G.R. Nos.

162335 & 162605 December 12, 2005

SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK, FAUSTO MANOTOK III,
MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL
MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARY ANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO MANOTOK,
JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON,
GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L.
MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS
JUDE MANOTOK, JR. and MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Rosa R.
Manotok, Petitioners,
vs.
HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, represented by TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ, Respondents.

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

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 Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals4 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 owners 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.

On June 30, 1997, Atty. Benjamin M. Bustos, as reconstituting officer, denied the reconstitution of TCT No.
2101775on 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 owners duplicate certificate of title as bases in denying the petition and should have confined himself with
the owners 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 owners 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

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, 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 Soriano, Chief Technical Records and Statistics Section, DENR-
NCR. Said plan is likewise duly supported by Republic of the Philippines Official Receipt No. 2513818 Q dated
9-23-96 .... Engr. Erive in his letter dated 28 November 1996 addressed to Atty. Bustos confirmed that a
microfilm copy of Plan FLS 3168D is on file in the Technical 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.

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 duly entered into the microfilm records of the Bureau of Lands and has
been assigned Accession Number 410436 appearing on 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 .

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

The dispositive portion of the LRAs decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 in the name
of Homer L. Barque, Sr. shall be given due course after cancellation of TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name
of Manotoks upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.12

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by respondents with a prayer that
reconstitution be ordered immediately.
On June 14, 2001, petitioners motion for reconsideration and respondents prayer for immediate reconstitution
were denied.13

From the foregoing, respondents filed a petition for review14 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

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:

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.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.19

Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the amended decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 66700 was denied, 20 hence,
this petition docketed as G.R. No. 162605.

Meanwhile, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66642, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 21 on
October 29, 2003, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Resolution of the LRA dated 24 June 1998 is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.22

In so ruling, the Third Division of the Court of Appeals declared that the LRA correctly deferred in giving due
course to the petition for reconstitution since there is yet no final judgment upholding or annulling respondents
title.23

Respondents motion for reconsideration was granted by the Third Division of the Court of Appeals on February
24, 2004, thus:

WHEREFORE, the Motion for 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
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 G.R. No. 162605 and G.R. No.
162335, respectively.

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

THE MAJORITY JUSTICES ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF

PETITIONERS EXISTING TITLE, CONSIDERING THAT:

a. THEY ORDERED THE CANCELLATION OF TITLE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME IS NOT PART OF
THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN A RECONSTITUTION PROCEEDINGS.

b. THEY ALLOWED A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; and

c. THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN RESOLVING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE LAND

REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE CANCELLATION OF
TITLE, SINCE ONLY A PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CAN ORDER THE ANNULMENT/CANCELLATION
OF A TORRENS TITLE. BY ALLOWING A "SHORT CUT", THE MAJORITY JUSTICES DEPRIVED THE
PETITIONERS OF THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW.

II

THE MAJORITY JUSTICES GRAVELY MISAPPLIED THE RULING OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
IN ORTIGAS V. VELASCO, CONSIDERING THAT:

a. IN THE ORTIGAS CASE, THERE WERE TWO TITLES EXISTING OVER THE SAME PARCEL OF LAND, AS
A RESULT OF THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MOLINA. IN THE INSTANT CASE,
ONLY PETITIONERS HOLD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, AS RESPONDENTS ARE MERELY
TRYING TO HAVE TITLE RECONSTITUTED IN THEIR NAMES.

b. IN ORTIGAS, THERE WERE SEVERAL DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT WHICH PREVIOUSLY
RESOLVED THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF ORTIGAS PROPERTY. HENCE, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT
GROUND TO ANNUL MOLINAS TITLE OUTRIGHT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE ARE NO SUCH
DECISIONS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CANCELLATION OF THE TITLE
OF PETITIONERS WITHOUT ANY HEARING.25

In G.R. No. 162335, petitioners raise the following issues:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION AND GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN ORDERING THE LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY TO CANCEL TCT NO. RT-22481 OF PETITIONERS MANOTOK NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT
THAT SAID COURT WAS FULLY COGNIZANT THAT IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO EXERCISE SUCH
AUTHORITY AND POWER AND THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY IS EQUALLY DEVOID OF
JURISDICTION ON THE MATTER BECAUSE UNDER THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 19 (2) THEREOF, ONLY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS HAVE EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL
PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN.

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (THIRD DIVISION) COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AND GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN INVOKING EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION TO
JUSTIFY ITS CHALLENGED AMENDED DECISION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 2004 DIRECTING LRA TO
CANCEL PETITIONERS MANOTOKS TITLE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT, AS STATED, THE LAW
EXPLICITLY VESTS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OVER
CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVES TITLE TO, OR POSSESSION OF, REAL PROPERTY, OR ANY INTEREST
THEREIN.

III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FAILING TO ORDER THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE
CHALLENGED RESOLUTION DATED JUNE 24, 1998 OF RESPONDENT LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
IN LRC ADMIN. CASE NO. Q-547 [97] VIEWED FROM THE FACT THAT SAID RESOLUTION OF LRA IS
PATENTLY AT WAR WITH LAW AND CONTROLLING JURISPRUDENCE THAT PROHIBITS
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE BY THIRD PARTY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LOST OR DESTROYED IF
ANOTHER VALID TITLE IS EXISTING COVERING THE LAND SUBJECT THEREOF.

IV. THE LRA COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE 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 MANOTOK SHOULD FIRST BE ORDERED
CANCELLED BY COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION IN THE FACE OF THE GLARING FACTS THAT
SAID TITLE IS HIGHLY SUSPECT AND BEARS BADGES OF FABRICATION AND FALSIFICATION AND
THEREFORE NO OTHER LOGICAL AND CREDIBLE CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN EXCEPT THAT IT IS A
FAKE AND SPURIOUS TITLE.

V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OF IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ALLOWING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION WHICH WAS CLEARLY FILED OUT OF TIME.26

On August 2, 2004, the petition in G.R. No. 162605 was consolidated with the petition in G.R. No. 162335. 27

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.

The petitions must be denied.

The LRA properly ruled that the reconstituting officer should have confined himself to the owners duplicate
certificate of title prior to the reconstitution. Section 3 of Republic Act (RA) No. 26 28 clearly provides:

Section 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as
may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owners duplicate of the certificate of title;

....

When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they submitted in support thereof the owners duplicate
certificate of title, real estate tax receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the same should have more than sufficed
as sources for the 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 addition, Section 12
of the same law requires that the petition 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:

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 owners 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 owners duplicate certificate of
title over the other enumerated sources.

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:

Second. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals made a factual finding that petitioners 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 courts 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., 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 titlesin 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 Generals 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 Molinas 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 Molinas 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 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.