MANOTOK VS BARQUE
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting
These consolidated petitions for review assail, in G.R. No.
162335, the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision[1] of the
Third Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
66642, ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to
cancel petitioners' TCT No. RT-22481 and directing the Land
Registration Authority (LRA) to reconstitute respondents' TCT
No. 210177; and in G.R. No. 162605, the November 7, 2003
Amended Decision[2] of the Special Division of Five of the
Former Second Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 directing
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners'
TCT No. RT-22481, and the LRA to reconstitute respondents'
TCT No. T-210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution[3]
denying the motion for reconsideration.
The facts as found by the Court of Appeals[4] are as follows:
Petitioners, (respondents herein) as the
surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque,
filed a petition with the LRA for
administrative reconstitution of the original
copy of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name
of Homer L. Barque, which was destroyed in
the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall,
including the Office of the Register of Deeds
of Quezon City, sometime in 1988. In
support of the petition, petitioners submitted
the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
210177, real estate tax receipts, tax
declarations and the Plan FLS 3168 D
covering the property.
Upon being notified of the petition for
administrative reconstitution, private
respondents (petitioners herein) filed their
opposition thereto claiming that the lot
covered by the title under reconstitution
forms part of the land covered by their
reconstituted title TCT No. RT-22481, and
alleging that TCT No. 210177 in the name of
petitioners' predecessors-in-interest is
spurious.
1
officer, denied the reconstitution of TCT No. 210177[5] on
grounds that:
1. Lots 823-A and 823-B, Fls-3168-D,
containing areas of 171,473 Sq. Mtrs. and
171,472 Sq. Mtrs., respectively, covered by
TCT No. 210177, appear to duplicate Lot
823 Piedad Estate, containing an area of
342,945 Sq. Mtrs., covered by TCT No.
372302 registered in the name of Severino
M. Manotok, et. al., reconstituted under Adm.
Reconstitution No. Q-213 dated February 01,
1991;
2. The submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a
spurious document as categorically stated by
Engr. Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief, Geodetic
Surveys Division, Land Management
Bureau, in his letter dated February 19,
1997.[6]
Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied in an
order[7] dated February 10, 1998 hence they appealed to the
LRA.
The LRA ruled that the reconstituting officer should not have
required the submission of documents other than the owner's
duplicate certificate of title as bases in denying the petition and
should have confined himself with the owner's duplicate
certificate of title.[8] The LRA further declared:
Based on the documents presented,
petitioners have established by clear and
convincing evidence that TCT NO. 210177
was, at the time of the destruction thereof,
valid, genuine, authentic and effective.
Petitioners duly presented the original of the
owner's duplicate copy of TCT No.
210177 .... The logbook of the Register of
Deeds of Quezon City lists TCT No. 210177
as among the titles lost .... The Register of
Deeds of Quezon City himself acknowledged
the existence and authenticity of TCT No.
 210177 when he issued a certification to the
effect that TCT No. 210177 was one of the
titles destroyed and not salvaged from the
fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall on 11
June 1988 ....
It is likewise noteworthy that the technical
description and boundaries of the lot
reflected in TCT No. 210177 absolutely
conform to the technical description and
boundaries of Lot 823 Piedad Estate ... as
indicated in the B. L. Form No. 28-37-R
dated 11-8-94 and B. L. Form No. 31-10 duly
issued by the Bureau of Lands ....
It therefore becomes evident that the
existence, validity, authenticity and effectivity
of TCT No. 210177 was established
indubitably and irrefutably by the petitioners.
Under such circumstances, the reconstitution
thereof should be given due course and the
same is mandatory.[9]
.
The said Plan FLS 3168D is indeed
authentic and valid coming as it does from
the legal repository and duly signed by the
custodian thereof. The documentary
evidence presented is much too
overwhelming to be simply brushed aside
and be defeated by the fabricated
statements and concoctions made by Engr.
Dalire in his 19 February 1997 letter. '[10]
Nevertheless, notwithstanding its conclusion that petitioners'
title was fraudulently reconstituted, the LRA noted that it is only
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which can declare that the
same was indeed fraudulently reconstituted. It thus opined that
respondents' title may only be reconstituted after a judicial
declaration that petitioners' title was void and should therefore
be cancelled.[11]

It would be necessary to underscore that the

certified copy of Plan FLS 3168 D was duly
issued by the office of Engr. Ernesto Erive, The dispositive portion of the LRA's decision reads:
Chief, Surveys Division LMS-DENR-NCR
whose office is the lawful repository of
survey plans for lots situated within the
National Capital Region including the
property in question. Said plan was duly
signed by the custodian thereof, Carmelito WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is
Soriano, Chief Technical Records and hereby ordered that reconstitution of TCT
Statistics Section, DENR-NCR. Said plan is No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque,
likewise duly supported by Republic of the Sr. shall be given due course after
Philippines Official Receipt No. 2513818 Q cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302)
dated 9-23-96 .... Engr. Erive in his letter in the name of Manotoks upon order of a
dated 28 November 1996 addressed to Atty. court of competent jurisdiction.
Bustos ' confirmed that a microfilm copy of
Plan FLS 3168D is on file in the Technical SO ORDERED.[12]
Records and Statistics Section of his office.
Engr. Dalire, in his letter dated 2 January
1997 addressed to Atty. Bustos even
confirmed the existence and authenticity of
said plan. ' Petitioners' filed a motion for reconsideration which was
opposed by respondents with a prayer that reconstitution be
.
ordered immediately.
The claim of Engr. Dalire in his letter dated
19 February 1997 that his office has no
records or information about Plan FLS 3168-
D is belied by the certified copy of the
computer print-out duly issued by the Bureau
of Lands indicating therein that FLS 3168D is On June 14, 2001, petitioners' motion for reconsideration and
duly entered into the microfilm records of the respondents' prayer for immediate reconstitution were denied.
Bureau of Lands and has been assigned
Accession Number 410436 appearing on [13]
Page 79, Preliminary Report No. 1, List of
Locator Cards and Box Number 0400 and
said computer print-out is duly supported by
an Offical Receipt '.

2
From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review[14]
with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66700
and praying that the LRA be directed to immediately
reconstitute TCT No. 210177 without being subjected to the
condition that petitioners' TCT No. RT-22481 [372302] should
first be cancelled by a court of competent jurisdiction.[15]
Petitioners likewise filed a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66642.

In CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, the Second Division of the Court of

Appeals rendered a Decision[16] on September 13, 2002, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises

considered the assailed Resolution of the
LRA dated June 24, 1998 is AFFIRMED in
toto and the petition for review is ordered
DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[17]

3

Respondents moved for reconsideration.[18] On November 7,
2003, the Special Division of Five of the Former Second
Division rendered an Amended Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
66700, the dispositive portion of which reads:
Respondents' motion for reconsideration was granted by the
Third Division of the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2004,
thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for

WHEREFORE, our decision dated 13
September 2002 is hereby reconsidered.
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City is hereby directed to cancel
TCT No. RT-22481 of private respondents
and the LRA is hereby directed to
reconstitute forthwith petitioners' valid,
genuine and existing Certificate of Title No.
T-210177.
Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The
Decision of this Court dated 29 October
2003 is RECONSIDERED and a new one is
entered ordering the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City to cancel petitioners' TCT No.
RT-22481 and directing the LRA to
reconstitute forthwith respondents' TCT No.
T-210177.
SO ORDERED.[24]

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.[19] From the foregoing decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-

G.R. SP No. 66700 and CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, petitioners
filed separate petitions for review before this Court docketed as

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the amended decision G.R. No. 162605 and G.R. No. 162335, respectively.

in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 was denied,[20] hence, this petition

docketed as G.R. No. 162605.

In G.R. No. 162605, petitioners argue that:

Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, the Third Division of the

I
Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[21] on October 29,
THE MAJORITY JUSTICES ACTED
2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING
THE CANCELLATION OF PETITIONERS'
EXISTING TITLE, CONSIDERING THAT:

a. THEY ORDERED THE CANCELLATION

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby OF TITLE DESPITE THE FACT
DENIED. The Resolution of the LRA dated THAT THE SAME IS NOT PART
24 June 1998 is hereby AFFIRMED. OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN A
RECONSTITUTION
SO ORDERED.[22] PROCEEDINGS.

b. THEY ALLOWED A COLLATERAL

ATTACK ON A TORRENS
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; and
In so ruling, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals declared
that the LRA correctly deferred in giving due course to the c. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN
RESOLVING AN APPEAL OF THE
petition for reconstitution since there is yet no final judgment
DECISION OF THE LAND
upholding or annulling respondents' title.[23] REGISTRATION AUTHORITY,
DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION

4
 TO ORDER THE CANCELLATION THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
OF TITLE, SINCE ONLY A TO CANCEL TCT NO. RT-22481 OF
PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL PETITIONERS MANOTOK
COURT CAN ORDER THE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
ANNULMENT/CANCELLATION OF SAID COURT WAS FULLY COGNIZANT
A TORRENS TITLE. BY THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO
ALLOWING A 'SHORT CUT', THE EXERCISE SUCH AUTHORITY AND
MAJORITY JUSTICES DEPRIVED POWER AND THE LAND REGISTRATION
THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR AUTHORITY IS EQUALLY DEVOID OF
PROPERTY AND THEIR JURISDICTION ON THE MATTER
CONSTITUTIONALLY BECAUSE UNDER THE JUDICIARY
PROTECTED RIGHT TO DUE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
PROCESS OF LAW. SPECIFICALLY SECTION 19 (2)
THEREOF, ONLY THE REGIONAL TRIAL
II COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS
THE MAJORITY JUSTICES GRAVELY WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR
MISAPPLIED THE RULING OF THIS POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR
HONORABLE COURT IN ORTIGAS V. ANY INTEREST THEREIN.
VELASCO, CONSIDERING THAT:
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
a. IN THE ORTIGAS CASE, THERE WERE APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED
TWO TITLES EXISTING OVER GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND
THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, AS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN
A RESULT OF THE INVOKING EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION
RECONSTITUTED TITLE ISSUED TO JUSTIFY ITS CHALLENGED AMENDED
IN THE NAME OF MOLINA. IN DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004
THE INSTANT CASE, ONLY DIRECTING LRA TO CANCEL
PETITIONERS HOLD TITLE TO PETITIONERS MANOTOK'S TITLE
THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT, AS
AS RESPONDENTS ARE MERELY STATED, THE LAW EXPLICITLY VESTS
TRYING TO HAVE TITLE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO
RECONSTITUTED IN THEIR THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OVER
NAMES. CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE
TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL
b. IN ORTIGAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME THEREIN.
COURT WHICH PREVIOUSLY
RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
OWNERSHIP OF ORTIGAS' APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
PROPERTY. HENCE, THERE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
WAS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
ANNUL MOLINA'S TITLE FAILING TO ORDER THE SETTING ASIDE
OUTRIGHT. IN THE INSTANT OF THE CHALLENGED RESOLUTION
CASE, THERE ARE NO SUCH DATED JUNE 24, 1998 OF RESPONDENT
DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IN
RESPONDENTS WHICH WOULD LRC ADMIN. CASE NO. Q-547 [97]
JUSTIFY THE CANCELLATION OF VIEWED FROM THE FACT THAT SAID
THE TITLE OF PETITIONERS RESOLUTION OF LRA IS PATENTLY AT
WITHOUT ANY HEARING.[25] WAR WITH LAW AND CONTROLLING
JURISPRUDENCE THAT PROHIBITS
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE BY THIRD
PARTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LOST
OR DESTROYED IF ANOTHER VALID
In G.R. No. 162335, petitioners raise the following issues: TITLE IS EXISTING COVERING THE LAND
SUBJECT THEREOF.

IV. THE LRA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
(THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND GROSS
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN ORDERING
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
ORDERING THE RECONSTITUTION OF
THE TITLE OF HOMER BARQUE, SR.
SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONDITION
THAT THE TITLE OF PETITIONERS

5
 MANOTOK SHOULD FIRST BE ORDERED Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall
CANCELLED BY COURT OF COMPETENT be reconstituted from such of the sources
JURISDICTION IN THE FACE OF THE hereunder enumerated as may be available,
GLARING FACTS THAT SAID TITLE IS in the following order:
HIGHLY SUSPECT AND BEARS BADGES
OF FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION (a) The owner's duplicate of the
AND THEREFORE NO OTHER LOGICAL certificate of title;
AND CREDIBLE CONCLUSION CAN BE ....
DRAWN EXCEPT THAT IT IS A FAKE AND
SPURIOUS TITLE.

V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they
APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK submitted in support thereof the owner's duplicate certificate of
OF IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN title, real estate tax receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the
ALLOWING RESPONDENTS' MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS same should have more than sufficed as sources for the
CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME.[26] reconstitution pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 26 which
explicitly mandates that the reconstitution shall be made
following the hierarchy of sources as enumerated by law. In

On August 2, 2004, the petition in G.R. No. 162605 was addition, Section 12 of the same law requires that the petition

consolidated with the petition in G.R. No. 162335.[27] shall be accompanied with a plan and technical description of
the property only if the source of the reconstitution is Section
3(f) of RA No. 26. Thus:

In sum, petitioners contend that (a) the LRA has no authority to

annul their title; (b) the reconstitution of respondents' Torrens
title would be a collateral attack on petitioners' existing title; (c)
they were not given the opportunity to be heard, specifically the
chance to defend the validity of their Torrens title; (d) the Court
of Appeals, in resolving the appeal from the LRA, has no
jurisdiction to order the cancellation of petitioners' title; and (e)
the ruling in Ortigas 'was misapplied.
Section 12. ' Provided, That in case the
reconstitution is to be made exclusively
from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or
3(f) of this Act, the petition shall further be
accompanied with a plan and technical
description of the property duly approved by
the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, or with a certified copy of the
description taken from a prior certificate of
title covering the same property.[29]

Since respondents' source of reconstitution is the owner's

The petitions must be denied.
The LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should
have confined himself to the owner's duplicate certificate of title
prior to the reconstitution. Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No.
26[28] clearly provides:
duplicate certificate of title, there is no need for the
reconstituting officer to require the submission of the plan,
much less deny the petition on the ground that the submitted
plan appears to be spurious. By enumerating the hierarchy of
sources to be used for the reconstitution, it is the intent of the
law to give more weight and preference to the owner's
duplicate certificate of title over the other enumerated sources.

6
The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is
authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners' title is
sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two divisions of the
Court of Appeals, is conclusive before this Court. It should
remain undisturbed since only questions of law may be raised
in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Findings of fact of administrative bodies are accorded respect,
even finality by this Court and, when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, are no longer reviewable except only for very
compelling reasons. Basic is the rule that factual findings of
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions' ' are accorded not
only respect but even finality, aside from the consideration that
this Court is essentially not a trier of facts.[30]
Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be
accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or
spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other
are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a
proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact.
Whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party,
weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence
submitted by adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear
and convincing; whether or not certain documents presented
by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face
of protests as to their spurious character by the other side;
whether or not inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party
are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs
weight ' all these are issues of fact. Questions like these are
not reviewable by this court which, as a rule, confines its
review of cases decided by the Court of Appeals only to
questions of law raised in the petition and therein distinctly set
forth.[31] A petition for review should only cover questions of
law. Questions of fact are not reviewable.[32]
In Dolfo v. Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite,[33]
this Court categorically declared:
7
Second. Both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals made a factual finding that
petitioner's title to the land is of doubtful
authenticity.
Having jurisdiction only to resolve questions
of law, this Court is bound by the factual
findings of the trial court and the Court of
Appeals....
In view of the foregoing, it is no longer necessary to remand
the case to the RTC for the determination of which title,
petitioners' or respondents', is valid or spurious. This has been
ruled upon by the LRA and duly affirmed by the two divisions of
the Court of Appeals.
The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for
administrative reconstitution. It has the authority to review,
revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal the decision of the
reconstituting officer. The function is adjudicatory in nature ' it
can properly deliberate on the validity of the titles submitted for
reconstitution. Logically, it can declare a title as sham or
spurious, or valid on its face. Otherwise, if it cannot make such
declaration, then there would be no basis for its decision to
grant or deny the reconstitution. The findings of fact of the
LRA, when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case,
shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.[34]
In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to
determine from the evidence submitted which between or
among the titles is genuine and existing to enable it to decide
whether to deny or approve the petition. Without such
authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency clothed
only with mechanical powers.
The Court of Appeals also properly exercised its appellate
jurisdiction over the judgment of the LRA. Under Sections 1
and 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court has
jurisdiction on appeals from judgments or final orders of the
LRA, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or
mixed questions of fact and law.
Indeed, it would be needlessly circuitous to remand the case to
the RTC to determine anew which of the two titles is sham or
spurious and thereafter appeal the trial court's ruling to the
Court of Appeals. After all, the LRA and the two divisions of the
appellate court have already declared that petitioners' title is
forged. In Mendoza v. Court of Appeals,[35] we ruled that:
Now, technically, the revocation and
cancellation of the deed of sale and the title
issued in virtue thereof in de los Santos'
favor should be had in appropriate
proceedings to be initiated at the instance of
the Government. However, since all the
facts are now before this Court, and it is
not within de los Santos' power in any
case to alter those facts at any other
proceeding, or the verdict made
inevitable by said facts, for this Court to
direct at this time that cancellation
proceedings be yet filed to nullify the sale
to de los Santos and his title, would be
needlessly circuitous and would
unnecessarily delay the termination of
the controversy at bar, .... This Court will
therefore make the adjudication entailed
by the facts here and now, without further
proceedings, as it has done in other
cases in similar premises.
No useful purpose will be served if a case or the determination
of an issue in a case is remanded to the trial court only to have
its decision raised again to the Court of Appeals and then to
the Supreme Court. The remand of the case or of an issue to
the lower court for further reception of evidence is not
necessary where the Court is in position to resolve the dispute
based on the records before it and particularly where the ends
of justice would not be subserved by the remand thereof.[36]
The Register of Deeds, the LRA and the Court of Appeals have
jurisdiction to act on the petition for administrative
reconstitution. The doctrine laid down in Alabang Dev. Corp.,
8
et al. v. Hon. Valenzuela, etc., et al.[37] does not apply in the
instant case. In Alabang, the Court stressed that:
[L]ands already covered by duly issued
existing Torrens Titles ' cannot be the
subject of petitions for reconstitution of
allegedly lost or destroyed titles filed by third
parties without first securing by final
judgment the cancellation of such existing
titles. ' The courts simply have no jurisdiction
over petitions by such third parties for
reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed
titles over lands that are already covered by
duly issued subsisting titles in the names of
their duly registered owners. The very
concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles
covered under the Torrens System of
registration rules out as anathema the
issuance of two certificates of title over the
same land to two different holders thereof.
'[38]
The Alabang ruling was premised on the fact that the existing
Torrens title was duly issued and that there is only one title
subsisting at the time the petition for reconstitution was filed. In
the instant case, it cannot be said that petitioners' title was
duly issued much less could it be presumed valid considering
the findings of the LRA and the Court of Appeals that the same
is sham and spurious.
The Court of Appeals properly applied the doctrine laid down in
Ortigas in refusing to remand the case to the trial court. As
expressly declared in Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership
v. Velasco:[39]
Ordinarily, the relief indicated by the material
facts would be the remand of the
reconstitution case (LRC No. Q-5405) to the
Court of origin with instructions that Ortigas'
and the Solicitor General's appeals from the
judgment rendered therein, which were
wrongly disallowed, be given due course and
the records forthwith transmitted to the
appellate tribunal. This, in fact, is a relief
 alternatively prayed for by petitioner Ortigas.
Considering however the fatal infirmities
afflicting Molina's theory or cause of action,
evident from the records before this Court,
such a remand and subsequent appeal
proceedings would be pointless and unduly
circuitous. Upon the facts, it is not possible
for Molina's cause to prosper. To defer
adjudication thereon would be unwarranted
and unjust.
The same rationale should apply in the instant case. As
already discussed, the validity of respondents' and petitioners'
title have been squarely passed upon by the LRA and
reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which factual
findings are no longer reviewable by this Court.
A careful examination of the case of Spouses Cayetano, et al.
v. CA, et al.,[40] where this Court, as claimed by petitioners,
have affirmed their title over the disputed property, would
reveal that the sole issue resolved therein is whether or not a
tenancy relationship exists between the parties.[41] There was
no adjudication on ownership. In fact, it cannot even be
discerned if the property subject of the Spouses Cayetano
case refers to the property subject of the instant controversy.
There is no basis in the allegation that petitioners were
deprived of 'their property without due process of law when the
Court of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their Torrens title,
even without a direct proceeding in the RTC. As already
discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the RTC for
a re-determination on the validity of the titles of respondents
and petitioners as the same has been squarely passed upon
by the LRA and affirmed by the appellate court. By opposing
the petition for reconstitution and submitting their
administratively reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to
the authority and jurisdiction of the reconstituting officer, the
LRA and the Court of Appeals, and recognized their authority
to pass judgment on their title. All the evidence presented was
duly considered by these tribunals. There is thus no basis to
petitioners' claim that they were deprived of their right to be
9
heard and present evidence, which is the essence of due
process.
As held in Yusingco v. Ong Hing Lian:[42]
Therefore, it appearing from the records that
in the previous petition for reconstitution of
certificates of title, the parties acquiesced in
submitting the issue of ownership for
determination in the said petition, and they
were given the full opportunity to present
their respective sides of the issues and
evidence in support thereof, and that the
evidence presented was sufficient and
adequate for rendering a proper decision
upon the issue, the adjudication of the issue
of ownership was valid and binding.
The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on
petitioners' title which was irregularly and illegally issued in the
first place.[43] As pertinently held in Dolfo v. Register of Deeds
for the Province of Cavite:[44]
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens
System is presumed valid and, hence, is the
best proof of ownership of a piece of land
does not apply where the certificate itself is
faulty as to its purported origin.
In this case, petitioner anchors her
arguments on the premise that her title to the
subject property is indefeasible because of
the presumption that her certificate of title is
authentic. However, this presumption is
overcome by the evidence presented,
consisting of the LRA report ' that TCT No.
T-320601 was issued without legal basis '
.
Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the
indefeasibility of her certificate of title. It
bears emphasis that the Torrens system
does not create or vest title but only confirms
and records one already existing and vested.
Thus, while it may be true, as petitioner
argues, that a land registration court has no
jurisdiction over parcels of land already
covered by a certificate of title, it is equally
true that this rule applies only where there
 exists no serious controversy as to the
authenticity of the certificate.

Under similar circumstances, this Court has ruled that wrongly

reconstituted certificates of title secured through fraud and
misrepresentation cannot be the source of legitimate rights and
benefits.[45]

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. In G.R. No. 162335,

the February 24, 2004 Amended Decision of the Third Division
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, ordering the
Register of Deeds of Quezon City to cancel petitioners' TCT
No. RT-22481 and directing the Land Registration Authority to
reconstitute respondents' TCT No. 210177; and in G.R. No.
162605, the November 7, 2003 Amended Decision of the
Special Division of Five of the Former Second Division in CA-
G.R. SP No. 66700 directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City to cancel petitioners' TCT No. RT-22481, and the Land
Registration Authority to reconstitute respondents' TCT No. T-
210177 and the March 12, 2004 Resolution denying the motion
for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

10