Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
LEONCIO C.
OLIVEROS, represented by his
heirs,* MOISES DE LA CRUZ,** and the HEIRS OF LUCIO DELA CRUZ,
represented by FELIX DELA CRUZ, |
|
G.R. No. 173531 Present: |
|
Petitioners, |
|
|
|
|
|
CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
|
|
BERSAMIN, |
|
SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION, THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF CALOOCAN CITY, and
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA, |
|
DEL CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
February 1, 2012 |
x - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
Only
holders of valid titles can invoke the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens titles.
Before
the Court is a Petition for Review[1]
of the April 21, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No.
59704, as well as its July 7, 2006 Resolution, denying reconsideration of the
assailed Decision. The dispositive portion of the April 21, 2006 Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated August
12, 1997 is affirmed, subject to the modification that the award of attorneys
fees is reduced to P100,000.00.
SO
ORDERED.[2]
The CA affirmed the trial courts judgment, which dismissed
petitioners complaint for the nullification of the title of San Miguel
Corporations (SMC) predecessor-in-interest, Ramie Textile (Ramitex), Inc.,
over Lot 1131 of the Malinta Estate and granted Ramitex prayer for the
cancellation of petitioner Leoncio C. Oliveros (Oliveros) title over the
subject property.
Factual Antecedents
This
case involves a parcel of land known as Lot 1131 (subject property) of the
Malinta Estate located in Barrio Bagbaguin of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Ramitex
bought the subject property from co-owners Tomas Soriano (Soriano) and Concepcion
Lozada (Lozada) in 1957. On the basis of
such sale, the Register of Deeds of Bulacan (Bulacan RD) cancelled
the vendors Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29334[3] and
issued TCT No. T-18460 on March 6, 1957 in favor of Ramitex.
Lot 1131 is just one of the 17 lots
owned by Ramitex within the Malinta Estate. In 1986, Ramitex consolidated and subdivided
its 17 lots within the Malinta Estate into six lots only under Consolidation
Subdivision Plan Pcs-13-000535.[4] Lot 1131, which contains 8,950 square meters,
was consolidated with portions of Lots 1127-A and 1128-B to become consolidated
Lot No. 4 (consolidated Lot 4). The
consolidated area of Lot 4 is 16,958 square meters. By virtue of this consolidation, the Register
of Deeds of Caloocan City (Caloocan RD) cancelled Ramitex individual title to
Lot 1131 (TCT No. T-18460) and issued a new title, TCT No. T-137261, for the
consolidated Lot 4.
Troubles began for Ramitex on February 22, 1989, when Oliveros filed a
petition[5]
in Branch 172 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela (Valenzuela RTC) for
the reconstitution of TCT No. T-17186, his alleged title over Lot 1131 of the
Malinta Estate (reconstitution case).[6] He claimed that the original copy was
destroyed in the fire that gutted the office of the Bulacan RD on March 7,
1987.[7]
Ramitex
filed its opposition to Oliveros petition[8]
asserting that TCT No. T-17186 never existed in the records of the Bulacan RD
and cannot therefore be reconstituted.[9]
The State, through the provincial prosecutor, also opposed on the basis that
Oliveros TCT No. T-17186, which is embodied on a judicial form with Serial
Number (Serial No.) 124604, does not come from official sources. The State submitted a certification from the
Land Registration Authority (LRA) that
its Property Section issued the form with Serial No. 124604 to the Register of
Deeds of Davao City (Davao RD), and not to the Bulacan RD, as claimed in
Oliveros alleged title.[10]
In
light of Ramitex opposition and ownership claims over Lot 1131, Oliveros filed
a complaint for the declaration of nullity of Ramitex title over Lot 1131 on November
16, 1990 (nullity case).[11] This complaint was docketed as Civil Case No.
3232-V-89 and raffled to Branch 172 of the Valenzuela RTC. Oliveros claimed that he bought the subject
property sometime in November 1956 from the spouses Domingo De Leon and Modesta
Molina, and pursuant to such sale, the Bulacan RD issued TCT No. T-17186 in his
favor on November 14, 1956.
He was joined in the suit by his
alleged overseers to Lot 1131, petitioners Moises and Felix Dela Cruz, who were
judicially ejected by Ramitex from Lot 1127 two years before.[12]
Oliveros and his co-petitioners alleged
that Ramitex did not own Lot 1131 and that its individual title to Lot 1131,
TCT No. 18460, was fake and was used by Ramitex to consolidate Lot 1131 with
its other properties in the Malinta Estate.
They further claimed that the resulting consolidated Lot 4 is not
actually a consolidation of several lots but only contains Lot 1131, which
belongs to Oliveros. Thus, they asked
for the nullification as well of Ramitex title to consolidated Lot 4,[13] insofar
as it unlawfully included Lot 1131.
Given the prejudicial nature of the nullity case on the reconstitution
case, the latter was held in abeyance until the resolution of the former.
Ramitex
answered that its title over Lot 1131 is valid and claimed continuous
possession and ownership of the subject property. It prayed for the dismissal
of petitioners complaint against it for lack of merit.[14]
Ramitex counterclaimed that it is Oliveros title, TCT No. T-17186, that should
be cancelled for being spurious and non-existent.
During
trial, [15] Oliveros testified that
the Bulacan RD lost the original of his alleged title when its office and
records were destroyed by fire on March 7, 1987. He presented a certification from the Bulacan
RD to the effect that all its records, titles and documents were burned.[16] He also presented a certification from the
Caloocan RD to the effect that it did not receive the original certificate of
title bearing TCT No. T-17186 from the Bulacan RD, after Presidential Decree
No. 824[17]
removed jurisdiction over the Municipality of Valenzuela from the Province of
Bulacan to Caloocan.[18] The Valenzuela RD likewise certified that it
has no record of the original of TCT No. T-17186.[19]
When
questioned why the original of his title was not transmitted to the Caloocan RD
and the Valenzuela RD when the jurisdiction over the properties of the Malinta
Estate was transferred to these offices, Oliveros explained that it was only
the titles with new transactions that were transferred. Since his title was dormant, meaning he did
not make any transaction on it, it was never trasmitted to the Caloocan or
Valenzuela RD.
Notably,
Oliveros failed to present his owners duplicate of TCT No. T-17186 during the
entire trial but only presented a machine copy thereof. He claimed that he had already sold Lot 1131
to a certain Nelson Go of DNG Realty and Development Corporation (DNG Realty)
in June of 1991,[20]
and that the vendee has possession of the owners duplicate. Oliveros explained that Go would not lend to
him the owners duplicate for presentation to the court because of a pending
case for rescission of sale between them.[21]
The complaint for rescission alleged
that Oliveros deceived and defrauded Nelson Go and DNG Realty by
misrepresenting ownership and actual possession of Lot 1131, which turned out
to be owned and possessed by Ramitex.[22]
Instead of his owners duplicate,
Oliveros presented a lot data computation[23] from
the Land Management Bureau (LMB) as proof that Lot 1131 exists in the public
records as comprising 16,958 square meters, not 8,950 as claimed by SMC and
Ramitex.[24] He also showed an undated and unapproved
survey plan[25]
to prove that Lot 1131 was surveyed to contain the said area.[26] As further proof of his ownership, Oliveros
presented his tax declarations covering Lot 1131.
With respect to his allegation that
Ramitex title to Lot 1131 is void, Oliveros pointed out that the title does
not contain the propertys technical description; it was issued on March 6,
1957, the same date that 13 other titles over other lots within the Malinta
Estate were issued in favor of Ramitex; and the signatures of the registrar,
Soledad B. De Jesus, on the said titles were dubious.[27]
On the other hand, SMC (having
substituted[28]
Ramitex as party-defendant after buying Ramitex interests over the subject
property[29])
presented officials from various government offices to prove that Oliveros
purported title to Lot 1131 does not actually exist in the official records.
Fortunato T. Pascual (Pascual),[30]
who heads the Property Section of the Land Registration Authority,[31]
explained that his office supplies all the RDs throughout the country with the
blank title forms, called Judicial Form No. 109-D. Starting in 1954, Judicial Forms No. 109-D
became accountable forms bearing unique
serial numbers.[32] Once a form is used by a registrar for
issuing a land title, the registrar has to account for such forms by submitting
a report of consumption (of the title forms) to the LRA.[33]
The Property Section of the LRA maintains a record of all the title forms
already used by the different registers of deeds.[34] Pascual then testified that, based on the
LRAs Record of Consumption of Judical Forms,[35]
the LRA issued Judicial Form No. 109-D with Serial No. 124604 to the Davao RD on February 21, 1957, and not
to the Bulacan RD sometime in 1956, as stated on Oliveros purported title.[36] As further proof that the Bulacan RD has not been
issued a Judicial Form No. 109-D with Serial No. 124604 in November 1956 (as
stated in Oliveros title), Pascual presented the record of consumption that
was submitted by the Bulacan RD for the said month and year. The record states that the Bulacan RD
consumed or issued 52 pieces of Judicial Form No. 109-D, with serial numbers
starting from 113292 up to 113343 only.[37]
Atty.
Aludia P. Gadia (Gadia), the Registrar of Davao RD, confirmed Pascuals
testimony. She personally conducted the
research and verifications from her office records that Judicial Form No. 109-D
bearing Serial No. 124604 was used for issuing TCT No. T-7522 on August 8, 1957
in the name of a certain Consuelo Javellana, married to Angel Javellana. She presented the cancelled copy of TCT No.
T-7522 to the court.[38]
Gadia likewise attested to the fact that
the serial numbers close to Serial No. 124604 (e.g. 124599, 124600, 124601, etc.)
are all accounted for in Book No. 38 of the Davao RD.[39]
SMC then assailed Oliveros Tax
Declaration (TD) No. B-027-01995 over Lot 1131. It presented Cesar Marquez (Marquez), the
municipal assessor of the Municipality of Valenzuela. Marquez testified that TD No. B-027-01995,
which on its face states that it covers Lot 1131 with TCT No. T-17186,[40]
is actually a revision of TD No. B-027-01170,[41]
which covers Lot 1134 of the Malinta Estate with TCT No. T-193116.[42]
Bartolome
Garcia, the acting chief of the Realty
Tax Division of the Office
of the Municipal Treasurer of Valenzuela,[43]
corroborated Marquez testimony that it was only on September 12, 1983[44]
that Oliveros started paying real estate taxes, but the said payments were for
Lot 1134,[45] not Lot 1131. Per the records of his office, Oliveros began
paying taxes for Lot 1131 only on March 12, 1990. On the other hand, Ramitex had been paying
realty taxes for Lot 1131 since 1967.[46]
Engineer
Ernesto Erive (Engineer Erive), chief of the Surveys Division of the Land
Management Sector, testified that the lot data computation and unapproved
survey plan presented by Oliveros are used by geodetic engineers for reference
purposes only, not for registration purposes.[47]
Engineer
Erive also pointed out that Oliveros title, which describes Lot 1131 as
containing 16,958 square meters, is clearly erroneous. According to their office records, Lot 1131
of the Malinta Estate contains 8,950 square meters only. He presented as proof the approved survey
plan for Lot 1131, Plan SP-2906.
Engineer Erive explained that it was only after the consolidation made
by Ramitex that Lot 1131 became a part of consolidated Lot 4 with the consolidated
area of 16,958 square meters.[48] Thus, Oliveros title, unapproved survey plan
and lot data computation all contain technical descriptions of the consolidated
Lot 4 of Ramitex Pcs-13-000-535, and not of Lot 1131 of the Malinta Estate.[49]
Engineer Erive dispelled doubts regarding the
absence of a technical description on TCT No. (T-18460) T-64433, Ramitex title
over Lot 1131. He explained that such
was the usual practice with respect to lots within the Malinta Estate; that
titles there usually include only the lot number and the case number.[50]
SMC also debunked the alleged parent
title, from which Oliveros title was
derived,
TCT No. T-16921. For this purpose, SMC
presented Christian Bautista (Bautista), the land registration examiner from
the Valenzuela RD, who testified that the only record it has of TCT No. T-16921
pertains to Lot 20-D of the Lolomboy Estate in the name of Beatriz Dela
Cruz. It does not pertain to Lot 1131 of
the Malinta Estate and is not in the name of Oliveros alleged transferors,
Domingo De Leon and Modesta Molina.[51]
In stark contrast, SMC established
its claim to Lot 1131. Bautista
presented the original copies of Ramitex individual titles over the 16
parcels of land within the Malinta Estate, as well as the original titles of
the consolidated lots,[52]
which are all properly recorded in the Valenzuela RD.[53] Bautista also brought to court TCT No.
(T-29334) T-63790, which is the title of Ramitexs alleged
predecessors-in-interest to Lot 1131, Soriano and Lozada.[54]
For
his rebuttal, Oliveros presented Ramon Vasquez (Vasquez), a record custodian of
the LMB assigned to the Escolta Branch.[55] Vasquez testified that their office has a
record of an unsigned and undated lot data computation for Lot 1131 of the
Malinta Estate in the name of Domingo De Leon.[56] Upon cross examination, however, Vasquez
admitted that the Escolta branch had no record of survey plans for the Malinta
Estate[57] and
that a lot data computation is not used as basis for the registration of land.[58]
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court[59]
The
trial court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Oliveros
TCT No. T-17186 does not exist. It gave due credence to the certification of
the LRA that Bulacan RD never possessed, hence could never have issued,
Judicial Form No. 109-D with Serial No. 124604.[60]
It
observed that the certification from the Bulacan RD only proved that its
records and documents were destroyed in the fire of March 1987. It did not, in the least, prove that TCT No.
T-17186 existed prior to the fire.[61]
Further,
Oliveros failed to explain why the parent title of TCT No. T-17186 refers to a
lot in the Lolomboy Estate.[62] He did not present the deed of sale allegedly
executed in his favor by his vendors Domingo de Leon and Modesta Molina; nor could
he produce the correct title, from which his TCT No. T-17186 was derived.[63]
On
the other hand, the trial court found overwhelming evidence supporting SMCs
claim as to the validity of its title to the subject property. The title from which SMCs
predecessor-in-interest Ramitex derived its own title, TCT No. (T-63790) 29334,
was in the name of Ramitex vendors Soriano and Lozada, and was still in
existence in the Bulacan RD. Moreover,
Entry No. 39069 can be found on the dorsal portion thereof, which corroborates
Ramitex claim that it bought Lot 1131 from the said vendors.[64]
The
trial court ruled in favor of SMC, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1). Declaring
TCT No. T-17186 of Oliveros as not genuine and dismissing the above-entitled
case for lack of merit; and
2). Ordering
the plaintiffs, jointly and severally, to pay defendant SMC the amount of P700,000.00
as attorneys fees, plus the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[65]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals[66]
Petitioners appealed to the CA. They asked for the reversal of the finding
that Oliveros title over Lot 1131 is spurious and non-existent.[67] Petitioners averred that TCT No. T-17186 was
issued earlier than Ramitex title, contains the technical description for Lot
1131 and is signed by Soledad B. De Jesus, the registrar of the Bulacan
RD. Thus, TCT No. T-17186 enjoys the
presumption of regularity accorded to every public instrument and thus, cannot
be collaterally attacked.[68] Petitioners relied heavily on the alleged
conclusiveness of Oliveros title based on its earlier issuance.[69]
The
appellate court affirmed the trial courts Decision.
After reviewing the factual findings
of the trial court, the CA agreed that there is no evidence that Oliveros title
came from official sources. On the other
hand, SMC adequately established the existence and validity of its title (TCT
No. T-18460), as well as those of its predecessors titles those of Ramitex
(TCT No. T-137261) and Soriano and Lozada (TCT No. 29334).[70] Given that these titles exist in official
sources, they are indefeasible unless and until credible evidence is presented
to obtain their annulment on grounds of fraud.
In this instance, the CA found that Oliveros failed to present such
evidence and thus, sustained the validity of SMCs title.
The CA however found the trial courts award of P700,000.00 as
attorneys fees excessive, and thus reduced the same to P100,000.00.[71]
Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration,[72]
which was denied for lack of merit in the appellate courts July 7, 2006
Resolution.[73]
Hence, this petition.
Petitioners
Arguments[74]
Petitioners
insist that the mere existence of Oliveros earlier title negates the
conclusiveness of Ramitex title.[75] Oliveros TCT No. T-17186, as the older
title, should enjoy presumptive conclusiveness of ownership and indefeasibility
of title. Corollarily, Ramitexs title
being a later title should have the presumption of invalidity. Thus, SMC has
the burden of overcoming this presumption.[76] Oliveros argues that SMC failed to prove the
validity of its title, which should be cancelled accordingly.
Petitioners then assail the CA
Decision for allowing a collateral attack on Oliveros title. Since the complaint filed below was for the
declaration of nullity of Ramitexs title,
not Oliveros title, what occurred below when the trial and appellate courts
nullified Oliveros title was a collateral attack.[77]
Petitioners pray that Oliveros
title over Lot 1131 be declared valid; while that of SMC be declared null and
void.
Respondents Arguments[78]
Respondent
SMC argues that the principle of indefeasibility of titles applies only to an
existing valid title to the litigated property.
In the instant case, SMC showed that Oliveros title, while claiming
priority, is actually spurious; thus, between SMC and Oliveros, it is only SMC
which has a valid title and in whose favor the doctrine of indefeasibility of
title applies.
SMC
further stresses that Oliveros cannot assert a right by virtue of a title, the
existence of which Oliveros cannot establish.
By the best evidence rule, the contents of a title can only be proved by
presenting the original document.
Secondary evidence, such as the ones presented by Oliveros (photocopy of
TCT No. T-17186, tax declaration, and unapproved land surveys), are
inadmissible until the offeror has laid the predicate for the presentation of
secondary evidence. In the instant
case, Oliveros failed to lay the predicate for the presentation of secondary
evidence. The certifications he
presented from the various RDs attest only that their offices do not have a
record of TCT No. T-17186. They did not
certify that TCT No. T-17186 existed in their records but was destroyed or
transferred to another office.
Moreover,
Oliveros admits that his owners duplicate of TCT No. T-17186 is in the
possession of his vendee, DNG Realty.
Since it is not lost or destroyed, Oliveros is not justified in not
presenting it in court. Oliveros explanation that DNG Realty will not lend him
the title is unacceptable because there is legal recourse for such
recalcitrance, which is to compel DNG Realty to present the duplicate copy in
the instant case through a subpoena duces
tecum.
Lastly,
SMC argues against the validity of Oliveros title by reiterating the evidence
they presented during trial.
Issues
Petitioners
present the following issues for this Courts resolution:[79]
1.
Whether the CA erred in applying the doctrines of indefeasibility and
conclusiveness of title in favor of respondent SMC;
2.
Whether the decisions of the CA and the trial court allowed a collateral
attack on Oliveros certificate of title.
Our Ruling
Petitioners contend that the CA erred in holding that it was
their burden to prove the invalidity of SMCs title and that they failed to
discharge such burden. They
maintain that the mere existence of a
prior title in Oliveros name suffices to create the presumption that SMCs
title, being the later title, is void.[80]
With that presumption, it was incumbent
upon SMC to prove the validity of its alleged title.
Petitioners
are oversimplifying the rule. The
principle that the earlier title prevails over a subsequent one applies when
there are two apparently valid titles over a single property. The existence of
the earlier valid title renders the subsequent title void because a single
property cannot be registered twice. As
stated in Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage Systems v. Court of Appeals,[81]
which petitioners themselves cite, a certificate is not conclusive evidence of
title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered
and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence. Clearly, a mere allegation of an earlier
title will not suffice.
It
is elementary that parties have the burden of proving their respective allegations.[82] Since petitioners allege that they have a title
which was issued earlier than SMCs title, it was their burden to prove the alleged
existence and priority of their title. The trial and appellate courts shared
conclusion that petitioners TCT No. T-17186 does not exist in the official records is a finding of fact that is
binding on this Court. Petitioners have
not offered a reason or pointed to evidence that would justify overturning this
finding. Neither did they assert that
this factual finding is unsubstantiated by the records. Without a title, petitioners cannot assert priority
or presumptive conclusiveness.[83]
In
contrast to petitioners, SMC adequately proved its title to Lot 1131. SMC proved that its and its predecessors
titles to Lot 1131 all exist in the official records, and petitioners failed to
present any convincing evidence to cast doubt on such titles. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that SMCs title
enjoys presumptive conclusiveness and indefeasibility under the Torrens system.[84]
Petitioners
argument that the ruling of the trial and appellate courts allowed a collateral
attack on his title is clearly unmeritorious and easily disposed of.
In the first place, the prohibition
against collateral attack does not apply to spurious or non-existent titles,
since such titles do not enjoy indefeasibility.
Well-settled is the rule that the indefeasibility of a title does not
attach to titles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. In view of these circumstances, it was as if
no title was ever issued in this case to the petitioner and therefore this is
hardly the occasion to talk of collateral attack against a title.[85]
Moreover, the attack on Oliveros title
was not a collateral attack. An action
or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action 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 to
enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand,
it is indirect or collateral when, in an action or proceeding to obtain a
different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.[86]
Here, SMC/Ramitex
assailed the validity of Oliveros title as part of its counterclaim in an
action to declare SMC/Ramitexs title a nullity. A counterclaim is essentially a
complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and stands on the same
footing as an independent action.[87] Thus, Ramitexs counterclaim can be
considered a direct attack on Oliveros title.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The April 21, 2006 Decision and the July 7,
2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59704 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Per June 15, 2011 Resolution
accepting the heirs Motion for Substitution of the Deceased Petitioner.
** Per the Death Certificate attached to the
Petition, Moises Dela Cruz died on March 29, 1997 (rollo, p. 45) and is survived by his widow Lucia Dela Cruz and his
children Guillermo and Natividad Dela Cruz.
The surviving heirs did not move to substitute the deceased petitioner
but attached a Special Power of Attorney in favor of their co-heir Guillermo Dela
Cruz (Guillermo) to represent them in their appeal (id. at 43-44). Their
representative Guillermo verified the Petition to this Court thereby
voluntarily appearing and submitting himself, on behalf of his co-heirs, to the
jurisdiction of the Court (Spouses De la
Cruz v. Joaquin, 502 Phil. 803, 810 [2005]).
[1] Rollo, pp. 11-44.
[2] CA Decision, p. 12; CA rollo,
p. 237.
[3] Exhibits Folder, pp. 173-175.
TCT No. 29334 states that it was entered on February 6, 1947 and cancels
TCT No. 29126.
[4] Duly approved by the
Bureau of Lands on February 18, 1986 (Id. at 176).
[5] Id. at 12-15.
[6] Docketed
as AD 723-V-89.
[7] Complaint
in Civil Case No. 3232-V-89 (Records, Vol. I, p. 2).
[8]
[9] Exhibits
Folder, p. 29.
[10]
[11] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 1-8.
[12] Exhibits
Folder, pp. 187-196.
[13] Complaint
in Civil Case No. 3232-V-89 (Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-4).
[14] Answer,
p. 16; id. at 179.
[15] The case was originally
resolved in favor of petitioners through a judgment by default. But this judgment was reversed and set aside
by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 20292. The CA ordered the trial court to admit
Ramitex answer and render judgment upon the evidence presented by the parties.
[16] The certification
reads: This is to certify that the
Office of the Register of Deeds, Malolos, Bulacan, together with all the
titles, documents, office equipments and supplies have been totally burned
during the fire conflagration on March 7, 1987 x x x. (Exhibits Folder, p. 9).
[17] Entitled Creating the
Metropolitan Manila and the Metropolitan Manila Commission and for other
purposes (Enacted on November 7, 1975).
[18] Exhibits
Folder, p. 10.
[19]
[20]
[21] Docketed
as Civil Case No. 092-13181 (
[22] Complaint
in Civil Case No. 092-13181, p. 5; id. at 257.
[23]
[24] Records,
Vol. II, p. 1,314.
[25] Exhibits
Folder, p. 8.
[26] Records,
Vol. II, p. 1,314.
[27]
[28] RTC Order dated October 21, 1994; id. at 1,124.
[29]
[30] TSN dated February 22, 1996, p. 3.
[31] Cross examination of Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated March 7, 1996,
pp. 7-8.
[32] Direct examination of
Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated March 7, 1996, pp. 3-5.
[33] Cross examination of Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated March 7, 1996,
pp. 6-7.
[34] Direct examination of
Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated February 22, 1996, pp. 6-7.
[35] Cross examination of Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated March 7, 1996,
pp. 8-9.
[36]
[37] Re-direct examination of Fortunato Pascual, TSN dated March 7,
1996, pp. 18-19.
[38] Direct
examination of Aludia Gadia, TSN dated March 21, 1996, pp. 63-71.
[39] Cross
examination of Aludia Gadia, TSN dated March 21, 1996, p. 78.
[40] Exhibits
Folder, p. 302.
[41]
[42]
[43] TSN dated March 21, 1996, p. 8.
[44] Direct examination of
Bartolome Garcia, TSN dated March 21, 1996, p. 16.
[45]
[46]
[47] Direct
examination of Ernesto Erive, TSN dated May 2, 1996, pp. 34-38.
[48]
[49] Redirect
examination of Ernesto Erive, TSN May 16, 1996, pp. 27-32.
[50] Direct
examination of Ernesto Erive, TSN dated May 2, 1996, pp. 30-32.
[51] Direct examination of Christian Bautista, TSN
dated March 28, 1996, pp. 30-31.
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55] Cross
examination of Ramon Vasquez, TSN dated August 27, 1996, pp. 23 & 27.
[56] Direct
examination of Ramon Vasquez, TSN dated August 27, 1996, pp. 14-16.
[57] Cross
examination of Ramon Vasquez, TSN dated August 27, 1996, pp. 28-29.
[58]
[59] Rollo, pp. 151-162;
penned by Judge Floro P. Alejo.
[60] RTC Decision,
p. 10, id. at 160.
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66] CA rollo, pp. 226-238; penned by Associate
Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina
Guevara-Salonga and Sesinando E. Villon.
[67] Appellants Brief, p. 25;
id. at 53.
[68]
[69] Id. at 35- 37; id. at
63-65.
[70] CA Decision, pp. 11-12;
id. at 236-237.
[71]
[72] CA rollo, pp. 242-253.
[73]
[74] Rollo, pp. 489-527.
[75] Petitioners
Memorandum, 24; id. at 512.
[76]
[77]
[78] Rollo, pp. 434-486.
[79] Petitioners
Memorandum, p. 20; id. at 508.
[80]
[81] G.R.
No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783, 788. Emphasis supplied.
[82] Rules on Court, Rule 131, Section 1; Spouses Carpo v.
[83] De Guzman v. Agbagala, G.R. No. 163566, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA
278, 285.
[84] Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 198 Phil. 263, 269-270 (1982).
[85]
[86]
[87] Agasen v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil.
391, 399 (2000).