G.R. No. 134433 - SPS. WILFREDO DEL ROSARIO AND FE LUMOTAN DEL ROSARIO, VS. VIRGILIO MONTAÑA AND GENEROSO CARLOBOS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, Presidential Decree No. 293 is declared to be unconstitutional and void ab initio in all its parts. The public respondents are commanded to cancel the inscription on the titles of the petitioners and the petitioners in intervention of the memorandum declaring their titles null and void and declaring the property therein respectively described open for disposition and sale to the members of the Malacañang Homeowners Association, Inc.; to do whatever else is needful to restore the titles to full effect and efficacy; and henceforth to refrain, cease and desist from implementing any provision or part of said Presidential Decree No. 293. No pronouncement as to costs. [7] Thus, on September 23, 1988, the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City inscribed Entry No. 218192 on petitioners title, invalidating the certificate of title pursuant to the pronouncement of the Court in the above-entitled case. [8] Petitioner then visited the property some time in 1995 and discovered that respondent Montaña had already constructed a house thereon. Respondent claimed that petitioner Fe had already lost her rights over the property. Consequently, on January 17, 1997, petitioner, joined by her husband Wilfredo del Rosario, filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Recovery of Possession de jure. [9] Respondent filed his Answer alleging that he is the true and lawful owner of the property as his father bought the property from the Bureau of Lands, and TCT No. T-120788 in the name of petitioner had already been invalidated. [10] During pre-trial, the parties agreed on the following stipulation of facts: 2. Both parties admit that the defendants are in actual possession of the property in question; . . . 5. Both parties admit that the annotation at the dorsal portion of TCT No. 127088 was the result of the declaration of the Supreme Court citing PD 293 as unconstitutional. [11] Thereafter, the trial court, in its decision dated February 9, 1998, dismissed the complaint finding that, inasmuch as petitioners title to the property was included in those covered by P.D. No. 293, she cannot assert any right thereon because her title springs from a null and void source. [12] Hence, the petition for certiorari filed by spouses del Rosario. Petitioners believe that their title to the property is indefeasible for the reason that prior to the declaration of nullity of P.D. No. 293, its actual existence was an operative fact that may have consequences that cannot be ignored. Petitioners also cite Clarita Aben vs. Sps. Wilfredo Abella, et al. (CA-G.R. CV No. 31544) decided by the Court of Appeals in February 19, 1993 upholding Abens ownership of Lot 21, Block 80 of the Tala Estate which was awarded to her by the Bureau of Lands pursuant to P.D. No. 293, to wit: While it is true that P.D. 293 had been declared null and void by the Supreme Court, it did not declare herein plaintiff-appellees title null and void. Instead, said court commanded the Register of Deeds, Kalo