G.R. No.

103727 December 18, 1996 Considering the vastness of the land claim,
innumerable disputes cropped up and land
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE DON swindles and rackets proliferated resulting in
MARIANO SAN PEDRO Y ESTEBAN, tedious litigation in various trial courts, in the
represented by its HEIR-JUDICIAL appellate court and in the Supreme Court, 3 in
ADMINISTRATOR, ENGRACIO F. SAN connection therewith.
PEDRO, petitioner-appellant,
vs. We have had the impression that our
COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division) decisions in Director of Forestry, et
AURELIO OCAMPO, DOMINADOR D. al. v. Muñoz, 23 SCRA 1183 [1968]; Antonio,
BUHAIN, TERESA C. DELA et al. v. Barroga, et al., 23 SCRA 357
CRUZ, respondents-appellees. [1968]; Carabot, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
al., 145 SCRA 368 [1986]; Republic
G.R. No. 106496 December 18, 1996 v. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 186
SCRA 88 [1990]; Widows and Orphans
ENGRACIO SAN PEDRO, CANDIDO Association, Inc. (WIDORA) v. Court of
GENER, ROSA PANTALEON, VICENTE Appeals, et al., 212 SCRA 360
PANTALEON, ELEUTERIO PANTALEON, [1992]; NAPOCOR v. Court of Appeals, et al.,
TRINIDAD SAN PEDRO, RODRIGO SAN 144 SCRA 318 [1986]; Republic v. Court of
PEDRO, RICARDO NICOLAS, FELISA Appeals, et al., 135 SCRA 156 [1985];
NICOLAS, and LEONA SAN and Director of lands v. Tesalona, 236 SCRA
PEDRO, petitioners, 336 [1994] 4 terminated the controversy as to
vs. ownership of lands covered by Spanish Land
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Titles, for it is the rule that, once this Court,
(Sixteenth Division) and REPUBLIC OF as the highest Tribunal of the land, has
THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. spoken, there the matter must rest:

It is withal of the essence of the

judicial function that at some
point, litigation must end,
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:p Hence, after the procedures
and processes for lawsuits have
The most fantastic land claim in the history of been undergone, and the
the Philippines is the subject of controversy in modes of review set by law
these two consolidated cases. The heirs of have been exhausted, or
the late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban laid terminated, no further
claim and have been laying claim to the ventilation of the same subject
ownership of, against third persons and the matter is allowed. To be sure,
Government itself, a total land area of there may be, on the part of the
approximately 173,000 hectares or losing parties, continuing
1
"214,047 quiniones,"   on the basis of a disagreement with the verdict,
Spanish title, entitled "Titulo de Propriedad and the conclusions therein
Numero 4136" dated April 25, 1894. The embodied. This is of no
claim, according to the San Pedro heirs, moment, indeed, is to be
appears to cover lands in the provinces of expected; but, it is not their will,
Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and but the Court's, which must
Quezon; and such Metro Manila cities as prevail; and, to repeat, public
Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, City policy demands that at some
of Pasig and City of Manila, thus affecting in definite time, the issues must be
general lands extending from Malolos, laid to rest and the court's
Bulacan to the City Hall of Quezon City and dispositions thereon accorded
the land area between Dingalan Bay in the absolute finality. 5 [Cited cases
north and Tayabas Bay in the south.2 omitted]
It is, therefore, to the best interest of the In the complaint, it was alleged, among
people and the Government that we render others: (1) that Engracio San Pedro
judgment herein writing finis to these discovered that the aforenamed defendants
controversies by laying to rest the issue of were able to secure from the Registry of
validity of the basis of the estate's claim of Deeds of Quezon City titles to portions of the
ownership over this vast expanse of real subject estate, particularly Transfer
property. Certificates of Title Nos. 1386, 8982, 951975-
951977, 313624, 279067, 1412, 353054,
The following facts are pertinent in the 372592, 149120, 86404, 17874-17875, all
resolution of these long drawn-out cases: emanating from Original Certificate of Title
No. 614 9 and Transfer Certificates of Title
G.R. NO. 103727 Nos. 255544 and 264124, both derivatives of
Original Certificate of Title No. 333; (2) that
G.R No. 103727, an appeal by certiorari, the aforesaid defendants were able to acquire
arose out of a complaint 6 for recovery of exclusive ownership and possession of
possession and/or damages with a prayer for certain portions of the subject estate in their
a writ of preliminary injunction. This was names through deceit, fraud, bad faith and
dismissed by the Regional Trial Court, misrepresentation; (3) that Original
National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 104, Certificates of Title Nos. 614 and 333 had
Quezon City in its decision 7 dated July 7, been cancelled by and through a final and
1989, the dispositive portion 8 of which reads: executory decision dated March 21, 1988 in
relation to letter recommendations by the
WHEREFORE, judgment is Bureau of Lands, Bureau of Forest
hereby rendered, dismissing the Development and the Office of the Solicitor
complaint against the General and also in relation to Central Bank
defendants Aurelio Ocampo, Circulars dated April 7, 1971, April 23, 1971,
Dominador Buhain and Teresa September 12, 1972 and June 10, 1980; and
dela Cruz and ordering plaintiff (4) that the issue of the existence, validity and
to pay each of the herein genuineness of Titulo Propriedad No. 4136
defendants, the sum of FIVE dated April 25, 1894 which covers the subject
THOUSAND PESOS estate had been resolved in favor of the
(P5,000.00) as and for petitioner estate in a decision dated April 25,
attorney's fees, and to pay the 1978 by the defunct Court of First Instance,
costs of suit. Branch 1 of Baliwag, Bulacan pertaining to a
case docketed as Special Proceeding No.
The said complaint for recovery of 312-B. 10
possession of real property and/or
reconveyance with damages and with a Summons were served on only five of the
prayer for preliminary injunction was filed on aforementioned defendants, namely, Aurelio
August 15, 1988 by Engracio San Pedro as Ocampo, MARECO, Inc., Teresita G. dela
heir-judicial administrator of the "Intestate Cruz, Dominador Buhain and Manuel Chung
Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban" and Victoria Chung Tiu. 11
against Jose G. De Ocampo, Aurelio
Ocampo, MARECO, Inc., Rey Antonio On February 7, 1989, the lower court ordered
Noguera, Teresa C. dela Cruz, Gaudencio R the dismissal of the complaint against
Soliven, Diomedes Millan, Carmen Rayasco, Mareco, Inc. for improper service of
Dominador D. Buhain, Mario D. Buhain, Jose summons and against Manuel Chung and
D. Buhain, Arestedes S. Cauntay, Manuel Victoria Chung Tiu for lack of cause of action
Chung and Victoria Chung Tiu (El Mavic considering that the registered owner of the
Investment & Development Corporation), parcel of land covered by TCT No. 86404 is
Capitol Hills Realty Corporation and Jose F. El Mavic Investment and Development Co.,
Castro. The complaint was docketed as Civil Inc., not Manuel Chung and Victoria Chung
Case No. Q-88-447 in Branch 104, Regional Tiu. 12
Trial Court of Quezon City.
Trial on the merits proceeded against the (5) there is no evidence
private respondents Ocampo, Buhain and showing that OCT No. 614 from
Dela Cruz. which titles of Ocampo, Buhain
and Dela Cruz originated was
On July 7, 1989, the lower court rendered already cancelled, hence, the
judgment dismissing the complaint based on lower court did not err in not
the following grounds: (a) Ocampo, Buhain declaring the same as null and
and Dela Cruz are already the registered void. 16
owners of the parcels of land covered by
Torrens titles which cannot be defeated by Not having obtained a favorable judgment on
the alleged Spanish title, Titulo Propriedad appeal, the petitioner estate, on March 16,
No. 4136, covering the subject estate; and (b) 1992, filed the present petition 17 docketed as
the decision of the Court of First Instance of G.R. No. 103727.
Bulacan entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate
Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro y G.R. NO. 106496
Esteban" specifically stated in its dispositive
portion that all lands which have already been G.R. No. 106496, a petition for review
legally and validly titled under the Torrens on certiorari, began as a
System by private persons shall be excluded 18
petition   for letters of administration over the
from the coverage of Titulo Propriedad No. intestate estate of the late Mariano San
4136. 13 Pedro y Esteban which eventually resulted to
an Order 19 dated November 17, 1978
The motion for reconsideration thereof was declaring inter alia, Titulo de Propriedad No.
denied, 14 and so, the petitioner estate 4136 as null and void and of no legal force
interposed an appeal with the Court of and effect.
Appeals. On January 20, 1992, the appeal
was dismissed 15 for being unmeritorious and The dispositive portion 20 of the said Order
the lower court's decision was affirmed with reads:
costs against the petitioner estate. The
appellate court ratiocinated: WHEREFORE, this Court so
orders that:
(1) neither the Titulo Propriedad
No. 4136 nor a genuine copy 1) The Decision dated April 25,
thereof was presented in the 1978 is reconsidered and set
proceeding below; aside.

(2) the illegible copy of the 2) Titulo de Propriedad No.

Titulo presented in court was 4136 is declared null and void
not registered under the and of no legal force and effect
Torrens system hence, it cannot and that therefore no rights
be used as evidence of land could be derived therefrom.
ownership;
3) All orders approving the
(3) the CFI decision invoked by sales, conveyances, donations
petitioner estate in its favor or any other transactions
expressly excluded from the involving the lands covered by
Titulo titled lands of private Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136
individuals; are declared invalidated, void
and of no force and effect.
(4) the Titulo is inferior to that of
the registered titles of Ocampo, 4) All lands covered by Titulo de
Buhain and Dela Cruz as Propriedad No. 4136 are
correctly ruled by the lower excluded from the inventory of
court; the estate of the late Mariano
San Pedro y Esteban.
 5) The heirs, agents, privies or On March 2, 1972, then Presiding Judge
anyone acting for and in behalf Juan F. Echiverri issued an Order appointing
of the estate of the late Mariano Engracio San Pedro as Administrator of the
San Pedro y Esteban are subject estate. 22
enjoined from representing or
exercising any acts of On March 11, 1972, the Court issued letters
possession or ownership or of administration in favor of Engracio San
from disposing in any manner Pedro upon posting of a bond in the sum of
portions of all the lands covered Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). 23
by Titulo de Propriedad No.
4136 and to immediately vacate On February 7, 1974, Administrator Engracio
the same. San Pedro was ordered to furnish copies of
the letters of administration and other
6) Engracio San Pedro and pertinent orders approving certain
Justino Benito as co- dispositions of the properties of the estate to
administrators submit in Court the following entities:
within twenty days their final
accounting and inventory of all (a) The Commanding General
real and personal properties of Philippine Constabulary
the estate which had come into Camp Crame, Quezon City
their possession or knowledge
under oath. (b) The Solicitor General
Manila
7) This case is hereby re-
opened, to allow movants- (c) The Government Corporate
intervenors to continue with the Counsel
presentation of their evidence in A. Mabini St., Manila
order to rest their case.
(d) The City Mayors of Quezon
The consideration and approval City & Caloocan
of the administrator's final
accounting and inventory of the (e) The Governors of Rizal,
presentation of movants- Quezon and Bulacan
intervenors' evidence as well as
the consideration of all other (f) The City Treasurers of
incidents are hereby set on Quezon City and Caloocan
December 22, 1978 at 8:30
a.m. (g) The Provincial Treasurers of
Quezon, Bulacan and Rizal
The aforementioned petition for letters of
administration over the intestate estate of the (h) The PHHC, Diliman, Quezon
late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban was filed City
on December 29, 1971 with the defunct Court
of First Instance of Bulacan, Fifth Judicial (i) The PAHRRA Quezon
District, Branch IV, Baliuag, Bulacan. The Boulevard, Quezon City
petition docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 312-B was
initiated by Engracio San Pedro and Justino (j) The Municipal Treasurers of
Z. Benito who sought to be appointed as the various municipalities in
administrator and co-administrator, which properties of the estate
respectively. are located; and

On February 29, 1972, after the jurisdictional (k) Office of Civil Relations,
facts were established, evidence for the Camp Crame, Quezon City and
petitioners was received by the lower court Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon
without any opposition. 21 City. 24
The above Order was issued so as to protect (sic) already the subject of valid
the general public from any confusion brought adjudication or disposition in
about by various persons who had been accordance with law, the same
misrepresenting themselves as having been belong in State ownership.25
legally authorized to act for the subject estate
and to sell its properties by virtue thereof. On February 15, 1977, the Republic filed a
Motion to Suspend
26
On August 30, 1976, a Motion for Intervention Proceedings. 
and an Opposition to the Petition was filed by
the Republic of the Philippines alleging, inter On February 16, 1977, the Republic's
alia: Opposition to the Petition for Letters of
Administration was dismissed by means of
4. That under Presidential the following Order issued by Judge Benigno
Decree No. 892, dated Puno:
February 16, 1976, Spanish
titles like the TITULO is WHEREFORE, for lack of
absolutely inadmissible and jurisdiction to determine the
ineffective as proof of legal issues raised, the Court
ownership in court proceedings, hereby DISMISSES the
except where the holder thereof "Opposition" dated August 30,
applies for land registration 1976, filed by the Office of the
under Act 496, which is not true Solicitor General; likewise, for
in the proceedings at bar; lack of merit, the Motion to
Suspend Proceedings dated
5. That no less than the February 15, 1977, filed by the
Supreme Court had declared Office of the Solicitor General is
TITULO DE PROPIEDAD NO. DENIED.
4136 as invalid;
The administrator Engracio San
6. That, moreover, the late Don Pedro and the Co-administrator
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban Justino Z. Benito are ordered to
and/or his supposed heirs have furnish the office of the Solicitor
lost whatever rights of General all copies of inventories
ownership they might have had already filed in Court within ten
to the so-called Estate on the (10) days from notice hereof. 27
ground of inaction, laches
and/or prescription; On March 9, 1977, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by the
7. That, accordingly, there is no Republic. 28
estate or property to be
administered for purposes of On April 25, 1978, the lower court then
inventory, settlement or presided over by Judge Agustin C. Bagasao,
distribution in accordance with rendered a 52-page decision, the dispositive
law, and all the inventories so portion of which reads:
far submitted, insofar as they
embraced lands within the WHEREFORE, judgment is
TITULO, are deemed ineffective hereby rendered:
and cannot be legally
considered; and (a) Declaring the existence,
genuineness and authenticity of
8. That the Republic of the Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136
Philippines has a legal interest of the Registry of Deeds of
in the land subject matter of the Bulacan, issued on April 29,
petition considering that, except 1984, in the name of the
such portions thereof had been deceased Don Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban, covering a to take effect immediately, to
total area of approximately obviate any confusion in the
214,047 quiniones or 173,000 administration of the Estate,
hectares, situated in the and to fix the responsibilities of
Provinces of Bulacan, Rizal, administration to the co-heir
Quezon, Quezon City and Administrator, Engracio San
Caloocan City; Pedro, whose appointment as
such is hereby confirmed. The
(b) Declaring Engracio San said co-administrator Justino Z.
Pedro, Candido Gener, Benito is hereby ordered to
Santiago Gener, Rosa render his final accounting of
Pantaleon, Vicente Pantaleon, his co-administration of the
Eleuterio Pantaleon, Trinidad Estate, within thirty (30) days
San Pedro, Rodrigo San Pedro, from receipt of copy hereof;
Ricardo Nicolas, and Teresa
Nicolas, as the true and lawful (d) The Co-Heir-Administrator,
heirs of the deceased Don Engracio San Pedro is hereby
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban ordered to amass, collate,
and entitled to inherit the consolidate and take
intestate estate left by the said possession of all the net estate
deceased, consisting of the of the deceased Don Marino
above-mentioned tract of San Pedro y Esteban, as well
private land covered and as all other sets and credits
described by said above- lawfully belonging to the estate
mentioned Titulo de Propriedad and/or to take appropriate legal
No. 4136 of the Registry of action to recover the same in
Deeds of Bulacan, excluding the proper Courts of Justice,
therefrom: (a) all lands which government offices or any
have already been legally and appropriate forum; and to pay
validly titled under the Torrens all taxes or charges due from
System, by private persons, or the estate to the Government,
the Republic of the Philippines, and all indebtedness of the
or any of its instrumentalities or estate, and thereafter, to submit
agencies; (b) all lands declared a project of partition of the
by the government as estate among the lawful heirs
reservations for public use and as herein recognized and
purposes; (c) all lands declared.
belonging to the public domain;
and, (d) all portions thereof It is, however, strongly
which had been sold, recommended to His
quitclaimed and/or previously Excellency, President
excluded by the Administrator Ferdinand E. Marcos that, to
and duly approved by a final avoid the concentration of too
order of the Court, except those much land to a few persons and
which may hereafter be set in line with the projected urban
aside, after due consideration land reform program of the
on a case to case basis, of government, corollary to the
various motions to set aside the agricultural land reform program
said Court order which of the New Society, the above
approved the said sales, quit- intestate estate of the late Don
claims, and/or exclusions; Mariano San Pedro y Esteban
should be expropriated or
(c) The designation of Atty. purchased by negotiated sale
Justino Z. Benito as co- by the government to be used in
administrator, is hereby revoked
 its human settlements and low subject Spanish title under Act No. 496 (Land
cost housing projects. Registration Act) as required by Presidential
Decree No. 892 (Discontinuance of the
No Costs. Spanish Mortgage System of Registration
and of the Use of Spanish Titles as Evidence
SO ORDERED. 29 in Land Registration Proceedings).

On May 17, 1978, the Republic moved for a The petitioners-heirs moved for a
reconsideration of the above decision. 30 reconsideration of the Court of Appeals'
decision by invoking certain cases wherein
On June 5, 1978, administrator Engracio San the validity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136
Pedro filed a Manifestation and Petition for had been allegedly recognized. The Court of
the Inhibition of the then newly appointed Appeals refused to be swayed and denied the
Presiding Judge Oscar Fernandez. On July motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. 35
12, 1978, after the Republic filed its Reply to
the Petition for Inhibition, Judge Fernandez Hence, the herein petition, 36 docketed as G.
denied the said petition. 31 R. No. 106496, was filed on September 18,
1992.
After hearings were conducted on the
Republic's Motion for Reconsideration, Judge After the parties filed their respective
Fernandez issued the aforestated pleadings in G.R. Nos. 103727 and 106496,
Order 32 dated November 17, 1978 which, in this Court resolved to consolidate both cases
essence, set aside Judge Bagasao's decision on September 15,
3
dated April 25, 1978 by declaring Titulo de 1994.   7
Propriedad No. 4136 as null and void and of
no legal force and effect, thus, excluding all While these cases were pending before us,
lands covered by Titulo de Propriedad No. several parties filed separate motions for
4136 from the inventory of the estate of the intervention which we denied on different
late Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. occasions for lack of merit.

The petitioners-heirs of the late Mariano San In G.R No. 103727, the grounds relied upon
Pedro y Esteban appealed to the Court of for the grant of the petition are as follows:
Appeals and alleged that the lower court did
not act with impartiality when it granted the I. That petitioner-appellant as
Republic's motion for reconsideration which plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-88-
was merely pro forma, thereby overturning a 447, RTC, Branch 104 was
prior declaration by the same court of the denied due process of law due
existence, genuineness and authenticity of to gross negligence of lawyer,
Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 in the name of which respondent court grossly
the deceased Mariano San Pedro. 33 failed to take cognizance of.

On March 11, 1992, the Court of Appeals II. That the respondent court
dismissed the appeal of the petitioners- committed grave abuse of
heirs.34 In affirming the assailed Order dated discretion tantamount to lack of
November 17, 1978, the appellate court jurisdiction in not remanding the
focused its discussion solely on the issue of case for trial and in affirming the
whether or not the lower court erred in lower court's null and void
declaring Titulo de Priopriedad No. 4136 null judgment.38
and void. The appellate court ruled that the
petitioners-heirs failed to controvert the In G.R No. 106496, the petitioners-heirs
Republic's claim that Titulo de Propriedad No. present the following assignment of errors, to
4136 is invalid on the following bases; (a) wit:
non-production of the original of the subject
title; (b) inadmissibility of the photostat copies First. Respondent Court of
of the said title; and (c) non-registration of the Appeals affirmed the appealed
order which resolved a question Court upholding the Guido
of title or ownership over which title. 43
the lower court as an intestate
court has no jurisdiction and Of paramount importance over and above the
over the vigorous and repeated central issue of the probative value of the
objections of the petitioners. 39 petitioners' Spanish title in these cases is the
propriety of the lower court's resolution of the
Second. Respondent Court of question of ownership of the subject San
Appeals erred in upholding the Pedro estate in the special proceedings case.
order of Judge Fernandez Thus, before we address ourselves to the
setting aside the order and issue of whether or not petitioners' Titulo de
decision of Judge Puno and Propriedad No. 4136 is null and void and of
Bagasao; Judge Fernandez no legal force and effect, it is best that we first
thereby acted as an appellate determine whether or not the lower court,
court reviewing, revising, acting as a probate court, in the petition for
amending or setting aside the letters of administration, committed grave
order and decision of Judges of abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
equal rank. 40 jurisdiction in settling the issue of ownership
of the San Pedro estate covered by Titulo
Third. Respondent Court of Propriedad No. 4136.
Appeals has no jurisdiction to
uphold the order of Judge Petitioners-heirs, in G.R No. 106496, on the
Fernandez who without one hand, contend that the lower court, then
jurisdiction, set aside the order CFI, Bulacan, Branch IV, had no jurisdiction
of Judge Puno and the decision as an "intestate court" 44 to resolve the
of Judge Bagasao, both of question of title or ownership raised by the
which were already final. 41 public respondent Republic of the Philippines,
through the Office of the Solicitor General in
Fourth. Respondent Court of the intestate proceedings of the estate of
Appeals was unmindful of the Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. 45
fact that Judge Fernandez was
appointed by President Marcos The public respondent, on the other hand,
to reverse Judge Bagasao, invoking its sovereign capacity as parens
regardless of the evidence, patriae, argues that petitioners' contention is
thereby unmindful that misplaced considering that when the
petitioners were denied the cold Republic questioned the existence of the
neutrality of an impartial estate of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, the
tribunal.42 lower court became duty-bound to rule on the
genuineness and validity of Titulo de
Fifth. Respondent Court of Propriedad 4136 which purportedly covers
Appeals erred in not the said estate, otherwise, the lower court in
considering the evidence the intestate proceedings would be
presented before Judges mistakenly dealing with properties that are
Echiverri, Puno and Bagasao proven to be part of the State's patrimony or
and merely adopted the order of improperly included as belonging to the
Judge Fernandez who never estate of the deceased. 46
received a single piece of
evidence, notwithstanding the A probate court's jurisdiction is not limited to
1906 Guide title over Hacienda the determination of who the heirs are and
Angono in Binangonan, Rizal, what shares are due them as regards the
the boundary owner stated estate of a deceased person. Neither is it
therein being Don Mariano San confined to the issue of the validity of wills.
Pedro y Esteban, and the We held in the case of Maniñgat
November 1991 en v. Castillo, 4 7 that "the main function of a
banc decision of the Supreme probate court is to settle and liquidate the
estates of deceased persons either interested in the properties of a
summarily or through the process of deceased person duly call the
administration." Thus, its function necessarily court's attention to the fact that
includes the examination of the properties, certain properties, rights or
rights and credits of the deceased so as to credits have been left out in the
rule on whether or not the inventory of the inventory, it is likewise the
estate properly included them for purposes of court's duty to hear the
distribution of the net assets of the estate of observations, with power to
the deceased to the lawful heirs. determine if such observations
should be attended to or not
In the case of Trinidad v. Court of and if the properties referred to
Appeals, 48 we stated, thus: therein belong prima facie to
the intestate, but no such
. . . questions of title to any determination is final and
property apparently still ultimate in nature as to the
belonging to estate of the ownership of the said
50
deceased maybe passed upon properties.   [Emphasis
in the Probate Court, with the Supplied]
consent of all the parties,
without prejudice to third In view of these disquisitions of this Court, we
persons . . . hold that the lower court did not commit any
reversible error when it issued the Order
Parenthetically, questions of title pertaining to dated November 17, 1978 which set aside
the determination prima facie of whether Judge Bagasao's decision dated April 25,
certain properties ought to be included or 1978 and declared Titulo de Propriedad No.
excluded from the inventory and accounting 4136 as null and void, consequently
of the estate subject of a petition for letters of excluding all lands covered by the said title
administration, as in the intestate from the inventory of the estate of the late
proceedings of the estate of the late Mariano Mariano San Pedro y Esteban.
San Pedro y Esteban, maybe resolved by the
probate court. In this light, we echo our A corollary issue sought to be ventilated by
pronouncement in the case of Garcia the petitioners-heirs as regards the assailed
v. Garcia  49 that: Order of November 17, 1978 is the
impropriety of Judge Fernandez' act of
. . . The court which acquired granting the motion for reconsideration filed
jurisdiction over the properties by the public respondent Republic since,
of a deceased person through Judge Fernandez did not personally hear the
the filing of the corresponding intestate case. Petitioners thus dubbed him
proceedings, has supervision as a "reviewing judge." By setting aside the
and control over the said Decision dated April 25, 1978 of his
properties, and under the said predecessors in CFI, Branch IV, Baliuag,
power, it is its inherent duty to Bulacan, namely, Judge Benigno Puno and
see that the inventory submitted Judge Agustin C. Bagasao, respectively,
by the administrator appointed Judge Fernandez, acting as a "reviewing
by it contains all the properties, judge," proceeded without authority and/or
rights and credits which the law jurisdiction.51
requires the administrator to set
out in his inventory. In There is no question that, barring any serious
compliance with this duty, the doubts as to whether the decision arrived at
court has also inherent power to is fair and just, a newly appointed judge who
determine what properties, did not try the case can decide the same as
rights and credits of the long as the record and the evidence are all
deceased should be included in available to him and that the same were
or excluded from the inventory. taken into consideration and thoroughly
Should an heir or person studied. The "reviewing judge" argument of
the petitioners-heirs has no leg to stand on said system which are not yet
considering that "the fact that the judge who covered by Torrens title shall be
penned the decision did not hear a certain considered as unregistered
case in its entirety is not a compelling reason lands.
to jettison his findings and conclusion
inasmuch as the full record was available to All holders of Spanish titles or
him for his perusal." 52 In the case at bar, it is grants should apply for
evident that the 41-page Order dated registration of their lands under
November 17, 1978 of Judge Fernandez Act No. 496, otherwise known
bespeaks of a knowledgeable and analytical as the Land Registration Act,
discussion of the rationale for reconsidering within six (6) months from the
and setting aside Judge Bagasao's Decision effectivity of this decree.
dated April 25, 1978. Thereafter, Spanish titles
cannot be used as evidence of
Considering the definiteness of our holding in land ownership in any
regard to the correctness of Judge registration proceedings under
Fernandez' disposition of the case, i.e., the the Torrens system.
issuance by the lower court of the assailed
Order of November 17, 1978, we now focus Hereafter, all instruments
on the core issue of whether or not the lower affecting lands originally
court in G.R No. 106496 committed reversible registered under the Spanish
error in excluding from the inventory of the Mortgage Law may be recorded
estate of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y under Section 194 of the
Esteban all lands covered by Titulo de Revised Administrative Code,
Propriedad No. 4136 primarily on the ground as amended by Act. 3344.
that the said title is null and void and of no
legal force and effect. Juxtaposed with this is The Whereas clauses of the aforesaid
the issue of whether or not the appellate Decree specify the underlying policies for its
court, in both cases, G.R. Nos. 103727 and passage, to wit:
106496, erred in not recognizing Titulo de
Propriedad No. 4136 as evidence to prove WHEREAS, fraudulent sales,
ownership by the Late Mariano San Pedro of transfers, and other forms of
the lands covered thereby. conveyances of large tracts of
public and private lands to
It is settled that by virtue of Presidential unsuspecting and unwary
Decree No. 892 which took effect on buyers appear to have been
February 16, 1976, the system of registration perpetrated by unscrupulous
under the Spanish Mortgage Law was persons claiming ownership
abolished and all holders of Spanish titles or under Spanish titles or grants of
grants should cause their lands covered dubious origin;
thereby to be registered under the Land
Registration Act 53 within six (6) months from WHEREAS, these fraudulent
the date of effectivity of the said Decree or transactions have often resulted
until August 16, 1976. 54 Otherwise, non- in conflicting claims and
compliance therewith will result in a re- litigations between legitimate
classification of their lands. 55 Spanish titles title holders, bona
can no longer be countenanced as fide occupants or applicants of
indubitable evidence of land ownership. 56 public lands, on the one hand,
and the holders of, or person
Section 1 of the said Decree provides: claiming rights under the said
Spanish titles or grants, on the
Sec. 1. The system of other, thus creating confusion
registration under the Spanish and instability in property
Mortgage Law is discontinued, ownership and threatening the
and all lands recorded under
 peace and order renditions in authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136
the areas affected; in the name of the deceased Mariano San
Pedro y Esteban despite the effectivity of
WHEREAS, statistics in the P.D. No. 892. Judge Fernandez, in setting
Land Registration Commission aside Judge Bagasao's decision, emphasized
show that recording in the that Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, under
system of registration under the P.D. 892, is inadmissible and ineffective as
Spanish Mortgage Law is evidence of private ownership in the special
practically nil and that this proceedings case. He made the following
system has become obsolete; observations as regards the Titulo, to wit:

WHEREAS, Spanish titles to The Solicitor General,

lands which have not yet been articulating on the dire
brought under the operation of consequences of recognizing
the Torrens system, being the nebulous titulo as an
subject to prescription, are now evidence of ownership
ineffective to prove ownership underscored the fact that during
unless accompanied by proof of the pendency of this case,
actual possession; smart speculators and wise
alecks had inveigled innocent
WHEREAS, there is an parties into buying portions of
imperative need to discontinue the so-called estate with
the System of registration under considerations running into
the Spanish Mortgage Law and millions of pesos.
the use of Spanish titles as
evidence in registration Some, under the guise of being
proceedings under the Torrens benign heroes even feigned
system; donations to charitable and
religious organizations,
In the case of Director of Lands v. Heirs of including veterans'
Isabel Tesalona, et al., 57 we took cognizance organizations as smoke screen
of this Decree and thus held that caution and to the gargantuan fraud they
care must be exercised in the acceptance have committed and to hood
and admission of Spanish titles taking into wink further other gullible and
account the numerous fake titles that have unsuspecting victims. 60
been discovered after their supposed
reconstitution subsequent to World War II. In the same light, it does not escape this
Court's onomatopoeic observation that the
In both cases, petitioners-heirs did not then heir-judicial administrator Engracio San
adduce evidence to show that Titulo de Pedro who filed the complaint for recovery of
Propriedad 4136 was brought under the possession and/or reconveyance with
operation of P.D. 892 despite their allegation damages in G.R No. 103727 on August 15,
that they did so on August 13, 1976. 58 Time 1988 invoked Judge Bagasao's Decision of
and again we have held that a mere April 25, 1978 in support of the Titulo's
allegation is not evidence and the party who validity notwithstanding the fact that, by then,
alleges a fact has the burden of proving the said Decision had already been set aside
it. 59 Proof of compliance with P.D. 892 should by Judge Fernandez' Order of November 17,
be the Certificate of Title covering the land 1978. We are in accord with the appellate
registered. courts' holding in G.R No. 103727 insofar as
it concludes that since the Titulo was not
In the petition for letters of administration, it registered under Act No. 496, otherwise
was a glaring error on the part of Judge known as the Land Registration Act, said
Bagasao who rendered the reconsidered Titulo is inferior to the registered titles of the
Decision dated April 25, 1978 to have private respondents Ocampo, Buhain and
declared the existence, genuineness and Dela Cruz.
This Court can only surmise that the reason xxx xxx xxx
for the non-registration of the Titulo under the
Torrens system is the lack of the necessary Sections 3 and 4 of the same
documents to be presented in order to Rule further read:
comply with the provisions of P.D. 892. We
do not discount the possibility that the Sec 4. Secondary evidence
Spanish title in question is not genuine, when original is lost or
especially since its genuineness and due destroyed — When the original
execution have not been proven. In both writing has been lost or
cases, the petitioners heirs were not able to destroyed, or cannot be
present the original of Titulo de Propriedad produced in court, upon proof of
No. 4136 nor a genuine copy thereof. In the its execution and loss or
special proceedings case, the petitioners- destruction or unavailability, its
heirs failed to produce the Titulo despite contents may be proved by a
a subpoena duces tecum (Exh. "Q-RP") to copy, or by a recital of its
produce it as requested by the Republic from contents in some authentic
the then administrators of the subject document, or by the recollection
intestate estate, Engracio San Pedro and of witnesses.
Justino Benito, and the other interested
parties. As an alternative to prove their claim Sec. 5. Secondary evidence
of the subject intestate estate, the petitioners when original is in adverse
referred to a document known as "hypoteca" party's custody. — If the writing
(the Spanish term is 'hipoteca') allegedly be in the custody of the adverse
appended to the Titulo. However, the said party, he must have reasonable
hypoteca was neither properly identified nor notice to produce it. If after such
presented as evidence. Likewise, in the notice and after satisfactory
action for recovery of possession and/or proof of its existence, he fails to
reconveyance with damages, the petitioners- produce the writing, the
heirs did not submit the Titulo as part of their contents thereof may be proved
evidence. Instead, only an alleged illegible as in the case of its loss. But
copy of the Titulo was presented. (Exhs. "C- the notice to produce it is not
9" to "C-19"). necessary where the writing is
itself a notice, or where it has
The Best Evidence Rule as provided under been wrongfully obtained or
Rule 130, section 2 of the Rules of Court is withheld by the adverse party.
stated in unequivocal terms. Subparagraphs
(a) and (b) of the said Rule read: Thus, the court shall not receive any
evidence that is merely substitutionary
Sec. 2. Original writing must be in its nature, such as photocopies, as
produced; exceptions. — There long as the original evidence can be
can be no evidence of a writing had. In the absence of a clear showing
the contents of which is the that the original writing has been lost
subject of inquiry, other than the or destroyed or cannot be produced in
original writing itself, except in court, the photocopy submitted, in lieu
the following cases: thereof, must be disregarded, being
unworthy of any probative value and
(a) When the original has been being an inadmissible piece of
lost, destroyed, or cannot be evidence. 61
produced in court;
Hence, we conclude that petitioners-heirs
(b) When the original is in the failed to establish by competent proof the
possession of the party against existence and due execution of the Titulo.
whom the evidence is offered, Their explanation as to why the original copy
and the latter fails to produce it of the Titulo could not be produced was not
after reasonable notice; satisfactory. The alleged contents thereof
which should have resolved the issue as to counsel for the
the exact extent of the subject intestate government
estate of the late Mariano San Pedro were whether he admits
not distinctly proved. In the case of Ong that there is
Ching Po v. Court of Appeals, 62 we pointed actually a titulo
out that: propiedad 4136.

Secondary evidence is COURT:

admissible when the original
documents were actually lost or Would you
destroyed. But prior to the comment on that
introduction of such secondary Solicitor Agcaoili?
evidence, the proponent must
establish the former existence ATTY. AGCAOILI:
of the document. The correct
order of proof is as follows: We are precisely
existence; execution; loss; impugning the
contents. This order may be titulo and I think
changed if necessary in the the question of
discretion of the court. 63 counsel is already
answered by
In upholding the genuineness and witness. The
authenticity of Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136, parties have not
Judge Bagasao, in his decision, relied on: (1) yet established
the testimony of the NBI expert, Mr. Segundo the due existence
Tabayoyong, pertaining to a report dated of the titulo.
January 28, 1963 denominated as
"Questioned Documents Report No. 230- ATTY. BRINGAS:
163"; (2) a photostat copy of the original of
the Titulo duly certified by the then Clerk of We are
Court of the defunct Court of First Instance of constrained to ask
Manila; and (3) the hipoteca Registered in this matter in
the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on order to be candid
December 4, 1894. about the
question. The
Judge Fernandez, in his November 1978 witness is a
Order which set aside Judge Bagasao's April witness for the
1978 decision correctly clarified that the NBI government, so
report aforementioned was limited to the with the testimony
genuineness of the two signatures of of this witness for
Alejandro Garcia and Mariano Lopez Delgado the government to
appearing on the last page of the Titulo, not the effect that
the Titulo itself. When asked by the counsel there is actually in
of the petitioners-heirs to admit the existence existence titulo
and due execution of the Titulo, the handling propiedad 4136;
Solicitor testified: we are asking the
question candidly
x x x           x x x          x x x to the government
counsel whether
ATTY. BRINGAS: he is prepared to
state that there is
With the testimony really in existence
of this witness, I such titulo
would like to call propiedad 4136.
the distinguished
 ATTY. AGCAOILI: Mr. Tabayoyong of the NBI,
there are still "pieces of black
We are now ashes around the rings of the
stating before this portions which are indications of
court that there burnings". The burnings were
was such a made on the very portions
document where there were previous
examined by the erasures, alterations and
NBI insofar as the intercalations. Understandably,
signatures of the burnings were done to
Alejandro Garcia erase traces of the criminal
and Manuel Lopez act. 65
Delgado are
concerned and In the case of National Power Corporation
they are found to v. Court of Appeals, et a1. 66 Justice
be authentic. 64 Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera, in reinstating
the trial court's judgment therein, sustained
The following significant findings of Judge the finding that:
Fernandez further lend credence to our
pronouncement that the Titulo is of dubious . . . The photostatic copy (in lieu
validity: of the lost original) of the
Spanish title in the name of
. . . the NBI in its Questioned Mariano San Pedro shows
Document Report No. 448-977 obvious alterations and
dated September 2, 1977 intercalations in an attempt to
(Exhibit "O-RP") concluded that vastly increase the area and
the document contained change the location of the land
material alterations as follows: described in the original title . . .

a) On line 15 of "p, 1, Title" and Anent the inadmissibility as evidence of the

on line 5 of "p. 2, Title," the photostat copy of the Titulo, we sustain the
word "Pinagcamaligan" was lower court's analysis, as affirmed by the
written after "Pulo;" appellate court, viz:

b) On line 16, "p. 1, Title," "un" To begin with, the original of

was converted to "mil;" Titulo de Propiedad No. 4136
was never presented in Court.
c) On Line 18, "p. 1, Title," "mil" Upon request of the
was written at the end of "tres" Government, a subpoena
in "tres mil;" duces tecum (Exhibit "Q-RP")
was issued to the two
d) On line 19 of "p. 1, Title," a administrators, Engracio San
semblance of "mil" was written Pedro and Justino Benito as
after "setentay tres;" well as to other interested
parties to produce the original of
e) On line 6, "p. 2, Title," "un" Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136.
was formed to a semblance of But no one produced the titulo.
"uni;" and What the parties did was to
pass the buck to one another.
f) On line 8, "p. 2, Title," "un"
was formed to "mil." Without any plausible
explanation at all on as to why
The plain and evident purpose the original could not be
was definitely to enlarge the produced, the Court cannot take
area of the titulo. According to
 cognizance of any secondary validity, 70 Justice Conrado V. Sanchez,
evidence. speaking for the Court, stated that:

It was explained that the titulo But an important moiety here is

after changing hands, finally fell the deeply disturbing intertwine
into the hands of a certain Moon of two undisputed facts. First.
Park of Korea but who later The Title embraces land
disappeared and that his "located in the Provinces of
present whereabouts could not Bulacan, Rizal, Quezon, and
be known. Quezon City." Second. The title
was signed only by the
Strangely enough, despite the provincial officials of Bulacan,
significance of the titulo, no and inscribed only in the Land
serious efforts on the part of the Registry of Bulacan. Why? The
claimants-heirs were exerted to situation, indeed, cries
retrieve this document of vital desperately for a plausible
importance despite the Court answer.
order to produce it in order to
determine its authenticity. To be underscored at this point
is the well-embedded principle
It would not be enough to that private ownership of land
simply say that Moon Park's must be proved not only
whereabouts are unknown or through the genuineness of title
that there are not enough funds but also with a clear identity of
to locate him. The only logical the land claimed. (Oligan v.
conclusion would be that the Mejia, 17 Phil. 494, 496; Villa
original would be adverse if Abrille v. Banuelos, 20 Phil. 1,
produced. 67 8, citing Sison v. Ramos, 13
Phil. 54 and Belen v. Belen, 13
As regards the hipoteca which allegedly Phil. 202; Licad v. Bacani, 51
defines the metes and bounds of the subject Phil. 51, 54-56; Lasam v.
intestate estate, the petitioners-heirs have not Director, 65 Phil. 367, 371. This
established the conditions required by law for Court ruled in a case involving a
their admissibility as secondary evidence to Spanish title acquired by
prove that there exists a document purchase that the land must be
designated as Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136. concretely measured per
Hence, the same acquires no probative hectare or per quinon, not in
value. 68 mass (cuerpos ciertos), (Valdez
v. Director, 62 Phil. 362, 373,
At this juncture, our decision dated June 28, 375). The fact that the Royal
1968 in Director of Forestry, et Decree of August 31, 1888
al. v. Hon. Emmanuel M. Muñoz, as Judge of used 30 hectares as a basis for
the Court of First Instance of classifying lands strongly
69
Bulacan, Branch I, et al.   is enlightening. In suggests that the land applied
said case, private respondent, for must be measured per
Pinaycamaligan Indo-Agro Development hectare.
Corporation, Inc., (PIADECO), claimed to be
the owner of some 72,000 hectares of land Here, no definite area seems to
located in the municipalities of Angat, have been mentioned in the
Norzagaray and San Jose del Monte, title. In Piadeco's "Rejoinder to
province of Bulacan, and in Antipolo and Opposition" dated April 28,
Montalban, province of Rizal. To prove its 1964 filed in Civil Case 3035-M,
ownership Piadeco relied on Titulo de it specified that area covered by
Propriedad No. 4136 dated April 28, 1894. its Titulo de Propiedad as
Scholarly opining that the Titulo is of doubtful 74,000 hectares (Rollo in L-
24796, p. 36). In its v. Director of Lands, 98 Phil.
"Opposition" of May 13, 1964 in 935, 941. Article 15 of the Royal
the same case, it described the Decree of January 26, 1889
land as containing 72,000 limited the area that may be
hectares (Id., p. 48). Which is acquired by purchase to 2,500
which? This but accentuates the hectares, with allowable error
nebulous identity of Piadeco's up to 5%. Ponce, op cit., p. 19).
land, Piadeco's ownership And, at the risk of repetition, it
thereof then equally suffers should be stated again that
from vagueness, fatal at least in Piadeco's Titulo is held out to
these proceedings. embrace 72,000 or 74,000
hectares of land.
Piadeco asserts that Don
Mariano San Pedro y Esteban, But if more were needed, we
the original owner appearing on have the Maura Law (Royal
the title, acquired his rights over Decree of February 13, 1894),
the property by prescription published in the Gaceta de
under Articles 4 and 5 of the Manila on April 17, 1894 (Ibid.,
Royal Decree of June 25, 1880, p. 26; Venture, op. cit., p. 28).
(Rollo of L-24796, p. 184) the That decree required a second
basic decree that authorized petition for adjustment within six
adjustment of lands. By this months from publication, for
decree, applications for those who had not yet secured
adjustment — showing the their titles at the time of the
location, boundaries and area publication of the law (Ibid.).
of land applied for — were to be Said law also abolished the
filed with the Direccion General provincial boards for the
de Administration Civil, which adjustment of lands established
then ordered the classification by Royal Decree of December
and survey of the land with the 26, 1884, and confirmed by
assistance of the interested Royal Decree of August 31,
party or his legal representative 1888, which boards were
(Ponce, op. cit., p. 22). directed to deliver to their
successors, the provincial
The Royal Decree of June 5, boards established by Decree
1880 also fixed the period for on Municipal Organization
filing applications for adjustment issued on May 19, 1893, all
at one year from the date of records and documents which
publication of the decree in they may hold in their
the Gaceta de Manila on possession (Ramirez v. Director
September 10, 1880, extended of Land, supra, at p. 124).
for another year by the Royal
Order of July 15, 1881 (Ibid.). If Doubt on Piadeco's title here
Don Mariano sought adjustment supervenes when we come to
within the time prescribed, as consider that title was either
he should have, then, seriously dated April 29 or April 25,
to be considered here are the 1894, twelve or eight days after
Royal Orders of November 25, the publication of the Maura
1880 and of October 26, 1881, Law.
which limited adjustment to
1,000 hectares of arids lands, Let us now take a look, as near
500 hectares of land with trees as the record allows, at how
and 100 hectares of irrigable Piadeco exactly acquired its
lands (See: Government v. rights under the Titulo. The
Avila, 46 Phil. 146, 154; Bayot original owner appearing
thereon was Don Mariano San cast great clouds of doubt that
Pedro y Esteban. From hang most conspicuously over
Piadeco's explanation — not its Piadeco's title.
evidence (Rollo of L-24796, pp.
179-188) we cull the following: Moreover, in the case of Widows & Orphans
On December 3, 1894, Don Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 71 we
Mariano mortgaged the land categorically enunciated that the alleged
under pacto de retro, Spanish title, Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136,
redeemable within 10 years, for had become bereft of any probative value as
P8,000.00 to one Don Ignacio evidence of land ownership by virtue of P.D.
Conrado. This transaction was 892 as contained in our Resolution dated
said to have been registered or February 6, 1985 in a related case
inscribed on December 4, 1894. entitled Benito and WIDORA
Don Mariano Ignacio died, his v. Ortigas docketed as G.R No. 69343. On
daughter, Maria Socorro March 29, 1985, an entry of final judgment
Conrado, his only heir, was made respecting G.R. No. 69343.
adjudicated the land to herself.
At about the same time, Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of
Piadeco was organized. Its judgment, the prior declarations by this Court
certificate of registration was relating to the issue of the validity of Titulo de
issued by the Securities and Propriedad No. 4136 preclude us from
Exchange Commission on June adjudicating otherwise. In the Muñoz case,
27, 1932. Later, Maria Socorro, we had cast doubt on the Titulo's validity. In
heir of Don Ignacio, became a the WIDORA case, the Titulo's nullification
shareholder of Piadeco when was definitive. In both cases, the Republic
she conveyed the land to and the estate of Mariano San Pedro y
Piadeco's treasurer and an Esteban were on opposite ends before this
incorporator, Trinidad B. bench. In the case en banc of Calalang
Estrada, in consideration of a v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 72 the
certain amount of Piadeco Court explained the concept of
shares. Thereafter, Trinidad B. conclusiveness of judgment, viz:
Estrada assigned the land to
Piadeco. Then came to the . . . conclusiveness of judgment
scene a certain Fabian Castillo, — states that a fact or question
appearing as sole heir of Don which was in issue in a former
Mariano, the original owner of suit and was there judicially
the land. Castillo also executed passed upon and determined by
an affidavit of adjudication to a court of competent
himself over the same land, and jurisdiction, is conclusively
then sold the same to Piadeco. settled by the judgment therein
Consideration therefor was paid as far as the parties to that
partially by action and persons in privity
Piadeco, pending the with them are concerned and
registration of the land under cannot be again litigated in any
Act 496. future action between such
parties or their privies, in the
The question may well be same court or any other court of
asked: Why was full payment of concurrent jurisdiction on either
the consideration to Fabian the same or different cause of
Castillo made to depend on the action, while the judgment
registration of the land under remains unreversed by proper
the Torrens system, if Piadeco authority. It has been held that
was sure of the validity of Titulo in order that a judgment in one
de Propiedad 4136? This, and action can be conclusive as to a
other factors herein pointed out, particular matter in another
 action between the same the proper witnesses from the Bureau of
parties or their privies, it is Forestry to substantiate the petitioners-heirs'
essential that the issue be claim that OCT No. 614 from which private
identical. If a particular point or respondents were derived is null and void. It
question is in issue in the is an elementary legal principle that the
second action, and the negligence of counsel binds the client. 76 The
judgment will depend on the records show that the petitioners-heirs were
determination of that particular not at all prejudiced by the non-presentation
point or question, a former of evidence to prove that OCT No. 614 is a
judgment between the same nullity considering that their ownership itself
parties or their privies will be of the lands being claimed was not duly
final and conclusive in the proved. In the case of Villa Rhecar Bus
second if that same point or v. Dela Cruz, et al., 77 we held:
question was in issue and
adjudicated in the first suit It is unfortunate that the lawyer
(Nabus v. Court of Appeals, 193 of the petitioner neglected his
SCRA 732 [1991]). Identity of responsibilities to his client. This
cause of action is not required negligence ultimately resulted in
by merely identity of issues. a judgment adverse to the
client. Be that as it may, such
The issue, whether Titulo de mistake binds the client, the
Propriedad No. 4136 is valid or not, herein petitioner. As a general
must now be laid to rest. The Titulo rule, a client is bound by the
cannot be relied upon by the mistakes of his counsel. (Que v.
petitioners-heirs or their privies as Court of Appeals, 101 SCRA 13
evidence of ownership. In the petition [1980] Only when the
for letters of administration the application of the general rule
inventory submitted before the probate would result in serious injustice
court consisted solely of lands covered should an exception thereto be
by the Titulo. Hence, there can be no called for. Under the
"net estate" to speak of after the circumstances obtaining in this
Titulo's exclusion from the intestate case, no undue prejudice
proceedings of the estate of the late against the petitioner has been
Mariano San Pedro. satisfactorily demonstrated. At
most, there is only an
In G.R No. 103727, the Titulo cannot be unsupported claim that the
superior to the Torrens Titles of private petitioner bad been prejudiced
respondents Buhain, Ocampo and Dela Cruz, by the negligence of its counsel,
namely TCT No. 372592 (Exh. "2", Buhain), without an explanation to that
TCT No. 8982 (Exh. "2" — De Ocampo) and effect.
TCT No. 269707 (Exh. "2" — Dela
Cruz). 73 Under the Torrens system of Sans preponderance of evidence in
registration, the titles of private respondents support of the contention that the
became indefeasible and incontrovertible one petitioners-heirs were denied due
year from its final decree. 74 More importantly, process on account of the negligence
TCT Nos. 372592, 8982, 269707, having of their counsel, the writ of certiorari is
been issued under the Torrens system, enjoy unavailing.
the conclusive presumption of validity. 75 As a
last hurrah to champion their claim to the vast It bears repeating that the heirs or
estate covered by the subject Spanish title, successors-in-interest of Mariano San Pedro
the petitioners-heirs imputed fraud and bad y Esteban are not without recourse.
faith which they failed to prove on the part of Presidential Decree No. 892, quoted
the private respondents as regards their hereinabove, grants all holders of Spanish
Torrens titles and accused their own counsel Titles the right to apply for registration of their
of gross negligence for having failed to call lands under Act No. 496, otherwise known as
the Land Registration Act, within six (6) and, therefore, no rights could
months from the effectivity of the Decree. be derived therefrom;
Thereafter, however, any Spanish Title, if
utilized as evidence of possession, cannot be (2) All lands covered by Titulo
used as evidence of ownership in any land de Propriedad No. 4136 are
registration proceedings under the Torrens excluded from the inventory of
system. the estate of the late Mariano
San Pedro y Esteban;
All instruments affecting lands originally
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law (3) The petition for letters of
may be recorded under Section 194 of the administration, docketed as
Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Special Proceedings No. 312-B,
Act 3344. should be, as it is, hereby
closed and terminated.
In view hereof, this is as good a time as any,
to remind the Solicitor General to be more (4) The heirs, agents, privies
vigilant in handling land registration cases and/or anyone acting for and in
and intestate proceedings involving portions behalf of the estate of the late
of the subject estate. It is not too late in the Mariano San Pedro y Esteban
day for the Office of the Solicitor General to are hereby disallowed to
contest the Torrens titles of those who have exercise any act of possession
acquired ownership of such portions of land or ownership or to otherwise,
that rightfully belong to the State. dispose of in any manner the
whole or any portion of the
In fine, the release of the matured Land Bank estate covered by Titulo de
Capital Bonds issued in favor of Mariano San Propriedad No. 4136; and they
Pedro y Esteban on August 13, 1968 sought are hereby ordered to
by one Catalino San Pedro, alleged heir, immediately vacate the same, if
legal holder and owner of Titulo de they or any of them are in
Propriedad No. 4136 is a matter not ripe for possession thereof.
adjudication in these cases. Firstly, Catalino
San Pedro is not a party in any of the two This judgment is IMMEDIATELY
cases before us for review, hence, this Court EXECUTORY.
in a Resolution dated May 10, 1993, 78 denied
Catalino's motion for leave to reopen and/or SO ORDERED.
new trial. And, secondly, the aforementioned
bonds were not included in the inventory of CASE DIGEST:
the subject estate submitted by then
administrators, Engracio San Pedro and G.R. No. 103727 December 18, 1996
Justino Benito before the probate court.
INTESTATE ESTATE OF DON MARIANO SAN
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing,
the petitions in G.R Nos. 103727 and 106496 PEDRO V. COURT OF APPEALS
are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Facts:
Consequently, in G.R No. 103727, the
This is a claim of a huge parcel of land covering
decision of the Court of Appeals dated
January 20, 1992 is hereby AFFIRMED. lands in the provinces Nueva ecija, Bulacan, and
in cities including Quezon  city.
In G.R No. 106496, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows: This case involves 2 cases, which prior to being
decided by the SC were consolidated. The first
(1) Titulo de Propriedad No. case was a complaint for recovery of possession
4136 is declared null and void
and damages against Ocampo, Buhain, and Dela
Cruz. In the complaint, it was alleged that the
defendants (Ocampo - Dela Cruz) were able to
secure from the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City
titles to a portions of the claimed estate. In the
end, the lower courts ruled in favor of Ocampo -
Dela Cruz, declaring
that the Torrens titles of the defendants cannot
be defeated by the alleged Spanish title, Titulo
Propriedad no. 4316.

The 2nd case is a petition for letters of

adiministration over the intestate estate of the
late Mariano San Pedro Y Esteban. This involves a
prayer to be declared as administrator. This case
eventually ended in the same manner as the first
case - the Titulo de Prorpriedad was declared
void and of no legal force, therefore the lands
covered by the Titulo are not within the estate of
the deceased.

Issue:

W/N the Titulo de Propriedad is null and void and

therefore the lands covered or claimed under
such title are not included in the estate of the
deceased.

Ruling:

The Titulo is null and void. It has been defeated

by the title of the defendants under the Torrens
system.

It is settled that by virtue of Pd no 892 which tool

effect on Feb 16 1976 the syte of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law was abolished
and all holders of Spanish titles or grants should
cause their lands coverd thereby to be registered
under the Land Registration Act within 6mos
from date of effectivity of the said decree.

Proof of compliance (Certificate of Title) with the

said decree should have been presented during
trial.