REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, A & A TORRIJOS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, FRANCISCA S. BOMBASI, HERCULINO M. DEO, FRUCTUOSA LABORADA AND R…

These two cases are about the cancellation and annulment of
reconstituted Torrens titles whose originals are existing and whose reconstitution was, therefore,
uncalled for.

1.   Lots Nos. 915 and 918 of the Tala Estate, with areas of more than twenty-five and
twenty-four hectares, respectively, located at Novaliches,
Caloocan, now Quezon City,
are registered in the name of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines, as
shown in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 34594 and 34596 of the registry of
deeds of Rizal both dated April 30, 1938.

The originals of those titles are on file in the registry of
deeds in Pasig,
Rizal.  They were
not destroyed during the war.  Even the
originals of the preceding cancelled titles for those two lots, namely,
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 15832 and 15834 in the name of the
Philippine Trust Company, are intact in the registry of deeds.

2.   The reconstitution proceeding started when Fructuosa Laborada, a widow
residing at 1665 Interior 12 Dart Street, Paco,
Manila, filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
at Caloocan City a petition dated November, 1967 for
the reconstitution of the title covering the above-mentioned Lot No. 915.  She alleged that she was the owner of the lot
and that the title covering it, the number of which she could not specify, was
“N. A.” or not available (Civil Case No. C-677).  The petition
was sworn to on November 16, 1967
before Manila notary Domingo P. Aquino
(48-52, Consolidated Record on Appeal).

3.   On April
2, 1968, the lower court issued an order setting the petition for
hearing on June 14, 1968.  The notice of hearing was published in the
Official Gazette.  Copies thereof were
posted in three conspicuous places in Caloocan City
and were furnished the supposed adjoining owners (53-54, Consolidated Record on
Appeal).  The registers of deeds of Caloocan City
and Rizal were not served with copies of the petition
and notice of hearing.

4.   State Prosecutor Enrique A. Cube, as supposed
counsel for the Government, did not oppose the petition.  Laborada presented
her evidence before the deputy clerk of court. 
Judge Serafin Salvador in his
“decision” dated July 6, 1968
granted the petition.

He found that Lot No. 915
was covered by a transfer certificate of title which was not available and
which was issued to Maria Bueza who sold the lot to Laborada.  The
transfer certificate of title covering the lot was allegedly destroyed during
the war.  The plan and technical
description for the lot were approved by the Commissioner of Land Registration
who recommended favorable action on the petition (pp. 53-56, Consolidated
Record on Appeal).

5.   The lower court directed the register of
deeds of Caloocan
City to reconstitute the title for
Lot No. 915 in the name of Laborada.  The order of reconstitution was not
appealed.  It became final and executory.

6.   Acting on the court’s directive, the register
of deeds issued to Laborada on August 14, 1968 Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(N. A.) 3-(R). 
Lot No. 915 was later subdivided into seven lots, Lots Nos. 915-A to
915-G.  The Acting Commissioner of Land
Registration approved the subdivision plan. 
The register of deeds cancelled TCT No. (N. A.) 3-(R) and issued on
October 15, 1968 seven titles to Laborada, namely,
TCT Nos. 30257 to 30263 (pp. 56-59, 61-83, Consolidated Record on Appeal).

7.   In another and later
case, Civil Case No. C-763 of the lower court, one Francisca S. Bombasi, single, residing at 2021 San Marcelino
Street, Malate, Manila filed in the lower court a
petition dated November 16, 1967 for the reconstitution of the title of another
lot, the aforementioned Lot No. 918.

She could not specify the number of the title.  She alleged that the title was “N.
A.” or not available.  She claimed
to be the owner of the lot and that the title covering it was destroyed during
the war.  Like the first petition, the
second petition was sworn to on the same date, November 16, 1967, before Manila
notary Domingo P. Aquino.  Why it was not filed simultaneously with Laborada’s petition was not explained.  (17-21, Consolidated Record on Appeal.)

8.   The
lower court set the second petition for hearing on January 31, 1969. 
As in Laborada’s petition, the notice of
hearing for Bombasi’s petition was published in the
Official Gazette.  It was posted in three
conspicuous places in Caloocan
City and copies thereof were sent
to the supposed adjoining owners (22, Consolidated Record on Appeal).  But no copies of the petition and notice of hearing
were served upon the registers of deeds of Caloocan City
and Rizal, the officials who would be interested in
the reconstitution of the supposed lost title and who could certify whether the
original of the title was really missing.

9.   Bombasi’s petition was assigned also to Judge Salvador.  It was not opposed by the government lawyers,
Enrique A. Cube and Conrado de Leon.  Judge Salvador in his order of April 3, 1969 granted the petition.

The court found from the evidence that the allegedly missing or
“not available” title was issued to Regino Gollez who sold the land to petitioner Bombasi.  The owner’s duplicate of Gollez’s
title was supposedly destroyed during the war. 
Taxes were paid for that land by Gollez and Bombasi.  The
technical description of the land and the plan were approved by the Commissioner
of Land Registration who submitted a report recommending the reconstitution of
the title (pp. 22-25, Consolidated Record on Appeal).

10. The lower court ordered the register of deeds
to reconstitute the missing title of Lot No. 918 in the name of Bombasi.  Acting on
that directive, the register of deeds issued to Bombasi
Transfer Certificate of Title No. N. A. 4(R) dated August 27, 1969 (pp. 24-27, Consolidated
Record on Appeal).

11. On March 25, 1969 or five months before
the issuance of the reconstituted title, Francisca Bombasi,
now identified as (R.C. Aquino 10/6/80) a resident of
1665 Interior 12 Dart Street, Paco, Manila, which
was the same address used by Fructuosa Laborada (Bombasi used first
the address 2021 San Marcelino Street) sold Lot No.
918 to Herculano M. Deo
allegedly for P249,880.  Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34146-R was
issued to Deo.

On October 28, 1969,
Deo sold the lot to A & A Torrijos
Engineering Corporation allegedly for P250,000.  Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34147-R was
issued to the corporation (pp. 10-11, 29-34, Consolidated Record on Appeal).

12. On May 25 and 26, 1970, the State filed two
petitions for the cancellation and annulment of the reconstituted titles and
the titles issued subsequent thereto (Civil Cases Nos. 1784 and 1785).  Judge Salvador, who had ordered the
reconstitution of the titles and to whom the two cases for cancellation were
assigned, issued on June 5, 1970
restraining orders enjoining the register of deeds, city engineer and
Commissioner of Land Registration from accepting or recording any transaction
regarding Lots Nos. 915 and 918.

13. The respondents in the two cases, through a
common lawyer, filed separate answers containing mere denials.  The Commissioner of Land Registration filed pro
forma answers wherein he interposed no objection to the issuance of the
preliminary injunction sought by the State.

After a joint trial of the two cases, respondents
corporation and Laborada filed amended answers
wherein they pleaded the defense that they were purchasers in good faith and
for value.

14. On June 22, 1972, Judge Salvador (who did not
bother to inhibit himself) rendered a decision in the two cases holding that
the State’s evidence was insufficient to establish its ownership and possession
of Lots Nos. 915 and 918 and that Laborada and A
& A Torrijos Engineering Corporation were
purchasers in good faith and for value and, consequently, their titles are not cancellable and annullable.

Judge Salvador further held that the titles, whose reconstitution
he had ordered allegedly in conformity with law, could not be attacked
collaterally and, therefore, “the reconstituted titles and their
derivatives have the same validity, force and effect as the originals before
the reconstitution” (pp. 160-161, Consolidated Record on Appeal).  The State appealed.

15. The Court of Appeals, in affirming the lower court’s
judgment, held that the orders of reconstitution dated July 6, 1968 and April
3, 1969 could no longer be set aside on May 26, 1970, when the petitions for
annulment and cancellation of the reconstituted titles were filed, and that if
there were irregularities in the reconstitution, then, as between two innocent
parties, the State, as the party that made possible the reconstitution, should
suffer the loss.  The Court of Appeals
cited section 101 of Act 496 to support its view that a registered owner may
lose his land “by the registration of any other person as owner of such
land”.

The State appealed to this Court. 
We hold that the appeal is justified. 
The Appellate Court and the trial court grievously erred in sustaining
the validity of the reconstituted titles which, although issued with judicial
sanction, are no better than spurious and forged titles.

In all candor, it should be stated that the reconstitution
proceedings, Civil Cases Nos. C-677 and C-763, were
simply devices employed by petitioners Laborada and Bombasi for landgrabbing
or for the usurpation and illegal appropriation of fifty hectares of
State-owned urban land with considerable value.

The crucial and decisive fact, to which no importance was
attached by the lower court and the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals
(Reyes, L. B., Domondon and Ericta,
JJ.), is that two valid and existing Torrens titles in the name of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines were needlessly reconstituted in the names of Laborada and Bombasi on the false
or perjurious assumption that the two titles were
destroyed during the war.

That kind of reconstitution was a brazen and monstrous fraud
foisted on the courts of justice.  It was
a stultification of the judicial process. 
One and the same judge (1) allowed the reconstitution and then (2)
decided the two subsequent cases for the cancellation and annulment of the
wrongfully reconstituted titles.

The existence of the two titles of the Government for Lots Nos.
915 and 918 ipso facto nullified the reconstitution proceedings
and signified that the evidence in the said proceedings as to the alleged
ownership of Laborada and Bombasi
cannot be given any credence.  The two
proceedings were sham and deceitful and were filed in bad faith.  Such humbuggery or imposture cannot be
countenanced and cannot be the source of legitimate rights and benefits.

Republic Act No. 26 provides for a special procedure for the
reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title that are
missing and not fictitious titles or titles which are existing.  It is a patent absurdity to reconstitute
existing certificates of title that are on file and available in the registry
of deeds.

The reconstitution proceedings in Civil Cases
Nos. C-677 and C-763 are void because they are contrary to Republic Act No.
26 and beyond the purview of that law since the titles reconstituted are
actually subsisting in the registry of deeds and do not require reconstitution
at all.  As a rule, acts executed against
the provisions of mandatory laws are void (Art. 5, Civil Code).

To sustain the validity of the reconstituted titles in these
cases would be to allow Republic Act No. 26 to be utilized as an instrument for
landgrabbing (See Republic vs. Court of Appeals, Ocampo and Anglo, L-31303-04, May 31, 1978, 83 SCRA 453, 480, per J. G. S. Santos) or to
sanction fraudulent machinations for depriving a registered owner of his land,
to undermine the stability and security of Torrens titles and to impair the
Torrens system of registration.

The theory of A & A Torrijos
Engineering Corporation that it was a purchaser in good faith and for value is
indefensible because the title of the lot which it purchased unmistakably shows
that such title was reconstituted.  That
circumstance should have alerted its officers to make the necessary
investigation in the registry of deeds of Caloocan City
and Rizal where they could have found that Lot
918 is owned by the State.

WHEREFORE, the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the
trial court are reversed and set aside.  The reconstitution proceedings in Civil Cases Nos. C-677 and
C-763 are declared void and are set aside. 
The reconstituted titles, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. N. A.
3-(R) and N. A. 4-(R), and Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 34146-R, 34147-R
and 30257 to 30263 and the survey plans and subdivision plan connected therewith
are likewise declared void.  The register
of deeds is directed to cancel the said titles.

The Republic of the Philippines,
as the successor of the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
is hereby declared the registered owner of Lots 915 and 918 of the Tala Estate, as shown in Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. 34594 and 34596 of the registry of deeds of Rizal.  Costs against the private
respondents-appellees.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., and Santos,
JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., (Chairman), concurs with a separate opinion.

Abad Santos, J., concurs.  His
vocabulary is inadequate to express his disgust and indignation at this brazen
landgrabbing.

Antonio, J., did not take part.