The Supreme Court decision came as an ironic twist to what had started as a battle for ownership of the land between the club and Francisco Alonso. The national government was never part of the picture.
The case started when Alonso, son of Tomas Alonso and Asuncion Medalle, discovered documents and records that his father acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad friar estate in 1911 in accordance with the Farm Lands Act.
Tomas Alonso’ heirs had claimed that on July 26, 1948, the land was "administratively reconstituted from the owner’s duplicate under Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT 1310" in the name of the United Service Country Club, the predecessor of the Cebu Country Club.
By a court order, the name of the registered owner was changed to that of Cebu Country Club on March 8, 1960.
Later, Francisco Alonso filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court against the Cebu Country Club for declaration of nullity and non-existence of deed/title, cancellation of the certificate of title and recovery of the property.
He alleged that the Cebu Country Club "fraudulently and illegally managed to secure in its name the administrative reconstitution of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) despite the absence of any transaction of specific land dealing."
On Nov. 5, 1992, the Cebu Country Club filed a counterclaim with the RTC, arguing that Alonso had no cause of action against the club since the corporation had been in possession of the land since 1935.
The Cebu Country Club said it acquired the land in good faith and for value, that it caused the administrative reconstitution of the title of Lot No. 727 in 1948 from its predecessor, the United Service Country Club.
The RTC later ruled in the club’s favor. Alonso elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but was again rebuffed.
On Oct. 24, 2000, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to comment on the validity of Lot No. 727’s title.
The Solicitor General cited information from the Land Registration Authority and the Land Management Bureau that the Cebu Country Club had occupied the lot even before World War II and that it must have acquired the property in a proper and valid manner.
But the Solicitor General emphasized that the Cebu Country Club’s certificate of title is a reconstituted one and that a reconstituted title does not confirm or adjudicate ownership of land covered by a lost or destroyed title.
This prompted the Supreme Court to declare that neither Alonso nor the Cebu Country Club was able to establish a clear title over Lot No. 727. — Freeman News Service