By Rey E. Requejo

The Supreme Court has upheld its decision ordering the Court of Appeals to determine who between the Manotok clan and the heirs of Homer Barque owns Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate in what used to be the town of Caloocan, Rizal.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Dante Tinga, the SC en banc denied the omnibus motion filed by Barque’s decedents seeking to reinstate the final ruling of the Court’s First Division issued on Dec. 12, 2005, which canceled the land title of the Manotoks over portion of the Piedad Estate.

The SC rejected the claim of the Barques that its Dec. 18, 2008 resolution did not obtain the requisite number of votes for its adoption.

They argued that majority of the members did not adopt the decision because there were three differing decisions—the ponencia of Tinga, the separate concurring opinion of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and the separate opinion of Justice Renato Corona.

The Barque heirs said four justices, namely Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Associate Justices Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Presbitero Velasco Jr. and Arturo Brion sided with Tinga’s ponencia to nullify the First Division’s ruling and remand the case to the appellate court.

Carpio came out with a separate concurring opinion to nullify the Dec. 12, 2005 decision, recall the entry of judgment and deny the administrative reconstitution of TCT 210177 filed by the Barques. Carpio joined him in said opinion.

Corona’s separate opinion neither adopts Tinga’s ponencia nor Carpio’s concurring opinion.

Corona recommends that the case be assigned to a special division of the appellate court. He said the CA had the power to pass upon the authenticity and validity of certificate of titles.

In denying the appeal of the Barques, the SC noted that Carpio’s separate concurring opinion reflected its agreement with the action taken by the majority.

A concurring opinion is defined “as a separate opinion delivered by one or more judges who agree with the decision of the majority of the court, but offering its own reason for reaching that decision.”

In the present case, the SC indicated the proper handling of land titles.

“The other arguments raised in the Omnibus Motion are bereft of merit and not cause for us to set aside the Dec. 18, 2008 resolution. These arguments do not retract from the Court’s central ruling—that neither the Land Registration Authority nor the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to cancel certificates of title in an administrative reconstitution proceeding,” the SC ruled.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the SC en banc set aside the decision of the First Division and remanded the 20-year-old land dispute between the Manotok clan and the heirs of Barque to the appeals court for further proceedings.

On Dec. 12, 2005, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, the SC’s First Division affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that canceled the land title of the Manotok clan in favor of the Barques.

The said ruling became final and executory on May 2, 2006 following the denial of Manotok’s motion for reconsideration and second motion for reconsideration, and ordered that no further pleading be allowed.

The entry of judgment was issued on June 22, 2006.

On Jan. 18, 2008, the Court en banc set aside the decision of the First Division and recalled the entry of judgment.