vicente
d. herce, jr., G.R. No. 166645
Petitioner,
Present:
- versus - Quisumbing, J. (Chairperson),
Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and
Azcuna, JJ.
LAGUNA
and JOSE B. CARPENA, Promulgated:
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
For resolution
is the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by petitioner Vicente D. Herce, Jr. of the Decision dated November 11,
2005, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED. The validity of
Decree No. 4244 issued on March 3, 1991 in favor of respondent Municipality of
Cabuy[a]o, Laguna is AFFIRMED, whereas Decree No. N-216115 and Original
Certificate of Title No. 0-2099, issued in the name of petitioner Herce, are
declared NULL and VOID.
SO
ORDERED.
In denying the petition, we held
that:
[I]t is clear that Decree No. 4244
issued in favor of the respondent municipality in 1911 has become indefeasible;
as such, petitioner is now barred from claiming the subject land. Although the municipality’s claim of
ownership is based on the entry in the Ordinary Decree Book, LRC (CLR) Rec. No.
6763, showing that Decree No. 4244 was issued on March 3, 1911 and that Lot I
Plan II-2719 was one of the six parcels of land previously applied for
registration by the Municipality of Cabuyao in LRC (GLRO) Record No. 6763,
being a public document, the Ordinary Decree Book is prima facie proof
of the entries appearing therein. x x x
x x x x
In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Ordinary Decree Book, LRC (CLR)
Rec. No. 6763, showing that Decree No. 4244 was issued on
x x x x
Accordingly,
the decree of registration issued by the LRA on January 28, 1997 in favor of
petitioner, followed by the issuance of OCT No. O-2099, pertaining to the same
parcel of land covered by Decree No. 4244, has no legal basis and should be
nullified.
In his Motion for Reconsideration,
petitioner principally claimed that the entries in the Ordinary Decree Book of
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) did not categorically state that the property
covered by Decree No. N-216115 and OCT No. O-2099 was included in Decree No.
4244. As such, the title issued in his
favor could not be declared void, because it had not been shown by competent
proof that the lot covered thereby was included in Decree No. 4244.
Petitioner thus prayed that: (a) The
parcel of land identified as Lot Plan II-2719-A and Cadastral Lot No. 3484 be
declared as not included in Decree No. 4244 issued in favor of the Municipality
of Cabuyao; (b) The
Municipality of Cabuyao be declared as having been barred by laches from
recovering the title and ownership over the subject property; (c)
Jose B. Carpena should be declared as having been barred by laches from
asserting ownership over the subject property; and (d) Decree No. N-216115 and OCT No. 0-2099 issued
in favor of petitioner should be declared as valid. In the alternative, petitioner prayed that the assailed Decision
be partially reconsidered by remanding the case to the trial court for the
determination of whether the property subject of litigation was included in
Decree No. 4244 issued in favor of the Municipality of Cabuyao. If found to be included, then OCT No. 0-2099
and Decree No. N-216115 issued in favor of petitioner should be declared as
void.
In its Opposition/Comment to
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, respondents maintained that Lot 1, Plan II-2719-A, the
property subject of litigation, was included in Decree No. 4244 issued in the
name of the Municipality of Cabuyao, as shown by the following pieces of
evidence, to wit:
(a) Survey Plan conducted by the Bureau of
Lands with notation at the bottom portion indicating that Decree No. 4244 was
issued in favor of the Municipality of Cabuyao on March 3, 1911 over the Lot 1,
Plan II-2719-A;
(b) Certification issued by Mr. Teodoro
Bonifacio, then Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, stating that
Plan SWO-25706 (II-2719-A) was presented as evidence in the “Carpena case;”
(c) Entries in the Ordinary Decree Book of
the LRA;
(d) LRA Report dated
(e) Survey Plan over
The motion is partially granted.
The inherent power of a court to
amend and control its processes and orders includes the right to reverse itself
if only to make its findings and conclusions conformable to law and
justice. Every court has the power and
the corresponding duty to review, amend or reverse its findings and conclusions
whenever its attention is seasonably called to any error or defect that it may
have committed.
We have given the assailed Decision
as well as the parties’ respective evidence and arguments a hard second look.
It appearing that we have overlooked certain crucial points and arguments and
calling to mind the Court’s duty to rectify its mistakes when warranted by the
facts and the law at hand, we are constrained to partially grant petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
After a careful and more circumspect re-evaluation of the
evidence before us, we are convinced that the case should be remanded to the
trial court. It must be recalled that on
In
view of the foregoing rule, and considering the Report dated December 2, 1980,
of the Acting Commissioner of Land Registration x x x that Decree No. 4244 was
issued on x x x March 3, 1911 in LRC (GLRO), Record No. 6763, in favor of the
Municipality of Cabuyao for apparently the same parcel of land applied for
herein, this Court resolves to open the decree of registration issued
herein. The Decision of this Court dated
Set this case for
presentation of evidence for claimant Vicente Herce, Jr. on
SO
ORDERED.[1]
From the
foregoing Order, it is clear that petitioner must still present evidence to
prove his claim over the subject property.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Order was denied; hence,
he filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals where the sole
issue for resolution was whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion
in granting respondent municipality’s motion to reopen the decree of
registration. Finding that the latter
met all the requirements to reopen the decree of registration, the Court of
Appeals denied the petition. At the same
time, it ruled that:
It
should be recalled that the basis of the issuance of the Decree in favor of the
petitioner in the case at bar is the
Noticeable
from the said May 30, 1980 decision however is that the existence of Decree No.
4244 issued on March 3, 1911 was never mentioned. Neither was it mentioned in the petitioner’s
motion to modify decision dated June 26, 1995.
In fact, when asked to comment on the petitioner’s motion to modify
decision, the LRA interposed no objection thereto, but with the caveat that “xxx provided it will not adversely affect
the government as well as third parties.”
Of
course, the controversy could have easily ended at this point had LRA exercised
prudence in checking its records and would have found out the existence of
Decree No. 4244 in favor of the Municipality of Cabuyao. As it were, however, the motion to modify decision
was granted, notwithstanding the fact that the 1957 decision of the trial court
directing the issuance of the corresponding decrees over the 44 parcels of land
applied for by the group of Juanita Carpena had already attained finality, that
decrees over the 42 of these parcels have already been issued, and that the
property subject of the present case was not issued a decree in view precisely
of the existence of Decree 4244.
Clearly,
the decree was issued upon the petitioner’s manifestation before the trial
court that it was the rightful owner of the property subject of the controversy
and that as transferee and therefore the successor-in-interest of the original
applicant Juanita Carpena, he was entitled to the issuance of a decree of
registration as decreed in the 1957 Decision of the CFI of Laguna.
x
x x x
In
the case at bar, the respondent municipality in its petition/motion to
reopen/review decree alleged that as early as March 3, 1911, it has been issued
Decree No. 4244 over Lot I Plan II 2719-A (now
Specifically,
the ground relied upon by the municipality in seeking the reopening of the
decree of registration is the Report dated December 2, 1980 of the Land
Registration Authority in Cadastral Case No. N-B-1, LRC Cadastral No. N-651
that after plotting the technical descriptions of
To
hold otherwise would result in a situation wherein the LRA would be compelled
to issue a decree of registration over a piece of land which has already been
decreed and titled in the name of another, if it were found out that indeed,
the property has already been earlier titled in the name of the municipality.
Considering
the existence of two conflicting titles – one in favor of petitioner, and the
other in the name of the Municipality of Cabuyao, the court properly granted
the reopening of the decree of title in order to finally settle the issue of
ownership over the property subject of the instant controversy and to end this
litigation which has dragged on for decades.[2]
The foregoing pronouncements of the
Court of Appeals do not expressly state that the property covered by OCT No.
0-2099 and Decree No. N-216115 issued in favor of petitioner is included and
within the scope of Decree No. 4244 earlier issued in 1911 in favor of
respondent municipality.
As we have ruled in the assailed
Decision, there is no doubt that Decree No. 4244 issued in favor of the
municipality has become indefeasible.
However, based on the records before us, there is insufficient information
to conclude that Decree No. 4244 includes the property covered by OCT No. 0-2099
and Decree No. N-216115. As such, there
is a need to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals:
Considering
the existence of two conflicting titles – one in favor of petitioner, and the
other in the name of the Municipality of Cabuyao, the court properly granted
the reopening of the decree of title in order to finally settle the issue of
ownership over the property subject of the instant controversy and to end this
litigation which has dragged on for decades.[3]
It is elementary that a court must
render judgment confirming the title of the applicant only if it finds that the
latter has sufficient title proper for registration. An application for land registration may
include two or more parcels of land, but the court may at any time order an
application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or order a
severance of the application.
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision is PARTIALLY
RECONSIDERED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Laguna, Branch 24 for the determination of whether the subject property is
included in Decree No. 4244 issued in favor of the Municipality of
Cabuyao.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Special
First Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice