G.R. No. 109645 - Ortigas and Co. Limited Partnership vs. Velasco

Case Summary (G.R. No. 109645)

Factual Background: Molina’s Reconstitution Petition (LRC Case No. Q-5404)

In LRC Case No. Q-5404, Molina filed a petition on November 14, 1991 with the RTC of Quezon City for the reconstitution of her Transfer Certificate of Title No. 124088. She alleged that the original copy of the title on file with the Quezon City Register of Deeds was lost in the fire that gutted said Office on June 11, 1988. She further claimed that she retained custody of the owner’s duplicate copy, asserting that the title had been and still was in her possession, and she averred that the title was not subject to any document or contract creating a lien or encumbrance.

Withdrawal and Reinstatement: The “Revival” of the Reconstitution Case

On November 29, 1991, Molina moved to withdraw her reconstitution petition on the ground that she needed to go to the United States for about ten months. The trial judge, Judge Tirso Velasco, granted the motion and dismissed the case as withdrawn. Approximately four months later, Molina filed an ex parte motion dated around April 3, 1992 seeking “revival” of the withdrawn case and admission of an amended petition. In an affidavit of loss dated March 31, 1992, Molina stated that the owner’s duplicate claimed in her earlier petition was missing as of mid-September 1991 and that despite efforts to locate it she obtained certification from the Land Management Bureau that there was a record of her property in a microfilm negative. The trial judge reinstated the withdrawn petition and admitted the amended petition, setting it for hearing on June 29, 1992, and directing publication and dissemination to government agencies.

Solicitor General’s Objection: Lack of Actual Notice to Adjacent Owners

The Office of the Solicitor General objected among others to the petition, raising the absence of actual notice to adjacent owners. The trial court acknowledged in an Order dated July 3, 1992 that it could not yet state it had acquired jurisdiction over the case, noting that the notice requirement for other adjacent owners had not yet been submitted to the court. Molina then filed an ex parte motion dated July 13, 1992 praying for service of notices on specified “subject owners” and other addressees, including the President of a homeowners association through the barangay chair, the Director of the Bureau of Lands as adjoining owner designated as public land, and the City Engineer of Quezon City for boundaries designated as roads. The trial judge granted this motion by order dated July 16, 1992, and set the hearing on July 20, 1992.

Notice of Hearing and Subsequent Participation by Ortigas

The notice of hearing addressed by the clerk of court was sent only to certain named parties—those relating to the homeowners association, the Bureau of Lands, and the City Engineer—rather than to all adjoining owners and interested parties contemplated by law. Ortigas later learned of Molina’s petition and filed a formal opposition, alleging that Molina’s reconstitution was part of a proliferation of syndicates exploiting destruction of titles by fire. Ortigas also invoked Molina’s alleged inconsistent positions in prior cases and pointed to an earlier Land Registration Case (LRC No. Q-336, involving WIDORA) where Molina had asserted acquisitive prescription, and to a separate earlier complaint where Molina attributed ownership to purchases and alleged schemes by Ortigas. The opposition also cited an LRA report pointing to irregularities, including that the plan relied upon by Molina appeared to derive from surveys that were not shown to have been the subject of original registration, creating a presumption that no original title could have issued from which Molina’s reconstituted title could emanate.

A separate opposition was filed by the Manila Mission of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. (Mormons), which asserted that part of the property claimed by Molina was covered by the Mormons’ own title.

Molina’s Testimony and the Trial Court’s Judgment of September 23, 1992

At the hearing, Molina testified. The decision recorded that she did not refer to prescription as her mode of acquisition. She testified that she and her late husband acquired the two parcels in dispute from relatives in 1939, that she saw the deed of sale and the titles in her husband’s possession, and that her husband was killed by the Japanese in 1944. She narrated that in the 1960s she attempted to obtain titles in her name with the assistance of former President Marcos and former Judge Echeverri, that she later left for the United States and returned during the martial law regime but could no longer reach Marcos or Judge Echeverri, and that she met Gen. Fabian Ver in Singapore in 1990. She stated she was then informed that Marcos had instructed delivery of the title to her, which was delivered by Col. Balbino Diego in November 1990 at her residence in Philam Life Homes Subdivision. She further stated that the title had been entrusted to Col. Diego in 1986, but that Diego could not deliver it earlier because he was under house arrest until May 11, 1988.

On September 23, 1992, Judge Velasco rendered judgment in Molina’s favor and directed the Register of Deeds to reconstitute the original copy of TCT No. 124088 in her name.

Appeals and Trial Court Orders of October 14, 1992 and February 10, 1993

After the judgment, Ortigas filed a notice of appeal on September 30, 1992. Molina moved to strike the appeal or to allow immediate execution pending appeal, while the Mormons filed a motion for reconsideration based on alleged lack of jurisdiction due to lack of notice. The Solicitor General also filed a notice of appeal in the Republic’s behalf.

On October 14, 1992, the trial judge dismissed Ortigas’s appeal, stating that Ortigas was not vested with a justiciable interest and that Ortigas’s pleadings failed to disclose ownership of road lots that might overlap the reconstituted land. The trial judge further declared Ortigas’s notice of appeal a “mere scrap of paper,” and he granted immediate execution of the judgment on the view that Ortigas’s appeal was frivolous and intended to delay. He denied the Mormons’ motion for reconsideration, treating notice defects as cured by their actual participation in the proceedings.

After these steps, Molina succeeded in having the reconstituted title assigned a new number TCT No. RT-58287, after which she subdivided the property and obtained corresponding titles in her name. The decision recorded subsequent cancellations and transfers, including TCT No. 83164 being cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 83869 in the name of Gateway Enterprises Co., Inc. with an indicated sale price.

On February 10, 1993, Judge Velasco denied the Mormons’ plea for reconsideration, reasoning that the case had become moot after Molina’s uncontested “Quitclaim and Waiver” recognizing the Mormons’ ownership and after the Mormons withdrew their appeal. He also granted Molina’s motion to strike the Solicitor General’s appeal, holding that the Solicitor General had not formally opposed the petition and had not introduced evidence; he also treated the appeal as sham and, alternatively, as untimely.

G.R. No. 109645: Ortigas’s Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus

On April 20, 1993, Ortigas instituted G.R. No. 109645, a special civil action of certiorari and mandamus. It sought the nullification of Judge Velasco’s orders of October 14, 1992 and February 10, 1993, the declaration of all certificates arising from the questioned orders as void ab initio, and, alternatively, an order compelling the trial judge to act on the seasonably filed appeals by forwarding records to the Court of Appeals. The Court granted a temporary restraining order on May 12, 1993, on a bond of P50,000.00, restraining the trial judge from further acting and enjoining Molina from selling or encumbering the property covered by her reconstituted title.

G.R. No. 112564: Manilabank’s Annulment Action (Case No. Q-93-15920)

G.R. No. 112564 arose from an action commenced in the Quezon City RTC by Manila Banking Corporation against Molina and Gateway Enterprises Company, Inc., denominated “Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.” The action, docketed as Case No. Q93-15920, prayed for nullification of Molina’s title (TCT No. 124088) over certain parcels at Ugong Norte, Quezon City. Manilabank alleged ownership through acquisition at mortgage foreclosure sales from corporations that had earlier bought the same from Ortigas. It alleged that it had paid taxes corresponding to the property.

Molina moved to dismiss, raising litis pendentia, lack of jurisdiction, bar by prior judgment, lack of standing as a real party in interest, and failure to state a cause of action. She asserted that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to annul a coordinate court’s judgment of reconstitution and that the reconstitution proceedings already served as a bar. The RTC denied the motions by Order dated September 17, 1993, holding that the cases were dissimilar, involving reconstitution in one case and quieting of title/attack on title in the other, and that the reconstitution order was not a bar because the second action was a direct attack on Molina’s title by a real party in interest. The RTC reaffirmed its denial on November 25, 1993.

Molina then filed G.R. No. 112564 in the Supreme Court on December 1, 1993, attacking the RTC orders denying dismissal. The Court treated the case as dependent on the validity and efficacy of Molina’s reconstituted title, which was also the central matter in G.R. No. 109645, and thus resolved both jointly. The record also disclosed that Molina filed an identical certiorari petition in the Court of Appeals eight days after filing the petition in the Supreme Court.

Other Antecedents: Long-Standing Ortigas Titles and Earlier Litigation

The decision placed the controversy in the context of earlier proceedings involving Ortigas

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 109645)

The Court consolidated Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores V. Molina and Dolores V. Molina v. Hon. Presiding Judge of the RTC, Quezon City, Br. 105 and Manila Banking Corporation because both involved the same Torrens title, TCT No. 124088 reconstituted in the name of Dolores V. Molina.
The disputes chiefly turned on the validity of the reconstitution judgment and the procedural propriety of the RTC’s orders in the reconstitution case, and, secondarily, on the consequences of that reconstitution for a related annulment action filed by Manila Banking Corporation (Manilabank).

Parties and Procedural Posture

In G.R. No. 109645, Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership invoked certiorari and mandamus to assail the orders of Judge Tirso Velasco in RTC, Quezon City under LRC Case No. Q-5404.
Dolores V. Molina was the respondent in G.R. No. 109645, having obtained a judgment in her favor ordering reconstitution of her title.
In G.R. No. 109645, Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores V. Molina acted in the RTC as the respondent trial judge and judgment recipient, respectively.
In G.R. No. 112564, Dolores V. Molina sought certiorari to annul RTC orders in Case No. Q-93-15920 filed by Manilabank against Molina and Gateway Enterprises Company, Inc.
The Court treated G.R. No. 112564 as dependent on the efficacy of the reconstituted title, and thus resolved both cases jointly.
The Court ultimately granted G.R. No. 109645 and denied G.R. No. 112564 for lack of merit.

Key Factual Allegations

Molina filed a petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 124088 with the claim that the original title was lost in the Quezon City Register of Deeds fire on June 11, 1988.
Molina alleged she had custody of the owner’s duplicate at the time of filing and that the title was not subject of any document or contract creating a lien or encumbrance.
Molina asserted that the reconstituted property was a prime residential land within the Greenmeadows Subdivision, lying between Corinthian Gardens and the Millionaires’ Row within Quezon City.
Ortigas opposed Molina’s petition after learning of it and argued, among others, that there was a pattern of fraudulent and contradictory claims by Molina.
The Manila Mission of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) also opposed, invoking the pendency of related litigation and claiming that part of the area was covered by TCT No. 348048.
Molina’s testimony traced her claimed acquisition from 1939, her attempts to obtain title beginning in the 1960s, and her receipt of the title in November 1990, while other parts of her sworn statements later reflected inconsistent accounts on her possession of the owner’s duplicate.
After the RTC judgment, Molina succeeded in having the reconstituted title assigned a new number and subdivided into multiple titles, including a later replacement involving Gateway Enterprises Co., Inc..

Reconstitution Petition Origins

G.R. No. 109645 originated in LRC Case No. Q-5404, where Molina filed the petition on November 14, 1991 in the RTC of Quezon City.
The case was docketed as an LRC reconstitution proceeding and was premised on the statutory framework for reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates.
The RTC granted Molina’s petition and ordered reconstitution by judgment dated September 23, 1992, later followed by the RTC’s orders on execution and appeal.

Withdrawal and Reinstatement Events

On November 29, 1991, Molina moved to withdraw her petition to attend to personal affairs in the United States.
The RTC granted the withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Approximately four months later, Molina filed an ex parte motion to “revive” the case and to admit an amended petition.
The RTC reinstated the withdrawn petition and admitted the amended petition, scheduled it for hearing, and directed certain government agencies to verify and comment.
The Supreme Court later held that the RTC’s “revival” was legally inefficacious because a withdrawn case that had become final through lapse of the reglementary period could no longer be reinstated by motion in the original docket, but only by filing a new complaint with payment of filing fees.

Notice Requirements in Reconstitution

The Court treated notice requirements in reconstitution proceedings as mandatory and jurisdictional, emphasizing the role of actual notice to interested parties.
The Court identified Republic Act No. 26 as the controlling statute governing special procedure for reconstitution of lost or destroyed Torrens certificates.
The Court relied on Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26, which required publication twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, posting on building entrances at least thirty days before hearing, and sending by registered mail or otherwise a copy of the notice to every person named therein whose address was known at least thirty days before hearing.
The notice had to state, among other things, the lost certificate number (if known), the registered owner, occupants or persons in possession, owners of adjoining properties, all other interested parties, and the date for filing objections.
The Supreme Court applied the doctrine in Manila Railroad Company v. Hon. Jose M. Moya, holding that if no notice of the hearing was served on a possessor or one having interest, he was deprived of his day in court and the reconstitution order was null and void, even if otherwise final and executory.
The Court found that neither the petition nor the RTC order requiring publication indicated names and addresses of occupants or persons in possession or owners of adjoining properties.
The Court further found that Ortigas was not given notice as an interested party despite its road-lot interests, although the defect was later partly cured by Ortigas’s intervention and participation.
The Court also found that the RTC authorized notice only to entities such as the Corinthian homeowners association leadership, the Bureau of Lands, and the City Engineer, and held that those were not the adjoining owners contemplated by the statute.
The Court concluded that, as a matter of fact, no notice required by Section 13 was given to the adjoining owners and other interested parties, so the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the reconstitution case.

Court’s Evaluation of Molina’s Credibility

The Court found serious contradictions in Molina’s sworn statements on how she acquired ownership and how she possessed the owner’s duplicate title.
The Court observed that in an earlier sworn claim in 1978, Molina anchored her ownership on open public, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than thirty years or since time immemorial, without reference to any purchase from Eusebia Molina or assignment from WIDORA.
The Court observed that in 1990, Molina abandoned the prescription