SC remands Maysilo Estate land dispute case to CA

The Supreme Court has remanded to the Court of Appeals the issue over the land dispute case involving some 1,342-hectare disputed parcel of land straddling Malabon, Caloocan and Quezon City. Also known as the Maysilo Estate, these prime blocks are being claimed in part by the Manotok and the Araneta families from the heirs of the late real estate broker Jose Dimson, who claimed that the vast track of land has been with his family since the Spanish occupation. The dispute has already spanned nearly three decades since it was filed in 1979. In a 46-page en banc resolution, the SC through Associate Justice Dante Tinga ordered a special division in the appellate court to ascertain which of the conflicting claims of title over the property should prevail. “The Court of Appeals generally has the authority to review findings of fact. Its conclusions as to findings of fact are generally accorded great respect by this Court. It is a body that is fully capacitated and has a surfeit of experience in appreciating factual matters, including documentary evidence," the Court said. The SC affirmed the validity of Original Certificate of Title No. 994, which encompasses the Maysilo Estate and registered on May 3, 1917 with the Register of Deeds, as the only genuine OCT of the disputed property stretching over at least three cities of Metro Manila. The Court en banc reversed and set aside the November 29, 2005 decision of the SC’s Third Division upholding the judgment of the CA, which in turn affirmed the ruling of the Regional Trial Court that declared as valid the OCT 994 issued on April 19, 1917. The SC ruled that “there is only one OCT No. 994 - the mother title that was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1917 and that should be the date that should be reckoned as the date of registration of the title." Any title that traces its source to OCT 994 dated April 17, 1917 is void, for such mother title is inexistent, it pointed out. The ruling, thus, effectively cast doubts on the validity of the ownership claims over the disputed property by Dimson’s heirs through his CLT Realty Development Corporation. But while the tribunal deemed it sufficient to invalidate Dimson’s claims over the Maysilo property, the Court deemed it prudent to remand the case to a Special Division of the CA for reception of further evidence, including pertinent reports of the Department of Justice and the Senate on the matter. Both the DOJ report dated August 28, 1997 and the Senate Report dated May 25, 1998 concluded that there is only one OCT 994 issued or registered on May 3, 1917, which can be considered as evidence. “Considering that the genuine OCT No. 994 is that issued on/registered on 3 May 1917, a remand would be appropriate to determine which of the parties, if any, derived valid title from the said genuine OCT No. 994," the Court ruled. The resolution directs the CA special division to determine, among others, which of the contending parties are able to trace back their claims of title to OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917 and whether the imputed flaws in the titles of the Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation (Manotoks), and the Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. (Araneta) are borne by the evidence. The SC appointed CA Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga as chairperson, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin as senior member, and Associate Justice Jaapar Dimaampao as junior member of the special division, which will hear and receive evidence, conclude the proceedings and submit to the SC a report on its findings and recommended conclusions within three months. Concurring in the majority decision were Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Adolfo Azcuna, Minita Chico-Nazario, and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro. However, Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Presbitero Velasco, Jr. and Ruben Reyes, dissented with the ruling, while Associate Justice Renato Corona voted to grant the motions for reconsideration and annulment of titles of Transfer of Certificate Titles (TCTs) of CLT Realty and Dimson heirs. Chief Justice Reynato Puno did not take part due to relationship to one of the counsels, while Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura did not take part as he had appeared in the oral arguments in the case as then Solicitor General. Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio also took no part in the deliberation of the case. The remand of the case arose from the motions for reconsideration filed by the Manotoks and Araneta who had sought a reversal of the November 29, 2005 SC decision that effectively nullified the land titles in their names when it denied their petitions and affirmed the CA decisions. The assailed CA rulings affirmed the lower court’s decisions awarding to CLT Realty Development Corporation and the late Jose B. Dimson the properties being claimed by the Manotoks and Araneta. In 1979, Dimson filed with the then Court of First Instances of Rizal, Branch 33, Caloocan City a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Araneta. Dimson alleged he was the absolute owner of part of the Maysilo Estate in Malabon covered by TCT No. R-15169 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City . The RTC ruled in Dimson’s favor, prompting Araneta to appeal to the CA, which, in turn, affirmed the lower court’s decision. Araneta appealed to the SC when its motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. In 1992, CLT sought to recover from Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation the possession of Lot 26 of the Maysilo Estate in an action filed before the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 129. The Caloocan RTC granted its petition, prompting the Manotoks to appeal to the CA, which, was however, also turned down. When their motion for reconsideration was also denied, the Manotoks elevated the case to the SC, which then consolidated the two cases. On November 29, 2005 , the SC Third Division rendered a decision affirming the assailed CA decision and resolutions in toto. This prompted both the Manotoks and Araneta to file motions for reconsideration. On June 5, 2006 , the cases were elevated to the Court en banc, which heard oral argument on August 1, 2006 . In her dissenting opinion, Gutierrez voted to deny the appeals filed by the Manotoks and Araneta, saying the Tinga ruling to remand the case to the CA “grossly violates the settled rule that no new issues shall be raised for the first time on appeal. Gutierrez said the remand of these cases to the CA was but is an attempt by the parties to prolong the litigation, adding her belief that the titles held by Dimson and his heirs and that of the CLT are valid, while the titles of the Manotok Corporations and Araneta Institute are spurious. “These are the findings of the three trial courts and affirmed by the three divisions of the Court of Appeals. To litigate these findings once again will entirely change the settled jurisprudence of this Court. The doctrine that there should be an end to litigation has been seriously disturbed. This is a sad day for the court," she said. The lady justice pointed out that petitioners Manotok and Aranetas have “utterly failed" to show any reversible error committed by the CA in its assailed decisions affirming the judgments of the trial courts. - GMANews.TV