G.R. No. 70484 - Tuason vs. Register of Deeds, Caloocan City

Petitioners: Roman C. Tuason and Remedios V. Tuason, retired public school teachers, who purchased a property in Caloocan City.
Intervening Petitioners: Tomasa Bartolome, representing the Consuelo Heights Homeowners Association, asserting they too were adversely affected by the decree.
Respondents: Register of Deeds of Caloocan City, Ministry of Justice, and the National Treasurer.

In April 1965, using pooled retirement benefits and savings, the Tuasons bought an 8,756‑square‑meter lot from Carmel Farms, Inc. within a subdivision in Barrio Makatipo, Caloocan City.
The original Torrens title (No. 64007) held by Carmel was cancelled and a new title (No. 8314) was issued in the name of the Tuasons.
Possession of the property was duly taken by the Tuasons following the acquisition.

Approximately eight years after possession, the Tuasons discovered that by presidential fiat the property had been divested of its title.
Presidential Decree No. 293, issued by President Ferdinand Marcos on September 14, 1973, declared that the lot—along with other lots in the subdivision—was “open for disposition and sale” to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc.
The decree invalidated the title of Carmel Farms, Inc. on the ground that it had not received full payment for the land; Carmel had purchased the land from the Government under Act No. 1120 and certain amendments, which conditioned title issuance on full payment of the purchase price and accrued interest.

The decree relied on statutory provisions under Act No. 1120, which allowed for:

The issuance of a certificate of sale subject to full payment before title was transferred in full.
The Government’s reserved interest until payment was completed, rendering any premature transfers or encumbrances void.
The Government’s power to enforce its lien by selling the land if default occurred.

PD No. 293 found that Carmel had not made full payment, thereby asserting that title remained with the Government and that all acts purporting to effectuate a transfer of that title were null and void ab initio.
The decree declared the lands as “open for disposition and sale” to the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc., despite acknowledging the presence of buyers’ dwellings on the lots—thereby generating internal contradictions.

The Tuasons filed a petition for certiorari, contending that the decree was arbitrary and capricious, amounting to a taking of property without due process and compensation.
The petition argued that the derogatory inscription on their Torrens title (indicating its cancellation and the open disposition order) violated constitutional guarantees, including due process and the protection of property rights as secured by both the Land Registration Act and the Constitution.
The Solicitor General defended the decree by asserting that:

The petitioners had no legal right to challenge since full payment had not been made.
The decree was justified under the imperatives of social justice and police power to address the housing needs of certain groups.

Petitions for intervention were also filed by sixty-four members of the Consuelo Heights Homeowners Association, who sought redress on similar grounds as the Tuasons.

Whether President Marcos, as chief executive, unconstitutionally exercised judicial power by adjudicating facts and applying the law in issuing PD No. 293.
Whether the cancellation of titles and the resultant inscribed memorandum on the Tuasons’ Torrens title, executed via an executive decree, constitutes an abuse of power beyond the scope of the President’s authority.

Whether the issuance of PD No. 293—resulting in the deprivation of property without due process—violates constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process and eminent domain.
Whether the unilateral determination of non-payment and the presumption of Government retention of title, without affording the affected parties the opportunity to rebut or present counterevidence, infringe upon the petitioners’ rights under the rule of law and the Land Registration Act.

Whether the presumption that official acts (such as the issuance of title to Carmel Farms, Inc.) were performed regularly, thus granting indefeasible rights under the Torrens system, can override claims raised under PD No. 293.
Whether the contradictory declarations within the decree (regarding occupancy and entitlement) undermine its legal validity and justify judicial intervention.