531 Phil. 501
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
x x x But even assuming ex gratia argumenti that said annexes were not attached to the complaint when summons was served, the same is not a fatal defect which will warrant the dismissal of the complaint. However, counsel for plaintiff should furnish said defendant with a copy of said annexes for the sake of fair play which should be done within five (5) days from notice and in order to obviate any further discussion as to whether or not it is meritorious.[7] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)It appears that Susan failed to comply with the directive of the trial court to furnish the corporation those annexes.
The Court of Appeals, noting the following evidence of Susan,I
. . . DECLARING THAT PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF HER COMPLAINT BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE . . .II
. . . DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT BASED ON PURE SUSPICION OR DOUBT, SPECULATION OR CONJECTURE.III
. . . ORDERING TO EXPUNGE FROM THE RECORD, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION . . .[13]
declared that Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and "F" do not prove that the corporation's title–Exh. "D" was fraudulently issued.[15]
- Photocopies of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-96011 and T-96019 in her name, both issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite marked as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively;
- Letter-reply dated 1 September 1994 on the query of whether or not the two titles of the land in Susan Degollacion's name were regularly issued (Exh. "C");
- Photocopy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26877 issued by the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite in the name of Pilar Development Corp., Inc. (Exh. "D");
- A photocopy of a deed of sale dated 5 April 1978 by and between Antonio Dizon as vendor and Susan Degollacion as vendee, involving the land now covered by appellant's TCT No. T-96011 (Exh. "E");
- A photocopy of Declaration of Real Property for the land covered by TCT No. T-96011 (Exh. "F");
- Testimony of Melanie A. Victoria, OIC-Deputy of the Register of Deeds for the Province of Cavite;
- Testimony of Susan Degollacion,[14]
x x x GRAVELY ERRED IN IGNORING, REJECTING AND/OR FAILING TO CONSIDER AND APPRECIATE PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AFFIRMING THE FACTS ALLEGED IN HER COMPLAINT WHICH REASONABLY RAISES DOUBTS UPON RESPONDENT PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, INC. TITLE TO SUCH AN EXTENT WHICH EVIDENCE IF PROPERLY APPRECIATED AND CONSIDERED, WILL ALTER THE RESULT OF THIS CASE OR COMPEL A CONTRARY CONCLUSION.[18]Susan relies on the September 1, 1994 letter-reply of the then Land Registration Authority (LRA) Administrator Reynaldo Maulit addressed to the Cavite Register of Deeds reading:
This is in connection with your letter dated March 15, 1994 regarding Transfer Certificates of Title (T.C.T.) Nos. 96011 and 96019 in the name of Susan D. Degollacion and Transfer Certificate of Title (T.C.T.) No. 148177 in the name of spouses Jose del Rosario and Juliet de la Cruz. It was stated in your letter that T.C.T. No. 96019 and T.C.T. No. 148177 cover one and the same parcel of land which is Lot No. 5766-B located at the Barrio Salawag, Dasmarinas, Cavite.The petition fails.
In your letter-query, you have expressed doubt as to which of the two certificates of title, T.C.T. No. 96019 or T.C.T. No. 148177, came from spurious sources, hence, you requested a thorough investigation of the matter. Your request for investigation has been referred to the Inspection and Investigation Division.
It appears from the records that Lot Nos. 5766-A and 5766-B were formerly owned by Antonio Dizon under T.C. T. No. T-20726 and T.C.T. No. 26796, respectively. These two lots were sold by Antonio Dizon to Susan D. Degollacion. As a result, T.C.T. Nos. T-20726 and T.C.T. No. 26796 in the name of Antonio Dizon were both cancelled and, in lieu thereof, T.C.T. No. 96011 (for Lot No. 5766-A) and T.C.T. No. 96019 (for Lot No. 5766-B) were issued in the name of Susan D. Degollacion. Moreover, from a perusal of the documents submitted, it appears that T.C.T. Nos. 96011 and 96019 issued in the name of Susan D. Degollacion were regularly issued and that she has been in continuous possession of the said properties and had been paying taxes thereon up to the present.
As regards T.C.T. No. 1148177 (should have been 148177) in the names of spouses Jose del Rosario and Juliet dela Cruz, it appears that its origin is O.C.T. No. 2018 purportedly issued pursuant to Decree No. N-185582 issued in L.R.C. Record No. N-55900, Case No. B-80-16.
x x x x[19](Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x [W]here two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land, even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of title, x x x, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.[20] (Italics in the original, emphasis and underscoring supplied)This Court notes that the corporation, in its Brief[21] filed before the appellate court and in its Comment[22] to the present petition, painstakingly traced its title from the time one Luis Pultaje is alleged to have purchased from the government Lot 5766 of the Imus Estate in the 1920s.
SEC. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. ─ When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:On Susan's claim that, and explanation why, the corporation's title came from spurious sources, to wit:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole; and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.
x x x x
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. ─ When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.
x x x x
SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified true copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
it remains a mere claim, she having failed to present the therein mentioned documents alleged bases thereof.
ATTY.ZUBIRI: Q Do you know how the private defendant Pilar Development based its claim? WITNESS [Susan]: A It based its claim on a certain Transfer Certificate of Title originating from spurious sources. Q Do you know what is that title? A Yes, sir. Q What is that title? A Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26877. QHow do you know that the title of the defendant came or originated from spurious sources?
A Well, the title of Pilar Development Corporation was derived from a reconstituted title RT-13521-91 and the property covered by a reconstituted title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-13521-91 formerly Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13756 is in the name of Cristina Caro while the reconstituted title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13756 was in the name of Leonilo Javier married to Victoria Rama and Roberto Javier married to Encarnacion Guinto. x x x x [24] (Underscoring supplied),