G.R. No. 191109 - Republic vs. City of Paranaque

Barbosa, the respondent, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Quieting of Titles on June 10, 2004 against several parties, including Jorge Vargas III, Benito Montinola, IVQ Landholdings, Inc. (IVQ), and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. Q04-52842 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222 and aimed to cancel IVQ’s certificate of title and quiet the title in Barbosa’s favor.

On October 4, 1978, Barbosa acquired the subject property (Lot 644-C-5 on Visayas Avenue, Culiat, Quezon City) from Therese Vargas via a Deed of Absolute Sale; Therese Vargas surrendered her Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 159487, originally issued on November 6, 1970.
Prior ownership history indicated that the property was once registered under Kawilihan Corporation (TCT No. 71507), from which Therese Vargas acquired the land before selling it to Barbosa.
IVQ, as a later party, purportedly acquired the property through transactions initiated by Jorge Vargas III, who obtained his title (initially TCT No. 223019, later reconstituted as TCT No. RT-76391) on October 14, 1976. IVQ’s own certificate of title (TCT No. 253434) was issued on August 6, 2003.

Barbosa testified that he took immediate possession of the property seven days after purchase, employed a caretaker, and consistently paid real estate taxes in the name of Therese Vargas and initially in the name of Kawilihan Corporation.
Documented evidence included copies of deeds of sale, tax declarations, and certifications from relevant government offices (Lands Management Bureau, DENR, and the Office of the City Assessor) verifying discrepancies in the land survey numbers (FLS-2544-D versus FLS-2554-D).
Barbosa’s evidence also encompassed secondary documentation to prove the existence and due execution of the sales instruments, despite some original records being missing or tampered with (e.g., torn notarial records page).

Barbosa maintained that his title, established by the earlier sale from Therese Vargas, was superior to IVQ’s title, noting the earlier issuance of TCT No. 159487 relative to TCT No. 223019.
Respondents (including Jorge Vargas III, Benito Montinola, and IVQ) argued that the chain of transactions was fraudulent, alleging that the titles were falsified and that Barbosa was implicated in a syndicate for land grabbing.
IVQ, contesting Barbosa’s claim, later introduced evidence questioning the authenticity of the deeds of sale notarized for both transactions involving Therese Vargas and Jorge Vargas III, citing irregularities in notarization and the credentials of the notaries involved.

The RTC, on June 15, 2007, ruled in favor of Barbosa by canceling IVQ’s certificate of title after finding Barbosa’s evidence sufficient to prove the transfers of ownership and related payments.
IVQ, dissatisfied with the RTC decision, filed motions for reconsideration and new trial alleging fraud by its former counsel and the presentation of newly discovered evidence.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s ruling, dismissed IVQ’s motions, and maintained Barbosa’s ownership based on the documentary and testimonial evidence presented during trial.
Subsequently, IVQ elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari, attaching additional documentary evidence challenging the authenticity and proper notarization of the deeds of sale.

IVQ presented new pieces of evidence in its petition, including certifications and photocopies purportedly demonstrating:

Improper or questionable notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Therese Vargas.
Absence of corresponding notarial records for key documents and discrepancies in the residence certificate numbers and land survey plan numbers.

IVQ also alleged that Barraoba’s title was further tainted by the submission of forged or spurious evidence and the failure to adhere to proper procedural requirements.

Whether Barbosa’s title, derived from the earlier transactions with Therese Vargas and originally tracing back to Kawilihan Corporation, is legally superior to IVQ’s subsequent certificate of title.
Whether the inconsistent descriptions (especially the differing friar survey numbers) undermine IVQ’s claim to ownership.

Whether the deeds of sale executed by Therese Vargas and Jorge Vargas III (and notarized by allegedly unauthorized or improperly credentialed notaries) satisfy the legal requirements for forming a valid public document.
Whether the irregularities in notarization and the absence or erroneous entries in official notarial records affect the validity and admissibility of these deeds.

Whether Barbosa proved his claim by the preponderance of evidence, given the gaps and secondary nature of some evidence presented (e.g., torn notarial record pages).
Whether the newly introduced evidence by IVQ, though belated, is material enough to warrant a reassessment of the factual findings regarding ownership.

Whether IVQ’s failure to present the cancelled TCT No. 71507 or a certified true copy thereof impairs its ability to trace the chain of title conclusively.
Whether the technical and procedural defects in the documents, including notarization deficiencies, justify a remand for further evidence adduction and fact-finding by the Court of Appeals.

Whether IVQ, incorporated on June 5, 1998, could have validly acquired the property in transactions purportedly executed prior to its incorporation.
Whether the inconsistent statements regarding the source of the property transfer (from Therese Vargas versus Jorge Vargas III) defeat IVQ’s claim.