IN THE MATTER OF: ANNULMENT OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS. M-9876, M-9877, M-29530, M-9874, LOCATED IN BO. TUGATOG AND TENEJEROS, MALABON, METRO MANILA, AND ANY AND/OR D…
DIAMANTE, J.:
“I. The Trial Court gravely erred when it did not declare the TCT No. [M-] 9876, TCT No. M-9877, TCT N[o]. M-29530, (sic) and TCT No. M-9874 issued and registered under [the] names of the Respondents-Appellees spurious and null and void for having (sic) secured through fraud.
II. The [T]rial Court gravely erred when it did not revert the TCT No. [M-] 9876, TCT No. M-9877, TCT No. M-29530, (sic) and TCT No. M-9874 to the original owner Lilia D. Sevilla.
III. The Trial Court gravely erred when it ruled that Petitioner and his Principal do not have a right over the subject property.
IV. The Trial Court gravely erred when it concluded that Respondents were buyer in good faith[;] that they were first registrant (sic) in good faith.
V. The Trial Court [g]ravely erred when it dismissed the case without a full blown trial to give the Petitioner a day in court to establish his right.
VI. The Trial Court gravely erred when it did not exercise restraint in allowing the [m]otion to dismiss considering the evidence of the Appellant.
VII. The Trial Court gravely erred when it considered the case as a Civil Case rather than a special proceeding, a process to establish a fact.”
The records bore the following:
In a petition[3] filed before the RTC, herein appellant claimed that he is the Attorney-In-Fact of one Lilia D. Sevilla, the owner/vendee of the Maysilo Estate covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 from which the properties of herein private respondents-appellees were derived. In support of his claim, appellant attached a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale entered into by Lilia D. Sevilla with the registered owners of OCT No. 994.
According to appellant, Lilia D. Sevilla never sold, assigned, mortgaged or in any other manner encumbered or conveyed the subject properties to herein private respondents-appellees or their predecessor-in-interest prompting him to investigate the authenticity of the titles of private respondents-appellees.
Appellant averred that the cited subdivision plan, specifically Psd No. 3355, Rec. No. 4429, is located in Cebu City and said plan is in the custody of DENR-Region VII in Banilad, Mandaue City.[4] Moreover, the subject properties which can be traced to a certain Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 45609/T-234, could not be located by public respondent Malabon-Navotas Registry of Deeds.[5] Further, the certificate of title could not be found in the Land Registration Authority’s microfilm records.[6] Thus, appellant posited that the certificates of title namely TCT Nos. M-9876, M-29530 (traced back to M-9875) and M-9874 located in Bo. Tugatog and Tenejeros, Malabon City are spurious and fake, giving the registered owners thereof no rights whatsoever.
In view of the foregoing, appellant prayed that the aforecited certificates of title be canceled and declared null and void and be reverted back to OCT No. 994.
In their Motion to Dismiss,[7] private respondents-appellees Spouses Fernando A. Lim and Sofronia B. Lim moved for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that appellant has no legal capacity to sue and that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. They claimed that they are the registered owners of the parcel of land with improvements covered and described under TCT No. M-29530 having purchased the same from UCPB Savings Bank on August 11, 2003.[8] The said property was acquired by UCPB Savings Bank through an Extra-judicial Foreclosure Sale when the Spouses Carole and Rolando Villanueva failed to pay their mortgage obligations to the bank.[9] The Spouses asseverated that, if indeed, Lilia D. Sevilla has a right over the subject properties, she should have filed an opposition to the extra-judicial proceedings involving TCT No. M-9875 (now, TCT No. M-29530), considering that the same was published in newspapers of general circulation.
On the other hand, private respondents-appellees Spouses Rosauro and Amelita Villanueva (Spouses Villanueva) and Myra Sevilla (Sevilla) filed an Answer (with Compulsory Counterclaim)[10] to appellant’s petition.
In their Answer, the Spouses Villanueva and Sevilla pointed out that appellant made much ado about Subdivision Plan No. Psd-3355 being a parcel of land located in Cebu City. However, appellees argued that what is controlling is the actual Subdivision Plan No. Psd-13-003944[11] which covers the parcels of land described in the TCTs in question.[12] Appellees asserted that Psd-13-003944 contains the metes and bounds of the parcels of land which are all located in the City of Malabon. Otherwise stated, what were described in their titles are parcels of land located in Malabon and not in Cebu City.
Moreover, appellees Spouses Villanueva and Sevilla maintained that Lilia Sevilla has no cause of action to have their titles canceled and the ownership of the properties reverted back to her as the latter is the same person who was the defendant in a civil case that was tried before the Kalookan City RTC, Branch 122. In the said case, the trial court found that the alleged OCT No. 994 registered on April 19, 1917 from which Lilia D. Sevilla derived her title, was void or non-existent. The same Deed of Absolute Sale on which herein appellant banks legal claims had already been found by the aforesaid court to be, likewise, void and could not have been legally registered. Meanwhile, appellees claimed that they never dealt with Lilia Sevilla and that their titles were derived from TCT No. 45609/T234, which can be traced to OCT No. 994 which was registered on May 3, 1917 and was held to be the valid one.
On the 12th of September 2012, the Malabon City RTC, Branch 74 rendered the assailed Order the fallo of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED for lack of cause of action.
SO ORDERED.“
Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration from the aforequoted Order but it was denied by the court a quo in an Order[13] dated May 14, 2013.
Hence, the present recourse.
On February 5, 2014, Spouses Rosauro and Amelita Villanueva and Myra Sevilla filed their appellees’ Brief.[14] On the other hand, after several requests for extension of time, Spouses Fernando A. Lim and Sofronia B. Lim filed their Appellees’ Reply-Brief.[15]
In a Minute Resolution[16] dated July 9, 2014, this Court inter alia required the counsel for respondents-appellees Spouses Fernando and Sofronia Lim to submit proof showing the exact date of receipt by petitioner-appellant’s counsel of the copy of the Appellees’ Brief within ten (10) days from notice.
On July 12, 2014, counsel for respondents-appellees Spouses Fernando and Sofronia Lim filed a Compliance to the July 9, 2014 directive of this Court.
On September 11, 2014, the Judicial Records Division issued a verification report that no reply Brief in reply to the Appellees’ Brief of Spouses Villanueva and Myra Sevilla had been filed by the appellant.[17] Thus, the instant case is deemed submitted for decision sans appellant’s Reply.
We rule for private respondents-appellees.
Records show that appellant is heavily reliant on a Deed of Absolute Sale[18] executed on January 14, 1977 which conveyed several parcels of land in favor of Lilia D. Sevilla after paying the pro-indiviso owners thereof the sum of Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos. The said parcels of land were originally registered on April 19, 1917 in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal as OCT No. 994 pursuant to Decree No. 36455.[19]
On the other hand, private respondents-appellees traced their claims to OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917.[20]
We take judicial notice of the fact that OCT No. 994 covering the Maysilo Estate has been subject of many cases that were already decided by the Supreme Court. Most of the controversies, as in the case at bench, were overlapping of titles, some of which trace their source to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 while some, to OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917.
The Supreme Court notably, however, in the case of Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation vs. CLT Realty[21] and Araneta Institute of Agri-Culture, Inc. vs. Heirs of Jose B. Dimson, et al.[22] which also involved claims that were traced to OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 and May 3, 1917, in upholding the validity of titles of the Manotoks and Araneta and invalidating the titles of Dimson and CLT, adopted the findings of the Special Division that was tasked to hear and receive evidence pursuant to the Highest Tribunal’s December 14, 2007 Resolution, particularly the following conclusions of the said Special Division:
“From the foregoing evaluation and in conformity with the Supreme Court 2007 Resolution, this Court arrived at the following conclusions as to the status of the original title and its subsequent conveyances:
1. As categorically declared by the Supreme Court, there is only one OCT 994, the registration date of which had already been decisively settled as 3 May 1917 and not 19 April 1917. OCT 994 which reflects the date of 19 April 1917 as its registration date is null and void.
2. In view thereof and in addition to other grounds we have already discussed, the certificates of title of the deceased Jose Dimson and his successor-in-interest, CLT, having been traced back to OCT 994 dated 19 April 1917, are NULL and VOID and thus vest no legal right or claim in favor of DIMSON and CLT.
Xxx.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Consequently, in the aforecited cases, the Supreme Court held thus:
“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts the Report of the Special Division and issues the following reliefs:
1) The certificates of title of the DIMSONs and CLT including other derivative titles issued to their successors-in-interest, if any, are declared NULL and VOID, thus invalidating their legal claims over the subject parcels of land;
Xxx.
SO ORDERED.”
In the case at bench, appellant anchored his right to claim on titles that were derived from OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917, which mother title had already been declared null and void by the Supreme Court. Thus, the trial court did not err when it declared that appellant, as attorney-in-fact of Lilia D. Sevilla, failed to establish the basis of his right, or even that of his principal, over the subject properties which he claimed. More so that as shown by copies of the titles submitted by private respondents-appellees, their titles can be traced back to OCT No. 994 which was registered on May 3, 1917 and not on April 19, 1917.
Nonetheless, even if OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 is valid, appellant’s petition is still dismissible. While appellant contended that Lilia D. Sevilla’s rights over the properties are valid having bought the same from the pro-indiviso owners of the parcels of land covered by OCT No. 994, the Deed of Sale which evinces the said sale has not been registered. Thus, from the allegations made by appellant in his petition and the attached unregistered Deed of Sale vis-a-vis the registered titles of private respondents-appellees, the trial court could safely conclude that the former failed to establish his cause of action and that the allegations contained in the petition could not sustain the award of the relief prayed for, i.e., that the TCTs of private respondents-appellees be canceled and declared null and void and any of the derivative titles be reverted back to OCT No. 994.
Section 2, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court defines a cause of action as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Its essential elements are as follows:
1. A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created;
2. An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
3. Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.
In the case at bench, appellant failed to establish the occurrence of the third element.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Orders dated September 12, 2012 and May 14, 2013 of the Malabon City RTC, Branch 74, in Civil Case No. 664-MN are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Librea-Leagogo, (Chairperson), and Sadang, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 28-30; p. 32.
[2] Id. at 15.
[3] Records, pp. 4-9.
[4] Id. at 30.
[5] Id. at 31.
[6] Id. at 33.
[7] Id. at 83-98.
[8] Vide Deed of Absolute Sale; Id. at 101-105.
[9] Id. at 107.
[10] Id. at 130-139.
[11] Id. at 140.
[12] Id. at 141-142.
[13] Rollo, p. 32.
[14] Id. at 37-59.
[15] Should be Appellees’ Brief; Id. at 93-98.
[16] Id. at 99-100.
[17] Id. dorsal part of p. 108.
[18] Records, pp. 51-59.
[19] Vide Transfer Certificates of Title; Id. at193-238.
[20] Vide Transfer Certificates of Title; Id. at 99-100; pp. 141-142.
[21] G.R. No. 123346, March 31, 2009.
[22] G.R. No. 134385, March 31, 2009.