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 Summary (G.R. No. 160684)

Procedural History and Trial Court Ruling

CLT sued Hi-Grade for annulment of TCTs 237450 and T-146941. The RTC found Hi-Grade’s older title (TCT No. 4211 lineage) tainted by patent defects and void, ordered cancellation of the two TCTs, restoration of CLT’s possession, and damages. A motion for new trial was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution

On appeal, the CA granted the Republic’s intervention and took judicial notice of a Senate inquiry report on the Maysilo Estate. It reversed the RTC, upheld Hi-Grade’s titles as valid, dismissed CLT’s complaint, and ordered cancellation of CLT’s T-177013.

Issue I: Judicial Notice of Senate Report

CLT argued that taking judicial notice of an unauthenticated, hearsay Senate Report violated due process and separation of powers. The Court affirmed that under Rule 129, Section 1, a court must judicially notice official acts of the legislative department. The Senate Report’s findings are not binding; they merely supplement evidence subject to judicial scrutiny and do not supplant the court’s exclusive fact-finding role.

Issue II: Intervention by the Office of the Solicitor General

CLT contended the Republic lacked legal interest in private land disputes and that intervention was time-barred and unwarranted absent claims on the Assurance Fund. The Supreme Court agreed: intervention is permitted only before or during trial and only if the intervenor is indispensable. The Republic filed after judgment in the trial court, was neither indispensable nor asserting an actionable claim against the Assurance Fund in this proceeding, and thus should not have been allowed to intervene.

Issue III: Valid Registration Date of OCT No. 994

CLT relied on an OCT dated April 19, 1917; Hi-Grade relied on one dated May 3, 1917. Under Sections 41–42 of the Land Registration Act, the operative registration date is when the decree is transcribed in the Registry of Deeds—May 3, 1917. Hence, the genuine mother title is the May 3, 1917 document, and any title deriving from the April 19, 1917 document is void.

Issue IV: Validity of Derivative TCT No. 4211 and Successive Titles

CLT alleged multiple defects in TCT No. 4211 (e.g., language inconsistencies, missing survey references, altered tie points, forensic dating). The Court found CLT failed to prove nonconformity with 1918 registration procedures or to establish the absence or invalidity of the underlying subdivision plan. The NBI forensic report was inconclusive. CLT’s witnesses lacked demonstrated competence to opine on early-20th-century registration practices. Hi-Grade’s muniments of title and tax payments, coupled

    ...continue reading

    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.