-57-

MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVT. CORP

G.R. No. 123346 | 14 DECEMBER 2007
MANOTOK REALTY, INC. and MANOTOK ESTATE CORPORATION CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
v.
petitioners respondent
G.R. No. 134385
HEIRS OF JOSE B. DIMSON, REPRESENTED BY HIS COMPULSORY HEIRS:
HIS SURVIVING SPOUSE, ROQUETA R. DIMSON AND THEIR CHILDREN,
ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC. NORMA AND CELSO TIRADO, ALSON AND VIRGINIA DIMSON, LINDA
v.
petitioner AND CARLOS LAGMAN, LERMA AND RENE POLICAR, AND ESPERANZA R.
DIMSON; REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MALABON,
respondents
Resolution
Justice TInga
The 2 petitions involve properties covered by OCT No. 994 which encompasses 1342 hectares
of the Maysilo Estate, and stretches over 3 cities.

GR 123346:
o Respondent CLT Devt. sought to recover from petitioner Manotok Realty the
possession of Lot 26 covered by aforementioned estate. Respondents claim is based
on a title issued in its name by the Register of Deeds-Caloocan, which title in turn
was derived from Estelita Hipolito by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Real Estate
Mortgage dated 10 Dec. 1988. Hipolitos title came from Jose Dimsons title, which
was issued pursuant to a CFI order. Dimsons title appears to have been sourced
from OCT 994.
o Petitioners challenged the validity of the title relied by respondent, alleging that
Dimsons title was irregularly issued, and hence, the subsequent titles flowing
therefrom are void. Petitioners title likewise traced as its primary source OCT 994,
which was transferred to Alejandro Ruiz & Mariano Leuterio who acquired the
F property through an Escritura de Venta (Deed of Sale) executed by Don Tomas
Arguelles & Don Enrique Llopis. Ruiz & Leuterio then sold the property to Gonzales
and then to his heirs, wherein the lot was subdivided into 7 parcels.
o The RTC rendered a decision in favor of respondents.
o CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

GR 134385:
o 18 Dec 1979: Dimson filed with CFI a complaint for recovery of possession &
damages against petitioner Araneta Institute, alleging that he was the absolute
owner of part of the Maysilo Estate, and that petitioner had been illegally occupying
the land & refused to vacate the same. On the other hand, petitioner alleged that
Dimsons title to the land was void.
o CFI ruled in favor of Dimson, with the following findings:
o CA affirmed the trial courts decision.
29 Nov 2005: The SC denied the consolidated petitions.
The petitioners then duly filed their respective motions for reconsideration
Whether the Court can still overturn (at this point) its decision in MWSS v. CA & Heirs of Gonzaga v.
I CA wherein it sustained the validity of OCT 994 registered on 19 APR 1917, and nullified the same
OCT registered on a later date 3 MAY 1917.
H YES.
 The Court held that the earlier factual finding in the case of MWSS v. CA is indefensible.

NOTE: What is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT 994 indicates that it was received for
transcription by the Register of Deeds on 3 MAY 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration
since that was when he was able to transcribe the decree in the registration book, such entry made
in the book being the original certificate of title.

The aforementioned case recognized an OCT 994 registered on 19 APR 1917, a title that never
existed and, even assuming that it did exist, is now acknowledged as spurious. It would be
R incoherent for the Court to reiterate jurisprudence that gave effect tot OCT 994 registered on
19 APR 1917, and at the same time, acknowledge that the same OCT never existed. Hence, the
Court can certainly decline to infuse further validity to such erroneous premise.

Moreover, the two cases should not bind the parties in the petitions now before us.
Undisputedly, the two cases involved different parcels of land. The present petitioners could not
be bound by the decisions in the two cases, as they were not parties thereto and their
properties were not involved therein. As we very recently reaffirmed, it is basic that no man
shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not
bound by judgment rendered by the court.