G.R. No.

160684 : September 2, 2015

CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HI-GRADE

FEEDS CORPORATION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (through
the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), REGISTRY OF DEEDS
OF METRO MANILA, DISTRICT III, CALOOCAN CITY, and the
COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

PEREZ, J.:

FACTS:

The properties in dispute were formerly part of the notorious Maysilo

Estate left by Gonzalo Tuason which measure 1,660.26 hectares,
stretching across Caloocan City, Valenzuela and Malabon, covered by 5
mother titles. One of the mother titles is OCT No. 994 which is the mother
title in dispute here. Later on, smaller lots forming part of the Maysilo
Estate were sold to different persons. Several subsequent subdivisions,
consolidations, and one expropriation of the Maysilo Estate, spawned
numerous legal disputes giving the estate the name Land of Caveat
Emptor. The subject lot in dispute here is Lot 26.

The conflict here arose due to an overlapping of the properties of

petitioner and respondent Hi-Grade which prompted CLT to file a case for
Annulment of Transfer Certificates of Title, Recovery of Possession, and
Damages before the RTC of Caloocan City against Hi-Grade. To simplify
things, Hi-Grade derived its title from OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917. On
the other hand, CLTs title is derived also from OCT No. 994, but dated
April 19, 1917. The OSG intervened when the proceedings reached the CA
to preserve the integrity of the Torrens system of registration and to
protect the Assurance Fund, in connection with which it can initiate
necessary actions for the annulment of the irregularly and fraudulently
issued land titles.

The RTC disposed of the case in favour of petitioner CLT noting the older
title held by petitioner. On the other hand, the CA, noting the issuance of
a Senate report discussing the Maysilo Estate, reversed the decision of
the RTC and held that the witnesses presented by the petitioner are not

competent to testify on the alleged defects in the parent titles where

respondent derived its land title on the ground that said witnesses could
not have known or testified as to the procedures in land registration back
in 1917.

ISSUE: Which of the two OCT No. 994 dated on different dates is the
valid title?

HELD: The petition is dismissed.

REMEDIAL LAW: judicial notice

Taking judicial notice of acts of the Senate is well within the ambit of the
law. Section 1 of Rule 139 includes the official acts of the legislative
departments of the Philippines as one of the legitimate subjects of a
judicial notice. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges
may properly take and act on without proof because these facts are
already known to them. It is the duty of the court to assume something
as a matter of fact without need of further evidentiary support. Otherwise
stated, by the taking of judicial notice, the court dispenses with the
traditional form of presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigourous rules of
evidence and court proceedings such as cross-examination. The Senate
Report, being an official act of the legislative department, may be taken
judicial notice of.

Furthermore, the Senate Report is not binding upon the courts. As aptly
put by the CA, The question of the binding effect of the Report upon this
Court is altogether a different matter. Certainly, a determination by any
branch of government on a justiciable matter which is properly before this
Court for adjudication does not bind the latter. The findings of the Senate
committees may be the appropriate basis for remedial legislation but
when the issue of the validity of a Torrens title is submitted to a court for
resolution, only the latter has the competence to make such a
determination and once final, the same binds not only the parties but all
agencies of government. That there is such a document as the Senate
Report was all that was conceded by the Court of Appeals. It did not allow
the Senate Report to determine the decision of the case.

REMEDIAL LAW: petition in intervention by the OSG is improper

The intervention by the OSG is baseless. Intervention is only allowed

during trial. Intervention is unallowable when the case has already been
submitted for decision, when judgment has been rendered, or when
judgment has already become final and executory. Furthermore,
intervention is only allowed when the intervenors are indispensable
parties.

Here, the Republic is not an indispensable party. An indispensable party is

a party-in-interest without whom no final determination can be had of an
action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Even
without the Republic as a participant, a final determination of the issues
can be attained. Also, since the intervention was made when the case was
already on appeal, it can no longer be allowed as the judgement had
already been rendered in the RTC.

CIVIL LAW: date of registration in land title is reckoned from the

date of its transcription in the Registry of Deeds

A title can only have one date of registration, as there can only be one
title covering the same property. The date of registration is reckoned from
the time of the titles transcription in the record book of the Registry of
Deeds. Therefore, the date appearing on the face of a title refers to the
date of issuance of the decree of registration.

Based on Decree No. 36455 in Land Registration Case No. 4429, the
decree registering OCT No. 994, the date of the issuance is April 19, 1917
while on the other hand, transcription by the Register of Deeds was on
May 3, 1917. In this case, the date which should be reckoned as the date
of registration of the title is the date when the mother title was received
for transcription which is May 3, 1917. Therefore, as the date of
transcription in the record book of the Registry of Deeds is May 3, 1917,
the genuine title is the title of respondent Hi-Grade.

As correctly rules by the CA, petitioner failed to prove by preponderance

of evidence the alleged defects and infirmities in TCT No. 4211, the title
from whence Hi-Grades titles were derived. CLT questioned the title of Hi-

Grade for the purpose of having CLTs own title upheld. Instead of
establishing the genuineness of its own title, CLT attacked Hi-Grades
titles. However, CLT failed to establish the chain of title linking its own TCT
with the mother title. Instead, what petitioner succeeded in doing is
proving that Hi-Grades title to the property is genuine. Indeed, CLTs
evidence must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the alleged weakness of the evidence of Hi-Grade.
Such allegation was proven wrong by the documents on records.

Petition DISMISSED.