THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 186635, January 27, 2016 ]REPUBLIC v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO +
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR, VS. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO, JOINED BY ZUELLGATE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
REPUBLIC v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO +
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR, VS. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO, JOINED BY ZUELLGATE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] dated October 17, 2008 and the Resolution[2] dated February 10, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85519, which affirmed the
Decision[3] dated January 5, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, and in effect ordered the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 269615 in the name of respondent Segundina Rosario (Rosario).
Factual Background
The property subject of the present controversy is located in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines, and is now the site of various buildings and structures along Commonwealth Avenue, including the PHILCOA Wet Market, the Asian Institute of Tourism, the Philippine Social Sciences Building, the National Hydraulic Center, the UP Sewerage Treatment Plant, the Petron Gas Station, the UP Arboretum, the Campus Landscaping Office, the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission Building, the INNOTECH Building, and the UP-Ayala Land TechnoHub.[4]
On November 12, 1997, respondent Rosario filed a petition for the reconstitution of TCT No. 269615 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC), claiming that her title covers lots 42-A-l, 42-A-2 and 42-A-3 of subdivision plan Psd 77362 and Psd 4558.[5] This petition was docketed as LRC No. Q-9885 (97).
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, to support respondent Rosario's claim:[6]
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and oppositor University of the Philippines (UP) opposed the petition. They contend that the documents presented by respondent Rosario are of suspicious authenticity and, more importantly, that the land supposedly covered by TCT No. 269615 is already covered by RT-58201 (192687) and RT-107350 (192689) in the name of UP. As condensed by the Court of Appeals:[7]
Proceedings before the RTC
Respondent Rosario testified in support of her petition. She presented her owner's duplicate copy of title, a Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to the effect that the original copy of TCT No. 269615 was among those burned in the fire of June 11, 1998, the supposed original of her 1980 Tax Declaration No. 12158 to show that the land declared thereunder was covered by TCT No. 269615, as well as a sketch plan of the subject land.
During respondent Rosario's testimony, the Republic's counsel noted that the supposed original tax declaration presented by respondent Rosario did not match the photocopy of the tax declaration attached in the petition as the latter did not state that the land it described was covered by TCT No. 269615. Respondent Rosario was not able to explain this discrepancy.[8]
Moreover, UP's counsel also noted that when respondent Rosario presented the original microfilm copy of her sketch plan for marking, it contained the annotations "NOT FOR REGISTRATION OR TITLING," and was for "reference only," but the photocopy presented by her to be marked and offered in evidence did not contain said annotations. Again, respondent Rosario failed to explain this discrepancy.[9]
For their part, the Republic and UP presented public officers of various government agencies like the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Land Management Bureau (DENR-LMB)', the Quezon City Assessor's Office, and the Quezon City Treasurer's Office to prove that the land supposedly covered by TCT No. 269615 is located within the tract of land owned and registered in the name of UP, that Psd 77362 is not available in the records of the DENR, and that Tax Declaration No. 12158 is in the name of one Tecla Gutierrez and not in respondent Rosario's name.
The RTC granted reconstitution. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated January 5, 2004, reads:[10]
The Republic and UP appealed before the Court of Appeals.
In 2004, respondent Rosario died. Respondent Zuellgate Corporation moved to substitute or join CA-G.R. CV No. 85519, alleging that it acquired the lots covered by TCT No. 269615 from respondent Rosario by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in 2003.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
In the Decision dated October 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in this wise:[11]
The Court of Appeals held that as the case was one for reconstitution of title, it does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title, and thus, the RTC was correct in ordering the reconstitution of TCT No. 269615 on the basis of the owner's duplicate copy of the title presented by respondent Rosario.
The appellate court further held that the petition for reconstitution filed by respondent Rosario cannot be said to have attacked, collaterally or otherwise, the titles of UP because the latter failed to sufficiently prove the existence of its title over the subject land.
Issues
In the present petition, petitioner raises the following issues: "
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
A reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Indeed, it does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Nonetheless, in Republic of the Philippines v. Pasicolan,[13] the Court has cautioned against treating petitions for reconstitution as a mere ministerial task, to wit:
In Cañero v. UP,[14] a petition for reconstitution was similarly filed to reconstitute TCT No. 240042, the original of which was also allegedly razed in the fire of June 11, 1998, and for which petitioners therein also presented an alleged owner's duplicate copy. The petition being unopposed, the RTC ordered reconstitution. Sometime later, petitioners therein filed an action to quiet title against UP on the strength of said reconstituted title. When the case reached this Court, we ruled that the reconstituted title and the proceedings from which it hailed are void. We ratiocinated:
The indefeasibility of the titles of the University of the Philippines over its landholdings has been affirmed both by law and jurisprudence.
Clearly, the Court of Appeals erred in its observation that UP failed to sufficiently prove the existence of its title over the subject land. UP's titles over its landholdings are recognized and confirmed both by law and jurisprudence.
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9500 (R.A. 9500)[16] is explicit:
In the case at bar, the Republic and UP were able to establish that TCT No. 269615 overlaps with two valid and existing certificates of title in the name of UP, namely TCT Nos. RT-107359 (192689) and RT-58201 (192687). The LRA Report with Attached Sketch Plan dated December 10, 1998 issued by Atty. Benjamin Bustos, Chief of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA reads:[17]
These findings were corroborated by the Official Report of OIC Regional Technical Director Mamerto Infante of the LMB-DENR-NCR, which states:
These reports were duly offered in evidence; thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals should have taken judicial notice of the various jurispmdence upholding UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings.
Citing Tiburcio, et al. v. PHHC, et al.,[19] Galvez v. Tuason,[20] People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) v. Mencias,[21] and Varsity Hills, Inc. v. Mariano,[22] the Court emphasized in Heirs of Pael v. CA[23] that the titles of UP over its landholdings have become incontrovertible so that courts are precluded from looking anew into their validity. The Court expounded:
Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court[25] mandates that a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. Thus, as both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and consistently validated and recognized UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and the Court of Appeals clearly erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate originals or the certified true copies issued by the Register- of Deeds of Quezon City. Indeed, the RTC and the CA should have taken judicial notice of UP's title over its landholdings, without need of any other evidence.
It may be, as pointed out by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, that a petition for reconstitution of title does not treat of the issue of ownership. However, in the case at bar, as it was established that TCT No. 269615 overlaps with UP's titles, and as UP's indefeasible titles are recognized by law and jurisprudence, adopting the myopic view of the RTC and the Court of Appeals will only result into an unnecessary and pointless relitigation of an issue that has already been repeatedly settled by this Court.
We remind the courts that we are duty-bound to abide by precedents, pursuant to the time-honored principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd.,[26] we reiterated:
The evidence presented by respondent Rosario
are of doubtful veracity and cannot justify the
reconstitution of a title covering lots already
registered in the name of UP.
The Republic and UP were able to establish that the land described in the duplicate original of TCT No. 269615 submitted by respondent Rosario does not refer to any technically recognized location.
In the Certification dated September 18, 1998 issued by OIC-Technical Director of the LMB-DENR-NCR, the DENR, which is the official repository of all approved survey plans for all parcels of land within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, attested to the non-existence of the survey plans alluded to in TCT No. 269615. The Certification declares:[27]
It is to be observed also that the sketch plan presented by respondent Rosario in open court bore the annotations "NOT FOR REGISTRATION" and for "reference only," whereas the photocopy submitted to the court does not contain said annotations. This discrepancy, unexplained by respondent Rosario, coupled with the LRA Report with Attached Sketch Plan dated December 10, 1998 and the Official Report of OIC Regional Technical Director Mamerto Infante of the LMB-DENR-NCR, shows that something is suspicious about the land described in TCT No. 269615. Verily, on this point alone, the RTC and the Court of Appeals should have denied reconstitution.
The speciousness of respondent Rosario's claim becomes more apparent in view of the evidence that, except for the year prior to the time she filed her petition for reconstitution, there is nothing in the records of the City Treasurer's Office to support respondent Rosario's claim that she paid the real property taxes on the land covered by TCT No. 269615 from 1970 up to 1998, or for a period of twenty-eight (28) years.
Moreover, Teofista Pajara, Chief of the Assessment Records Management Division, Office of the City Assessor for Quezon City, also testified that respondent Rosario's 1980 Tax Declaration No. 12158 does not exist in the assessment records maintained by her office. She also stated that from existing records in her office, the reconstructed Tax Declaration No. PD-12158 is in the name of one Tecla Gutierrez and refers to a different property and certificate of title.[28]
At this point, we again remind the courts of their duty to protect the efficacy of the Torrens system and the stability and security of land titles. In Republic of the Phils, y. Sps. Lagramada,[29] the Court, citing Tahanan Devt. Corp. v. CA, et al., warned that courts must be cautious and careful in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles. It is the duty of the courts to scmtinize and verify not only all supporting documents, but also each and every fact, circumstance, or incident related to the case.
Finally, we herein reiterate our admonition in Cañero for courts and unscrupulous lawyers to stop entertaining bogus claims seeking to assail UP's title over its landholdings. We repeat:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated October 17, 2008 and the Resolution dated February 10, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85519, and the Decision dated January 5, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in LRC No. Q-9885(97), are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for reconstitution in LRC No. Q-9885(97) is DISMISSED, and TCT No. 269615 in the name of Segundina Rosario is declared SPURIOUS and VOID. The Land Registration Authority and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City are ordered not to entertain or act on any application, conveyance, or transaction involving TCT No. 269615.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
N O T I C E OF J U D G M E N T
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___January 27, 2016___ a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 a.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, pp. 70-87; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justice lsaias P. Dicdican and then Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court).
[2] Id. at 88-89.
[3] Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1124-1134; penned by then Judge Normandie B. Pizzaro.
[4] Rollo, p. 220; Motion to Admit Attached Reply to Respondent Segundina Rosario's (joined by Zuellgate Corporation) Comment and/or Opposition dated 17 August 2009 (With Prayer to Refer the Case En Banc).
[5] Supra note 1 at 71.
[6] Id. at 72.
[7] Id. at 72-73.
[8] Petition for Review on Certiorari; rollo, p. 18.
[9] Id. at 18-19.
[10] Supra note 1 at 73.
[11] Id. at 86.
[12] Supra note 8 at 29.
[13] G.R. No. 198543, April 15,2015.
[14] 481 Phil. 249 (2004).
[15] Id. at 263.
[16] An Act lo Strengthen the University of the Philippines as the National University.
[17] Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[18] Id. at 37.
[19] 106 Phil. 477(1959).
[20] G.R, No. L-15644, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 344.
[21] G.R. No. L-24114, August 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 1031.
[22] G.R. No. L-30546, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 132.
[23] 461 Phil. 104(2003).
[24] Id. at 121-124. (Emphasis supplied)
[25] SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 94, 96-97.
[27] Supra note 8 at 32-33 and 201.
[28] Id. at 42.
[29] 577 Phil. 232, 242 (2008).
[30] Supra note 14 at 269.
The property subject of the present controversy is located in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines, and is now the site of various buildings and structures along Commonwealth Avenue, including the PHILCOA Wet Market, the Asian Institute of Tourism, the Philippine Social Sciences Building, the National Hydraulic Center, the UP Sewerage Treatment Plant, the Petron Gas Station, the UP Arboretum, the Campus Landscaping Office, the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission Building, the INNOTECH Building, and the UP-Ayala Land TechnoHub.[4]
On November 12, 1997, respondent Rosario filed a petition for the reconstitution of TCT No. 269615 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC), claiming that her title covers lots 42-A-l, 42-A-2 and 42-A-3 of subdivision plan Psd 77362 and Psd 4558.[5] This petition was docketed as LRC No. Q-9885 (97).
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, to support respondent Rosario's claim:[6]
[S]he presented the owner's duplicate copy of said title (TCT No. 269615) and a certification issued by Atty. Samuel Cleofe of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to prove that the original copy of said title was among those burned during the fire that razed the Quezon City Hall on 11 June 1998. In addition, she presented a sketch plan of the subject piece of land, which was recorded in the Bureau of Lands and Tax Bill Receipt Nos. 52768, 63268 and 442447, together with a certification issued by the City Treasurer of Quezon City stating that she paid all the real property taxes due on the subject piece of land. Lastly, she maintained that she is in possession of the subject piece of land through a caretaker named Linda Salvacion.
Petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and oppositor University of the Philippines (UP) opposed the petition. They contend that the documents presented by respondent Rosario are of suspicious authenticity and, more importantly, that the land supposedly covered by TCT No. 269615 is already covered by RT-58201 (192687) and RT-107350 (192689) in the name of UP. As condensed by the Court of Appeals:[7]
xxx. The Republic presented several witnesses: 1) Benjamin Bustos, the Chief of the reconstitution division of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), testified that based on a land cross section using available documents, TCT No. 269615 overlapped with the land titles registered in the name of UP; 2) Emilio Pugongan, from the LRA, testified that TCT No. 269615 was located within the tract of land owned by UP; 3) Anthony Pulmano, an assistant to the OIC of the Real Estate Division of Quezon City's Treasurer's Office, testified that the City Treasurer's Office prepared a report signed by one Alfredo Cortes stating that one of the receipts presented by petitioner Segundina to prove that she paid realty tax was genuine but it was not validated and that Director Casiano Cristobal told Cortes that the signature purportedly appearing in the receipt was not Cristobal's signature; 4) Henry Pacis, a member of the survey division of the Land Management Services of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testified that he conducted a study of the survey plan submitted by petitioner Segundina, the results of which were embodied in a certification signed by the DENR Regional Director Mamerto Infante stating that Psd 77362 is not available in the records of the DENR; and 5) Teofista Pajara, the Chief of the Assessment Record and Management Division of Quezon City's Treasurer's Office, testified that she studied Tax Declaration 12158 and found that said declaration is actually in the name of Tecla Gutierrez and that a copy of the same declaration in the name of petitioner Segundina does not exist in her files.
Oppositor UP argued that the petition for reconstitution was a collateral attack on the land titles registered in its name and if granted, will cause it prejudice. UP presented its records custodian who testified that TCT No. 269615 and TCT Nos. 192687 and 192689, both in the name of UP, are overlapping.
Respondent Rosario testified in support of her petition. She presented her owner's duplicate copy of title, a Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to the effect that the original copy of TCT No. 269615 was among those burned in the fire of June 11, 1998, the supposed original of her 1980 Tax Declaration No. 12158 to show that the land declared thereunder was covered by TCT No. 269615, as well as a sketch plan of the subject land.
During respondent Rosario's testimony, the Republic's counsel noted that the supposed original tax declaration presented by respondent Rosario did not match the photocopy of the tax declaration attached in the petition as the latter did not state that the land it described was covered by TCT No. 269615. Respondent Rosario was not able to explain this discrepancy.[8]
Moreover, UP's counsel also noted that when respondent Rosario presented the original microfilm copy of her sketch plan for marking, it contained the annotations "NOT FOR REGISTRATION OR TITLING," and was for "reference only," but the photocopy presented by her to be marked and offered in evidence did not contain said annotations. Again, respondent Rosario failed to explain this discrepancy.[9]
For their part, the Republic and UP presented public officers of various government agencies like the Land Registration Authority (LRA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-Land Management Bureau (DENR-LMB)', the Quezon City Assessor's Office, and the Quezon City Treasurer's Office to prove that the land supposedly covered by TCT No. 269615 is located within the tract of land owned and registered in the name of UP, that Psd 77362 is not available in the records of the DENR, and that Tax Declaration No. 12158 is in the name of one Tecla Gutierrez and not in respondent Rosario's name.
The RTC granted reconstitution. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated January 5, 2004, reads:[10]
WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is hereby ordered to reconstitute in its records the original TCT No. 269615 in the name of the Petitioner Segundina Rosario WITHOUT PREJUDICE to an existing or better title over the same lot covered thereby.
SO ORDERED.
The Republic and UP appealed before the Court of Appeals.
In 2004, respondent Rosario died. Respondent Zuellgate Corporation moved to substitute or join CA-G.R. CV No. 85519, alleging that it acquired the lots covered by TCT No. 269615 from respondent Rosario by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale notarized in 2003.
In the Decision dated October 17, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in this wise:[11]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (Branch 101) in LRC Case No. Q-9885(97) ordering the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 269615 in the name of petitioner Segundina Rosario is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The Court of Appeals held that as the case was one for reconstitution of title, it does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title, and thus, the RTC was correct in ordering the reconstitution of TCT No. 269615 on the basis of the owner's duplicate copy of the title presented by respondent Rosario.
The appellate court further held that the petition for reconstitution filed by respondent Rosario cannot be said to have attacked, collaterally or otherwise, the titles of UP because the latter failed to sufficiently prove the existence of its title over the subject land.
In the present petition, petitioner raises the following issues: "
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, WHICH ORDERED THE RECONSTITION (sic) OF TCT NO. 269615 IN FAVOR OF SEGUNDINA ROSARIO, DESPITE THE FRAUDULENT NATURE OF SAID TCT.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT OTHER DOCUMENTS ADDUCED IN EVIDENCE BY SEGUNDINA ROSARIO SUPPORT THE RECONSTITUION (sic) OF TCT NO. 269615 IN HER FAVOR.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ORDERING THE RECONSTITUTION OF TCT NO. 269615 ARE CONTRARY TO THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON THE INDEFEASIBILITY OF THE TITLES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES.
The petition is meritorious.
A reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. Indeed, it does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Nonetheless, in Republic of the Philippines v. Pasicolan,[13] the Court has cautioned against treating petitions for reconstitution as a mere ministerial task, to wit:
[G]ranting Petitions for Reconstitution is not a ministerial task. It involves diligent and circumspect evaluation of the authenticity and relevance of all the evidence presented, lest the chilling consequences of mistakenly issuing a reconstituted title when in fact the original is not truly lost or destroyed.
In Cañero v. UP,[14] a petition for reconstitution was similarly filed to reconstitute TCT No. 240042, the original of which was also allegedly razed in the fire of June 11, 1998, and for which petitioners therein also presented an alleged owner's duplicate copy. The petition being unopposed, the RTC ordered reconstitution. Sometime later, petitioners therein filed an action to quiet title against UP on the strength of said reconstituted title. When the case reached this Court, we ruled that the reconstituted title and the proceedings from which it hailed are void. We ratiocinated:
R.A. No. 26 provides for a special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates of title that are missing but not fictitious titles or titles which are existing. It is an absolute absurdity to reconstitute existing certificates of title that are on file and available in the registry of deeds. If we were to sustain petitioner's stance, the establishment of the Torrens system of land titling would be for naught, as cases dealing with claims of ownership of registered land would be teeming like worms coming out of the woodwork, xxx.[15]
The indefeasibility of the titles of the University of the Philippines over its landholdings has been affirmed both by law and jurisprudence.
Clearly, the Court of Appeals erred in its observation that UP failed to sufficiently prove the existence of its title over the subject land. UP's titles over its landholdings are recognized and confirmed both by law and jurisprudence.
Section 22 of Republic Act No. 9500 (R.A. 9500)[16] is explicit:
SEC. 22. Land Grants and Other Real Properties of the University. —
xxxx
(b) Such parcels of land ceded by law, decree or presidential issuance to the University of the Philippines are hereby declared to be reserved for the purposes intended. The absolute ownership of the national university over these landholdings, including those covered by original and transfer certificates of title in the name of the University of the Philippines and their future derivatives, is hereby confirmed. Where the issuance of proper certificates of title is yet pending for these landholdings, the appropriate government office shall expedite the issuance thereof within six months from the date of effectivity of this Act: Provided, That all registration requirements necessary for the issuance of the said titles have been submitted and complied with[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case at bar, the Republic and UP were able to establish that TCT No. 269615 overlaps with two valid and existing certificates of title in the name of UP, namely TCT Nos. RT-107359 (192689) and RT-58201 (192687). The LRA Report with Attached Sketch Plan dated December 10, 1998 issued by Atty. Benjamin Bustos, Chief of the Reconstitution Division of the LRA reads:[17]
The technical description of Lots 42-A-l, 42-A-2 and 42-A-3, all of Psd-77362, appearing on the xerox copy of TCT No. 269615, when plotted on our Municipal Index Sheet Nos. 4437-C and 4436-A, were found to overlap as follows:
1. Lot 42-A-l overlaps Lot 42-A-C-8 & Lot 42-C-9, (LRC)Psd-174313;Lot 42-C-8, (LRC) Psd-174313 is among three parcels of land covered bv TCT No. 192687, in the name of the University of the Philippines. Lot 42-C-9 & Lot 42-C-10, (LRC) Psd-174313 are both covered bv TCT No. 192689, also registered in the name of the University of the Phillippines.
2. Lot 42-A-2 overlaps Lot 42-C-9 & Lot 42-C-10, (LRC) Psd-174313;
3. Lot 42-A-3 is totally inside Lot 42-C-10, (LRC) Psd- 174313.
For reference, see attached sketch plan SK-No. 98-08.
WHEREFORE, this report is respectfully submitted for the information of the Honorable Court and with the recommendation that the instant petition be dismissed. (Emphasis supplied.)
These findings were corroborated by the Official Report of OIC Regional Technical Director Mamerto Infante of the LMB-DENR-NCR, which states:
However, per computed geographic position of Lots 42-A-l, 42-A-2 and 42-A-3, based on the xerox copy of TCT No. 269615 submitted by your office, these lots fall on CM 14 deg. 39" N.I21 deg. 03'E. Sec. 1 and 2 Barangay U.P. Campus, Land Use Map 1978 and overlapped Swo-13-000340 and (LRC) Psd-174313 Lots 42-C-10, 42-C-7, 42-C-8 and 42-C-9. We therefore, plotted subject lots mentioned in TCT No. 269615 in a blue print copy of Swo-13-000340 for your reference.[18] (Emphasis supplied.)
These reports were duly offered in evidence; thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals should have taken judicial notice of the various jurispmdence upholding UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings.
Citing Tiburcio, et al. v. PHHC, et al.,[19] Galvez v. Tuason,[20] People's Homesite & Housing Corporation (PHHC) v. Mencias,[21] and Varsity Hills, Inc. v. Mariano,[22] the Court emphasized in Heirs of Pael v. CA[23] that the titles of UP over its landholdings have become incontrovertible so that courts are precluded from looking anew into their validity. The Court expounded:
It is judicial notice that the legitimacy of UP's title has been settled in several other cases decided by this Court. The case of Tiburcio, et al. vs. People 's Homesite & Housing Corp. (PHHC), et al. was an action for reconveyance of a 430-hectare lot in Quezon City, filed by the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio against PHHC and UP. A portion of the disputed land was covered by TCT No. 1356 registered in the name of PHHC and another portion was covered by TCT No. 9462 registered in the name of UP. Affirming the validity of TCT No. 1356 and TCT No. 9462, this Court ruled:
xxx the land in question has been placed under the operation of the Torrens system since 1914 when it has been originally registered in the name of defendant's predecessor-in-interest. It further appears that sometime in 1955 defendant People's Homesite & Housing Corporation acquired from the original owner a parcel of land embracing practically all of plaintiffs property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1356 was issued in its favor, while defendant University of the Philippines likewise acquired from the same owner another portion of land which embraces the remainder of the property for which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9462 was issued in its favor. It is, therefore, clear that the land in question has been registered in the name of defendant's predecessor-in-interest since 1914 under the Torrens system and that notwithstanding what they now claim that the original title lacked the essential requirements prescribed by law for their validity, they have never taken any step to nullify said title until 1957 when they instituted the present action. In other words, they allowed a period of 43 years before they woke up to invoke what they claim to be erroneous when the court decreed in 1914 the registration of the land in the name of defendants' predecessor-in-interest. Evidently, this cannot be done for under our law and jurisprudence, a decree of registration can only be set aside within one year after entry on the ground of fraud provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired the property.
Thus, this Court held that the decree of registration in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of PHHC and UP, as well as the titles issued pursuant thereto have become incontrovertible.
This Court again affirmed the validity and indefeasibility of UP's title in the case of Galvez vs. Tuason, where Maximo Galvez and the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio sought the recovery of a parcel of land in Quezon City registered under the names of Mariano Severo, Maria Teresa Eriberta, Juan Jose, Demetrio Asuncion, Augusto Huberto, all surnamed Tuason y de la Paz, UP, and PHHC. This is the same land subject of the controversy in Tiburcio vs. PHHC. This Court held in Galvez that the question of ownership of the disputed land has been thrice settled definitely and conclusively by the courts: first, in the proceedings for the registration of the property in the name of the Tuasons; second, in the application filed by Marcelino Tiburcio with the Court of First Instance of Rizal for registration of the disputed property in his name which was dismissed by said court; and third, in the action for reconveyance filed by the heirs of Eladio Tiburcio against PHHC and UP which was also dismissed by the court, which dismissal was affirmed by this Court in Tiburcio vs. PHHC. We held that the issue of ownership of the property was already beyond review.
The rulings in Tiburcio vs. PHHC and Galvez vs. Tuason were reiterated by this Court in PHHC vs. Mencias and Varsity Hills vs. Mariano.
xxxx
Finally, it should be emphasized that this Court's Decision in Tiburcio, ct al. vs. PHHC, as well as in the subsequent cases upholding the validity and indefeasibility of the certificate of title covering the UP Diliman Campus, precludes the courts from looking anew into the validity of UP's title, xxx[24]
Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court[25] mandates that a court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the Philippines. Thus, as both Congress and this Court have repeatedly and consistently validated and recognized UP's indefeasible title over its landholdings, the RTC and the Court of Appeals clearly erred when it faulted the Republic and UP for presenting certified true copies of its titles signed by its records custodian instead of either the duplicate originals or the certified true copies issued by the Register- of Deeds of Quezon City. Indeed, the RTC and the CA should have taken judicial notice of UP's title over its landholdings, without need of any other evidence.
It may be, as pointed out by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, that a petition for reconstitution of title does not treat of the issue of ownership. However, in the case at bar, as it was established that TCT No. 269615 overlaps with UP's titles, and as UP's indefeasible titles are recognized by law and jurisprudence, adopting the myopic view of the RTC and the Court of Appeals will only result into an unnecessary and pointless relitigation of an issue that has already been repeatedly settled by this Court.
We remind the courts that we are duty-bound to abide by precedents, pursuant to the time-honored principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere. In Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd.,[26] we reiterated:
Time and again, the Court has held that it is a very desirable and necessary judicial practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same. Stare decisis ct non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Stare decisis simply means that for the sake of certainty, a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by the parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.
The evidence presented by respondent Rosario
are of doubtful veracity and cannot justify the
reconstitution of a title covering lots already
registered in the name of UP.
The Republic and UP were able to establish that the land described in the duplicate original of TCT No. 269615 submitted by respondent Rosario does not refer to any technically recognized location.
In the Certification dated September 18, 1998 issued by OIC-Technical Director of the LMB-DENR-NCR, the DENR, which is the official repository of all approved survey plans for all parcels of land within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, attested to the non-existence of the survey plans alluded to in TCT No. 269615. The Certification declares:[27]
CERTIFICATION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that alleged plan Psd-77362, Lots 42-A-l, Lot 42-A-2 and 42-A-3, 'being a portion of Lot 42-A, Psd 4558, situated in Culiat, Quezon City, owned by Segundina Rosario per T.C.T. No. 269615 as submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General is NOT [AVAILABLE] in the Technical Records and Statistics Section, Surveys Division, DENR-NCR. It is also informed by the Director, Lands Management Bureau that their Office has no records of the alleged plans Psd-77362 and Psd-4558 per his letter dated July 13, 1998. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is to be observed also that the sketch plan presented by respondent Rosario in open court bore the annotations "NOT FOR REGISTRATION" and for "reference only," whereas the photocopy submitted to the court does not contain said annotations. This discrepancy, unexplained by respondent Rosario, coupled with the LRA Report with Attached Sketch Plan dated December 10, 1998 and the Official Report of OIC Regional Technical Director Mamerto Infante of the LMB-DENR-NCR, shows that something is suspicious about the land described in TCT No. 269615. Verily, on this point alone, the RTC and the Court of Appeals should have denied reconstitution.
The speciousness of respondent Rosario's claim becomes more apparent in view of the evidence that, except for the year prior to the time she filed her petition for reconstitution, there is nothing in the records of the City Treasurer's Office to support respondent Rosario's claim that she paid the real property taxes on the land covered by TCT No. 269615 from 1970 up to 1998, or for a period of twenty-eight (28) years.
Moreover, Teofista Pajara, Chief of the Assessment Records Management Division, Office of the City Assessor for Quezon City, also testified that respondent Rosario's 1980 Tax Declaration No. 12158 does not exist in the assessment records maintained by her office. She also stated that from existing records in her office, the reconstructed Tax Declaration No. PD-12158 is in the name of one Tecla Gutierrez and refers to a different property and certificate of title.[28]
At this point, we again remind the courts of their duty to protect the efficacy of the Torrens system and the stability and security of land titles. In Republic of the Phils, y. Sps. Lagramada,[29] the Court, citing Tahanan Devt. Corp. v. CA, et al., warned that courts must be cautious and careful in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed titles. It is the duty of the courts to scmtinize and verify not only all supporting documents, but also each and every fact, circumstance, or incident related to the case.
Finally, we herein reiterate our admonition in Cañero for courts and unscrupulous lawyers to stop entertaining bogus claims seeking to assail UP's title over its landholdings. We repeat:
We strongly admonish courts and unscrupulous lawyers to stop entertaining spurious cases seeking further to assail respondent UP's title. These cases open the dissolute avenues of graft to unscrupulous land-grabbers who prey like vultures upon the campus of respondent UP. By such actions, they wittingly or unwittingly aid the hucksters who want to earn a quick buck by misleading the gullible to buy the Philippine counterpart of the proverbial London Bridge. It is well past time for courts and lawyers to cease wasting their time and resources on these worthless causes and take judicial notice of the fact that respondent UP's title had already been validated countless times by this Court. Any ruling deviating from such doctrine is to be viewed as a deliberate intent to sabotage the rule of law and will no longer be countenanced.[30] (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated October 17, 2008 and the Resolution dated February 10, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85519, and the Decision dated January 5, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in LRC No. Q-9885(97), are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for reconstitution in LRC No. Q-9885(97) is DISMISSED, and TCT No. 269615 in the name of Segundina Rosario is declared SPURIOUS and VOID. The Land Registration Authority and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City are ordered not to entertain or act on any application, conveyance, or transaction involving TCT No. 269615.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
February 4, 2016
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on ___January 27, 2016___ a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on February 4, 2016 at 2:10 a.m.
(SGD)
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Division Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, pp. 70-87; penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justice lsaias P. Dicdican and then Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court).
[2] Id. at 88-89.
[3] Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1124-1134; penned by then Judge Normandie B. Pizzaro.
[4] Rollo, p. 220; Motion to Admit Attached Reply to Respondent Segundina Rosario's (joined by Zuellgate Corporation) Comment and/or Opposition dated 17 August 2009 (With Prayer to Refer the Case En Banc).
[5] Supra note 1 at 71.
[6] Id. at 72.
[7] Id. at 72-73.
[8] Petition for Review on Certiorari; rollo, p. 18.
[9] Id. at 18-19.
[10] Supra note 1 at 73.
[11] Id. at 86.
[12] Supra note 8 at 29.
[13] G.R. No. 198543, April 15,2015.
[14] 481 Phil. 249 (2004).
[15] Id. at 263.
[16] An Act lo Strengthen the University of the Philippines as the National University.
[17] Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[18] Id. at 37.
[19] 106 Phil. 477(1959).
[20] G.R, No. L-15644, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 344.
[21] G.R. No. L-24114, August 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 1031.
[22] G.R. No. L-30546, June 30, 1988, 163 SCRA 132.
[23] 461 Phil. 104(2003).
[24] Id. at 121-124. (Emphasis supplied)
[25] SEC. 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 94, 96-97.
[27] Supra note 8 at 32-33 and 201.
[28] Id. at 42.
[29] 577 Phil. 232, 242 (2008).
[30] Supra note 14 at 269.