METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE P. SAMONTE, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to
annul and set aside the decision* of the
Court of Appeals dated January 13, 1992 in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 18671,
entitled “Jose P. Samonte, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellees vs. Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System, Defendant?Appellant”, affirming the
decision** of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, Branch 120, Kaloocan City declaring Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 41028 as void and ordering the Register of Deeds of Kaloocan
City to cancel said Transfer Certificate of Title.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Jose B. Dimson was the registered owner of a parcel land situated
in Balintawak, Kaloocan City with an area of 213,012 square meters, more or
less, and covered by TCT No. C-15167 which was registered on June 8, 1978. Said parcel of land was originally Lot 28 of
the Maysilo Estate (LRC 5268) covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
No. 994 which was registered on April 19, 1917 pursuant to Decree No. 36455 issued
in Land Registration Case No. 4429.

It appears that one of the original owners of OCT No. 994 was the
late Maria Concepcion Vidal married to Pioquinto Rivera. Among the four children was Severo Rivera y
Vidal who died in 1907 leaving Bartolome Rivera as the sole surviving heir.

Bartolome Rivera executed a
Deed of Transfer and Conveyance in favor of Jose B. Dimson whereby he
agreed to transfer twenty-five percent (25%) of whatever land he is entitled in
Lot 28 and Lots 25, 26, 27 and 29, all of which are covered by OCT No. 994.

In an action for partition and accounting docketed as Civil Case
No. C-424 filed by Bartolome Rivera and his co-heirs, the then Court of First
Instance of Rizal rendered a decision dated December 29, 1965 ordering the
partition of the properties described in OCT Nos. 994, 983, 984 and 985 among
Bartolome Rivera and his co-heirs being co-owners and successors-in-interest of
the late Maria Concepcion Vidal.

In an Order dated June 13, 1966, the then Court of First Instance
of Rizal approved the Deed of Transfer and Conveyance executed by Bartolome
Rivera in favor of Jose B. Dimson over Lot 28 and directed the Register of
Deeds of Rizal to cancel the name of Maria Concepcion Vidal from OCT No. 994
and to substitute the names of Bartolome Rivera and his co-heirs.

In a verified petition docketed as Special Proceedings No. 732
filed by Jose B. Dimson, the validity of the court Order dated June 13, 1966
was confirmed. Likewise, an order was
issued ordering tine Register of Deeds of Kaloocan to issue in the name of Jose
B. Dimson separate TCT’s for Lots 25-A-1, 25-A-2, 26 and 28 which are portions
of the Maysilo Estate covered by OCT No. 994. Accordingly, on June 8, 1978, TCT
No. 15167 covering Lot 28 was issued in the name of Jose B. Dimson.

On March 9, 1977 Jose B. Dimson sold to Jose P. Samonte a portion
of Lot 28 covering an area of 591 square meters evidenced by a Deed of Absolute
Sale.

On May 3, 1982, Jose B. Dimson sold to Francisco C. Isulat
another portion of Lot 28 covering an area of 593 square meters evidenced also
by a Deed of Absolute Sale.

On the other hand, Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System
(MWSS, for brevity) claimed that it is
the registered owner of Lots 2693 and 2695, both with an area of 599
square meters covered by TCT No. 41028 issued by the Register of Deeds of
Kaloocan City on July 29, 1940 and based on the Cadastral Survey of Kaloocan
City, Cadastral Case No. 34. It
appeared that both lots covered or included the parcels of land owned by Jose
B. Dimson, Jose P. Samonte and Francisco C. Isulat. It further appeared on the face of TCT No. 41028 that it was a
transfer from TCT No. 36957 which was derived from OCT No. 994 dated May 3,
1917.

In 1980, the MWSS filed an ejectment case against plaintiffs (now
private respondents) Jose B. Dimson, et. al. before the City Court of Kaloocan
City for the latter to vacate the lots in question. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant (now petitioner)
MWSS which decision had become final and executory.

On June 13, 1986 Jose B. Dimson and Jose P. Samonte (now
deceased) filed a complaint for quieting of
title with damages and prayer for preliminary injunction against the
MWSS.

On February 17, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of injunction
restraining the eviction of private respondents pending adjudication of the
case.

On April 3, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision in favor
of private respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring plaintiff’s
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15167 as valid and legal;

2. Declaring defendant’s Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41028 as void
and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City is hereby ordered to cancel said
Transfer Certificate of Title and its registration from the Records of the
Registry of Deeds;

3. Declaring the writ of
injunction permanent and;

4. Without pronouncement as to damages and attorney’s fees for
plaintiff and defendant’s counterclaim is hereby dismissed with costs against
defendant.

SO ORDERED.”^[1]

Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner MWSS appealed to the
court of Appeals. In a decision dated
January 13, 1992, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
defendant-appellant.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Hence this petition.

Petitioner MWSS raised the following issues:

I

WHETHER THE
PETITIONER-DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HAS A BETTER CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE
QUESTIONED PROPERTY THAN THAT OF THE PLAINTIFF?APPELLEES(sic) AND
RESPONDENT?INTERVENOR-APPELLEE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE TITLE OF THE
FORMER WAS REGISTERED IN 1940 AS AGAINST THE 1978 TITLE OF THE LATTER.

II

IN THE AFFIRMATIVE,
WHETHER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S TITLE THERETO IS VALID AND THEREFORE THE TITLES
OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND INTERVENOR-APPELLEES (sic) ARE VOID.

The main issue to be resolved is: In case of overlapping titles, which title should prevail.

It is the contention of petitioner MWSS that since its TCT No.
41028 was issued in 1940 while the TCT No. 15167 of private respondents was
issued only in 1978, petitioner’s title prevails over that of private respondents’ in point of
priority of issuance.

We do not agree.

Although petitioner’s title was issued in 1940, it will be noted
that petitioner’s title over Lots 2693 and 2695 both with an area of 599 square
meters was based on the Cadastral Survey of Kaloocan City, Cadastral Case No.
34, while private respondents’ title was derived from OCT No. 994 issued on
April 19, 1917. In the case of Pamintuan
vs. San Agustin,^[3] this
Court ruled that in a cadastral case the court has no jurisdiction to decree
again the registration of land already decreed in an earlier land registration
case and a second decree for the same land is null and void.

It must be observed that the title of petitioner MWSS was a
transfer from TCT No. 36957 which was derived from OCT No. 994 registered on
May 3, 1917. Upon the other hand,
private respondents’ title was derived from the same OCT No. 994 but dated
April 19, 1917. Where two certificates
(of title) purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. x x x. In successive registrations, where more than one certificate is issued
in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming
under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and the
person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or
whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the
holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof.^[4]
Hence, in point of priority of issuance, private respondents’ title prevails
over that of petitioner MWSS.

Lastly, 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.^[5] Since
the land in question has already been registered under OCT No. 994 dated April
19, 1917, the subsequent registration of the same land on May 3, 1917 is null
and void.

In the light of the applicable law and jurisprudence on the
matter, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Nocon, JJ., concur.

* Penned by Justice Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago and concurred in by Justices Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. and
Nicolas P. Lapeña, Jr..

** Penned by Judge Arturo A.
Romero.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 37.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 29.

^[3]
43 Phil. 558 (1922).

^[4]
Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380, 387 (1980).

^[5]
Register of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 46 (1965).