G.R. No. 109490 February 14, 1994
PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES, VIRGINIA E. VILLONGCO, EDUARDO C. ESPINOSA, LUCIA E. LAPERAL, NORMA C. ESPINOSA, TERESITA E. CASAL, ALICE E. SOTTO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FIRESTONE CERAMICS, INC., BOOMTOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, SPOUSES CYNTHIA D. CHING and CHING TIONG KENG, SPOUSES CARMEN SOCO and LORENZO ONG ENG CHONG, SPOUSES SOLEDAD B. YU and YU SY CHIA, and LETICIA NOCON CHAN, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves conflicting claims over several parcels of land in Barrio Almanza, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. The private respondents (Firestone Ceramics, Inc., et al.) filed a complaint for annulment of titles, recovery of possession, and quieting of titles against the petitioners (Patrocinio E. Margolles, et al.). The private respondents traced their titles from Original Certificate of Title (“OCT”) No. A-S-47 issued in 1969 to Benito Gonzales and Emeterio Espiritu pursuant to a decision in Land Registration Case No. N-6625. This property was later subdivided and transferred, resulting in various Transfer Certificates of Title (“TCTs”) issued to the private respondents in 1976.
The petitioners, claiming ownership, traced their titles from an older OCT No. 4216 issued in 1929 to spouses Lorenzo Gana and Ma. Juliana Carlos pursuant to Decree No. 35183 in Land Registration Case No. 672. This title was subsequently transferred and subdivided, with titles eventually issued to the petitioners. After the private respondents took possession, the petitioners demanded they vacate.
The trial court ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring OCT No. 4216 and all derivative titles null and void ab initio. It cited the petitioners’ failure to conclusively prove the existence of Decree No. 35183 and noted that the land was allegedly still unclassified public domain in 1929. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is which set of Torrens titles, emanating from different original certificates, should prevail as valid and enforceable.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, and upheld the validity of the petitioners’ titles.
The Court held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in declaring OCT No. 4216 null and void. The petitioners sufficiently established the existence and due execution of OCT No. 4216 by presenting the original and owner’s duplicate copies on file with the Register of Deeds. The absence of the original decree in the records does not invalidate the title, as a certificate of title serves as conclusive evidence of an existing decree of registration. The Court found the trial court’s reliance on the “Remarks” column of a record book to be a misinterpretation; the entry “date OK” indicated the decree’s issuance date had been verified.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the issue of whether the land was alienable in 1929 could no longer be collaterally attacked. OCT No. 4216, having been issued in 1929, had long become indefeasible and incontrovertible. A Torrens title cannot be challenged after the lapse of one year from its issuance.
Applying the principle that in case of double registration, the earlier title in date prevails, the Court held that the petitioners’ titles, emanating from the 1929 OCT No. 4216, must prevail over the private respondents’ titles, which emanated from the 1969 OCT No. A-S-47. The petitioners’ demand to vacate in 1976, made only seven years after the issuance of the later title, was timely.