.
34 Id. at 71-74.
35 Id. at 69.
36 Id. at 70.
37 Id., OCT No. O-1604 was issued by the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration at 8:02 a.m.
38 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), p. 240.
39 Id. at 287-288.
40 Id. at 285.
41 Id. at 289-290.
42 Id. at 266.
43Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 81-82.
44 Id. at 76-80.
45 Id. at 83-95.
46 Id. at 96-99.
47 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), p. 386.
48Rollo, p. 49.
49 Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
50 CA rollo (CA-G.R. CV No. 67515), pp. 104-124.
51 Id. at 135-153.
52Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), pp. 119-121.
53 Records (LRC No. 98-2225), pp. 4-5.
54 Id. at 12A-12C.
55Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), pp. 128-130.
56 Id. at 131-137; the movants specifically named were Eugenio Lopez, Jr., Manolo Lopez, Oscar Lopez, and Presentation L. Psinakis.
57 Id. at 141-144.
58 Id. at 169.
59 Id. at 170-172.
60 Id. at 90-92.
61 Id. at 260-262.
62 Id. at 68-89.
63 CA rollo (CA-G.R. SP No. 58162), pp. 142-143.
64 Id. at 207-209.
65 Id. at 231-232.
66Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), pp. 267-278.
67 Id. at 281-283.
68 Id. at 353-356.
69 Id. at 361.
70 Id. at 362-363.
71 Id. at 406-410.
72 Id. at 417-421.
73 Id. at 461-462.
74Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 175-178.
75 Id. at 208-209.
76Rollo (G.R. No. 155405), p. 774.
77 Id. at 581.
78 173 Phil. 280,290-291(1978).
79 The relevant portions of Section 29 of Act No. 496, as amended, provide:
SEC. 29. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of title by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land therein described may be dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree of title, in the same manner as if no application had been made. The interested party may, however, present such instruments to the Court of First Instance instead of presenting them to the office of the register of deeds, together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the encumbrance created by said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments, x x x.
80 Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states:
SEC. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. - A certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
81 507 Phil. 101,113(2005).
82See, for example, Philippine Women's Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Teodoro R. Yangco 2nd and 3rd Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 199595, April 2, 2014 and Paz v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157367, November 23,2011, 661 SCRA 74.
83See, for example, Liwag v. Court of Appeals, 259 Phil. 913(1989).
84 264 Phil. 59, 64-65 (1990).
85 Records (LRC No. N-2858, LRC Rec. No. N-18887), pp. 175-176.
86 The first paragraph of Article 1311 of the Civil Code states:
Art. 1311. Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. The heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent.
87 548 Phil. 332,353 (2007).
88 356 Phil. 1037, 1047-1048 (1998).
89 567 Phil. 521, 526-527 (2008).
90 97 Phil. 72,74 (1955).
91 543 Phil. 380, 387 (2007).
93 Article 1881 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 1881. The agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency.
94Country Bankers Insurance Corporation v. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, G.R. No, 166044, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 427, 446.
95Rollo (G.R. No. 164092), pp. 69-70.
96 532 Phil. 147, 158 (2006).