Pryce Corporation v. Engr. Vicente Ponce

 

Pryce Corporation v. Engr. Vicente Ponce

G.R. No. 206863

March 22, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Prudencio Soloza applied for a homestead patent over a 15-hectare lot in Sta. Filomena, Iligan City. The five-hectare portion of the subject property was acquired by Ponce from Dionisio Ong. Another portion of the 15-hectare lot was in possession of the Quidlat siblings which was soon after acquired by Pryce Corporation in 1995. The six-hectare lot registered to Pryce overlaps the five-hectare subject property registered to Ponce. Ponce filed a complaint for quieting of title, reconveyance of property, and damages against Pryce. Ponce alleged that his claims of ownership began with Prudencio's OCT RP-62 (21) that initially covered 15 hectares of land and which included the subject property. Meanwhile, Pryce rooted its title to the subject property from the outcome of the cadastral case over Lot No. 1936 that was decided in favor of the Quidlat siblings. The trial court ruled in favor of Ponce. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Ponce has a better right to the subject property.

 

HELD:

                No. This Court held that when there appears to have been two titles issued over the same property, the better approach is to trace the original certificate/s of title from which the certificates of title were derived. Pryce vehemently attacks the validity of OCT 21 and its reconstituted OCT RP-62 for being fake and spurious on account of several irregularities. This Court cannot close its eyes to the abovementioned irregularities and/or defects in Prudencio's titles, upon which the title of Ponce was derived. Notably, Ponce submitted no substantial evidence to rebut the aforesaid irregularities or to validate the alterations by some other competent proof. It has been held that when a land registration decree is marred by severe irregularity that discredits the integrity of the Torrens system, the Court will not think twice in striking down such illegal title in order to protect the public against scrupulous and illicit land ownership. Considering that Ponce's title is void, the priority in right given to a prior or earlier registrant would not apply in his favor. Thus, after due consideration of all the facts at hand, while Ponce is the earlier registrant in 1979, Pryce is the first registrant in good faith in 1996.