PATROCINIO E.
MARGOLLES, VIRGINIA E. VILLONGCO, EDUARDO C. ESPINOSA, LUCIA E. LAPERAL, NORMA
C. ESPINOSA, TERESITA E. CASAL, ALICE E. SOTTO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., BOOMTOWN DEVELOPMENT DORPORATION, SPOUSES CYNTHIA
D. CHING and CHING TIONG KENG, SPOUSES CARMEN SOCO and LORENZO ONG ENG CHONG,
SPOUSES SOLEDAD B. YU and YU SY CHIA, and LETICIA NOCON CHAN, respondents
G.R. No. 109490 | February 14, 1994
FACTS:
This case involves several parcels of land, consisting of
approximately 188,524 sq. m., covered by various titles of ownership, located
at Barrio Almanza, Las Pinas, MM.
On July 11, 1985 respondents filed with the RTC of Makati
for annulment of titles, recovery of possession, and quieting of titles against
petitioners and the LRC and ROD of Pasay City. They averred that the parcels of
lands in question were registered in the names of Benito Gonzales and Emeterio
Espiritu under OCT No. A-S-47 dated July 22, 1969. On February 4, 1976, the
property was subdivided into 5 lots, resulting in the issuance of 5 TCTs. Later,
these parcels of lands were conveyed to each of the respondents and were issued
new TCTs in the name of the buyers.
Months after plaintiffs took possession of the respondents
took possession of the premises, petitioners demanded that they vacate the
premises. Claiming ownership, the petitioners traced their titles from OCT No.
4216 issued to Sps. Lorenzo Gana and Ma. Juliana Carlos on March 26, 1929.
This land was then sold to Patrocinio Margolles, resulting
in the issuance of TCT No. 46302. Margolles subdivided the property into 7
lots, each lot being covered by different TCTs. Subsequently, 5 of these TCTs
were cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. S-17992 was issued to Peltan
Development Corporation.
Margolles subdivided the remaining parcels into 15 lots,
each of which was titled in her name. Aside from the 2 titles that were
retained in her name, the rest were later cancelled and transferred to her
brother and sisters, her co-defendants and co-petitioners in the present case.
ISSUE:
Who is the owner of the land
RULING:
It is a settled rule that “when two certificates of title
are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the
earlier in date must prevail, and, in case of successive registrations where
more than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding a prior
certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a
subsequent certificate. The titles of the petitioners, having emanated from an
older title, should thus be upheld.
Comments
Post a Comment