albert chua, jimmy chua chi leong and spouses eduardo solis and gloria victa vs. b.e. san diego, inc

8/13/2019 Albert Chua, Jimmy Chua Chi Leong and Spouses Eduardo Solis and Gloria Victa vs. B.E. San Diego, Inc

1/33

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 165863 April 10, 2013

ALBERT CHUA, JMM! CHUA CH LEONG "#$ SPOUSES E%UAR%O SOLS AN%GLORA &CTA, Petitioners,vs.B.E. SAN %EGO, NC., Respondent.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

G.R. No. 1658'5

LOREN(ANA )OO% CORPORATON, Petitioner,vs.B.E. SAN %EGO, NC., Respondent.

D " # I S I O N

MEN%O(A, J.:

These cases $ere alread% disposed of $ith finalit% b% the #ourt on &pril '', ())*, but$ere reconsidered, re+anded to the #ourt of &ppeals #&- for reevaluation and

elevated to this #ourt aain for another revie$.

It appears fro+ the records that on &pril '', ())*, /.R. No. (010'2, a case forannul+ent of title, entitled 3oren4ana 5ood #orporation, 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon, &lbert#hua, and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa v. #ourt of &ppeals and 7.". SanDieo, Inc., $as dis+issed b% the #ourt.(On 6une '0, ())*, the #ourt stood b% its &pril'', ())* Decision b% den%in the +otion for reconsideration filed b% 3oren4ana 5ood#orporation 35#- and Spouses "duardo Solis and /loria Victa Spouses Solis-. OnNove+ber (8, ())*, the #ourt issued a resolution orderin the entr% of 9ud+ent.

Insistent, 35# filed its Petition to Re!open #ase $hile 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon 6i++%-

and &lbert #hua &lbert- filed their Second Motion for Reconsideration, both see:in toset aside the &pril '', ())* Decision and the 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())*Resolutions of the #ourt.

On March (;, ())8, the #ourt issued its Resolution'favorabl% rantin both pleadinsstatin that the


2/33

7.". San Dieo, Inc. San Dieo- filed an O+nibus Motion (- to Recall the Resolution ofMarch (;, ())8> and '- to Refer the #ase to the #ourt "n 7anc> and =- to Set #ase forOral &ru+ent> but the #ourt denied it on March =, ())2.

On 6ul% (*, '00*, after considerin all the evidence presented b% the parties, the #&

rendered another decision,*

the dispositive portion of $hich reads?

@H"R"5OR", after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b%both parties, this #ourt hereb% holds, as follo$s?

a- The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. ;0!(2 and 7#V ;(!(;are hereb% DISMISS"D.

b- The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs, that is, T#TNos. ;;*82, ;;*8;, (0*'*; and (0*'*), as $ell as the title of SpousesSolis, T#T No. )*=;), are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of their

spurious nature.

c- The validit% of the title of defendant 7.". San Dieo is hereb% APH"3D.

No pronounce+ent as to costs.

SO ORD"R"D.1

&ain, not in confor+it%, the petitioners co+e to this #ourt $ith t$o separate petitions,challenin the 6ul% (*, '00* Decision8of the #& and the October '), '00* Resolution, 2den%in their +otion for reconsideration. The first petition, doc:eted as /.R. No. (81;8=

$as filed b% &lbert, 6i++% and Spouses Solis. The other one, doc:eted as /.R. No.(81;21, $as filed b% 35#.

T*+ )"-

Records sho$ that three =- civil cases for Buietin of Title involvin tracts of landlocated in 7acoor, #avite, $ere filed before the Reional Trial #ourt, 7ranch CIC,7acoor, #avite and doc:eted as

(. #ivil #ase 7#V!;0!(2 entitled


3/33


4/33

appearin in said transfer certificates of title $ere ta:en or lifted fro+ O.#.T. No. (0'0-RO!) coverin 3ot ', referrin to the southern portion of the oriinal tract of land.

In the +eanti+e, 3ots '!E and '!3 T.#.T. Nos. =1)2= and =1)2*- in the na+e of 6uan#uenca, $ere consolidated and, in turn, $ere subdivided into eiht ;- lots. 3ot * $as

ad9udicated to Pura #uenca, $ho $as issued T.#.T. No. *(*); "hibit


5/33

On the other hand, the portion located south of the railroad trac:s $as desinated as3ot '. Traversin this land is $hat used to be a national road, no$ called the &uinaldoHih$a%, lin:in Taa%ta% #it% to Metro Manila. This parcel $as later titled as O.#.T.No. (0'0- RO!). The sub!divided parcels afore+entioned, b% their technicaldescriptions are located at the south to southeast portions of 3ot ', bounded on the

south, b% Sapa Nio and #alle Nio on the $est. Nevertheless, the said parcels $eredescribed as situated in the barrio of Talaba.

The controvers% arose $hen herein appellees learned that the sa+e parcels $ere beinclai+ed b% herein appellant, 7.". San Dieo, Incorporated. 7.". San DieoFs clai+ $asbased on t$o '- titles reistered in its na+e. The first parcel $as covered under T.#.T.No. T!(28'( &nne


6/33

Pursuant to its issuance, the said propert% $as declared b% 7.". San Dieo for tapurposes "hibits


7/33

Since the titles of 3oren4ana, #hua and Solis e+anated fro+ the title of 6uan #uenca %5rancisco issued on 5ebruar% '(, ()'', these titles should prevail over O.#.T. No. 0!8** issued on 6anuar% 1, ()82 and O.#.T. No. 0!*)0 alleedl% issued on Dece+ber '',()81, not to +ention the fact that the authenticit% of O.#.T. No. 0!*)0 of TeodoraDo+inue4 predecessor!in!interest of San Dieo, is Guestionable, for the oriinal

thereof appears to be reistered under the na+e of &ntonio Sentero. The rule is $ell!settled that a decree orderin the reistration of a particular parcel of land is a bar to afuture application for reistration coverin or affectin said lot 3earda vs. Saleeb%, =(Phil 1)0-. Thus, $here t$o certificates of title are issued to different persons coverinthe sa+e land in $hole or in part, the earlier in date +ust prevail as bet$een oriinalparties and in case of successive reistration $here +ore than one certificate is issuedover the land, the person holdin under the prior certificate is entitled to the land aainstthe person $ho rel% on the second certificate De Villa vs. Trinidad, 3!'*)(;, March '0,()8;, '' S#R& ((82, /atioon vs. /affud, 3!'()1=, March ';, ()8), '2 S#R& 28)-.(0

Thereafter, San Dieo filed an appeal $ith the #&, $hich $as doc:eted as #&!/.R. #VNo. (=1*0, based on the follo$in assin+ents of error?

I The trial court erred in findin that the three lots of the appellant are $ithin andoverlapped the lots in Guestion of the appellees.

II The trial court erred in declarin and dis+issed #ivil #ase No. 7#V!;0!(2 and#ivil #ase No.7#V!;(!(; orderin Spouses Solis to vacate the sub9ect pre+ises. The

relevant portions of the #& decision read?

5irst In this case, $here there is a so!called


8/33

a. The appellees titles are annotated $ith the inscription that the landdescribed therein $as oriinall% reistered under O#T No. (;);, but thetechnical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. (0'0- RO!).

b. The appellees titles state that the properties are located in the barrio ofTalaba $hen the properties described therein are situated in the 7arrio ofNio.

On the other hand, the appellants titles sho$ no defect.

Thus, even thouh the appellees can trace their titles as havin been oriinall%reistered on 5ebruar% '(, ()'', the succeedin titles, issued on 5ebruar% '*, ()20,$ere all defective. @h% no effort $as eerted to correct the alleed


9/33

On 6une 1, ())', 35#, 6i++%, &lbert and Spouses Solis filed a petition for revie$ oncertiorari before this #ourt, doc:eted as /.R. No. (010'2, raisin the follo$in issues?

I The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ andrave abuse of discretion in reversin the decision of the lo$er court to

uphold the validit% of the land titles of private respondent in spite of thefact that these $ere issued so+e fort%!si *8- %ears later than the titles ofpetitioners and their predecessors!in!interest.

II The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ andrave abuse of discretion in ivin +ore sinificance to the annotationthan the technical description in identif%in the lots in dispute.

III The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneousconclusion of facts, a+ountin to reversible error of la$ and rave abuseof discretion in holdin in its resolution den%in petitioners +otion for

reconsideration that petitioners failed to +a:e proper correction of theirtitles.

IV The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted rave abuse of discretion$hen it failed to pass 9ud+ent on the liabilities of the estates of Pura#uenca and 3adislao #uenca, predecessors!in!interest sellers- of thepetitioners.

On &pril '', ())*, the #ourt dis+issed the petition and subseGuentl% issuedResolutions, dated 6une '0, ())* and Nove+ber (8, ())*, den%in $ith finalit% thepetitioners +otions for reconsideration.

On March (;, ())8, ho$ever, the #ourt issued a Resolution(;rantin (- 35#s Petitionto Re!open #ase> and '- 6i++% and &lberts Second Motion for Reconsideration andsettin aside the Decision, dated &pril '', ())*, and the Resolutions dated 6une '0,())* and Nove+ber (8, ())*. The #ourt, thus, declared?

Petitioners no$ assail the correctness of the factual bases of our Decision, i.e., thattheir titles faciall% contain irreularities $hile the titles of private respondent areunble+ished. The% also den% that 7arrios Talaba and Nio are one and a half:ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other.

To prove their clai+, petitioners have attached the follo$in docu+ents?

(- certified true copies of the titles of 6uan #uenca, petitioners and privaterespondents>

'- a historical stud% of ho$ San Dieo acGuired its titles O#T No. 0!*)0and O#T No. 0!8**- and a certification dated &uust '), ())* fro+ theReister of Deeds that the oriinal of O#T No. 0!*)0 in the na+e of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt18


10/33

Teodora Do+inue4, San Dieos predecessor, did not eist in theReistr% file and did not for+ part of their records>

=- a state+ent that O#T No. 0!*)( not O#T No. *)0- in the na+e ofTeodora Do+inue4 no$ eists in the records of the Reister of Deeds of

#avite $ith a true cop% of said O#T No. 0!*)( certified on 5ebruar% '*,())1>

*- a certification and s:etch fro+ the 3and Reistration &uthorit% that thelot described in the alleed O#T No. 0!*)0 of Teodora Do+inue4 sitsupon and encroaches on the National Hih$a% &uinaldo Hih$a%->

1- surve%, s:etch plans and certifications fro+ the 3and Reistration&uthorit% indicatin that the land in O#T No. 0!8** of San Dieo overlaps$ith the land covered b% O#T No. (0'0 RO!)- of 6uan #uenca>

8- flo$ charts tracin the subdivision and partition of #uencas land intothe present parcels of land purchased b% petitioners fro+ the heirs of#uenca hi+self> the partitions $ere +ade $ith approval of the court>

2- a historical outline and raphic stud% of the transactions over #uencasland $hich sho$s ho$ petitioners ca+e to purchase their lots>

;- a factual representation that O#T No. (0'0 RO!)-, #uencas title, andO#T No. (;); RO!1;- inscribed in petitioners titles cover differentparcels of land> and that O#T No. (;); is not the sa+e as O#T Nos. 0!8** and 0!*)0 of San Dieo>

)- a certification b% the Municipal Plannin and Develop+ent #oordinatorof 7acoor, #avite that 7arrio Nio and 7arrio Talaba are actuall% ad9acentto each other>

(0- order dated 6anuar% '8, ();( of the #ourt of 5irst Instance, 7ranch 1,7acoor, #avite, decreein the correction of the #huas transfer certificatesof title. The court declared that the certification in the face of the #huastitles $as an error and, therefore, ordered its a+end+ent to reflect thetrue fact that the titles $ere derived fro+ O#T No. (0'0 RO!)- of #uenca


11/33

alleed ne$ facts and sub+itted pertinent docu+ents puttin in doubt the correctness ofour factual findins and leal conclusions. @e cannot be insensitive to these alleationsfor this #ourt is co++itted to render 9ustice on the basis of the truth.

Pursuant to this postulate, this #ourt has held ti+e and aain that rules of procedure

are but +ere tools desined to facilitate the attain+ent of 9ustice. The% are not the endin the+selves. Ander etre+e circu+stances, $e have suspended the rules andecepted a particular case fro+ their operation to respond to the hiher interests of

9ustice. In the cases at bar, the location of the contested lots, the nu+ber of peopleaffected and the i+pact of the litiation on the peace of the co++unit% 9ustif% itsreopenin to ive all the parties full opportunit% to prove their clai+s.()

On March =, ())2, the #ourt issued another resolution den%in San Dieos O+nibusMotion (- to Recall the Resolution of March (;, ())8> '- to Refer the #ase to the #ourt"n 7anc> and =- to Set #ase for Oral &ru+ent.

7ac: to the #ourt of &ppeals

In accordance $ith this #ourts Resolutions, dated March (;, ())8 and March =, ())2,the #& $as tas:ed to receive evidence and resolve the follo$in issues?

I @hether or not there is overlappin of titles of the petitioners $ith thoseof the private respondent> and

II @hether or not the apparent defective transfer certificates of title of thepetitioners, alleedl% co+in fro+ Oriinal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0,can $ithstand the riors of leal scrutin%.

S+o#$ R/li# o -*+ CA

On 6ul% (*, '00*, after considerin all the evidence presented b% the parties, the #&rendered another decision aain in favor of San Dieo, the dispositive portion of $hichreads?

@H"R"5OR", after a detailed consideration of the totalit% of evidence presented b%both parties, this #ourt hereb% holds, as follo$s?

a- The co+plaints of plaintiffs in #ivil #ases Nos. ;0!(2 and 7#V ;(!(;

are hereb% DISMISS"D.

d- The Transfer #ertificates of Title in the na+e of plaintiffs, that is, T#TNos. ;;*82, ;;*8;, (0*'*; and (0*'*), as $ell as the title of SpousesSolis, T#T No. )*=;), are hereb% #&N#"33"D on account of theirspurious nature.

e- The validit% of the title of defendant 7.". San Dieo is hereb% APH"3D.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt19


12/33

No pronounce+ent as to costs.

SO ORD"R"D.'0

The #& co+posed of a ne$ set of 6ustices,'(aain found that first, there $as no

overlappin of titles bet$een those of the petitioners and those of the respondentbecause the sub9ect properties described in the separate titles $ere located in separateand different barrios. The certificates of title of the petitioners indicated that theproperties covered therein $ere located in 7arrio Talaba, 7acoor, #avite, $hile those ofthe respondent sho$ed that its properties $ere located in 7arrio Nio. 7arrio Talabaand 7arrio Nio $ere t$o separate and distinct localities $hose boundaries $ere clearl%defined and delineated.

Moreover, copies of the application for reistration and confir+ation of title filed b% 6uan#uenca 6uan- before the then #ourt of 5irst Instance #5I- of the Province of #avitespecificall% indicated that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba,

apote, Malicsi, and Poblacion in 7acoor, #avite. The notices of hearin for hisapplication li:e$ise identified the sub9ect lots as located in the afore+entioned barrios,$ithout an% +ention of a propert% in 7arrio Nio.

Second, the #& stated that, ecept for T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*), the titles reliedupon b% the petitioners all indicated that the% ca+e fro+ O#T No. (;);. ''It appeared,ho$ever, that the technical descriptions of the properties therein referred to the parcelsof land previousl% covered b% O#T No. (0'0- RO!). On the other hand, the surve%plans presented b% San Dieo consistentl% sho$ed that its propert% $as located in7arrio Nio and these surve% plans appeared to be reular and in order.

Third, the #& noted that T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert,respectivel%, contained alterations, in violation of Section (0; of Presidential DecreeP.D.- No. (1'), considerin that the nu+ber (;); in the O#T $as altered to reflect R0!). &dditionall%, 6i++% and &lbert failed to notif% San Dieo, as a part%!in!interest, $henthe% filed a petition for correction of entries in their respective titles before the then #5Iof #avite, despite their :no$lede of its clai+ over the sub9ect propert%.

5ourth, the #& ruled that the docu+ents presented b% the petitioners $ere not eactl%


13/33

On March ), '001, upon +otion of the parties, the #ourt issued a Resolution '=directinthe consolidation of /.R. No. (81;21 $ith /.R. No. (81;8=.

On 6une 8, '002, the #ourt issued the Resolution'*den%in due course to the petitions.

On March 1, '00;, actin on the separate +otions for reconsideration of the petitionersand other supple+ental pleadins, the #ourt resolved to rant the +otions, reinstate thepetitions and reGuire the parties to sub+it their respective +e+oranda.'1

In effect, this disposition is a revie$ of the #ourts &pril '', ())* Decision in /.R. No.(010'2.'8

In their respective petitions, 35#, 6i++%, &lbert, and Spouses Solis anchored theirpra%er for the reversal of the #& decision on the follo$in?

5or &lbert #hua, 6i++% #hua and Spouses Solis /.R. No. (81;8=-?

&SSI/NM"NT O5 "RRORS

I

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$, erroneousconclusion of facts and rave abuse of discretion $hen it upheld the validit% of the titlesof San Dieo considerin that the said titles cover tracts of land that have beenpreviousl% reistered and titled under the na+e 6uan #uenca % 5rancisco.

II

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and rave abuse ofdiscretion in rulin that the t$o titles of San Dieo are unble+ished b% an% defect.

III

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of factsa+ountin to rave abuse of discretion in holdin that O#T (;); RO!1; is a separatetitle for 3ot!( of O#T (0'0 RO!) that $as issued on &pril (*, ()';.

IV

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible erroneous conclusion of facts,a+ountin to reversible error of la$ and rave abuse of discretion, in holdin that thetitles of the petitioners oriinated fro+ O.#.T. (;); RO!1;.

V
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt26


14/33

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and rave abuse ofdiscretion in holdin that the titles of the petitioners are defective because the technicaldescription of the land stated therein ca+e fro+ O#T (0'0 RO!) and not fro+ O#T(;); RO!1;.

VI

The Honorable #ourt of &ppeals co++itted reversible error of la$ and rave abuse ofdiscretion in holdin that the correction +ade on the titles of 6i++% #hua and &lbert#hua are null and void.

5or 35# /.R. No. (81;21-?

/ROANDS

&

The #ourt of &ppeals rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin that petitionerfailed to establish a better riht to the sub9ect properties even after petitioner $as ableto trace its title fro+ one issued prior to the title relied upon b% respondent.

(. Petitioner established the identit% of the Sub9ect Properties and thatthe% are overlapped b% the propert% described in respondents O#T No.O!8**.

'. Petitioner clearl% established its o$nership of the Sub9ect Properties.

7

The #ourt of &ppeals rievousl% co++itted a reversible error in rulin that respondentstitle rests on solid support despite the latters failure to establish ho$ it acGuiredo$nership over the propert% covered b% O#T No. O!8**.

#

The #ourt of &ppeals rievousl% co++itted a reversible error $hen it relied upon asuperficial co+parison of the respective certificates of title of the parties in concludinthat respondent had superior title to the sub9ect properties.

(. The presence or absence of errors on the face of the certificates of titleis irrelevant in an action for Guietin of title.

'. In rulin that there $as no overlappin of titles in this case, the #ourt of&ppeals disrearded the principle that it is the description of theboundaries of a propert% that is essential for its identification.


15/33

=. The errors in petitioners certificates of title that $ere hihlihted in the&ssailed Decision $ere adeGuatel% eplained.

D

Petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value entitled to protection under the la$.

Petitioners consolidated aru+ents

The petitioners arue that their land titles should prevail over those of the respondentbecause the lands covered b% their titles $ere previousl% reistered under the na+e oftheir predecessor!in!interest, 6uan, as earl% as 5ebruar% ()''. Specificall%, O#T No.(0'0-!RO!), fro+ $hich the% derived their titles, $as oriinall% reistered on 5ebruar%'(, ()'' in the na+e of 6uan $hile those of the respondent $ere reistered onl% in()81 and ()82, respectivel%.

The sub9ect properties are 3ots '!&!= T#T No. T!;;*8;- and '!&!* T#T No. T!;;*82-of plan Psd!((0);0. The technical descriptions found in T#T Nos. T!;;*8; and T!;;*82, $hich $ere transferred fro+ T#T Nos. *(101'2and *(108,';identif% the lotsthe% cover as 3ots '!&!= and '!&!*, respectivel%, of plan Psd!((0);0 and define the+etes and bounds thereof.

The petitioners insist that the titles of the respondent overlap their titles. The evidencead+itted in the RT# sho$ed the respondents properties, covered b% O#T No. O!8**issued in ()82> and T#T No. (28'(')fro+ O#T No. O!*)0=0issued in ()81 to TeodoraDo+inue4, overlappin the National Hih$a% and Sapan Nio and the propertiescovered b% the titles of the petitioners $hich $ere traced to have oriinated fro+ 3ot!'

of O#T No. (0'0 RO!) issued to 6uan in ()''. The overlappin $as ad+itted b% therespondents o$n counsel. The 7ureau of 3ands, throuh "nr. 5elipe Vene4uela"nr. Vene4uela-, the #hief of Technical Services Section, identified the sub9ectproperties $ith the use of the technical descriptions in T#T Nos. T!;;*82 and T!;;*8;in a verification surve% conducted in co+pliance $ith the RT# order. The Report of the7ureau of 3ands on the verification surve%, dated 6ul% (, ();0, disclosed that there $asan overlappin bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described in therespondents O#T No. O!8**. The sa+e report sho$ed that of the ),';2 sGuare +etersof land co+prisin 3ot '!&!= of Psd!((0);0 T#T No. T!;;*8;-, 1,8'; sGuare +eters$ere overlapped b% the respondents O#T No. O!8**> $hile 2,*;) sGuare +eters of the),';; sGuare +eter area of 3ot '!&!* T#T No. T!;;*82- $ere overlapped b% O#T No.

O!8**. This overlappin $as confir+ed b% the 3and Reistration &uthorit% 3R&-throuh its #ertification,=(dated 5ebruar% (*, ())1.

The petitioners further arue that $hat defines the land is the technical description asplotted on the round and that the location should be based on the technical descriptionand not on the basis of the barrio indicated therein.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt31


16/33

The% clai+ that the errors in their certificates of title $ere adeGuatel% eplained in thesense that the propert% of 6uan covered b% O#T No. (0'0 $as principall% located in7arrio Talaba, $hich $as ad9acent to 7arrio Nio, as sho$n b% the #ertification, datedMa% '', ())1, issued b% the Municipal Plannin and Develop+ent #oordinator of7acoor, #avite. The sub9ect properties once for+ed part of a lare tract of land covered

b% O#T No. (0'0, and $hen 6uans land $as partitioned or subdivided throuh the%ears, the resultin lots $ere +ista:enl% described as bein located in 7arrio Talaba,althouh the% $ere actuall% situated in the ad9acent 7arrrio Nio.

&t an% rate, petitioner 35# arues that it is an innocent purchaser for value entitled toprotection under the la$ considerin that the sub9ect properties $ere purchased $ith theapproval of the court in the course of the probate proceedins and $ere not inpossession of an%one. It $as 9ustified in rel%in upon T#T Nos. T!*(101 and T!*(108since it $as not under an% obliation to o be%ond $hat appeared on the face of thesetitles.

Respondents aru+ent

Respondent San Dieo counters that the petitioners clai+ of o$nership over thesub9ect properties $as not sufficientl% proven. The% $ere not able to prove thesuperiorit% of their titles over their titles. It ave the follo$in reasons?

5irst, the petitioners titles have defects, as follo$s?

(. The% $ere annotated $ith the inscription that the land described therein$as oriinall% reistered under O#T No. (;);, but the technicaldescriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. (0'0- RO!)>

'. The inscriptions on the petitioners titles state that the properties arelocated in 7arrio Talaba $hen the properties described therein aresituated in 7arrio Nio>

Second, T#T Nos. (0*'*; and (0*'*) of 6i++% and &lbert, respectivel%, $ere altered.The nu+ber (;); in the O#T space $as chaned to reflect RO!) instead. Theirpetitions for correction of entries in their titles filed before the #5I of #avite failed toco+pl% $ith the 9urisdictional reGuire+ents of Section (0; of P.D. No. (1'), one of$hich $as to ive notice to a part% in interest of ones application or petition fora+end+ent or alteration to a title.

Third, even assu+in that the petitioners titles oriinated fro+ O#T No. (0'0, thepetitions $ould still not prosper because O#T No. (0'0 $as never offered as evidencein court. 3i:e$ise, the petition for reconstitution filed b% 3adisla$ #uenca 3adisla$-,dated 6anuar% '8, ()1), $as void on its face because it did not contain all the essentialdata reGuired b% la$ such as the location, area and boundaries of the properties> thenature and description of the buildins or i+prove+ents, if an%, $hich did not belon tothe o$ners of the land, the na+es and addresses of the o$ners of such buildins and


17/33

i+prove+ents> the na+es and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession ofthe propert%> the na+es of the o$ners of the ad9oinin properties> and the na+es of allpersons $ho +iht have an% interest in the propert%.

5ourth, the alleed


18/33

O#T No. (;);-RO!1; $as divided into (= lots. "leven ((- $ere located in the barriosof Talaba, apote, and Malicsi, and t$o '- in the Poblacion of 7acoor, #avite.

On &pril (8, ()8), after 6uans death, 3ot ' of O#T No. (0'0- RO!) $as subdividedinto (' lots as approved b% the #5I of #avite, in an action for partition filed b% 6ose

#uenca 6ose-, a survivin heir. Thereafter, (' ne$ titles $ere issued to each of theselots $hich included T#T No. =1)8==*for 3ot '!&> T#T No. =1)2==1for 3ot '!E> and T#TNo. =1)2*=8for 3ot '!3. These = lots 3ot '!&, 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 $ere titled andreistered in the na+e of 6uan. &ll these titles $ere inscribed as oriinall% reistered asO#T No. (0'0- RO!).

On Septe+ber ), ()8), 3ot '!& $as subdivided into 2 lots and ne$ individual titles $ereissued to each lot includin T#T No. *(101=2for 3ot '!&!=, $hich $as ad9udicated toPura #uenca Pura-, another heir> and T#T No.*(108 for 3ot '!&!*, $hich $asad9udicated to 3adisla$, also another heir. &ll these titles $ere inscribed as oriinall%reistered as O#T No. (;);- RO!1;, and not as T!=1)8=, oriinall% reistered as O#T

No. (0'0- RO!).

&lthouh the titles issued to Pura and 3adisla$ stated that the lands covered therein$ere oriinall% reistered as O#T No. (;);, $hich $as 3ot ( of the northern portion of6uans lare tract of land, the technical descriptions in the said T#Ts $ere ta:en or liftedfro+ O#T No. (0'0- RO!), $hich $as 3ot ' or the southern portion of 6uans laretract of land.

3i:e$ise, 3ot '!E and 3ot '!3 $ere consolidated and further subdivided into ; lots.These ; lots $ere issued ne$ individual titles $hich included T#T No. *(*)2 =;for 3ot =,$hich $as ad9udicated to 3adisla$> T#T No. *(*);=)for 3ot *, $hich $as ad9udicated to

Pura> and T#T No. *(100 for 3ot 8, $hich $as ad9udicated to 6ose. &ll these ne$ titles$ere inscribed as oriinall% reistered as O#T No. (;);- RO!1;, not as T!=1)2= andT!=1)2*, oriinall% reistered as O#T No. (0'0- RO!).

On October '(, ()28, after the death of Pura and 3adisla$, the #5I of #avite approvedthe sale of 3ot '!&!= $ith T#T No. *(101 and 3ot '!&!* $ith T#T No. *(108 to 35#.The ne$ titles $ere eventuall% issued in the na+e of 35#. T#T No. ;;*8; and T#T No.;;*82, $hich $ere also inscribed as oriinall% issued as O#T No. (;);- RO!1;.

On Ma% ), ()2), the #5I of #avite approved the sale of 3ot = $ith T#T No. *(*)2 and3ot * $ith T#T No. *(*); to 6i++% and &lbert, respectivel%, and ne$ titles $ere issued,

T#T No.(0*'*; for 6i++% and T#T No. (0*'*) for &lbert. The ne$ titles $ereinscribed as oriinall% issued as O#T No. (;);-RO!1;. 3ot 8 $ith T#T No. *(100 $assold b% 6ose to Spouses Solis and a ne$ title, T#T No. )*=;), $as issued to the+.

There $ere t$o co++on features present in the titles of 6i++%, &lbert and SpousesSolis? (- the co++on inscription in their titles $as that the lands covered therein $ereoriinall% reistered as O#T No.(;); on &pril (*, ()';> and '- the co++on descriptionthat the properties therein $ere located in the 7arrio of Talaba, 7acoor, #avite.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt39


19/33

The leal sGuabble in this case started $hen San Dieo ca+e into the picture andclai+ed o$nership of the sub9ect parcels of land for $hich titles $ere also reistered inits na+e, based on O#T No. O!8**, issued upon application and proper proceedins in3R# #ase Nos. N!112 and N!=08*2 before the then #5I of #avite and T#T No.T!(28'($hich cancelled O#T No. 0!*)0 $hich, in turn, $as oriinall% issued to Do+inue4, $ho

sold the sa+e propert% to it throuh an absolute deed of sale,*0

dated 5ebruar% '8,()88.

To recapitulate, the parcels of land in dispute are those covered b% (- T#T No. ;;*82and T#T No. ;;*8; issued in favor of 35#> '- T#T No. T!(0*'*; and T#T No. T!(0*'*) issued in favor of 6i++% and &lbert> =- T#T No. T!)*=;) issued in favor ofSpouses Solis> *- T#T No. T!(28'( $hich cancelled O#T No. O!*)0 and issued infavor of San Dieo> and 1- O#T No. 0!8** issued in favor of San Dieo.

Specificall%, on the 35# clai+ of eclusive o$nership over the t$o '- parcels of landcovered b% T#T Nos. ;;*82 and ;;*8;, issued on 5ebruar% (;, ()22, San Dieo

insists that it has been in open, continuous and adverse possession in the concept of ano$ner of these parcels of land for +ore than fift% 10- %ears before the% $ere purchasedb% 35#. San Dieo bouht the sub9ect propert% fro+ Do+inue4 on 5ebruar% 8, ()88and the absolute deed of sale $as sub+itted in 3R# #ase No. N!112. It has also beendeclarin said propert% for ta purposes.

@ith respect to the clai+s of o$nership b% 6i++% and &lbert over the parcels of landcovered b% T#T No. T!(0*'*; and T#T No. T!(0*'*) issued on 6anuar% '0 and =0,()2), respectivel%, San Dieo arues that it acGuired the sa+e parcels b% virtue of T#TNo. T!(28'( issued on March ', ()88 $hich cancelled O#T No. O!*)0 oriinall% issuedto Do+inue4, $ho sold the sa+e propert% to San Dieo.

On their part, Spouses Solis clai+ that the% purchased a portion of the propert% titledunder T#T No. T!(28'( in favor of San Dieo fro+ 6ose for $hich T#T No. T!)*=;)$as issued to the+.

Petitioners failed to prove the superiorit% of their titles over those of the respondent

In civil cases, the part% havin the burden of proof +ust establish his case b% apreponderance of evidence.


20/33

that the land described therein $as oriinall% reistered under O#T No. (;);, but thetechnical descriptions found therein $ere lifted fro+ O#T No. (0'0- RO!)> and '- thepetitioners titles specificall% state that the sub9ect properties are located in the 7arrio ofTalaba, 7acoor, #avite, $hen the properties described therein are actuall% situated inthe 7arrio of Nio, $hich is a separate and distinct localit%.

These defects $ere carried over fro+ the defective titles of their predecessors!in!interest, na+el%, Pura and 3adisla$, $hich contained technical descriptions $hich,ho$ever, did not correspond $ith the recital of facts in the certification portion. It +a% berecalled that $hen T#T NO. *(101 $as ad9udicated to Pura, and T#T No. *(108 to3adisla$ on Septe+ber ), ()8), both titles $ere inscribed as oriinall% reistered asO#T No. (;);- RO!1;, and not as T!=1)8=, oriinall% reistered as O#T No.(0'0-RO!).

The defects of these titles are evident fro+ the fact that O#T No. (0'0- RO!) isdifferent fro+ O#T No. (;);. O#T No. (0'0- RO!) $as an ad+inistrativel%

reconstituted title fro+ O#T No. (0'0 issued to 6uan on 5ebruar% (1, ()''. On theother hand, O#T No. (;); $as a separate O#T issued to 6uan on &pril (*, ()';. O#TNo. (;); covered 3ot (, the northern portion of 6uans vast tract of land, $hile O#T No.(0'0- RO!) covered its southern portion.

The sa+e defects also sho$ed in T#T No. *(*)2 issued in favor of 3adisla$> T#T No.*(*); issued in favor of Pura> and in T#T No. *(100 issued in favor of 6ose. &ll thesetitles $ere li:e$ise inscribed as oriinall% reistered as O#T No. (;);- RO!1;, and notas T!=1)2= and T!=1)2*, oriinall% reistered as O#T No. (0'0-RO!).

Since T#T No. *(101 and T#T No. *(108 $ere defective titles issued on Septe+ber ),

()8) to Pura and 3adisla$, respectivel%, it necessaril% follo$s that 35#s T#T No.;;*8; and T#T No. ;;*82, $hich cancelled said titles, $ere li:e$ise defective. Thesa+e is true $ith the title issued to Spouses Solis, T#T No. )*=;), $hich cancelledT#T No. *(100.

#learl%, the +is+atch in the technical descriptions and the recital of facts in thecertification on the face of the petitioners titles creates a serious cloud of doubt on theinterit% of the said titles. The obvious disparities +a:e it difficult to eactl% deter+inethe sub9ect parcels of land covered b% the said titles in the sense that the technicaldescriptions therein referred to the area south of 6uans tract of land $hile the recital offacts in the certification therein refers to the area north of 6uans tract of land. It +ust be

stressed that the northern and southern portions of 6uans tract of land have separatetitles, O#T No. (;); for the northern portion and O#T No. (0'0 for the southernportion. In effect, the petitioners alleed o$nership rihts over the sub9ect propertieshave not been satisfactoril% and conclusivel% proven due to such inconsistencies.

The petitioners, ho$ever, arue that the errors or disparities in the inscriptions on theface of their respective titles $ere 9ust clerical and, therefore, cannot affect the interit%of their titles. In this reard, the #ourt adopts the initial rulin of the #& on the +atter


21/33

and other related points in its Dece+ber '*, ())( Decision in #& /.R. No. (=1*0,$hich reads?

The appellees petitioners- arue, ho$ever, that the annotations appearin in theirrespective titles are +ere clerical errors and that the technical descriptions contained

therein should prevail. This aru+ent, ho$ever, cannot find application to the case atbar because the opposin parties have in their possession titles referrin to the sa+epropert%, and $hose technical descriptions pertain to the said propert%. The appelleesclai+ that it is the annotations in their titles that are erroneous is not supported b% theevidence. On the contrar%, their ad+ission that the oriinal titles of their predecessors!in!interest $ere reconstituted casts doubts on the appellees clai+ that the technicaldescription should prevail over the annotations.

Our conclusion that the appellees titles are defective is bolstered b% the fact that thetitles of their predecessors!in!interest $ere alread% defective, as a result of the partitionof the propert%. &s narrated in the foreoin facts, pursuant to a partition of the estate of

6uan #uenca, separate titles $ere issued to the heirs Pura, 3adisla$a and 6ose#uenca. One parcel ad9udicated to Pura #uenca covered b% T#T No. *(101 $asissued on 5ebruar% '*, ()20 &nne


22/33

reularl% issued titles of the appellant, the appellees belated and defective titles +ustive $a%.*'

5urther+ore, the titles issued so+eti+e in ()2), T#T No. (0*'*;, to 6i++% $hichcancelled T#T No. *(*)2, and T#T No. (0*'*), to &lbert $hich cancelled T#T No.

*(*);- are li:e$ise defective due to the apparent +aterial alterations in the certificationportion of their respective titles. The certifications $ere altered to +a:e the nu+ber(;); appear as RO!) in the O#T space of the titles. The #& $as correct in sa%in that+aterial alterations affected the interit% of these titles.

6i++% and &lbert +anifested that the% filed a petition for the correction of entries in theirrespective titles before the then #5I of #avite and that the said court ranted theirpetition. The records, ho$ever, failed to sho$ sufficient proof that 6i++% and &lbertfaithfull% co+plied $ith the basic notice reGuire+ent under Section (0; of P.D. No.(1'), $hich provides as follo$s?

Sec. (0;. &+end+ent and alteration of certificates. K No erasure, alteration, ora+end+ent shall be +ade upon the reistration boo: after the entr% of a certificate oftitle or of a +e+orandu+ thereon and the attestation of the sa+e b% the Reister ofDeeds, ecept b% order of the proper #ourt of 5irst Instance. & reistered o$ner orother person havin an interest in reistered propert%, or, in proper cases, the Reisterof Deeds $ith the approval of the #o++issioner of 3and Reistration, +a% appl% b%petition to the court upon the round that the reistered interests of an% description,$hether vested, continent, epectant or inchoate appearin on the certificate, haveter+inated and ceased> or that a ne$ interest not appearin upon the certificate havearisen or been created> or that an o+ission or error $as +ade in enterin a certificate oran% +e+orandu+ thereon, or on an% duplicate certificate> or that the na+e of an%

person on the certificate has been chaned> or that the reistered o$ner has +arried,or, if reistered as +arried, that the +arriae has been ter+inated and no riht orinterest of heirs or creditors $ill thereb% be affected> or that a corporation $hich o$nedreistered land and has been dissolved has not conve%ed the sa+e $ithin three %earsafter its dissolution> or upon an% other reasonable round> and the court +a% hear anddeter+ine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and +a% order the entr% orcancellation of a ne$ certificate, . L"+phases suppliedJ

The above provision reGuires that all interested parties +ust be dul% notified of thepetitioners application for a+end+ent or alteration of the certificate of title. Relief underthe said leal provision can onl% be ranted if there is unani+it% a+on the parties, orthat there is no adverse clai+ or serious ob9ection on the part of an% part% in interest. *=

@ithout doubt, San Dieo, a part%!in!interest $ith an adverse clai+, $as not dul%notified of the said petition. The records reveal that despite their :no$lede about itsadverse clai+ over the sub9ect properties, 6i++% and &lbert never notified San Dieoabout their application or petition for a+end+ent or alteration of title. This #ourt arees$ith the #& that the lac: of notice to San Dieo placed in serious Guestion the validit% ofthe #5I 9ud+ent or its enforceabilit% aainst it. &n a+end+entalteration effected
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt43


23/33

$ithout notice to the affected o$ners $ould not be in co+pliance $ith la$ or thereGuire+ents of due process.**

The record sho$s that &lbert $as a$are of San Dieos adverse clai+ on his propert%.Despite said :no$lede, there $as still no due notice iven to it. Thus?

&tt% 7ernardo?

B &fter %ou purchased this propert% did %ou ta:e possession thereof

& es, sir.

B Did an% person disturb %our propert%

& es, sir.

7% &tt%. 7ernardo To the $itness-

B Did %ou co+e to :no$ $ho is that person

& es, sir.

B @ho

& The +en of 7artolo+e San Dieo, sir.

B Did %ou co+e to :no$ $h% the% disturb %our possession

& es, sir.

B @hat

& 7ecause the% clai+ed that the% are also the o$ner of the lot, sir.

B &fter :no$in that 7artolo+e ". San Dieo is clai+in to be the o$ner of %our lot,$hat did %ou do

& I $ent to +% attorne% and he instructed +e also to locate for the oriinal title fro+

$here this lot ca+e fro+. TSN, pp. (1!(8, 6ul% (), ();=-*1

There is no overlappin of the properties covered b% the titles of the parties

The petitioners arue that an overlappin of titles $as established b% their evidence.Surve%s and s:etch plans*8$ere presented sho$in the relative positions of the sub9ectproperties as $ell as their histor%*2$hich $ere traced all the $a% bac: to their +othertitle, O#T No. (0'0. Moreover, the 7ureau of 3ands, throuh the #hief of its Technical
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt47


24/33

Services Section, "nr. Vene4uela, identified the sub9ect properties usin the technicaldescriptions in T#T Nos. T!;;*82 and T!;;*8; in a verification surve% conducted inco+pliance $ith the order of the trial court. His Report, dated 6ul% (, ();0, stated thatthere $as an overlappin bet$een the sub9ect properties and the propert% described inthe respondents O#T No. O!8**. The report sho$ed that of the ),';2 sGuare +eters of

land co+prisin 3ot '!&!= Psd!((0);0 T#T No. T!;;*8;-, 1,8'; sGuare +eters $ereoverlapped b% the respondents O#T No. O!8**, $hile 2,*;) sGuare +eters of the),';; sGuare +eter of 3ot '!&!* T#T No. T!;;*82- $ere overlapped b% O#T No. O!8**. This report $as the basis of the #ertification, dated 5ebruar% (*, ())1, of the 3R&,to the effect that 3ots ( and ' situated in 7arrio Nio, 7acoor, #avite, decreed in 3R##ase No. N!112, Record No. N!=08*2 under Decree No. N!((''=) issued on 6anuar%*, ()82 in favor of the respondent, $ere parcels of land covered b% O#T No. O!8**,and $hen plotted in the +unicipal inde sheet throuh its tie line, $ould fall insidesubdivision plan 3R#- Psd!))8)2, 3ot!'!&, $hich included the sub9ect properties.

The respondent, ho$ever, asserts that overlappin is i+possible because the properties

in Guestion are located in different barrios> the petitioners properties are in 7arana%Talaba, $hile those of the respondent are situated in 7arana% Nio.

#onsiderin the criticall% defective certificates of title, there can be no clear evidence ofoverlappin. &s the petitioners the+selves 9udiciall% ad+itted, their respectivecertificates of title $ere defective because (J the +other title, indicated therein, $asO#T No. (;);, containin descriptions lifted fro+ O#T No. (0'0- RO!), areconstituted title> 'J the location of the properties as indicated in their titles $as 7arrioTalaba> and =J the technical descriptions contained in their T#Ts pertain to propertiesspecified in O#T No. (0'0- RO!).

These defects are ver% +aterial that it cannot be arued that the% are 9ust clerical innature. The fla$s in their titles are +a9or defects that cannot 9ust be dis+issed ast%poraphical and innocuous. The defects pertain to the essential core of a title anddefinitel% affect their interit%. 7ein sinificantl% defective, these cannot serve asindubitable and valid bases for a clear and convincin delineation of the +etes andbounds of the properties. The #ourt alread% debun:ed this aru+ent in its &pril '',())* Decision in /.R. No. (010'2. Thus?

Petitioners $ould +ini+i4e the i+port of the defects in their titles b% describin the+ as


25/33

are clai+in o$nership of parcels of land not in the location stated in their respectivetitles.

The properties, presentl% in possession of San Dieo, are located in 7arrio Nio, asdescribed in their titles. &lthouh 7arrio Talaba and 7arrio Nio are ad9acent to each

other, their respective boundaries are clearl% defined and delineated fro+ the plans,+aps and surve%s on record. It has not been sho$n, so far, that the said barrios $ereone and the sa+e at so+e point in ti+e. 7asic is the rule that a person, $ho clai+s thathe has a better riht to the propert% or pra%s for its recover%, +ust prove his assertionb% clear and convincin evidence and is dut% bound to identif% sufficientl% andsatisfactoril% the propert%.10

#onsistentl%, the notices of hearin of 6uans applications for reistration andconfir+ation of title in #ase No. ('), /3RO Record No. ')'(01(and #ase No. 8),/3RO Record No.(;;'8,1'before the #5I of the Province of #avite, specificall%indicated therein that the properties applied for $ere located in 7arrios Talaba, apote,

Malicsi, and Poblacion, in 7acoor, #avite. There $as no +ention $hatsoever of an%propert% located in 7arrio Nio. It is for this reason that the #ourt finds difficult% inacceptin the petitioners theor% that the propert% that the% have been clai+in +a%have been erroneousl% classified as situated in 7arrio Talaba, $hen the% are actuall%located in 7arrio Nio.

The verification surve% is unreliable

3i:e the petitioners titles, the #ourt finds the verification surve% conducted b% "nr.Vene4uela of the 7ureau of 3ands unreliable. It is so because "nr. Vene4uelaad+itted that his table surve% $as +erel% based on the technical description of the

defective titles. Naturall%, an overlappin $ould be epected on this basis. &ain, the#ourt reiterates its position in this reard $hich appears in its &pril '', ())* Decision in/.R. No. (010'2. Thus?

To be sure, these defects $ere 9udiciall% ad+itted b% the petitioners. The% attached theirdefective titles to their co+plaints in the trial court. &s aforestated, their titles sho$ed ontheir ver% face that the% covered lots located in 7arrio Talaba, +unicipalit% of 7acoor$hereas the lots of private respondent are in 7arrio Nio of the sa+e +unicipalit%. Thet$o barrios are one and a half :ilo+eters a$a% fro+ each other. 3i:e$ise, the face oftheir titles sho$ that the% e+anated fro+ O#T No. (;); or fro+ 3ot ( constitutin thenorthern portion of 6uan #uencaFs propert% before its subdivision. Nonetheless, the

technical descriptions of the lots appearin in their titles $ere lifted fro+ O#T No.(0'0- RO!) or fro+ 3ot ' for+in the southern portion of 6uan #uencaFs land. No lessthan petitionersF $itness, "n. Vene4uela, confir+ed these blatant defects $hen hetestified, thus?

7 &TT. V&SBA"? to the $itness-

B ou said %ou referred to these titles in connection $ith %our verification
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt52


26/33

@ITN"SS?

& es, sir.

B No$, I presu+e %ou also sa$ the +atters stated in the second pararaph of the first

pae of the titles, I a+ referrin . . . particularl% to the fact that as stated in both of thesetitles, this land $as oriinall% reistered on &pril (*, ()'; as Oriinal #ertificate of Title(;); pursuant to Decree No. ==;'1) 3R# Record No. ')'(*, did %ou notice those

@ITN"SS?

& I noticed that, sir.

7 &TT. V&SBA"? To the $itness-

B In the report that %ou sub+itted to this #ourt on %our verification surve%, $e find inpararaph ;, No, pararaph *, subpararaph f, the follo$in state+ent $hich I read,


27/33

& In a sense it is not actuall%, the title O#T (;); is located on northern portion of O#TNo. (0'0, in fact I +ade here a $or:in sheet sho$in the titles, the one Oriinal#ertificate of Title (0'0 and Oriinal #ertificate .... of Title (;); and I have here as:etch plan of the positions. .

7 &TT. V&SBA"? To the $itness-

B ou are +entioned O#T No. (;); and O#T No. (0'0, %ou $ill tell the #ourt of theset$o '- titles cover different parcels of land

@ITN"SS?

& &s per +% s:etch sheet plan, Oriinal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0 is located at thesouthern portion of the Oriinal of Title No. (;);, +eanin to sa% that the% are far apart

fro+ each other.

B No$, this technical description that %ou utili4ed to plot the land described in the title ortitles of the plaintiff, $hich title did %ou use, (;); or (0'0

& I 9ust follo$ed the title as issued, as ordered b% the #ourt.

I based +% verification based on the title as reGuired b% the #ourt.

B TH" BA"STION IS, #ORDIN/ TO OA .... V"RI5I#&TION, TH" 3&ND 7"IN/#3&IM"D 7 TH" P3&INTI55, IS IT #OV"R"D 7 (;); OR (0'0

@ITN"SS?

& @"33, IT IS &3R"&D #3"&R ON TH" TIT3" TH&T IT @&S T&E"N 5ROM O#T(;);.

B I $ill not arue to that fact that the title of 3oren4ana $as ta:en fro+ (;); but I a+as:in %ou the plottin of the technical description as described on the title of theplaintiff is referrin to a land covered b% oriinal certificate of title (;); or (0'0

& It is ver% clear on +% plan that the t$o '- titles of 3oren4ana happened to fall to

Oriinal #ertificate of Title No. (0'0.

B IN OTH"R @ORDS, I5 @" /O 7 TH" TIT3", IT @OA3D &PP"&R TH&T THISTIT3" O5 TH" 3OR"N&N&S @&S D"RIV"D 5ROM (;); 7AT TH" T"#HNI#&3D"S#RIPTION ..... @&S 5ROM &NOTH"R TIT3" SP"#I5I#&33 (0'0

@ITN"SS?


28/33


29/33

buttress their clai+. To allo$ the presentation of evidence on a piece!+eal basis,thereb% needlessl% causin a dela% in the resolution of the case $ould be anathe+a tothe purpose of deliverin 9ustice.11

In vie$ of the foreoin, the #ourt can safel% state that San Dieos O#T No. O!8**

and T#T No. T!(28'( fro+ O#T No. O!*)0- are +ore reliable than 35#s T#T No.;;*82 and T#T No. ;;*8;> 6i++% and &lberts T#T T!(0*'*; and T#T T!(0*'*),respectivel%> and Spouses Soliss T#T No. T!)*=;).1wphi1

5inall%, as to 35#Fs assertion that it is an innocent purchaser for value,> suffice it to statethat this doctrine is not applicable as the contendin titles do not refer to one and thesa+e propert%. The #ourt, once aain, restates its position on an% clai+ of da+aesaainst its predecessors!in!interest. Thus?

In a last s$in aainst the disputed Decision, petitioners contend that the respondentcourt co++itted rave abuse of discretion $hen it failed to pass 9ud+ent on the

liabilities of the estates of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$ #uenca, their predecessors!in!interest. The contention deserves scant attention. The records sho$ that the trial courtdis+issed petitionersF #o+plaint aainst the "states of Pura #uenca and 3adisla$#uenca in #ivil #ase Nos. 7#V!;0!(2 and 7#V!;(!(;. The% alleed that the said"states breached their $arranties as sellers of the sub9ect lots. Petitioners 3oren4ana5ood #orporation as $ell as 6i++% #hua #hi 3eon and &lbert #hua did not appeal thedis+issal of their #o+plaints aainst these "states. The dis+issal has beco+e finaland petitioners cannot resurrect the "statesF alleed liabilit% in this petition for revie$ oncertiorari.18

/rantin aruendo that the% are so, the re+ed% of the petitioners is to see:

co+pensation fro+ the &ssurance 5und.

@H"R"5OR", the consolidated petitions are hereb% D"NI"D for lac: of +erit.

SO ORD"R"D.

JOSE CATRAL MEN%O(A&ssociate 6ustice

@" #ON#AR?

PRESBTERO J. &ELASCO, JR.&ssociate 6ustice#hairperson

%OS%A%O M. PERALTA&ssociate 6ustice

ROBERTO A. ABA%&ssociate 6ustice
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#fnt56


30/33

MAR&C MARO &CTOR ). LEONEN&ssociate 6ustice

& T T " S T & T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultationbefore the case $as assined to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourts Division.

PRESBTERO J. &ELASCO, JR.&ssociate 6ustice#hairperson, Third Division

# " R T I 5 I # & T I O N

Pursuant to Section (=, &rticle VIII of the #onstitution and the Division #hairpersonFs&ttestation, I certif% that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in

consultation before the case $as assined to the $riter of the opinion of the #ourtFsDivision.

MARA LOUR%ES P. A. SERENO#hief 6ustice

)oo-#o-+

('=( S#R& 2(=. Penned b% then &ssociate 6ustice Re%nato S. Puno and

concurred in b% #hief 6ustice &ndres R. Narvasa, &ssociate 6usticeTeodoro R. Padilla, and &ssociate 6ustice 5loren4 D. Realado.

'Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. *(*!*'=.

=Id. at *'(.

*Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (0!'1. Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R.7ello, 6r. and concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Realado ". Maa+bonand &ssociate 6ustice 3ucenito N. Tale-

1

Id. at '*!'1.

8Id. at (0!'1.

2Id. at '2!';.

;'=( S#R& 2(=, 2(1!2(). Buotin fro+ the Dece+ber '*, ())( #&Decision in #&!/.R. #V No. (=1*0.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt8


31/33

)Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. (8*!()=.

(0Id. at (;)!()(.

((Id. at )'!)=.

('Id. at ()*!'0;> penned b% &ssociate 6ustice Venancio D. &ldecoa andconcurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice 6ose #. #a+pos and &ssociate 6ustice5ile+on H. Mendo4a.

(=Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '01!'08.

(*Id. at ())!'00.

(1Id. at (;1!(;8.

(8

Id. at ()(!()'.

(2Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. '0=!'08.

(;Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. *(*!*'=.

()Id. at *()!*''.

'0Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '*!'1.

'(Id. at (0!'1. Penned b% &ssociate 6ustice "lo% R. 7ello, 6r. and

concurred in b% &ssociate 6ustice Realado ". Maa+bon and &ssociate6ustice 3ucenito N. Tale-

''Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. '0)!'(8.

'=Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, p. '*=.

'*Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. =(2.

'1Id. at *';.

'8

3oren4ana 5ood #orp. v. #&, '=( S#R& 2(=.

'2Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. ()1.

';Id. at '0(.

')Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. 88=!88*.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt29


32/33

=0Id. at 88'.

=(Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (('.

='Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. Had9i Serad Minca 3antud, /.R. No. (8=11(,

6ul% (;, '0((,81* S#R& =8, 1(> Republic v. Spouses "nriGue4, /.R. No.(80))0, Septe+ber ((, '008, 10( S#R& *=8, **2> and SpousesDivinaracia v. 3eonidisa N. #o+eta, /.R. No. (1)880, 5ebruar% '0,'008, *;' S#R& 8';, 81;!81).

==Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. (*1!(*2.

=*Id. at (8=.

=1Id. at (21.

=8

Id. at (28.

=2Id. at ()1.

=;Id. at (;(.

=)Id. at (;2.

*0Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. 888!88;.

*("ncinas v. National 7oo:store, Inc., *;1 Phil. 8;=, 8)1'00*-.

*'Rollo /.R. No. (81;21-, pp. '0=!'01.

*=Taa%ta%!Taal Tourist Develop+ent #orporation v. #&, ==) Phil. =22,=;) ())2-.

**3ife Ho+es Realt% #orporation v. #&, /.R. No. ('0;'2, 5ebruar% (1,'002, 1(8 S#R& 8, (*.

*1Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. )0!)(.

*8

Id. at (0*!((;.

*2Id. at (*(.

*;3oren4ana 5ood #orp. v. #&, supra note '8 at 2'8.

*)Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. (0=.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt49


33/33

10Datu Eira+ Sa+paco v. Had9i Serad Minca 3antud, /.R. No. (8=11(,6ul% (;, '0((,81* S#R& =8, 1(> Republic v. Spouses "nriGue4, /.R. No.(80))0, Septe+ber ((, '008, 10( S#R& *=8, **2> and SpousesDivinaracia v. 3eonidisa N. #o+eta, /.R. No. (1)880, 5ebruar% '0,'008, *;' S#R& 8';, 81;!81).

1(Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, p. '(2.

1'Id. at (*).

1=3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #&, supra note '8, at 2'*!2'8.

1*Rollo /.R. No. (81;8=-, pp. (=1!(=8.

11Id. at )'.

18

3oren4ana 5ood #orporation v. #&, supra note '8 at 2'2.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_165863_2013.html#rnt56

albert chua, jimmy chua chi leong and spouses eduardo solis and gloria victa vs. b.e. san diego, inc

Documents