G.R. No. 105027 April 22, 1994
LORENZANA FOOD CORPORATION, JIMMY CHUA CHI LEONG, ALBERT CHUA and SPS. EDUARDO SOLIS and GLORIA VICTA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves conflicting claims over several portions of land in Bacoor, Cavite, originally owned by Juan Cuenca y Francisco. The large tract was divided by railroad tracks into Lot 1 (north) and Lot 2 (south). Lot 1 was covered by O.C.T. No. (1898) RO-58, and Lot 2 by O.C.T. No. (1020) RO-9. Upon Juan Cuenca’s death, his properties were partitioned among his heirs. Through a series of subdivisions and adjudications to heirs (Pura Cuenca, Ladislaw Cuenca, and Jose Cuenca), titles were issued for specific lots. However, a critical error occurred: titles for parcels that were physically part of Lot 2 (south of the railroad, based on technical descriptions from O.C.T. No. (1020) RO-9) were annotated as originating from O.C.T. No. 1898 (which covered Lot 1, north of the railroad). These error-filled titles were subsequently sold to the petitioners: Lorenzana Food Corporation, Jimmy Chua Chi Leong, Albert Chua, and spouses Eduardo and Gloria Solis. Their titles described the properties as located in Barrio Talaba.
Private respondent B.E. San Diego, Inc. claimed ownership over the same physical parcels by virtue of O.C.T. No. 0-644 and T.C.T. No. T-17621, which originated from separate registration proceedings (LRC Case Nos. N-557 and N-467) and described the properties as situated in Barrio Niog. B.E. San Diego had purchased the land in 1966, paid taxes since then, and possessed it until the petitioners entered in 1979.
Three civil suits for quieting of title were filed and consolidated. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, declaring B.E. San Diego’s titles superior and ordering the petitioners to vacate the premises.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the titles of B.E. San Diego, Inc. are superior to the titles of the petitioners, thereby dismissing the petitioners’ actions to quiet title.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioners’ titles, which contained serious errors regarding the origin of registration (annotated as from O.C.T. No. 1898 for Lot 1 when the technical descriptions pertained to Lot 2 from O.C.T. No. (1020) RO-9) and the location (Barrio Talaba vs. the actual Barrio Niog), were defective and could not prevail over the regularly issued and unblemished titles of B.E. San Diego, Inc. The discrepancies were not mere clerical errors but were substantial and created a cloud of doubt over the petitioners’ claims. Furthermore, B.E. San Diego had a better right as it was a purchaser in good faith and for value, and it had been in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the property since 1966. The petitioners, who were subsequent purchasers, were bound by the flaws in their predecessors’ titles and could not acquire a better right than their vendors. The Court also noted that the petitioners’ failure to appeal the trial court’s dismissal of their complaints against the estates of their predecessors (for breach of warranty) rendered that matter final and unassailable.