G.R. No. 162593 September 26, 2006REMEGIA Y. FELICIANO, Subt!tute" b# t$e %e!r o& REMEGIA Y. FELICIANO, ' repree(te" b# NILO Y. FELICIANO, petitioners, vs.S)O*SES A*RELIO '(" L*+ +AL,I-AR, respondents.D E C I S I O NCALLE.O, SR., J.:Before the Court is the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Heirs of e!e"ia #. $eliciano %as represented by Nilo #. $eliciano& see'in" the reversal of the Decision( dated )uly *(, +,,* of the Court of -ppeals %C-& in C-./.. C0 No. 112(( which ordered the dis!issal of the co!plaint filed by e!e"ia #. $eliciano+ for declaration of nullity oftitle and reconveyance of property. 3he assailed decision of the appellate court reversed and set aside that of the e"ional 3rial Court %3C& of Ca"ayan de Oro City, Branch +2 in Civil Case No. 4+.5+*.3he factual and procedural antecedents of the present case are as follows6e!e"ia #. $eliciano filed a"ainst the spouses -urelio and 7u8 9aldivar a co!plaint for declaration of nullity of 3ransfer Certificate of 3itle %3C3& No. 3.(:44* and reconveyance of the property covered therein consistin" of +5* s;uare !eters of lot situated in Ca"ayan de Oro City. 3he said title is re"istered in the na!e of -urelio 9aldivar.In her co!plaint, e!e"ia alle"ed that she was the re"istered owner of a parcel of land situated in the District of 7apasan in Ca"ayan de Oro City with an area of 555 s;uare !eters, covered by 3C3 No. 3.ect lot to I"nacio /il for ?(,,.,,, which, however, did not push throu"h because /il too' bac' the !oney without returnin" the receipt she had si"ned as evidence of the supposed !ort"a"e contract. 3hereafter, in (4:5, -urelio filed with the then Court of $irst Instance of @isa!is Oriental a petition for partial cancellation of 3C3 No. 3.oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale that she and her uncle, Narciso7abunto", purportedly eAecuted before a notary public, where e!e"ia appears to have confir!ed the sale of the sub>ect property to /il. She alle"ed that she neverparted with the certificate of title and that it was never lost. -s proof that the sale of the sub>ect lot never transpired, e!e"ia pointed out that the transaction was not annotated on 3C3 No. 3.ect lot by purchase fro! Dal!anwho, in turn, bou"ht the sa!e fro! /il on -pril 5, (42(. /il alle"edly purchased the sub>ect lot fro! e!e"ia and this sale was alle"edly confor!ed and ratified by the latter and her uncle, Narciso7abunto", before a notary public on Dece!ber *, (412.-fter -urelio obtained a loan fro! the /overn!ent Service Insurance Syste! %/SIS&, the spouses 9aldivar constructed their house on the sub>ect lot. 3hey alle"ed that they and their predecessors.in.interest had been occupyin" the said property since (45: openly, publicly, adversely and continuously or for over 5( years already. -urelio filed a petition for the issuance of a new owner=s duplicate copy of 3C3 No. 3.urisdiction.B* -urelio=s use of a false affidavit of loss, accordin" to the court a ;uo, was si!ilar to the use durin" trial of a for"ed docu!ent or per>ured testi!ony that prevented the adverse party, e!e"ia, fro! presentin" her case fully and fairly.3he 3C li'ewise noted that no public instru!ent was presented in evidence conveyancin" or transferrin" title to thesub>ect lot fro! e!e"ia to Dal!an, the alle"ed predecessor.in.interest of the spouses 9aldivar. 3he only evidence presented by the said spouses was a >oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale purportedly si"ned by e!e"ia and her uncle, the eAecution of which was denied by the latter=s children. 3he certificate of title of the spouses 9aldivar over the sub>ect property was characteri8ed as irre"ular because it was issued in a calculated !ove to deprive e!e"ia of do!inical ri"hts over her own property. $urther, the spouses 9aldivar could not set up the defense of indefeasibility of 3orrens title since this defense does not eAtend to a transferor who ta'es the certificate of title with notice of a flaw therein. e"istration, thus, did not vest title in favor of the spousesC neither could they rely on their adverse or continuous possession over the sub>ect lot for over 5( years, as this could not prevail over the title of the re"istered owner pursuant to Sections 2,5 and 2(2 of -ct No. 541, otherwise 'nown as 3he 7and e"istration -ct.3he dispositive portion of the decision of the court a ;uo reads6IN 3HE 7I/H3 O$ 3HE $OE/OIN/, and by preponderance of evidence, >ud"!ent is hereby rendered cancelin" 3C3 3.(:44* and reconveyance of +5* s;uare !eters the title and possession of the sa!e, by vacatin" and turnin"over possession of the +5* s;uare !eters of the sub>ect property to the plaintiff Dreferrin" to e!e"iaE which is part of the land absolutely owned by the plaintiff covered by D3C3E 3.oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale eAecuted before notary public $rancisco 0ele8 on Dece!ber *, (412, e!e"ia and her uncle, Narciso7abunto", confir!ed the sale by e!e"ia of the sub>ect lot to /il and its subse;uent conveyance to Dal!an. ?er EAhibit B1,B the C- li'ewise found that Dal!an had declared the sub>ect lot for taAation purposes in his na!e. In (412, Dal!an sold the sa!e to the spouses 9aldivar who, in turn, had it re"istered in their na!es for taAation purposes be"innin" (4:5. -lso in the sa!e year, -urelio filed with the then C$Iof @isa!is Oriental a petition for the issuance of a new owner=s duplicate copy of 3C3 No. 3.ect lot. 3he C$I issued an order "rantin" the petition and, on the basis thereof, the e"ister of Deeds of Ca"ayan de Oro City issued 3C3 No. 3.(:44* coverin" the sub>ect lot in -urelio=s na!e.Based on the fore"oin" factual findin"s, the appellate court upheld the spouses 9aldivar=s ownership of the sub>ect lot. 3he C- stated that e!e"ia=s clai! that she did not sell the sa!e to /il was belied by EAhibit B2,B a deed which showed that she transferred ownership thereof in favor of /il. 3he fact that the said transaction was not annotated on e!e"ia=s title was not "iven si"nificance by the C- since the lac' of annotation would !erely affect the ri"hts ofpersons who are not parties to the said contract. 3he C- also held that the >oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale eAecuted by e!e"ia and Narciso7abunto" before a notary public was a valid instru!ent, and carried the evidentiary wei"ht conferred upon it with respect to its due eAecution.: @oreover, the C- found that the notary public%-tty. $rancisco 0ele8& who notari8ed the said docu!ent testified not only to its due eAecution and authenticity but also to the truthfulness of its contents. 3he contradiction between the testi!onies of the children of Narciso7abunto"and the notary public %-tty. 0ele8&, accordin" to the C-, casts doubt on the credibility of the for!er as it was ostensible that their version of the story was concocted.ud"e who issued the order for the issuance of the new owner=s duplicate copy of 3C3 No. 3.ect lot was barred by estoppel or laches.e.in concludin" that the respondents %defendants.appellants& are the absolute owners of the sub>ect lot based on tct no. (:44* issued to the!.f.in obviatin" essential and relevant facts, had it been properly appreciated, would !aintain absolute ownership of petitioner %plaintiff.appellee& over the sub>ect lot as evidenced by eAistin" tct no. t.oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale purportedly eAecuted by e!e"ia and her uncle, Narciso7abunto", is not proper. In the first place, respondent -urelio cannot rely on the >oint affidavit of confir!ation of sale to prove that they had validly ac;uired the sub>ect lot because, by itself, an affidavit is not a !ode of ac;uirin" ownership.(: @oreover, the affidavit is written entirely in En"lish in this wise6)OIN3 -$$ID-0I3 O$ CON$I@-3ION O$ S-7E (ect lot was conveyed by I"nacio /il to ?ioDal!an, it did not say whether the conveyance was by sale, donation or any other !ode of transfer. $inally, it did not also state how the ownership of the sub>ect lot was transferred fro! ?ioDal!an to respondent -urelio or respondents.espondents= clai! that they had been occupyin" the sub>ect lot since (45: openly, publicly, adversely and continuously or for over 5( years is unavailin". In a lon" line of cases,++ the Court has consistently ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be ac;uired by prescription or adverse possession. - clai! of ac;uisitive prescription is baseless when the land involved is a re"istered land followin" -rticle ((+1+* of the Civil Code in relation to Section 51 of -ct No. 541 or the 7and e"istration -ct %now Section 5:+5 of ?.D. No (2+4&6-ppellants= clai! of ac;uisitive prescription is li'ewise baseless. Hnder -rticle ((+1 of the Civil Code, prescription of ownership of lands re"istered under the 7and e"istration -ct shall be "overned by special laws. Correlatively, -ct No. 541 provides that no title to re"istered land in dero"ation of that of the re"istered owner shall be ac;uired by adverse possession. Conse;uently, proof of possession by the defendants is both i!!aterial and inconse;uential.+2Neither can the respondents spouses 9aldivar rely on the principle of indefeasibility of 3C3 No. (::4* which was issued on Septe!ber (,, (4:5 in favor of respondent -urelio. -s it is, the sub>ect lot is covered by two different titles6 3C3 No. 3.ect lot. -urelio=s title over the sub>ect lot has not beco!e indefeasible, by virtue of the fact that 3C3 No. 3.ect lot to the respondents. ?etitioners cannot refuse to eAercise either option and co!pel respondents to re!ove their house fro! the land.*5 In case petitioners choose to eAercise the second option, respondents are not obli"ed to purchase the sub>ect lot if its value is considerably !ore than the i!prove!ents thereon and in which case, respondents !ust pay rent to petitioners. If they are unable to a"ree on the ter!s of the lease, the court shall fiA the ter!s thereof.In li"ht of the fore"oin" dis;uisition, the Court finds it unnecessary to resolve the procedural issues raised by petitioners.FHEE$OE, the petition is /-N3ED. 3he Decision dated )uly *(, +,,* and esolution dated $ebruary 5, +,,5 of the Court of -ppeals in C-./.. C0 No. 112(( are E0ESED and SE3 -SIDE. 3he Decision dated Dece!ber *, (444 of the e"ional 3rial Court of Ca"ayan de Oro City, Branch +2 in Civil Case No. 4+.5+* is EINS3-3ED with the @ODI$IC-3ION that petitioners are li'ewise ordered to eAercise the option under -rticle 55< of the Civil Code.SO ODEED.G.R. No. 1/06// .u0# 31, 2013-S, REAL1Y 2 ,E-ELO)MEN1 COR)ORA1ION, ?etitioner, vs.*NI3I,E SALES, INC. '(" ,OLORES 4AELLO 1E.A,A, espondents. E S O 7 H 3 I O N)ERAL1A, J.:3his is a !otion for reconsideration of the Decision( dated October +5, +,(+, the dispositive portion of which reads6FHEE$OE, the petition is /-N3ED. 3he Decision of the Court of -ppeals dated @ay *,, +,,2 and its esolution dated Dece!ber 1, +,,2 in C-./.. +0 No. 14ect property was be;ueathed to her throu"h a will by her adoptive !other, )acoba/alauran. She alle"ed that durin" the lifeti!e of )acoba/alauran, the sub>ect property was ori"inally surveyed on )anuary +5.+1, (4+*: and, thereafter, on Dece!ber +4, (4+5.ect lot covered by 3C3 No. +ointly and severally, to pay a >ust and reasonable co!pensation per !onth of ?(,+,,,,,,.,, with le"al interest for the occupancy and use of plaintiffQs land fro! Septe!ber (+, (445, until actually vacated by the!C5. Defendants, >ointly and severally, to pay attorneyQs fees of ?+,,,,,,.,,.SO ODEED.(5espondents appealed the trial court=s decision to the Court of -ppeals, which rendered a Decision dated @ay *,, +,,2 in favor of respondents, and reversed and set aside the Decision of the 3C and dis!issed petitioner=s co!plaint.3he Court of -ppeals stated that the !ain issue to be resolved was whether or not there was a valid "round to annulrespondent BaelloQs 3C3 No. %*2:ect propertyC +& 3his honorable Court seriously erred in findin" that respondent BaelloQs 3C3 No. %*2:ect property to $elisa D. Bonifacio, had the ri"ht and interest over the sub>ect property, and whether Eleuteria ivera Bonifacio was entitled to assi"n her alle"ed ri"hts and interests over the sub>ect property, 'nown as 7ot +*.-.5.B.+.-.*.-, ?sd :,1, covered by OC3 No. 445, to $elisa D. BonifacioC%*& Fhether the copy of$elisaBonifacioQs 3C3 No. +12:::O3.(*+2 was ta!pered with to fraudulently reflect that it was derived fro! the le"iti!ate and authentic OC3 No. 445 dated @ay *, (4(:C%5& Fhether respondent BaelloQs 3C3 No. %*2:ect No. +< per 7. C. @ap No. +252 of Consolacion, Cebu certified under $orestry -d!inistrative Order No. 5.(,1* dated Septe!ber (, (412. %E!phasis Supplied&3his is to certify further that the sub>ect area is outside Tot'ot.7usaran Fatershed eservation per ?residential ?rocla!ation No. (,:5 dated Sept. +, (44:.3his certification is issued upon the re;uest of @r. ConstancioCeni8a for the purpose of ascertainin" the land classification status only and does not entitle hi! preferentialOpriority ri"hts of possession until deter!ined by co!petent authorities.$EDENCIO ?. C-EONOIC, Co!!unity Environ!entN Natural esources OfficerHowever, followin" our rulin" in epublic of the ?hilippines v. 3.-.N. ?roperties, Inc.,5( this CENO Certification by itself is insufficient to establish that a public land is alienable and disposable. Fhile the certification refers to $orestry -d!inistrative Order No. 5.(,1* dated Septe!ber (, (412, the respondent should have sub!itted a certified true copy thereof to substantiate the alienable character of the land. In any case, the Court does not need to further discuss whether the respondent was able to overco!e the burden of provin" that the land no lon"er for!spart of the public do!ain to support her application for ori"inal land re"istration because of other deficiencies in her application. Indeed, the respondent failed to !eet the re;uired period of possession and occupation for purposes of prescription.$ro! the ti!e of the declaration on Septe!ber (, (412 that the properties in ;uestion are purportedly alienable and disposable up to the filin" of the application of the respondent on )uly (:, (442, the respondent and her predecessors.in.interest had possessed and occupied the said properties for only +4 years and (, !onths, short of two !onths to co!plete the whole *,.year possession period. /rantin" por ar"uendo that the respondent and her predecessors.in.interest had possessed and occupied the sub>ect lots since (45ect to certain ;ualifications, and this court was careful to observe that a!on" these ;ualifications is Bone particularly relatin" to the si8e of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of the clai!ant.B Fhile, therefore, Bpossession in the eyes of the law does not !ean that a !an has to have his feet on every s;uare !eter of "round before it can be said that he is in possession,B possession under para"raph 1 of Section 25 of -ct No. 4+1, as a!ended by para"raph %b& of Section 52 of -ct No. +, -'/A. Dnfortnately, he diedD2E "efore he 1as a"le to s"mit himself for cross*e6amination and so his testimony had to "e stric$en off the record. His only srviving daghter, Marietta #yeg$eng, stood as the s"stitte :petitioner; in this case.9he testified that she prchased %ot '()*A*+ 7the property s"!ect matter of this case8 from her late father sometime in -''( and constrcted a hose thereon in the same year5 that she "ecame a1are of this case "ecase her late father sed to commte to #e" #ity to attend to this case5 and that %ot '()*A*+ is in her name per ,ransfer #ertificate of ,itle E--)./- of the Registry of Deeds for #e".D1ERu0!(; o& t$e Court o& Appe'03he C- found respondents action not barred by res >udicata, because there was no identity of causes of action between the ?etition for cancellation of adverse clai! in 7..C. ecords 24