Severino M. Manotok M anotok IV, IV, Froilan M. Manotoc, Fernando M. Manotok, et. Al., represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Rosa R. Manotok vs. Heirs of Homer . !ar"#e, represented by $eresita !ar"#e Hernande% &'.R. (os. )*+ )*+*/. 0ecember )+, +//.1 Facts: Respondent’s as the surviving heirs of the late Homer Barque, led a petition with the LRA for administrative reconstitution of the original cop of !"! #o$ %&'&(( issued in the name of Homer Barque which was destroed in a re$ )n support of the petition, petitioners su*mitted the owner’s duplicate cop of !"! #o$ %&'&((, ta+ receipts, and ta+ declarations and the lan covering the propert$ -pon *eing notied of the petition,petitioners led their opposition claiming that the lot under the title of Barque forms part of their land and that the !"! in the name of Barque was spurious$ spurious$ Att$ Ben.amin Bustos, Bustos, as reconstituting reconstituting o/cer, o/cer, denied the petition on the grounds that: a$ !he lots covered * !"! !"! #o$ %&'&(( appear appear to duplicate duplicate the Lot of iedad iedad 0state 0state covered * !"! #o$ 1(%1'% registered under the name of 2everino 3anoto4 *$ !he su*mitted su*mitted plan is a spurious spurious document document Respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied hence the appealed to the LRA$ !he LRA LRA ruled that Att$ Att$ Bustos should not have required required the su*mission of other other documents other than the owner’s duplicate cop as *ass in dening the petition and that *ased on the documents presented, petitioners esta*lished that their !"! was, at the time of the destruction, was valid, genuine, authentic, and e5ective$ )t is also noteworth that the technical description covered covered * !"! #o$ %&'&(( conforms to the description of the lot covered * !"! #o$ 1(%1'%$ )t therefore *ecomes evident that the e+istence of !"! #o$ %&'&(( was esta*lished irrefuta*l * the petitioners and that the recounstruction must *e given due course$ !he LRA ruled that the reconstitution of !"! #o$ %&'&(( *e given due course upon the cancellation of the !"! of 3anoto4 upon order of the R!"$ etitioner’s etitioner’s led a motion for reconsideration reconsideration which was opposed * the respondents$ respondents$ Bother their motions were denied$ Respondents led a petition for review with the "A praing that the LRA *e directed immediatel to reconstitute their !"!$ etitioners also led a petition for review with the "A$ !he "A dismissed the petition of respondents$ Respondents moved for reconsideration which was reconsidered * the "A$ etitioner’s motion for reconsideration was li4ewise denied$ )n so ruling, the !hird 6ivision of the "ourt of Appeals declared that the LRA correctl deferred in giving due course to the petition for reconstitution since there is et no nal .udgment upholding or annulling respondents7 respondents7 title$ From the foregoing decisions of the "ourt of Appeals, petitioners led separate petitions for review *efore this "ourt doc4eted as 8$R$ #o$ &9%9' and 8$R$ #o$ &9%11, respectivel$ Both petitions were consolidated$ )ssue: a$ ;<# the LRA LRA has no no authorit authorit to annul annul their their title title *$ ;<# the reconstituition reconstituition of Respondent’s Respondent’s !itle would would *e a collateral collateral attac4 attac4 on petitioner’s e+isting title
c$ ;<# the were not given the opportunit to *e heard, specicall the chance to defend the validit of their !orrens title d$ the "ourt of Appeals, in resolving the appeal from the LRA, has no .urisdiction to order the cancellation of petitioners7 title Ruling: !he petitions must *e denied$ !he LRA properl ruled that the reconstituting o/cer should have conned himself to the owner7s duplicate certicate of title prior to the reconstitution$ ;hen respondents led the petition for reconstitution, the su*mitted in support thereof the owner7s duplicate certicate of title, real estate ta+ receipts and ta+ declaration$ lainl, the same should have more than su/ced as sources for the reconstitution$ 2ince respondents7 source of reconstitution is the owner7s duplicate certicate of title, there is no need for the reconstituting o/cer to require the su*mission of the plan, much less den the petition on the ground that the su*mitted plan appears to *e spurious$ !he factual nding of the LRA that respondents7 title is authentic, genuine, valid, and e+isting, while petitioners7 title is sham and spurious, as a/rmed * the two divisions of the "ourt of Appeals, is conclusive *efore this "ourt$ )t should remain undistur*ed since onl questions of law ma *e raised in a petition for review under Rule = of the Rules of "ourt$ !here is no *asis in the allegation that petitioners were deprived of >their propert> without due process of law when the "ourt of Appeals ordered the cancellation of their !orrens title, even without a direct proceeding in the R!"$ As alread discussed, there is no need to remand the case to the R!" for a re?determination on the validit of the titles of respondents and petitioners as the same has *een squarel passed upon * the LRA and a/rmed * the appellate court$ B opposing the petition for reconstitution and su*mitting their administrativel reconstituted title, petitioners acquiesced to the authorit and .urisdiction of the reconstituting o/cer, the LRA and the "ourt of Appeals, and recogni@ed their authorit to pass .udgment on their title$ All the evidence presented was dul considered * these tri*unals$ !here is thus no *asis to petitioners7 claim that the were deprived of their right to *e heard and present evidence, which is the essence of due process$ !he reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attac4 on petitioners7 title which was irregularl and illegall issued in the rst place$ )n this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise that her title to the su*.ect propert is indefeasi*le *ecause of the presumption that her certicate of title is authentic$ However, this presumption is overcome * the evidence presented, consisting of the LRA report $ $ $ that !"! #o$ !?1%'9'& was issued without legal *asis !hus, petitioner cannot invo4e the indefeasi*ilit of her certicate of title$ )t *ears emphasis that the !orrens sstem does not create or vest title *ut onl conrms and records one alread e+isting and vested$ !hus, while it ma *e true, as petitioner argues, that a land registration court has no .urisdiction over parcels of land alread covered * a certicate of title, it is equall true that this rule applies onl where there e+ists no serious controvers as to the authenticit of the certicate$
