Encias v National Bookstore

ENCIAS v NATIONAL BOOKSTORE Short facts & held: Two certificates of title in the names of two different persons (ENCIAS and NATIONAL) cover one and the same piece of land (located at the corner of EDSA and Aurora Blvd.). A fire burned records in the Registry of Deeds so ENCIAS based her title on an order of reconstitution by the LRA which was later withdrawn being an illegal reconstitution. On the other hand, NATIONAL based its title on an unblemished and recorded TCT that was not burned by the fire (NATIONAL was also able toexplain how it derived its title). The question in this case is who is the rightful owner of the property. SC ruled it was NATIONAL. Facts: 







 

The disputed lot in this case is part of a larger lot owned by EUGENIO EVANGELISTA. This large lot was then transferred to a SIMEON EVANGELISTA. When SIMEON died, it was passed on to SIMEON’S HEIRS. The heirs sold the large lot to Sps. Paculdo and the latter mortgaged the same lot in favor of the heirs but Sps. Paculdo were not able to pay their debt so the heirs were able to reclaim this large lot. Part of this large lot was EXPROPRIATED for the expansion of Aurora Blvd. The other part of the lot (disputed lot) was sold to respondent NATIONAL. A fire raged the Register of Deeds QC. Due to this fire, petitioner ENCIAS filed a Petition for Administrative Reconstitution of Title covering the disputed lot. LRA, thought no overlap of titles were had, so it granted the petition and ordered a reconstitution of title in favor of ENCIAS. Upon investigation however it found that ENCIAS’ title was among those ILLEGALLY reconstituted. So it set aside its first order. NATIONAL filed a CIVIL CASE for QUIETING OF TITLE. RTC first ruled in favor of respondent NATIONAL. The trial court declared that while a reconstituted title has a prima facie appearance of legality, the reconstitution of said title is subject to the proviso that no other certificate of title covering the same parcel of land exists in the records of the registry. A certificate of title considered lostor destroyed, if found or recovered, prevails over the reconstituted title. o CAB: The srcinal transfer certificate of title covering the property, in NATIONAL’s name, is on file with the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and is one of the titles which were NOT burned in the fire of June 1988.The owner’s duplicate copy of the title is intact and in NATIONAL ’s possession. Furthermore, NATIONAL was able to show how it acquired the property from its immediate predecessors and was able to account for the previous major transactions involving the subject property until ownership thereof was transferred to o

respondent. CAB: Petitioner ENCINAS, on the other hand, failed to present any evidence to show how she acquired ownership of theproperty. She merely alleged that she was the owner in fee simple. To support her claim of ownership, she presented a tax declaration covering theproperty. But it was shown that said tax declaration was (1) tampered with and (2) apparently falsified. Petitioner Encinas relied mainly on the presumption of validity of her reconstituted title. However, as the trial court noted, the LRA Administrator eventually issued the Supplemental Order of excluding petitioner Encinas’ title from he t reconstitution order. To the trial court, not only was respondent able to prove its ownership of the subject property with preponderant evidence, but the case had already become moot and academic by virtue of the LRA’s cancellation of petitioner Encinas’ reconstituted title.





RTC, in petitioner’s MR, set aside its earlier decision and ruled in favor of PETITIOENR ENCINAS declaring that her reconstituted title is valid. According to the trial court, petitioner Encinas’ title was registered and issued on August 25, 1972 which should have served as constructive notice to NATIONAL whose title, was issued only on June 6, 1983. The trial court also pointed out that NATIONAL’s title is a derivative of an srcinal certificate of title issued pursuant to Decree 917, GLRO Record 197 that referred to a piece of land located in BATAAN, not Quezon City (subject property). CA REVERSED and set aside the second RTC Order and ruled in favor of NATIONAL. The appellate court found that petitioner Encinas failed to describe the circumstances of her ownership or possession of the land and to identify her predecessor-in-interest or the manner by which she acquired the property. Petitioners again raised theargument that the erroneous entry of the GLRO record number in respondent’s title is a fatal defect which proves the title’s invalid source. However, the appellate court concluded that based on the testimony of petitioners’ own witnesses,the variance was merely a typographical or clerical error. The same witnesses testified that in cases of such clerical errors, it is the technical description which controls. The technical description in respondent’s title described the subject property, located in Quezon City. o On the other hand, the technical description in petitioner Encinas’ title refers to a different parcel of land. o CA also observed that NATIONAL was able to present tax declarations and real property tax bill receipts in its name and in the name of its immediate predecessor, the Evangelista clan. While PETITIONERS also presented a tax declaration and certification showing that petitioners had declared EXPROPRIATED property for taxation purposes, and not the subject.

the

Issue: WON petitioners ENCINAS were able to discharge their burden of proving the superiority of their title over the title of respondent NATIONAL. HELD: NO. CA correct, NATIONAL established by preponderant evidence it is the rightful owner. IMPT: In CIVIL cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. “PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as 





worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. CAB: NATIONAL was able to overcome the burden of proof and prove by preponderant evidence that it has a superior right and title to the subject property. In contrast, petitioners seem to rely only on the alleged weakness of respondent’s evidence, without asserting any proof other than her reconstituted title to the subject property. From the evidence, NATIONAL was able to explain how it derived its title. From the time NATIONAL obtained the property, it protected its interest therein by fencing off the property and designating security guards around its perimeter. It exercised its obligation as owner by paying real property taxes on the property it had acquired, evidenced by tax declarations issued in its name by the Quezon City Assessor’s Office . In contrast, petitioner Encinas failed to disclose before any of the judicial levels how she was able to acquire title to the property. Counsel for petitioners had manifested time and again that petitioner Encinas herself, who was then in Detroit, Michigan, would be presented to testify on the acquisition of the property, but the hearings terminated







without petitioner Encinas evermaking an appearance. Neither were her co-petitioner and attorney-in-fact Adolfo A. Balboa able to shed light on the matter, as he clearly had no knowledge of the circumstances of petitioner Encinas’ acquisition of the property. Petitioners also cannot rely on the Tax Declaration allegedly issued in petitioner Encinas’ name, since a tax declaration with the same number was also issued in the name of respondent. Indeed, according to petitioner’s witness, Assistant City Assessor of Quezon City, there are many cases of duplication of tax declaration numbers in their office, and such duplication does not necessarily mean that the duplicate tax declaration is spurious. The Assessor’s Office rectifies the duplication by adjusting the tax declaration number and annotating the correction at the back of the tax declaration and notifying the persons concerned. The same witness notedthat trouble arises whensuch duplications are not corrected, as in this case. The claimed flaw in NATIONAL ’s title and the title of its predecessors -in-interest is GLRO Record 197, which petitioners assert should be GLRO Record 917 . It is obvious that such a defect involves only an interchanging of numbers. It is certainly believable that such variance in the copying of entries could be merely a typographical or clerical error. Furthermore, petitioners’ own witnesses explained that the inconsistency in the entries in the GLRO record number could be due to clerical error, and in such case, the technical description in the title should prevail over the record number. It must be noted, too, that the srcinal of respondent’s title still exists and is with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as it was not one of the titles that were destroyed by the fire. Petitioner Encinas’ title, on the other hand, is a reconstituted title, which was later withdrawn by the same office which issued it, pursuant to the Supplemental Order.

DISPOSITIVE: Petition for Review on CertiorariDENIED, no reversible error on the part of CA.