Petitioner Jesus P. Liao seeks to annul the decisions of the Court of Appeals1 [In CA-G. R. SP Nos. 20381 and 22098 dated August 29, 1991; in CA-G. R. SP No. 28422 dated October 23, 1992; and in CA-G. R. SP No. 28368 dated February 4, 1993.] which annulled an order of the Regional Trial Court,2 [Dated June 30, 1986 in LRC Case No. Q-3369 (86).] Quezon City, Branch 99 directing the Register of Deeds to issue transfer titles to Estrella Mapa over certain lots in Piedad Estate, Quezon City.3 [In LRC Case No. Q-3369 (86) penned by Judge Godofredo Q. Asuncion.] Chief

The cases before us involve the issuance to different persons of several torrens titles covering the same property.

The facts may be summarized as follows:

On March 5, 1986, Estrella Mapa filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 99 a petition for reconstitution of documents and issuance of certificates of title over certain parcels of land covered by OCT 614, Decree No. 6667, GLRO Rec. No. 5975.4 [Rollo of G. R. No. 102961-62, pp. 45-49.] Jksm

Estrella Mapa claimed that on June 16, 1913, the Director of Lands issued certificates of sales5 [Numbers 780, 781 and 783.] to Vicente Salgado over the parcels of land covered by OCT 614, Decree No. 6667, GLRO Rec. No. 5975 in accordance with Act. No. 1120, otherwise known as the Friar Lands Act. The sale involves four (4) parcels of land (Lot Nos. 755, 777, 778 and 783) located at Bgy. Payatas, Quezon City. Lot No. 755 has an area of 3.691 hectares, Lot No. 777 has 25.0155 hectares, Lot No. 778 has 24.5091 hectares, and Lot No. 783 has 25.0363 hectares. The four lots form part of the Piedad Estate.6 [Petition for Reconstitution, LRC Case No. Q-3369 (86) and GLRO Rec. No. 5957, Rollo of G. R. Nos. 102961-62, pp. 45-49; Order, Regional Trial Court in LRC Case No. 3369 (86) dated June 30, 1986, Rollo of G. R. Nos. 102961-62, pp. 51-57.]

On April 12, 1930, Vicente Salgado assigned the property to Estrella Mapa.

After hearing, on June 30, 1986, the trial court issued an order which provides:

Pursuant to this order, the Register of Deeds of Quezon City issued T.C.T. No. 348156 dated August 5, 1986 covering Lot No. 778 and a portion of Lot No. 777. On August 12, 1986, the Register of Deeds cancelled this title and issued T.C.T. No. 348291 and T.C.T. No. 348292 covering Lot No. 778 and a portion of Lot No. 777 respectively.8 [Court of Appeals Decision dated August 29, 1991, Rollo of G. R. Nos. 102961-62, pp. 32-41.] Esmsc

Unfortunately, the above titles were in conflict with several existing certificates of title, resulting in the filing of several actions with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City for quieting, and an investigation into the matter by the National Bureau of Investigation.9 [Ibid.] Meantime, Estrella Mapa assigned the parcels of land covered by T.C.T. No. 348291 and T.C.T. No. 348292 in favor of Palmera Agricultural Realty Development Corporation, which is a family corporation headed by Lourdes Angeles, Estrella Mapa’s daughter. Esmmis

On March 28, 1990, I.C. Cruz Construction, Inc. (ICC) filed with the Court of Appeals10 [Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 20381.] a petition for the annulment of the Order dated June 30, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.11 [Branch 99.] I.C. Cruz alleged that the title issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City pursuant to said order encompassed property which had been registered and titled in its name under TCT No. 836975.

On July 3, 1990, Arle Realty Development Corporation (hereafter Arle) filed a similar petition with the Court of Appeals12 [Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 22098.] praying for the annulment of the same order of the Regional Trial Court. Arle claimed ownership of six (6) lots covered by TCT No. 263984 to 263989, which had overlapped TCT No. 348292 covering Lot No. 777. Esmso

After consolidation of the two cases, the Court of Appeals set the cases for preliminary conference on March 21, 1991. At this conference, Jesus P. Liao appeared with his counsel and claimed that he purchased the parcels of land from Palmera by virtue of a Deed of Omnibus Assignment dated August 23, 1990.

On August 29, 1991, the Court of Appeals rendered decision as follows:

By resolution issued on November 28, 1991, the Court of Appeals denied Jesus Liao’s motion for reconsideration.14 [Rollo of G. R. No. 102961-62, pp. 43-44.]

On January 17, 1992, petitioner filed the present recourse.15 [Petition filed on January 17, 1992, Rollo of G. R. Nos. 102961-62, pp. 8-30.] Exsm

On February 17, 1988, respondents Susan A. Foronda, Iluminada R. Dionisio, Azucena Q. Pua, and Lucia Pua Liok Bin filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 85 a complaint16 [Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-52899.] for "Annulment of Title, Reconveyance of Property, Damages and Injunction with Restraining Order" against Estrella Mapa, Lourdes Angeles, Serafin B. Riosa, Ernie M. Palmos, Palmera Agricultural Realty Corporation and Maristel Y. Angeles, involving lots titled in the names of the complainants but also covered by TCT No. 348292 (Lot No. 777). Kyle

Respondents alleged that Lot 777 ceased to be part of Friar Land as early as May 1922 when the Director of Lands executed Deed of Sale No. 10570 conveying ownership of Lot 777 to one Carlos Sarmiento, not to Vicente Salgado. The lot could not have been validly assigned to defendant Estrella Mapa on April 12, 1930 by Vicente Salgado, who was not the rightful owner of the property. TCT 348292 was procured only in 1986 while the titles of plaintiffs were issued in 1967 and one was issued in 1958.

Sometime in October 1986, respondents went to the Office of the City Assessor of Quezon City in response to a letter of the City Assessor informing them that Estrella Mapa was applying for the issuance of tax clearance for Lot 777 covering respondents’ property. The basis of the application was TCT No. 348292 of the Registry of Deeds for Quezon City dated August 12, 1986. The title contained an encumbrance, which stated that the title was under investigation by the Verification Committee of the Land Registration Commission (LRC), later known as National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA).17 [Now the Land Registration Authority.]

On November 4, 1987, the Verification Committee submitted a report stating that TCT No. 348292 was fraudulently and irregularly issued, being a duplication of previously issued titles and recommending the filing of an action for the annulment of TCT Nos. 348156, 348291 and 348292 all in the name of Estrella Mapa. Kycalr

The committee recommended that:

On May 25, 1988, NBI agent Samuel B. Ong submitted a report recommending the prosecution of Estrella Mapa and Lourdes Angeles for violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.

On April 22, 1988, Azucena O. Pua and Lucia Pua Liok Bin filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 85 a motion for intervention and a complaint in intervention, alleging that they had a legal interest in the property in litigation inasmuch as they acquired a portion of the lot from Purita Mapua, who in turn acquired it from plaintiff Iluminada Dionisio and that they were presently owners of the property under TCT 254620. Mesm

On July 24, 1990, the trial court rendered decision ruling, citing de Villa vs. Trinidad, 22 SCRA 1167, 1174 [1968], that "where two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail as between the original parties and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the land, the person holding under prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the persons who rely on the second certificate." The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

On appeal by petitioner to the Court of Appeals, on October 23, 1992, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on two grounds. First, the decision of the trial court which authorized the issuance to Estrella Mapa of TCT No. 348292 had lost its force when the Court of Appeals declared it null and void in its decision promulgated on August 29, 1991.20 [CA-G. R. SP Nos. 20381 and 22381.] Second, the July 24, 1990 decision of the trial court was a valid decision, which the Court of Appeals found no reason to disturb.21 [Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G. R. SP No. 28422 dated October 23, 1992, Rollo of G. R. No. 107625, pp. 31-34.]

On December 16, 1992, Jesus P. Liao filed this petition. Slxsc

Following the same facts above where the Register of Deeds, Quezon City issued TCT No. 348292 in the name of Estrella Mapa, the third case developed as follows:

On February 9, 1988, Edmund Ruiz, Romeo Gomez, and Rosalinda Villapa filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 105 a complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance of real property, damages, and injunction against Estrella Mapa, Lourdes Angeles, Serafin Riosa and Ernie Palmos.22 [Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-52869.]

On September 22, 1989, the trial court rendered decision against the defendants therein. The dispositive portion reads:

On July 13, 1992, petitioner Jesus P. Liao, as successor-in-interest of Palmera Agricultural Realty Development, which was in turn the successor-in-interest of Estrella Mapa to lot 778 and a portion of lot 777, Piedad Estate, filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals.24 [Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 28368.]

On February 4, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered decision denying due course to the petition, thus: Rtcspped

Hence, this petition.26 [Filed on February 16, 1993, Rollo of G. R. No. 108759, pp. 7-22.]

The basic issue in these consolidated cases is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the annulment of the order of the trial court in LRC Case No. 3369 (86) authorizing issuance of titles on the basis of sales certificates and technical descriptions as reconstituted by the Land Registration Commission.

We deny the petitions.

The subject lots are part of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, a Friar Land acquired by the Philippine Government from the Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company, Ltd., La Sociedad Agricola de Ultramar, the British-Manila Estate Company, Ltd., and the Recoleto Order of the Philippine Islands on December 23, 1903, as indicated in Public Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) enacted on April 26, 1904.27 [De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, 130 SCRA 666, 693-694 (1984).] The Piedad Estate has been titled in the name of the Government under Original Certificate of Title No. 614. Sclaw

By virtue of Act No. 1120, the Piedad Estate was placed under the administration of the Director of Lands.

Petitioner Liao claims that his predecessor in interest acquired the property through sale certificates Nos. 780, 781, 783, issued by the Director of Lands in 1913. It is shown, however, that the sale certificates were signed by the Director of Lands and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. These sales were void. This is because the sales were not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. In Solid State Multi-Products Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,28 [274 Phil. 30 (1991).] we said that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale of friar lands. In the absence of such approval, the sales were void.29 [Ibid.] In view of the invalidity of the sales, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis of such sales.

In any event, the certificates of sale,30 [Sales certificate issued on June 16, 1913.] assuming their validity, became stale after ten (10) years from its issuance.31 [De los Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 81 (1998).] They can not be the source documents for issuance of title more than seventy (70) years later.32 [Petition for reconstitution filed on March 5, 1986.] Sclex

The rule entrenched on public policy denies relief to a claimant whose right has become "stale" by reason of negligence or inattention for a long period of time.33 [Caltex vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA, 273 (1998).] In these cases, Estrella Mapa’s inaction for a period of about fifty-six (56) years, counted from the time of the sale to her in 1930 up to the filing of the petition for the issuance of title in 1986, bars petitioner from whatever rights he could have acquired thereunder. If petitioner’s predecessor was indeed the owner, she should have taken steps to have the land properly titled long ago.

These cases involve a classic issue of double sale. xlaw

Faced with a situation where both parties claim to have acquired the subject property, the law provides that as between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property.34 [Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80, 88 (1996), citing Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 213 (1989); Tan vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 247 (1998).]

We have consistently ruled that "when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail, and, in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate."35 [Chan vs. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 713, 725 (1998), citing Margolles vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 97 (1994); Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 370 (1981); Pajomayo vs. Manipon, 39 SCRA 676 (1971); De Villa vs. Trinidad, 22 SCRA 1167 (1968); Hodges vs. Dy Buncio, 6 SCRA 287 (1962); Register of Deeds vs. PNB, 13 SCRA 46 (1965); Alzate vs. PNB, 20 SCRA 422 (1967).] A certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if the same land had been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence.36 [Mathay vs. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 556, 577 (1998), citing Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 327 (1996); MWSS vs. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 783 (1992).] xsc

Consequently, private respondents’ title must be respected. They have in their favor the law that protects holders of title under the torrens system of land registration.37 [Bernardino Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 589 (1999).] Although title does not vest ownership, time and again we have ruled that a torrens certificate is evidence of an indefeasible title to property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon.38 [Strait Times, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 714 (1998).] Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly annulled the trial court’s order allowing registration of the subject property in the name of Estrella Mapa and her successors in interest. Sc

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED, for lack of merit. The decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP Nos. 20381 & 22098 promulgated on August 29, 1991, CA-G. R. SP No. 28422 promulgated on October 23, 1992, and CA-G. R. SP No. 28368 promulgated on February 4, 1993 are AFFIRMED.

No costs.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.