Castillo v Escutin (2009, G.R. No. 171056)

 Dinah C. Castillo v. Antonio Escutin et al.

March 13, 2009, G.R. No. 171056

Castillo's tax declaration was cancelled and around the same time, Summit Realty's TCT over the same lot was issued based on the title of Catigbac. As ROD and City Assessor's Office has processed the documents of Summit, Castillo charged them with violation of RA 3019 on corrupt practices. SC: the title of Catigbac has superior right over the tax declaration of Castillo. Absent any sign of irregularities, the officers cannot be charged with corrupt practices.

Facts:

    Castillo filed charges against the respondents for violation of RA 3019 for allegedly cancelling her TCT in favor of Summit Realty. Castillo was a judgement credit of Moratilla, and to satisfy said judgment Castillo went after Lot 13713 co-owned by Moratilla. Said lot was part of the area which Summit applied for conversion from agricultural landholding to residential, commercial, and recreational uses.

    To satisfy the judgment credit, said lot was subject to public auction sale in May 2002, and Castillo bought 1/3 pro-indiviso share of the lot. Castillo then obtained Tax Declaration 00942-A for the same. When Castillo attempted to pay real estate taxes, she found out that her TD was cancelled, and the area was encompassed in TCT No. 129642 and TD 00949-A in the name of Francisco Catigbac, and supposedly sold to Summit.

    In July 2002, TCT 129642 was cancelled and TCT T-134609 was issued in favor of Summit. As such, Castillo charted several public officers for the said cancellation and transfer of ownership of the subject lot. 

    

Issue: W/N the tax declaration of Castillo can be cancelled on the basis of Section 109 of PD 1529.

Held: Petition has no merit.  Section 109 provides for the issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title, and not related to the cancellation of Castillo's tax declaration. The cancellation of Castillo's TD was based on the fact that the same lot is covered by TCT 181 and subsequently by TCT No. 129642.

   Accordingly, Summit bought Lot 1-B from Catigbac (through his AIF, Yagin), and thus TCT No. 181 in the name of Catigbac was issued covering the purchased lot, on which the sale was registered in Summit's favor. Lot 1-B was separated from Lot 1, and TCT 129642 was issued in the name of Catigbac and then the same was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-134609 in the name of Summit.

    Since Lot 1-B is already covered by a tax declaration in the name of Catigbac, accordingly, any other tax declaration for the same property or portion thereof in the name of another person, not supported by any certificate of title, such that of petitioner, must be cancelled; otherwise, the City Assessor would be twice collecting a realty tax from different persons on one and the same property.

Title v Certificate of title

• Title: lawful cause or ground of possessing that which is ours
• the foundation of ownership of property (real or personal)
• that which constitutes a just cause of exclusive possession
• Certificate of Title: mere evidence of ownership
• not the title of the land itself

Doctrines:

• two systems of land registration 
• the registration of an instrument under the wrong system produces no legal effect
• these systems are separate and distinct from each other
1. Torrens system for registered lands under the Property Registration Decree
2. System of registration for unregistered land under Act No. 3344 (now Section 113 of the Property Registration Decree)