G.R. No. L-69591 January 25, 1988
ALICIA DE SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Special Third Civil Case Division), MAXIMO PINO (deceased substituted by heirs) and PENINSULA RESORT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves Lot No. 5659, originally co-owned by two sets of spouses. After the original title was lost, Eleuteria Pino purchased a one-half undivided share and successfully petitioned for the reconstitution of the title in 1962. Following reconstitution, the co-owners orally partitioned the lot, awarding the northern portion to Pino. She possessed it and paid taxes. In 1966, the other co-owners sold their undivided half to Espiritu Bunagan, who later filed a second petition for reconstitution of the same lost title, resulting in a new reconstituted title. Bunagan then subdivided the lot and, via a partition agreement with the heirs of the other original co-owners, was adjudicated the northern portion (Lot 5659-A), which was the very portion already awarded to Pino. Bunagan subsequently sold Lot 5659-A to petitioner Alicia de Santos.
De Santos obtained a title for Lot 5659-A. However, Maximo Pino, representing Eleuteria Pino, annotated an adverse claim on this title. De Santos filed an action to quiet title. The trial court ruled in favor of Pino, declaring her the owner of the northern portion (Lot 5659-A) and de Santos the owner of the southern portion (Lot 5659-B). The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether Eleuteria Pino acquired ownership over the northern portion of Lot No. 5659, thereby prevailing over the subsequent title acquired by Alicia de Santos from Espiritu Bunagan.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied de Santos’s petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the principle that a second reconstitution of an already reconstituted title is void. The Court found that a valid reconstituted title (OCT No. RO-0034) already existed in 1962. Therefore, the subsequent reconstitution procured by Bunagan in 1966 (OCT No. RO-0769) was a nullity. All titles derived from this void second reconstitution, including de Santos’s TCT No. 8433, were consequently invalid.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally binding. The evidence conclusively established that from 1962, Eleuteria Pino was in open, continuous, and public possession of the northern portion. Tax declarations in her name consistently described the northern boundaries, while those in the name of Bunagan, de Santos’s predecessor, described the southern portion. Bunagan, a geodetic engineer, could not have been ignorant of which portion he actually purchased. Thus, de Santos, as Bunagan’s buyer, merely acquired whatever rights he had—which pertained only to the southern portion, not the northern portion already owned and possessed by Pino. The Court upheld Pino’s ownership acquired through the prior valid reconstitution and the oral partition, which was corroborated by long-standing possession and tax payments.