MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has granted the claims of the Manotok and Araneta families on more than 100 hectares of land in the 1,342-hectare Maysilo estate, which straddles the cities of Malabon, Caloocan and Quezon.
In a 70-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Dante Tinga, the SC upheld the findings of a special division of the Court of Appeals (CA) that declared valid and legal the certificates of titles and proprietary claims of the Manotoks and Aranetas.
The High Court took the ownership of the property from the CLT Realty Development Corporation and heirs of the late real estate broker Jose Dimson, who claimed that the vast tract of land has been with his family since the Spanish occupation, after finding that the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 owned by the two families was the mother title.
The dispute over the Maysilo estate has spanned nearly three decades since the case was filed in 1979.
The SC declared the Dimsons’ and CLT’s certificates of title null and void. “The titles held by Araneta and the Manotoks must prevail considering that their titles were issued much earlier,” the Court added.
The SC declared valid the Manotok family’s proprietary claims over nine lots with a total area of 10.7104 hectares.
However, the high tribunal refused to adopt the recommendation of the CA special division declaring 11 other titles held by the Manotok Realty Inc. or the Manotok Estate Corp. null and void due to their failure to trace back their titles to OCT No. 994.
Before annulling the Manotok titles, the Court said there is a need for the Registers of Deeds concerned to annotate its resolution on said titles in order to notify the public of their unclear status.
“If there should be any cause for the annulment of those titles from a property party’s end, then let the proper case be instituted before the appropriate court,” the SC said.
As for the Araneta family, the Court declared valid the certificate of titles in the name of Araneta Institute of Agriculture Inc. (Araneta) covering several parcels of lands with a total area of 97.2255 hectares.
In a resolution issued last December, the High Tribunal remanded to the CA the land dispute involving 1,342 hectares of the Maysilo estate and formed a special division in the CA to hear and determine several circumstances based on the evidence already on record and other evidence that may be presented during the proceedings.
The special division was composed by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga as chairperson, Justice Lucas Bersamin as senior member, and Justice Jaapar Dimaampao as junior member.
The Special Division was given three months to ascertain which of the four groups – Manotoks, Aranetas, CLT and Dimsons – were entitled to claim ownership over the properties.
The SC, on Nov. 29, 2005, junked the claims of the Araneta and Manotok families when it denied their petitions and affirmed decisions of the CA favoring CLT and the Dimsons.
Upon a motion for reconsideration of the two families, the High Court remanded in December 2007 the case to the special division of the appellate court.
The petitions involve properties covered by OCT No. 994, which in turn encompasses 1,342 hectares of the Maysilo estate.
The controversy started in 1977 after Dimson obtained an order issued by Judge Marcelino Sayo of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Caloocan City, which allowed him to register in his name properties belonging to the Maysilo estate.
Sayo’s order, in turn, was sourced from a 1966 order issued by then Judge Cecilia Muñoz-Palma of the CFI of Rizal. Dimson’s titles reflected, as their mother title, OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917.
Among these properties was a 50-hectare property that overlapped with the property of Araneta.
The Araneta titles indicate OCT No. 994 – but with a different date, May 3, 1917 – as their mother title. Consequently, Dimson filed an action for recovery of possession against Araneta.
Another property in Dimson’s name was later sold to Estelita Hipolito, who in turn sold it to CLT.
The property encroached on land covered by titles in the name of the Manotoks, who also traced their titles to OCT No. 994 dated May 3, 1917.
The SC declared in 2007 that OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 was inexistent. The CA special division also ruled that the heirs of Dimson and CLT failed to offer any explanation why their titles reflect the erroneous date of April 19, 1917.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Antonio Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago took no part in the decision while Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago was on leave.