Title
Supreme Court
CLT Realty Development Corp. vs. Hi-Grade Feeds Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 160684
Decision Date
Sep 2, 2015
Dispute over Lot 26 in Maysilo Estate: CLT and Hi-Grade claimed ownership via conflicting titles. Supreme Court upheld Hi-Grade's title, tracing to valid OCT No. 994 dated 3 May 1917, voiding CLT's claim.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 160684)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Maysilo Estate
    • The Maysilo Estate comprised 1,660.26 hectares across Caloocan City, Valenzuela, and Malabon, originally covered by five mother titles (OCTs).
    • OCT No. 994 was one such mother title, from which Lot 26 was subdivided and extensively re-subdivided, consolidated, and partly expropriated, spawning multiple titles and litigation.
  • Hi-Grade Feeds Corporation’s Title Lineage
    • Hi-Grade holds TCT Nos. 237450 and T-146941, tracing to TCT No. 4211 (Ruiz & Leuterio, 9 September 1918), itself derived from OCT No. 994. Subsequent transfers:
      • Sale to Francisco Gonzalez → TCT 5261 → upon his death → TCT 35486 (Rufina Narciso).
      • Subdivision (Psd-21154) into TCTs 1368–1374 → Government expropriation → TCTs 12836–12842 → consolidation/subdivision (Pcd-1828) into 77 lots → Lot 17-B to Madulid Sr. → sale to Hi-Grade.
    • Another branch: Lot 52 → TCT 7363 (Alvarez) → sold to Madulid Sr. → TCT 7364 → sale to Hi-Grade.
  • CLT Realty Development Corporation’s Title and Allegations
    • CLT owns TCT No. T-177013 by Deed of Absolute Sale (10 December 1988).
    • CLT alleges Hi-Grade’s titles are null and void due to:
      • Discrepancies in OCT 994 and derivative titles (dates, language, absence of Lot 26 reference, missing plan Psd-21154).
      • Shifted tie points causing lot misplacement.
      • Forensic NBI examination declaring TCT 4211 prepared in the 1940s, not 1918.
  • Procedural History
    • RTC Civil Case No. C-15463 ruled for CLT (27 Dec 1995), annulling Hi-Grade’s TCTs, awarding possession and damages.
    • CA CA-G.R. CV No. 53770 (Decision 18 June 2003; Resolution 28 Oct 2003) took judicial notice of a Senate Report, allowed OSG intervention, reversed RTC, upheld Hi-Grade’s titles.
    • CLT filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court, challenging those rulings.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in taking judicial notice of the Senate Committee Report.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the Office of the Solicitor General’s Petition for Intervention.
  • Which date of OCT No. 994 is valid—the decree issuance date (19 April 1917) or the transcription date (3 May 1917)?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.