Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review[14]
with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66700
and praying that the LRA be directed to immediately
reconstitute TCT No. 210177 without being subjected to the
condition that petitioners' TCT No. RT-22481 [372302] should
first be cancelled by a court of competent jurisdiction.[15]
Petitioners likewise filed a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66642.
SO ORDERED.[17]
3
Respondents' motion for reconsideration was granted by the
Respondents moved for reconsideration.[18] On November 7, Third Division of the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2004,
2003, the Special Division of Five of the Former Second thus:
Division rendered an Amended Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
66700, the dispositive portion of which reads:
No pronouncement as to costs.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the amended decision G.R. No. 162605 and G.R. No. 162335, respectively.
4
TO ORDER THE CANCELLATION THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
OF TITLE, SINCE ONLY A TO CANCEL TCT NO. RT-22481 OF
PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL PETITIONERS MANOTOK
COURT CAN ORDER THE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
ANNULMENT/CANCELLATION OF SAID COURT WAS FULLY COGNIZANT
A TORRENS TITLE. BY THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO
ALLOWING A 'SHORT CUT', THE EXERCISE SUCH AUTHORITY AND
MAJORITY JUSTICES DEPRIVED POWER AND THE LAND REGISTRATION
THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR AUTHORITY IS EQUALLY DEVOID OF
PROPERTY AND THEIR JURISDICTION ON THE MATTER
CONSTITUTIONALLY BECAUSE UNDER THE JUDICIARY
PROTECTED RIGHT TO DUE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
PROCESS OF LAW. SPECIFICALLY SECTION 19 (2)
THEREOF, ONLY THE REGIONAL TRIAL
II COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS
THE MAJORITY JUSTICES GRAVELY WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR
MISAPPLIED THE RULING OF THIS POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR
HONORABLE COURT IN ORTIGAS V. ANY INTEREST THEREIN.
VELASCO, CONSIDERING THAT:
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
a. IN THE ORTIGAS CASE, THERE WERE APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED
TWO TITLES EXISTING OVER GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND
THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, AS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN
A RESULT OF THE INVOKING EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION
RECONSTITUTED TITLE ISSUED TO JUSTIFY ITS CHALLENGED AMENDED
IN THE NAME OF MOLINA. IN DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004
THE INSTANT CASE, ONLY DIRECTING LRA TO CANCEL
PETITIONERS HOLD TITLE TO PETITIONERS MANOTOK'S TITLE
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT, AS
AS RESPONDENTS ARE MERELY STATED, THE LAW EXPLICITLY VESTS
TRYING TO HAVE TITLE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO
RECONSTITUTED IN THEIR THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OVER
NAMES. CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE
TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL
b. IN ORTIGAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME THEREIN.
COURT WHICH PREVIOUSLY
RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
OWNERSHIP OF ORTIGAS' APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
PROPERTY. HENCE, THERE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
WAS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
ANNUL MOLINA'S TITLE FAILING TO ORDER THE SETTING ASIDE
OUTRIGHT. IN THE INSTANT OF THE CHALLENGED RESOLUTION
CASE, THERE ARE NO SUCH DATED JUNE 24, 1998 OF RESPONDENT
DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IN
RESPONDENTS WHICH WOULD LRC ADMIN. CASE NO. Q-547 [97]
JUSTIFY THE CANCELLATION OF VIEWED FROM THE FACT THAT SAID
THE TITLE OF PETITIONERS RESOLUTION OF LRA IS PATENTLY AT
WITHOUT ANY HEARING.[25] WAR WITH LAW AND CONTROLLING
JURISPRUDENCE THAT PROHIBITS
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE BY THIRD
PARTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LOST
OR DESTROYED IF ANOTHER VALID
In G.R. No. 162335, petitioners raise the following issues: TITLE IS EXISTING COVERING THE LAND
SUBJECT THEREOF.
5
MANOTOK SHOULD FIRST BE ORDERED Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall
CANCELLED BY COURT OF COMPETENT be reconstituted from such of the sources
JURISDICTION IN THE FACE OF THE hereunder enumerated as may be available,
GLARING FACTS THAT SAID TITLE IS in the following order:
HIGHLY SUSPECT AND BEARS BADGES
OF FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION (a) The owner's duplicate of the
AND THEREFORE NO OTHER LOGICAL certificate of title;
AND CREDIBLE CONCLUSION CAN BE ....
DRAWN EXCEPT THAT IT IS A FAKE AND
SPURIOUS TITLE.
V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK submitted in support thereof the owner's duplicate certificate of
OF IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN title, real estate tax receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the
ALLOWING RESPONDENTS' MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS same should have more than sufficed as sources for the
CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME.[26] reconstitution pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 26 which
explicitly mandates that the reconstitution shall be made
following the hierarchy of sources as enumerated by law. In
On August 2, 2004, the petition in G.R. No. 162605 was addition, Section 12 of the same law requires that the petition
consolidated with the petition in G.R. No. 162335.[27] shall be accompanied with a plan and technical description of
the property only if the source of the reconstitution is Section
3(f) of RA No. 26. Thus:
6
The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is
Second. Both the trial court and the Court of
authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners' title is
Appeals made a factual finding that
sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two divisions of the petitioner's title to the land is of doubtful
authenticity.
Court of Appeals, is conclusive before this Court. It should
remain undisturbed since only questions of law may be raised Having jurisdiction only to resolve questions
of law, this Court is bound by the factual
in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
findings of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals....
7
LRA, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or et al. v. Hon. Valenzuela, etc., et al.[37] does not apply in the
mixed questions of fact and law. instant case. In Alabang, the Court stressed that:
the Supreme Court. The remand of the case or of an issue to Ortigas in refusing to remand the case to the trial court. As
the lower court for further reception of evidence is not expressly declared in Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership
SO ORDERED.
10