Galang-Castillo v. Heirs of Lucman

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211911. July 30, 2019.]

GENEROSA GALANG-CASTILLO, THE HEIRS OF THE LATE BERNABE CASTILLO, ET AL., complainants, vs.HEIRS OF THE LATE ALI BASIR LUCMAN, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 30, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 211911 (Generosa Galang-Castillo, the Heirs of the late Bernabe Castillo, et al. v. Heirs of the late Ali Basir Lucman, et al.). — We resolve this petition for review on certiorari assailing the Amended Decision 1 dated July 9, 2013 and Resolution 2 dated March 3, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed its original Decision and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The assailed Amended Decision dismissed the consolidated complaints for quieting of title with damages filed against the late Ali Basir Lucman (Lucman), the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and the City Assessor. In this case, We reverse the Amended Decision and restate the rule that where there are two certificates of title covering the same land, the earlier in date must prevail as between the parties claiming ownership over it. 3

The consolidated complaints were filed by Spouses Bernabe and Generosa Castillo (Sps. Castillo), 4 Spouses Lazaro and Alicia Bautista Galang, 5 and Fellino Millare and Angelica Zarate 6 (collectively, the complainants) who are the registered owners, respectively, of parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. RT-89689 (43344) and RT-89690 (43407), RT-81043 (43322), and RT-30511 (115651). All of which are located in Brgy. Silangan, Payatas, Quezon City with uniform size of 1,000 square meters (sq. m.) each and form part of Lot 2-A (designated as Lot 2-A-4) of the Subdivision Plan Psd-04-001082. 7 Complaints-in-intervention were filed by other landowners in the area namely: (1) Faustino Tobia and Genaro Ortaleza; 8 (2) Ma. Rizalinda Cajucom and Hilarion Cajucom, Jr.; 9 (3) Eduardo Velayo; 10 and (4) Spouses Gregorio Galang and Soledad Pangilinan Galang 11 (Sps. Galang) (collectively, intervenors).

Complainants and intervenors alleged that they purchased their lots from Salud Vda. De Crespo and Spouses Benjamin and Josefa Tecson (Sps. Tecson) sometime in 1958 and registered them in the same year. 12 From thereon, they have been continuously paying the taxes on the lots. However, on July 26, 1995, they received letters from the Office of the City Assessor of Quezon City, notifying them that a request for issuance of tax declaration had been filed by Lucman for Lot 2-A of Psd-04-001082, with an area of 44,005 sq. m. and covered by TCT No. 134645. As it appeared upon verification that Lucman's lot "partially duplicates" 13 the properties of the complainants and the intervenors, the City Assessor required them to inform him of their proposed action on the request. In reply, the complainants and intervenors asked that the issuance of a tax declaration in the name of Lucman be held in abeyance, which the City Assessor disregarded. 14 The City Assessor stated that he had neither the authority to determine the authenticity of TCT No. 134645 nor the adjudicatory powers to rule on the validity of its issuance. He advised the complainants and the intervenors to instead file an action for quieting of title in court. 15 CAIHTE

For his part, Lucman alleged that he is the registered owner of a 44,005 sq. m. parcel of land in Payatas, Quezon City, covered by TCT No. 134645. 16 He bought the property from Ernesto Gonzales (Gonzales) through a Deed of Sale dated May 23, 1978. 17 However, Gonzales' certificate of title over the property was burned, hence, Lucman was not able to immediately transfer title to his name. It was only in 1995 after Gonzales' title was reconstituted 18 that a TCT was issued in Lucman's favor. The following year, a tax declaration was also issued in his name. 19 Meanwhile, Gonzales acquired the property from Renato Baillo (Baillo). Baillo's title was evidenced by TCT No. 145466 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. In turn, Baillo obtained the property from the Payatas Estate, the original registered owner under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 333 dated August 1, 1907. 20 Lucman further asserted that the Land Management Bureau (LMB)-National Capital Region (NCR), in its Final Report (LMB Final Report) on the proper correction of boundaries of the subject properties, declared that the boundaries claimed by the complainants and the intervenors cannot be determined as per records, and their claims or titles are non-existent. 21

In its Decision dated September 30, 2003, the RTC ruled in favor of the complainants and the intervenors, viz.:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and intervenors and as against the defendant Lucman:

1) Declaring that the title of the plaintiffs and intervenors over the subject properties, to wit: TCT NO. RT-89690 and TCT NO. RT-89689 in the name of Sps. Bernabe Castillo and Generosa Galang Castillo; TCT NO. RT-81043 (43322) in the name of Sps. Lazaro and Alicia Galang; TCT NO. RT-44018 and TCT NO. RT-101167 in the name of Sps. Gregorio and Soledad Panganiban-Galang; TCT NO. RT-30511 (115651) in the name of Gen. Felino Millare and Angelica Zarate; TCT NO. RT-92936 (246829) and TCT NO. RT-49277 (246828) in the name of Faustino Tobia; TCT NO. T-328909 in the name of Rizalina Cajucom; TCT NO. T-044556 in the name of Hilarion B. Cajucom; and TCT NO. T-67164 in the name of Eduardo Velayo as valid and subsisting titles;

2) Declaring the TCT NO. N-134645 and tax declaration in the name of defendant Ali Basir Lucman in so far as covers the properties of the plaintiff and intervenors as null and void;

3) Ordering the defendant to pay each of the plaintiffs and intervenors the following:

a) The amount of P200,000 as moral damages;

b) The amount of P100,000 as exemplary damages;

c) The amount of P250,000 as attorney's fees; and

d) Cost of suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis supplied.)

The RTC held that the complainants and the intervenors have sufficiently proved by clear and convincing evidence that they have in their possession uncontested, validly issued certificates of title, which were issued as far back as 1950's. Since then, they have been voluntarily and religiously paying the corresponding real estate taxes on the said lots. The RTC explained that "where two certificates of title purport to include the same land, the oldest title prevails" which in these cases refer to that of the complainants and the intervenors. 23

The RTC ordered Lucman to pay each of the complainants and the intervenors moral damages to compensate them for their sleepless nights, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social humiliation caused by the overlapping; exemplary damages to deter Lucman from further committing acts of overlapping to already titled properties; and attorney's fees to reimburse the complainants and the intervenors of the costs of engaging the services of their respective counsels. 24

Lucman appealed to the CA, which in its Decision dated May 28, 2012, initially affirmed the ruling of the RTC with the modification that the awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees in favor of the complainants and the intervenors were deleted. 25 DETACa

Preliminarily, the CA noted that the land titles of all the parties were derived from one source, that is, OCT No. 333 issued on August 1, 1907. The complainants and the intervenors acquired their properties from Salud Vda. De Crespo and Sps. Tecson in 1958 and registered them on the same year. They also continuously paid the taxes thereon.

The CA rejected the LMB Final Report relied upon by Lucman. It ruled that the function of the Director of Lands (now the Director of the LMB) does not involve adjudication of lands registered under the Torrens System. Rather, the Director of Lands only adjudicates conflicting claims of rival claimants to public land, or cases involving disposition and alienation of public lands. 26

As to the damages granted by the RTC, the CA sustained the award of moral damages considering the mental anguish that the complainants and the intervenors suffered following the unexpected receipt of the letter from the City Assessor after being in possession of their properties for more than 30 years. However, the grant of exemplary damages and attorney's fees was unwarranted. It was not proven that Lucman acted in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Neither was it established that Lucman was in bad faith in securing the reconstitution and eventual transfer of title in his name. 27

Dissatisfied, Lucman sought reconsideration which the CA granted in its now assailed Amended Decision. This time, the CA ruled that Lucman's title is older than and superior to those of the complainants and the intervenors. It dismissed the consolidated complaints and declared that Lucman is entitled to the possession and ownership of the property.

The CA cited three reasons for the reversal of its Decision:

First, in its Final Report, the LMB-Department of Environment and National Resources (DENR)-NCR, which the RTC commissioned to submit a report on the proper correction of boundaries of the subject properties, found that Psd-3480 and Psd-3487, alleged by the complainants and the intervenors as bases of their claims, are not on file nor are they available in the records of the LMB; whereas, Pcs-3340, the basis of the reconstituted title of Lucman's predecessor, appears in the records. Also, based on the Field Verification Survey conducted on April 17, 1997, the properties subject of Psd-3480 and Psd-3487 is actually within the metes and bounds of Lucman's reconstituted title. Thus, there is no overlapping to speak of. The complainants' and the intervenors' properties have no existence independent of, or beyond, the metes and bounds of TCT No. 134645. Further, on ocular inspection, the supposed locations of the complainants' and the intervenors' properties were vacant. There was no occupation/possession nor improvement introduced on them. 28 The findings of the LMB were supported by the certifications issued by the Technical Records and Statistical Division, NCR Survey Division and Records Management and Document Division both of the DENR, which stated, inter alia, that no record or file of Psd-3480 and Psd-3487 can be found. 29

Second, the CA held that the rule on successive registrations applies, which states that "where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof." 30 In Lucman's case, before he acquired the property from Gonzales in 1978, it was first owned by Baillo, who in turn derived his title from the Payatas Estate under OCT No. 333 dated August 1, 1907 of the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. In comparison, the complainants and intervenors' titles date back only to 1977. 31

Third, the CA ruled that the complainants and the intervenors failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that that they have superior right over the properties. 32

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration. 33 Meanwhile, Lucman died on October 3, 2013, thus his son, Dr. Abdel Hussein D. Lucman, filed a motion for substitution 34 of heirs before the CA. In its Resolution 35 dated March 3, 2014, the CA granted the motion for substitution but denied reconsideration of its Amended Decision. Hence, this petition.

Petitioners fault the CA for dismissing the consolidated complaints. They argue that there was nothing in the LMB Final Report which provides that the underlying survey plans of the titles of petitioners are non-existent. Instead, the LMB Final Report merely stated that the record adverted to was "not on file or not available in so far as said records of this office are concerned." "Non-existent" and "not on file or not available" in the LMB records are two different things. 36

Petitioners maintain that the LMB Final Report should not be given weight because the LMB is not the government agency which has custody of the records of lands registered under the Torrens System. Pursuant to Section 6 (2) (C) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree, the custodian of the records is the Land Registration Commission or now known as the Land Registration Authority (LRA). It is the commissioner of the LRA which has the authority to verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496, 37 such as the properties in this case. Even Lucman recognized this as he presented an LRA Certification dated February 10, 1995 purportedly stating that his property and that of petitioners do not overlap. However, this was later denounced by the LRA as fictitious. In its Certification dated September 7, 1995 (LRA Certification), the LRA declared that after plotting the technical descriptions of the properties, it was found that Lucman's title overlaps with several lots described in Pcs-504. 38

Lastly, petitioners assert that the CA disregarded evidence on record when it ruled that Lucman's title is older and superior. They noted that in its earlier Decision, the CA found that the titles of the parties were all derived from one source, that is, OCT No. 333 issued on August 1, 1907. Yet, without any explanation, the CA, in its Amended Decision, selectively traced back the title of Lucman from 1907, while that of the petitioners from only 1958. 39 aDSIHc

For their part, the Heirs of the Lucman (Heirs) reiterate the findings of the CA in its Amended Decision that: (1) the bases of petitioners' titles exist on paper only and are actually non-existent as confirmed by the LMB's Final Report; and (2) the origin of Lucman's title antedates that of petitioners. They hasten to add that the LMB is not precluded from surveying and verifying rival claims over lands titled under the Torrens System when commissioned by a competent court as in this case. They also questioned petitioner's failure to present an official record from the LRA to prove that the bases of their claims exist. 40 Finally, they allege that the consolidated complaints are collateral attacks against Lucman's title as the actions actually seek to annul the decree of reconstitution of Gonzales' title from which Lucman directly acquired his title. 41

We grant the petition. The CA erred in its Amended Decision.

At the onset, We note that out of the three original complainants in the RTC, only Generosa Castillo and the heirs of her late husband Bernabe Castillo appealed. Likewise, among the intervenors, only spouses Gregorio Galang and Soledad Pangilinan Galang assailed the Amended Decision. Thus, Our ruling shall refer only to petitioners' properties.

Based on records, We find that an overlapping exists in the titles of petitioners and Lucman. The CA unduly relied on the LMB Final Report which concluded otherwise. Paragraph 1.3 of the Final Report reads:

Field Verification Survey conducted on April 17, 1997 reveals that the properties of the alleged Psd-3480 and Psd-3487 by plaintiffs [referring to petitioners] is actually within the metes and bound of defendants [referring to Lucman] reconstituted TCT 134645 which is based on Pcs-3340. Since the property being claimed by plaintiffs is entirely within the bounds of the titled claim of defendants(sic) Lucman, the undersigned cannot conclude that overlapping [exists] between the claims of the Plaintiffs and property of Defendants as the Plaintiffs claims have no existence independent of, or beyond, the metes and bounds of TCT No. 134645.42 (Emphasis supplied.)

It can be reasonably inferred that the LMB made two contradicting statements — (1) that the property claimed by petitioners is entirely within the metes and bounds of the titled claim of Lucman and (2) that no overlapping exists. Overlapping means to occupy the same area in part or to have something in common. 43 If the properties covered by petitioners' titles can be found inside the metes and bounds of the titled claim of Lucman, then there is a complete overlap between the two. The CA should have read the LMB Final Report in the context of the purpose upon which the field verification survey was made. The RTC ordered the LMB "to submit a report for the purpose of the proper correction of boundaries of the subject properties." 44 In this sense, when the LMB stated that there is "no overlapping," it means that that there are no overlapping boundaries. This is so because the properties claimed by petitioners have no existence independent of Lucman's. The two wholly coincide.

Spouses Yu Hwa Ping v. Ayala Land, Inc.45 teaches that "in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the land comprised in the latter certificate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate. In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof."

Here, contrary to the CA's Amended Decision, records reveal that petitioners' and Lucman's titles all originated from the same OCT No. 333 dated August 7, 1907. Nevertheless, petitioners' titles were registered earlier than Lucman. To date, Sps. Castillo registered their properties in 1958, 46 while Sps. Galang registered their lots in 1958 and 1972. 47 Lucman's title was registered only in 1995. 48 Accordingly, petitioners' titles are superior over Lucman's. ETHIDa

The principle in Pajomayo v. Manipon49 applies in this case. There, We ruled that "[n]ecessarily when one of the two titles is held to be superior over the other, one should be declared null and void and should be ordered cancelled." 50 Hence, the RTC correctly ordered Lucman's title to be cancelled. Likewise, the CA properly affirmed the RTC in its Decision dated May 28, 2012.

Finally, We reject the Heirs' argument that the present action serves as a collateral attack on Lucman's certificate of title, which is prohibited under Section 48 of PD No. 1529. 51 The provision states that "[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." The "certificate of title" is the document issued by the Register of Deeds, while "title" refers to the ownership which is represented by that document. Ownership is different from a certificate of title, the latter being only the best proof of ownership. 52 Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens System does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate of title cannot be always be considered as conclusive evidence of ownership. 53 Here, what petitioners attacked is the validity of Lucman's title or ownership insofar as it overlapped with their titles, and not his certificate of title. Clearly, Section 48 does not find application.

In fine, We rule that the CA's Amended Decision should be reversed and set aside. The CA erred when it dismissed the consolidated complaints. Petitioners were able to prove by a preponderance of evidence the presence of the two indispensable requisites 54 for an action to quiet title to prosper. First, petitioners have legal and superior titles over the subject properties. Second, the certificate of title of Lucman, which casts cloud on petitioners' titles, is invalid and inoperative.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The July 9, 2013 Amended Decision and March 3, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82115 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The May 28, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals is REINSTATED insofar as petitioners Generosa Galang-Castillo, the Heirs of the late Bernabe Castillo, and the Heirs of the late Spouses Gregorio and Soledad Galang are concerned.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

 

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 50-57; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba.

2.Id. at 60-64.

3.Bernas v. Estate of Felipe Yu Han Yat, G.R. Nos. 195908 & 195910, August 15, 2018.

4. Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-7; Sps. Castillo are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-95-25163.

5. Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-4; Sps. Lazaro and Alicia Galang are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-95-25170.

6. Records, Vol. IV, pp. 1-5; Fellino Millare and Angelica Zarate are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-95-25198.

7.Rollo, pp. 332-333.

8.Id. at 333; Tobia is the registered owner of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. RT-92936 and RT-49277.

9.Id. at 332-333; Siblings Rizalina and Hilarion are owners of two parcels of land, respectively covered by TCT Nos. RT-95354 and RT-76772.

10.Id. at 333; Velayo is the owner of a lot covered by TCT No. RT-100743.

11.Id. at 91; Intervenor Sps. Galang are the owners of two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. RT-101167 and RT-44018.

12.Id. at 333; citing Records, Vol. I, pp. 555, 644-649 and Folder of Exhibits of Tobia, records, Vol. I, p. 72 of Records.

13.Rollo, pp. 80, 333.

14.Id. at 256.

15.Id. at 180-181.

16.Id. at 98-99, 107.

17.Id. at 99, 111.

18.Id. at 77-79; Gonzales' title was reconstituted in LRC Case No. Q-7025 (94) before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 96.

19.Id. at 334.

20.Id. at 99.

21.Id. at 334.

22.Id. at 259.

23.Id. at 258.

24.Id. at 258-259.

25.Id. at 342.

26.Id. at 341.

27.Id. at 342.

28.Id. at 53-55.

29.Id. at 55, 235.

30.Id. at 55-56.

31.Id.

32.Rollo, p. 57.

33.Id. at 353-367.

34.Id. at 24.

35.Supra note 2.

36.Rollo, pp. 25-26.

37. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADJUDICATION AND REGISTRATION OF TITLES TO LANDS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE LAND REGISTRATION ACT."

38.Rollo, pp. 27-28.

39.Id. at 31-32.

40.Id. at 432-434.

41.Id. at 436-437.

42.Records, Vol. I, pp. 411-412.

43.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlapping (last accessed on July 15, 2019).

44.Records, Vol. I, p. 411.

45.G.R. Nos. 173120 & 173141, July 26, 2017, 832 SCRA 427, 448; citing Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590 (1915).

46.Rollo, pp. 72-73.

47.Id. at 95-96.

48.Id. at 107.

49.G.R. No. L-33676, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 676, 680; as cited by the CA in its original Decision dated May 28, 2012, rollo, p. 340.

50.Id.

51.Rollo, p. 437.

52.Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No. 187633, April 4, 2016, 788 SCRA 13, 32, citing Lee Tek Sheng v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115402, July 15, 1998, 292 SCRA 544, 547-548.

53.Id. at 32; citing Vda. De Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla, G.R. No. 151334, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 495, 508-509.

54.For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. (Heirs of Tappa v. Heirs of Bacud, G.R. No. 187633, April 4, 2016, 788 SCRA 13, 26, citing Calacala v. Republic, G.R. No. 154415, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 438, 444; Mananquil v. Moico, G.R. No. 180076, November 21, 2012, 686 SCRA 123, 129-130.)