G.R. No. 206863 . March 22, 2023.
PRYCE CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ENGR. VICENTE PONCE (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY VALERIANO, VENANCIO, VICENTE, VITALIANO, VIVENCIO ALL SURNAMED PONCE AND MA. VIRGINIA PONCE-QUIZON, REPRESENTED BY ENGR. TEODORO PONDOC, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The dispute involves a five-hectare land in Sta. Filomena, Iligan City. Respondent Vicente Ponce claims ownership under TCT T-17,464, tracing title back to Prudencio Soloza’s Homestead Patent No. H-25364 and OCT No. 21 (later reconstituted as OCT RP-62(21)) issued in 1925 over a 15-hectare lot. Prudencio’s heirs prevailed in a recovery of possession case against the Quidlat siblings (heirs of Modesta Fabro and Juan Quidlat), affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a 1954 Decision. The 15-hectare lot was subsequently transferred to Pedro Soloza, then to Andres Achacoso, then to Lorenzo Lagandaon, who sold a five-hectare portion to Dionisio Ong, who then sold it to Ponce in 1964. Ponce obtained TCT T-17,464 in 1979.
Petitioner Pryce Corporation claims ownership under TCT T-48,394, tracing title from the Quidlat siblings, who were awarded Lot No. 1936 (an 8.1-hectare lot within the original 15-hectare lot) in a 1994 cadastral court Decision. The Quidlat siblings sold Lot No. 1936 to spouses Lim in 1993, before the cadastral decision. The spouses Lim later sold a six-hectare portion (Lot No. 1936-B) to Pryce in 1995.
A joint relocation survey confirmed an overlap between Ponce’s five-hectare property and Pryce’s six-hectare property. Ponce filed a complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance, and damages. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Ponce, declaring him the lawful owner and ordering the cancellation of Pryce’s title over the overlapping portion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Pryce filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the validity of OCT No. 21 and its reconstituted version.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the “first in time, prior in right” rule.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the 1954 CA Decision prevails over the 1994 cadastral court Decision and that the cadastral court had no jurisdiction.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not granting probative value to certifications from Department officials on the non-existence of the homestead patent and OCT.
5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Pryce, through its predecessors-in-interest, had acquired ownership by prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. On the validity of OCT No. 21 and its reconstitution: The Court upheld the validity of Prudencio Soloza’s titles. The 1954 CA Decision, which became final and executory, conclusively settled the issue of ownership in favor of Prudencio’s heirs against the Quidlat siblings. This decision validated Prudencio’s homestead patent and title. Pryce’s allegations of forgery and irregularities were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the official acts of the Register of Deeds. The certifications from various officials stating the absence of records were not conclusive proof of the titles’ invalidity, especially in light of the extant titles themselves and the prior final judgment.
2. On the application of “first in time, prior in right”: The Court affirmed the application of the principle prior est in tempore, potior est in jure. Ponce’s title, derived from Prudencio’s 1925 OCT, is older and thus prevails over Pryce’s title derived from the 1994 cadastral decree. Since Ponce’s title was valid and issued earlier, it is superior in right.
3. On the precedence of the 1954 CA Decision over the 1994 cadastral Decision and jurisdiction of the cadastral court: The Court ruled that the 1954 CA Decision is binding and conclusive upon the Quidlat siblings and their successors-in-interest (including Pryce) regarding the ownership of the land covered by Prudencio’s title. The cadastral court had no jurisdiction to issue a decree for Lot No. 1936 in favor of the Quidlat siblings because the land was already registered under the Torrens system (under Prudencio’s OCT). Once land is registered, it is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the cadastral court. Therefore, the 1994 cadastral court Decision and the resulting title are null and void with respect to the already registered land.
4. On the probative value of the certifications: The Court found no error in the CA’s assessment. The certifications were properly accorded less weight against the existence of the actual titles and the final 1954 judgment. The best evidence of the contents of a document is the document itself.
5. On acquisition by prescription: The Court held that prescription does not run against registered land owned by another. Ponce’s title, being registered under the Torrens system, is imprescriptible. Pryce and its predecessors could not acquire the land through prescription.