SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 217082. November 29, 2021.]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs.TRADERS ROYAL BANK AND SPOUSES CRESENTE AND EVELYN CALINAWAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 217082 (Philippine National Bank v. Traders Royal Bank and Spouses Cresente and Evelyn Calinawan). — Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) assailing the Decision 1 dated August 19, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA), as well as the Resolution 2 dated February 4, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 02572-MIN. The assailed CA Decision affirmed the Decision 3 dated September 3, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Malaybalay City in Civil Case No. 3501-06, dismissing PNB's complaint for quieting of title with damages.
The Antecedents
The facts of the case are summarized in the assailed CA Decision 4 as follows:
This controversy involves Lot No. 56-B-1-I-3-B, a 150-sq. m. land, located in Barrio Kaul, Kalawig, Malaybalay (subject property). This parcel of land was originally registered on August 3, 1970 in the name of Alvaro Pabillaran under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-5366. 5
On August 22, 1988, the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bukidnon issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-26790 over the subject property in the name of Cresente Calinawan married to Evelyn Danuco. 6
On February 7, 1991, the same Registry of Deeds canceled TCT No. T-26790, and in its stead issued TCT No. T-54000 in the name of Evelyn Calinawan married to Cresente Calinawan. 7
On January 12, 1993, spouses Cresente and Evelyn Calinawan (spouses Calinawan) obtained a loan from PNB under its Pangkabuhayan ng Bayan Program in the amount of P500,000.00. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property covered by TCT No. T-26790. The mortgage was annotated in the title as Entry No. 154139 on January 12, 1993. 8 CAIHTE
On December 27, 1993, PNB granted spouses Calinawan another credit accommodation in the amount of P600,000.00. This loan was allegedly covered by the same existing mortgage executed by spouses Calinawan on January 12, 1993. 9
Upon default of spouses Calinawan, PNB instituted foreclosure proceedings on the mortgage. On March 2, 1998, PNB was awarded the subject property as the highest bidder. 10
Two years earlier, or on August 26, 1996, spouses Calinawan obtained a loan from Traders Royal Bank (TRB), now Bank of Commerce, in the sum of P1,300,000.00, which was secured by a real estate mortgage over the subject property under TCT No. T-54000. This mortgage was annotated at the back of the title as Entry No. 206668 on August 26, 1996. 11
Spouses Calinawan also defaulted in the payment of their loan obligation; thus, TRB foreclosed on the mortgage. On February 17, 1999, TRB was awarded the mortgaged property as the highest bidder. 12
TRB consolidated its title and, on November 29, 2000, caused the cancellation of TCT No. T-54000 and the issuance of a new certificate of title, TCT No. T-76888, in its name. 13
Six years later, or on January 10, 2006, PNB filed a complaint for quieting of title with damages against TRB, Spouses Calinawan, and the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Bukidnon. 14
On February 3, 2006, spouses Calinawan filed their answer, alleging that sometime in 1996, they already paid in full the first loan of P500,000.00 under the Credit Agreement guaranteed by TCT Nos. T-26790 and T-29142. They asserted that only the second loan remained unsettled, and so the only title encumbered by PNB is TCT No. T-31127, which is the collateral for the P600,000.00 credit agreement. Thus, they prayed for the dismissal of the case for quieting of title. 15
On February 14, 2006, TRB filed its answer, insisting on its right of ownership over the subject property. It pointed out that PNB, if it was really a rightful mortgagee, should have consolidated its title to the property and caused the issuance of a new title in its name. TRB also prayed for the dismissal of the case. 16
The Decision of the RTC
On September 3, 2010, the RTC rendered a Decision, 17 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the court finds preponderance of evidence in favor of the defendant Traders Royal Bank as to its ownership of the property covered by TCT No. T-54000 and TCT No. T-76888 and orders this case dismissed in favor of x x x TRB without costs. And for defendants, spouses Cresente and Evelyn Calinawan to pay plaintiff, PNB, the following:
1. Php200,000.00 actual and litigation expenses, and attorney's fees, and
2. Php500,000.00 exemplary damages.
To pay the costs.
SO ORDERED. 18
On October 1, 2010, spouses Calinawan filed a Notice of Appeal.
Before the RTC could act on said notice of appeal, PNB filed a motion for partial reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order 19 dated March 11, 2011. 20
Thereafter, on April 7, 2011, PNB filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC gave due course to in an Order dated April 11, 2011. 21 DETACa
The Decision of the CA
In a Resolution 22 dated September 18, 2012, the CA dismissed spouses Calinawan's appeal for their failure to file their appellants' brief.
Thereafter, the CA rendered the assailed Decision 23 on PNB's appeal, the dispositive portion of which states:
FOR THESE REASONS, this assailed Decision of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City in Civil Case No. 3501-06 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
According to the appellate court, PNB has personality to file the complaint for quieting of title pursuant to Article 477 of the Civil Code which requires the plaintiff to have "legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is subject matter of the action."
The CA further ruled that TRB's right is superior to PNB's claim for the following reasons: TCT No. T-54000 was a clean title when presented to TRB as security for the loan obtained by spouses Calinawan; TRB had no fault or participation at all if ever spouses Calinawan had two different titles covering the same property; TRB duly registered its real estate mortgage, and acquired the subject property in good faith and for value; PNB's alleged right over the subject property was registered in a canceled certificate of title; and PNB's alleged right over the subject property was based on an irregular inscription in the certificate of title. 25 The appellate court also declared that PNB neither alleged nor proved that TRB ever employed fraud in acquiring title over the subject property. Thus, the CA held that PNB failed to show that the alleged "cloud" on its title is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 26
Moreover, the CA affirmed the RTC's ruling that PNB's action is a collateral attack on TRB's title, which must be dismissed. 27 Citing the cases of Foster-Gallego v. Galang, 28Vda. de Gualberto v. Go, 29 and Leonero v. Barba, 30 the appellate court declared that the validity of a certificate of title cannot be assailed in an action for quieting of title.
Issues
PNB raised the following issues in its appeal:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PNB CANNOT CLAIM A SUPERIOR RIGHT AGAINST TRB OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PNB'S ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE AGAINST TRB COULD NOT PROSPER. 31
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is without merit.
In its petition, PNB argues that the CA erred in holding that TRB has a superior right over the subject property since all the grounds relied upon by the appellate court to arrive at said conclusion likewise apply to PNB, to wit: (a) TCT No. T-26790 was a clean title when presented to PNB as security for the loan obtained by spouses Calinawan; (b) PNB likewise had no fault or participation at all if ever spouses Calinawan had two different titles covering the same property; (c) PNB also registered its real estate mortgage and acquired the subject property in good faith and for value; (d) TCT No. T-26790 was not actually canceled; (e) TCT Nos. T-26790 and T-54000 hear similar inscriptions of the real estate mortgages and special powers of attorney of PNB and TRB, respectively. 32
Sections 25 and 28, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, which have suppletory application to Act No. 3135 governing extrajudicial foreclosure, requires the certificate of sale to be registered with the Register of Deeds, and states that the one-year redemption period shall be counted from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, thus: aDSIHc
Section 25. Conveyance of real property; certificate thereof given to purchaser and filed with registry of deeds. — Upon a sale of real property, the officer must give to the purchaser a certificate of sale containing:
(a) A particular description of the real property sold;
(b) The price paid for each distinct lot or parcel;
(c) The whole price paid by him;
(d) A statement that the right of redemption expires one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale.
Such certificate must be registered in the registry of deeds of the place where the property is situated.
Section 28. Time and manner of, and amounts payable on, successive redemptions; notice to be given and filed. — The judgment obligor, or redemptioner, may redeem the property from the purchaser, at any time within one (1) year from the date of the registration of the certificate of sale, by paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, with one per centum per month interest thereon in addition, up to the time of redemption, together with the amount of any assessments or taxes which the purchaser may have paid thereon after purchase, and interest on such last named amount at the same rate; and if the purchaser be also a creditor having a prior lien to that of the redemptioner, other than the judgment under which such purchase was made, the amount of such other lien, with interest. (Emphasis supplied)
The registration discussed in the above provisions, when construed in relation with Section 41 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529, 33 pertains to the latest issued certificate of title resulting from the last voluntary transaction affecting the land covered thereby.
Herein lies the crucial point that resolves the first issue: TCT No. T-26790, on which PNB relied and annotated its real estate mortgage and certificate of sale, was already replaced by TCT No. T-54000 as early as 1991, or two years before spouses Calinawan obtained their loans with PNB. As correctly found by the CA, spouses Calinawan used the canceled certificate of title (TCT No. T-26790) to secure their loan with PNB in 1993, and used the new title (TCT No. T-54000) as collateral for their loan with TRB in 1996. 34
Black's Law Dictionary defines "cancel" as "to annul or destroy, to make void or invalid, to set aside; to repeal, surrender or waive, to terminate." 35 Unfortunately, neither the RTC nor the CA explained how spouses Calinawan retained their owner's duplicate of TCT No. T-26790 or why the Register of Deeds of the Province of Bukidnon did not require its surrender or stamp the word "canceled" across it and, instead, continued to annotate voluntary dealings thereon despite the issuance of TCT No. T-54000 in its stead. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that at the time spouses Calinawan obtained the loans with PNB and TRB, TCT No. T-26790 was already canceled as expressly stated on TCT No. T-54000. 36 Hence, when PNB caused the annotation of its real estate mortgage and, later on, its certificate of sale on TCT No. T-26790, said title was already legally inexistent.
The annotations caused to be made by PNB on TCT No. T-26790 was not the registration contemplated under the law since said TCT was not the latest issued certificate of title resulting from the last voluntary transaction covering the subject property. Consequently, PNB's registration of its certificate of sale on TCT No. T-26790 did not produce any legal effect, and cannot be considered to have triggered the commencement of the one-year redemption period. ETHIDa
Having failed to register its real estate mortgage and certificate of sale as contemplated under the law, said transactions were valid only between spouses Calinawan and PNB, and are not binding on TRB. It is well-settled that the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect land insofar as third persons are concerned. Section 51, Chapter V of P.D. No. 1529 states:
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. — An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned; and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. 37 Thus, upon failure to redeem foreclosed realty, consolidation of title becomes a matter of right on the part of the auction buyer, and the issuance of a certificate of title in favor of the purchaser becomes ministerial upon the Register of Deeds. 38
As stated above, PNB's "registration" of its certificate of sale on the canceled title could not have produced any legal effect, and could not have triggered the commencement of the one-year redemption period. Logically, PNB's title to the subject property was never consolidated.
On the other hand, TRB foreclosed on the subject property and caused the annotation of its certificate of sale on TCT No. T-54000 on February 17, 1999.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (Emphasis supplied)
TRB was first to register its sale on the latest issued certificate of title, i.e., TCT No. T-54000. Upon the expiration of the one-year redemption period without spouses Calinawan redeeming the subject property, TRB's title thereto was consolidated and it became the absolute owner of the subject property. The CA, therefore, correctly ruled that TRB's right over the subject property is superior to PNB's claim.
Anent the second issue, PNB contends that a suit brought expressly to set aside title to property derived from a fraudulent certificate of title is not a collateral attack thereon, even though the plaintiff therein may be asking for further relief in the matter of title. PNB argues that the resolution of the veracity or invalidity of TCT No. T-54000 would determine whether or not a cloud actually insists on its title. Since the court would inevitably have to pass upon the status of TCT No. T-54000 vis-à-vis TCT No. T-26790 to resolve PNB's claim, its complaint could be considered a direct attack on TCT No. T-54000. 39 cSEDTC
The remedy of quieting of title is provided under Articles 476 and 477 of the Civil Code, which state:
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject-matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
In Mananquil v. Moico, 40 this Court explained the nature of an action for quieting of title, thus:
An action for quieting of title is essentially a common law remedy grounded on equity. The competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. But "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." 41 (Citation omitted)
An action for quieting of title is a special proceeding, specifically governed by Rule 63 of the Rules of Court on declaratory relief and similar remedies. Actions for declaratory relief and other similar remedies are distinguished from ordinary civil actions because in declaratory relief, the subject-matter is a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance. The issue is the validity or construction of these documents. The relief sought is the declaration of the petitioner's rights and duties thereunder. 42
A cloud on a title exists when (1) there is an instrument (deed, or contract) or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; (2) which is apparently valid or effective; (3) but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by extinctive prescription; and (4) and may be prejudicial to the title. 43
On the other hand, Section 48, Chapter IV of P.D. No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, prohibits a collateral attack to a certificate of title, viz.:
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.
In Arangote v. Maglunob, 44 the Court distinguished between direct and collateral attack, to wit:
The attack is considered direct when the object of an action is to annul or set aside such proceeding, or enjoin its enforcement. Conversely, an attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the proceeding is nevertheless made as an incident thereof. Such action to attack a certificate of title may be an original action or a counterclaim, in which a certificate of title is assailed as void. 45 (Citation omitted)
It is well-settled that the nature of an action is determined by the allegations in the body of the pleading or complaint itself, rather than by its title or heading. 46 Thus, in Bernas v. The Estate of Felipe Yu Hun Yat, 47 this Court ruled that the petition for quieting of title therein was actually a direct attack on the title of the petitioner since said petition specifically sought to annul the certificate of title, thus:
However, petitioners are mistaken in their conclusion that the action filed by Yu Han Yat was a collateral attack just because it was denominated as a "petition for quieting of title" instead of a "petition for annulment of title."
The test is not the name of the action, but the ultimate objective of the same and the relief sought therein. Applying the said test in this case, the petition for quieting of title filed by Yu Han Yat was a direct attack on the petitioners' title as the petition specifically sought to annul TCT No. 336663 in the name of Nava. Thus, even as petitioners correctly claim that in assailing the validity of a Torrens title, there must be a direct proceeding expressly instituted for the purpose, the fact of the matter is that the petition for quieting of title was exactly that proceeding as it was filed precisely to question the validity of TCT No. 336663. 48 (Citation omitted) SDAaTC
And again, in Filipinas Eslon Manufacturing Corp. v. Heirs of Basilio Llanes, 49 the Court declared that raising the invalidity of a certificate of title in an action for quieting of title is not a collateral attack because it is essential in such an action that the complainant show the invalidity of the deed which casts cloud on his title, viz.:
In the instant case, the Complaint filed by petitioner FEMCO alleged and, as found by the RTC, sufficiently proved these two requisites for quieting of title: that petitioner FEMCO has a legal right in the subject property by virtue of TCT No. T-17460 (a.f.); and that the deed claimed to be casting a cloud on the title of petitioner FEMCO, i.e., OCT No. 0-1040 (a.f.) based on Decree No. N-182390 dated April 17, 1968, is invalid, null, and void.
Hence, raising the invalidity of a certificate of title in an action for quieting of title is NOT a collateral attack because it is central, imperative, and essential in such an action that the complainant shows the invalidity of the deed which casts cloud on his title. In other words, at the heart of the Complaint for Quieting of Title instituted by petitioner FEMCO is the nullification of OCT No. 0-1040 in order to remove the cloud besetting its own title. This is manifestly a direct attack.
Similarly, in its complaint for quieting of title, PNB claims that the deeds which cast a cloud on its title are TCT Nos. T-54000 and T-76888. It is essential that PNB proves the invalidity of said TCTs in order to nullify them and remove the cloud besetting its own title over the subject property. Clearly, PNB's complaint for quieting of title is a direct attack on TCT Nos. T-54000 and T-76888. The CA, therefore, erred in ruling that PNB's complaint for quieting of title amounts to a collateral attack.
Nonetheless, PNB's complaint for quieting of title still cannot prosper.
In said complaint, PNB alleged, among others, that: in January and December 1993, spouses Calinawan entered into two credit agreements with PNB; said loans were secured by a real estate mortgage executed by spouses Calinawan in favor of PNB over the subject property covered by TCT No. T-26790; upon default of spouses Calinawan, PNB foreclosed on the subject property; unknown to, and with intent to defraud PNB, spouses Calinawan caused the issuance of TCT No. T-54000 on February 7, 1991; the words "this certificate is a Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26790 which was cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above described land is concerned" 50 appears on the face of TCT No. T-54000; unknown to, and with intent to defraud PNB, spouses Calinawan secured another loan from TRB; the subject property was again sold in a foreclosure sale with TRB as the highest bidder; and, TRB later consolidated its title and was issued TCT No. T-76888 in its name. 51
From the above allegations, PNB admits the registration of said titles to spouses Calinawan and TRB, respectively, but claims that said registration were erroneous or wrongful because of fraud committed by spouses Calinawan. PNB is clearly raising fraud as the ground for cancellation or nullification of TCT Nos. T-54000 and T-76888. Hence, PNB's complaint may be considered an action for reconveyance.
In Aboitiz v. Po, 52 this Court explained the nature of a complaint for reconveyance, to wit:
A complaint for reconveyance is an action which admits the registration of title of another party but claims that such registration was erroneous or wrongful. It seeks the transfer of the title to the rightful and legal owner, or to the party who has a superior right over it, without prejudice to innocent purchasers in good faith. It seeks the transfer of a title issued in a valid proceeding. The relief prayed for may be granted on the basis of intrinsic fraud-fraud committed on the true owner instead of fraud committed on the procedure amounting to lack of jurisdiction. acEHCD
xxx xxx xxx
As stated, a complaint for reconveyance is a remedy where the plaintiff argues for an order for the defendant to transfer its title issued in a proceeding not otherwise invalid. The relief prayed for may be granted on the basis of intrinsic rather than extrinsic fraud; that is, fraud committed on the real owner rather than fraud committed on the procedure amounting to lack of jurisdiction. 53 (Citations omitted)
While the RTC found that spouses Calinawan indeed defrauded PNB, the fraudulent act was the use or presentation of the canceled TCT No. T-26790 to PNB, despite the fact that it was already replaced by TCT No. T-54000 at that time. Neither the RTC nor the CA found any fraud committed against PNB in the issuance of TCT Nos. T-54000 and T-76888.
To be sure, PNB itself alleged that TCT No. T-54000 was issued in 1991, or two years before spouses Calinawan even obtained their loans from PNB. Clearly, when spouses Calinawan caused the issuance of TCT No. T-54000, it could not have been for the purpose of defrauding PNB, which had absolutely no claim over the subject property at that time. In fact, the CA affirmed the RTC's factual findings and declared that PNB failed to convince the appellate court that the alleged "cloud" on its title, i.e., TCT Nos. T-54000 and T-76888, is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. 54
It is settled that when the factual findings of the trial court are confirmed by the CA, said facts are final and conclusive on this Court, unless the same are not supported by the evidence on record. 55 Findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may be disregarded only when the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record. But there is no ground to apply this exception to the instant case. This Court will not assess all over again the evidence adduced by the parties particularly where, as in this case, the findings of both the RTC and the CA completely coincide. 56
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 19, 2013 and the Resolution dated February 4, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02572-MIN are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., no part due to prior participation in the assailed CA Decision and Resolution; Marquez, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 24, 2021.) Hernando, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 11-22. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices (now Members of this Court) Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
2. Id. at 23-24.
3. Id. at 118-123. Penned by Judge Josefina Gentiles Bacal.
4. Id. at 11-22.
5. Id. at 12.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 12-13.
12. Id. at 13.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 118-123.
18. Id. at 123.
19. Id. at 134-135.
20. Id. at 14.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 136-138.
23. Id. at 11-22.
24. Id. at 22.
25. Id. at 18-19.
26. Id. at 19.
27. Id. at 20.
28. 479 Phil. 148, 167 (2004).
29. 502 Phil. 250, 258 (2005).
30. 623 Phil. 706, 710 (2009).
31. Rollo, p. 36.
32. Id. at 38-42.
33. Section 41, Chapter IV of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides:
Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. — The owner's duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered owners, one owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in like form, but all outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued. (Emphasis supplied)
34. Rollo, p. 59.
35. Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition, available at https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Blacks-Law-Dictionery.pdf, accessed on October 29, 2021.
36. Rollo, p. 100.
37. Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 370 Phil. 837, 846 (1999), citing F. David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 269 Phil. 551, 557 (1990).
38. Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, id. at 847, citing Tarnate v. CA, 311 Phil. 264, 272 (1995).
39. Rollo, pp. 43-44.
40. 699 Phil. 120 (2012).
41. Id. at 126-127, citing Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, 626 Phil. 735, 758-759 (2010) and Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 15, 25 (2000).
42. Republic v. Mangotara, 638 Phil. 353, 431 (2010).
43. Ocampo v. Ocampo, 813 Phil. 390, 404 (2017).
44. 599 Phil. 91 (2009).
45. Id. at 111.
46. Gochan v. Gochan, 423 Phil. 491, 501 (2001).
47. 838 Phil. 710 (2018).
48. Id. at 730.
49. G.R. No. 194114, March 27, 2019.
50. Rollo, p. 69.
51. Id. at 68-70.
52. 810 Phil. 123 (2017).
53. Id. at 137-140.
54. Rollo, p. 59.
55. Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 273 (2017), citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
56. Gatan v. Vinarao, id.