FACTS:

In this case, Roberto Tan filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The resolutions directed the Register of Deeds of Marikina to reinstate the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) in the name of the respondent bank over a parcel of land already covered by petitioner's own valid TCT.

The petitioner, Roberto Tan, bought a parcel of land from respondent Aguinaldo, which had a TCT in her name. After payment, petitioner's own TCT was issued. However, petitioner later discovered that the land was subject to a dispute between Aguinaldo and the respondent bank. This dispute arose from loans obtained by Aguinaldo and her husband from the respondent bank, with the land serving as collateral. As the loans remained unpaid, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings and eventually acquired the property.

Aguinaldo, feeling aggrieved, filed a complaint to nullify the foreclosure proceedings. The trial court ruled in favor of Aguinaldo, declaring the foreclosure null and void and ordering the cancellation of the TCTs in favor of the bank. The bank's motion for reconsideration was denied, and its appeal was also denied because it had already waived its right to appeal. Consequently, the decision became final and executory.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the reinstatement of the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 194096 and 194098 in the name of the Philippine Banking Corporation should be ordered.

2. Whether or not the petitioner's TCT No. 296945, which was issued after the sale of the property, is valid and subsisting.

RULING:

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals had the authority to direct the Register of Deeds to reinstate the TCTs in the name of the Philippine Banking Corporation. The trial court's decision declared the Notice of Sheriff's Sale, Certificate of Sale, Affidavit of Consolidation, and deed of sale executed by the bank as null and void. Thus, the transfer of the TCTs to the bank's name was invalid, and reinstating the TCTs in the bank's name was proper.

2. No, petitioner's TCT No. 296945 is not valid and subsisting. The trial court's decision ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new titles in the name of respondent Aguinaldo or her successor-in-interest. Since the decision had become final and executory, it prevailed over petitioner's TCT, which was issued after the decision. The trial court's decision effectively nullified petitioner's TCT.

PRINCIPLES:

• The court has the authority to direct the Register of Deeds to reinstate the original TCTs when the transfer of titles to another party was declared null and void.

• A decision that orders the cancellation of titles and the issuance of new ones prevails over subsequently issued titles.