7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

1/36

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915

CONSUELO LEGARDA, with her h !b"#$ %AURO &R'E(O, plaintifs-appellants,vs.N.%. SALEE)*, de endant-appellee.

+O NSON, J.:

From the record the ollowing acts appear:

First. That the plaintifs and the de endant occ p!, as owners, ad"oininglots in the district o Ermita in the cit! o #anila.

$econd. That there e%ists and has e%isted a n m&er o !ears a stone

wall &etween the said lots. $aid wall is located on the lot o the plaintifs.

Third. That the plaintifs, on the 'd da! o #arch, ()*+, presented apetition in the Co rt o and egistration or the registration o their lot.A ter a consideration o said petition the co rt, on the ' th da! o/cto&er, ()*+, decreed that the title o the plaintifs sho ld &eregistered and iss ed to them the original certi0cate provided or nderthe torrens s!stem. $aid registration and certi0cate incl ded the wall.

Fo rth. ater the predecessor o the de endant presented a petition in

the Co rt o and egistration or the registration o the lot nowocc pied &! him. /n the ' th da! o #arch, ()(', the co rt decreed theregistration o said title and iss ed the original certi0cate provided or

nder the torrens s!stem. The description o the lot given in the petitiono the de endant also incl ded said wall.

Fi th. $everal months later 1the (2th da! o 3ecem&er, ()('4 theplaintifs discovered that the wall which had &een incl ded in thecerti0cate granted to them had also &een incl ded in the certi0categranted to the de endant .The! immediatel! presented a petition in theCo rt o and egistration or an ad" stment and correction o the errorcommitted &! incl ding said wall in the registered title o each o saidparties. The lower co rt however, witho t notice to the de endant,denied said petition pon the theor! that, d ring the pendenc! o thepetition or the registration o the de endant5s land, the! ailed to ma6ean! o&"ection to the registration o said lot, incl ding the wall, in thename o the de endant.

$i%th. That the land occ pied &! t he wall is registered in the name oeach o the owners o the ad"oining lots. The wall is not a "oint wall.

7nder these acts, who is the owner o the wall and the land occ pied &!it8

The decision o the lower co rt is &ased pon the theor! that the actionor the registration o the lot o the de endant was a " dicial proceeding

and that the " dgment or decree was &inding pon all parties who didnot appear and oppose it. 9n other words, &! reason o the act that theplaintifs had not opposed the registration o that part o the lot onwhich the wall was sit ate the! had lost it, even tho gh it had &eenthereto ore registered in their name. ranting that theor! to &e correctone, and granting even that the wall and the land occ pied &! it, in act,&elonged to the de endant and his predecessors, then the same theor!sho ld &e applied to the de endant himsel . Appl!ing that theor! to him,he had alread! lost whatever right he had therein, &! permitting theplaintifs to have the same registered in their name, more than si% !ears&e ore. ;aving th s lost hid right, ma! he &e permitted to regain it &!simpl! incl ding it in a petition or registration8 The plaintifs havingsec red the registration o their lot, incl ding the wall, were the! o&ligedto constantl! &e on the alert and to watch all the proceedings in the landco rt to see that some one else was not having all, or a portion o thesame, registered8 9 that < estion is to &e answered in the a=rmative,

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

2/36

then the whole scheme and p rpose o the torrens s!stem o landregistration m st ail. The real p rpose o that s!stem is to < iet title toland> to p t a stop orever to an! < estion o the legalit! o the title,e%cept claims which were noted at the time o registration, in thecerti0cate, or which ma! arise s &se< ent thereto. That &eing thep rpose o the law, it wo ld seem that once a title is registered theowner ma! rest sec re, witho t the necessit! o waiting in the portals othe co rt, or sitting in the ?mirador de s casa,? to avoid the possi&ilit!o losing his land. / co rse, it can not &e denied that the proceeding orthe registration o land nder the torrens s!stem is " dicial1Esc eta vs. .3irector o ands, (+ @hil. ep., '4. 9t is clothed with allthe orms o an action and the res lt is 0nal and &inding pon all theworld. 9t is an action in rem . 1Esc eta vs. 3irector o ands 1 supra 4> re!Al&a vs. 3e la Cr , (D @hil. rep., ) o%as vs. Enri< e , ') @hil. ep.,2(> T!ler vs. dges, (D #ass., ( American and Co. vs. eiss, '()7.$., D.4

Ghile the proceeding is " dicial, it involves more in its conse< encesthan does an ordinar! action. All the world are parties, incl ding thegovernment. A ter the registration is complete and 0nal and there e%istsno ra d, there are no innocent third parties who ma! claim an interest.

The rights o all the world are oreclosed &! the decree o registration. The government itsel ass mes the & rden o giving notice to all parties. To permit persons who are parties in the registration proceeding 1andthe! are all the world4 to again litigate the same < estions, and to againcast do &t pon the validit! o the registered title, wo ld destro! thever! p rpose and intent o the law. The registration, nder the torrenss!stem, does not give the owner an! &etter title than he had. 9 he doesnot alread! have a per ect title, he can not have it registered. Fee simpletitles onl! ma! &e registered. The certi0cate o registration acc m latesin open doc ment a precise and correct statement o the e%act stat s o the ee held &! its owner. The certi0cate, in the a&sence o ra d, is theevidence o title and shows e%actl! the real interest o its owner.

The title once registered, with ver! ew e%ceptions, sho ld not therea ter&e imp gned, altered, changed, modi0ed, enlarged, or diminished,e%cept in some direct proceeding permitted &! law. /therwise all

sec rit! in registered titles wo ld &e lost. A registered title can not &ealtered, modi0ed, enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding andnot even &! a direct proceeding, a ter the lapse o the period prescri&ed&! law.

For the di=c lt! involved in the present case the Act 1No. )+4 providingor the registration o titles nder the torrens s!stem afords s no

remed!. There is no provision in said Act giving the parties relie nderconditions li6e the present. There is nothing in the Act which indicateswho sho ld &e the owner o land which has &een registered in the nameo two diferent persons.

The r le, we thin6, is well settled that the decree ordering theregistration o a partic lar parcel o land is a &ar to t re litigation overthe same &etween the same parties .9n view o the act that all the worldare parties, it m st ollow that t re litigation over the title is orever&arred> there can &e no persons who are not parties to the action. This,we thin6, is the r le, e%cept as to rights which are noted in thecerti0cate or which arise s &se< entl!, and with certain othere%ceptions which need not &e dismissed at present. A title onceregistered can not &e de eated, even &! an adverse, open, andnotorio s possession. egistered title nder the torrens s!stem can not&e de eated &! prescription 1section +, Act No. )+4. The title, onceregistered, is notice to the world. All persons m st ta6e notice. No onecan plead ignorance o the registration.

The < estion, who is the owner o land registered in the name o twodiferent persons, has &een presented to the co rts in other

" risdictions. 9n some " risdictions, where the ?torrens? s!stem has &eenadopted, the di=c lt! has &een settled &! e%press stat tor! provision.9n others it has &een settled &! the co rts. ;ogg, in his e%cellentdisc ssion o the ?A stralian Torrens $!stem,? at page '2, sa!s: ?Thegeneral r le is that in the case o two certi0cates o title, p rporting toincl de the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the landcomprised in the latter certi0cate &e wholl!, or onl! in part, comprisedin the earlier certi0cate. 1/el6ers vs. #err!, ' H.$.C. ., ()2>

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

3/36

#iller vs. 3av!, D N. . ., ( > lo!d vs. #!0eld, D A. .T. 1I.4 >$tevens vs. Gilliams, (' I. . ., ( '> egister o Titles, vs. Esperance

and Co., ( G.A. ., (( .4? ;ogg adds however that, ?i it can &e ver!clearl! ascertained &! the ordinar! r les o constr ction relating towritten doc ments, that the incl sion o the land in the certi0cate o titleo prior date is a mista6e, the mista6e ma! &e recti0ed &! holding thelatter o the two certi0cates o title to &e concl sive.? 1$ee ;ogg on the?A stralian torrens $!stem,? supra, and cases cited. $ee also thee%cellent wor6 o Ni&lac6 in his ?Anal!sis o the Torrens $!stem,? page)).4 Ni&lac6, in disc ssing the general < estion, said: ?Ghere twocerti0cates p rport to incl de the same land the earlier in dateprevails. ... 9n s ccessive registrations, where more than one certi0cateis iss ed in respect o a partic lar estate or interest in land, the personclaiming nder the prior certi0cates is entitled to the estate or interest>and that person is deemed to hold nder the prior certi0cate who is theholder o , or whose claim is derived directl! or indirectl! rom the personwho was the holder o the earliest certi0cate iss ed in respect thereo .Ghile the acts in this co ntr! do not e%pressl! cover the case o theiss e o two certi0cates or the same land, the! provide that a registeredowner shall hold the title, and the efect o this ndo &tedl! is thatwhere two certi0cates p rport to incl de the same registered land, theholder o the earlier one contin es to hold the title? 1p. '2D4.

$ection 2 o Act No. )+, provides that> ?9t 1the decree o registration4shall &e concl sive pon and against all persons, incl ding the 9ns lar

overnment and all the &ranches thereo , whether mentioned &! namein the application, notice, or citation, or incl ded in the generaldescription ?To all whom it ma! concern.? $ ch decree shall not &eopened &! reason o the a&sence, in anc!, or other disa&ilit! o an!person afected there&!, nor &! an! proceeding in an! co rt orreversing " dgments or decrees> s &"ect, however, to the right o an!person deprived o land or o an! estate or interest therein &! decree oregistration o&tained &! fraud to 0le in the Co rt o and egistration apetition or review within one year a ter entr! o the decree 1oregistration4, provided no innocent p rchaser or val e has ac< ired aninterest.

9t will &e noted, rom said section, that the ?decree o registration? shallnot &e opened, or any reason, in an! co rt, except for fraud, and noteven or ra d, a ter the lapse o one year . 9 then the decree oregistration can not &e opened or any reason, e%cept or ra d, in adirect proceeding or that p rpose, ma! s ch decree &e opened or setaside in a collateral proceeding &! incl ding a portion o the land in as &se< ent certi0cate or decree o registration8 Ge do not &elieve thelaw contemplated that a person co ld &e deprived o his registered titlein that wa!.

Ge have in this " risdiction a general stat tor! provision which governsthe right o the ownership o land when the same is registered in theordinar! registr! in the name o two persons. Article ( D2 o the CivilCode provides, among other things, that when one piece o real propert!had &een sold to two diferent persons it shall &elong to the personac< iring it, who 0rst inscri&es it in the registr!. This r le, o co rse,pres pposes that each o the vendees or p rchasers has ac< ired titleto the land. The real ownership in s ch a case depends pon priorit! oregistration. Ghile we do not now decide that the general provisions othe Civil Code are applica&le to the and egistration Act, even tho ghwe see no o&"ection thereto, !et we thin6, in the a&sence o othere%press provisions, the! sho ld have a pers asive inJ ence in adoptinga r le or governing the efect o a do &le registration nder said Act.Adopting the r le which we &elieve to &e more in consonance with thep rposes and the real intent o the torrens s!stem, we are o the opinionand so decree that in case land has &een registered nder the and

egistration Act in the name o two diferent persons, the earlier in dateshall prevail.

9n reaching the a&ove concl sion, we have not overloo6ed the orce larg ment o the appellee. ;e sa!s, among other things> ?Ghen @rieto etal. were served with notice o the application o Te s 1the predecessor o the de endant4 the! &ecame de endants in a proceeding wherein he,

Te s, was see6ing to oreclose their right, and that o orders, to theparcel o land descri&ed in his application. Thro gh their ail re toappear and contest his right thereto, and the s &se< ent entr! o a

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

4/36

de a lt " dgment against them, the! &ecame irrevoca&l! &o nd &! thedecree ad" dicating s ch land to Te s. The! had their da! in co rt andcan not set p their own omission as gro nd or imp gning the validit!o a " dgment d l! entered &! a co rt o competent " risdiction. Todecide otherwise wo ld &e to hold that lands with torrens titles area&ove the law and &e!ond the " risdiction o the co rts?.

As was said a&ove, the primar! and ndamental p rpose o the torrenss!stem is to < iet title. 9 the holder o a certi0cate cannot rest sec re inthis registered title then the p rpose o the law is de eated. 9 thosedealing with registered land cannot rel! pon the certi0cate, thennothing has &een gained &! the registration and the e%pense inc rredthere&! has &een in vain. 9 the holder ma! lose a strip o his registeredland &! the method adopted in the present case, he ma! lose it all.$ ppose within the si% !ears which elapsed a ter the plaintif hadsec red their title, the! had mortgaged or sold their right, what wo ld&e the position or right o the mortgagee or vendee8 That mista6es are&o nd to occ r cannot &e denied, and sometimes the damage donethere&! is irrepara&le. 9t is the d t! o the co rts to ad" st the rights othe parties nder s ch circ mstances so as to minimi e s ch damages,ta6ing into consideration al o the conditions and the diligence o therespective parties to avoid them. 9n the present case, the appellee wasthe 0rst negligent 1granting that he was the real owner, and i he wasnot the real owner he can not complain4 in not opposing the registrationin the name o the appellants. ;e was a part!-de endant in an action orthe registration o the lot in < estion, in the name o the appellants, in()*+. ?Thro gh his ail re to appear and to oppose s ch registration,and the s &se< ent entr! o a de a lt " dgment against him, he &ecameirrevoca&l! &o nd &! the decree ad" dicating s ch land to theappellants. ;e had his da! in co rt and sho ld not &e permitted to set

p his own omissions as the gro nd or imp gning the validit! o a " dgment d l! entered &! a co rt o competent " risdiction.? rantingthat he was the owner o the land pon which the wall is located, his

ail re to oppose the registration o the same in the name o theappellants, in the a&sence o ra d, orever closes his mo th againstimp gning the validit! o that " dgment. There is no more reason wh!

the doctrine invo6ed &! the appellee sho ld &e applied to the appellantsthan to him.

Ge have decided, in case o do &le registration nder the andegistration Act, that the owner o the earliest certi0cate is the owner o

the land. That is the r le &etween original parties. #a! this r le &eapplied to s ccessive vendees o the owners o s ch certi0cates8$ ppose that one or the other o the parties, &e ore the error isdiscovered, trans ers his original certi0cate to an ?innocent p rchaser.?

The general r le is that the vendee o land has no greater right, title, orinterest than his vendor> that he ac< ires the right which his vendorhad, onl!. 7nder that r le the vendee o the earlier certi0cate wo ld &ethe owner as against the vendee o the owner o the later certi0cate.

Ge 0nd stat tor! provisions which, pon 0rst reading, seem to castsome do &t pon the r le that the vendee ac< ires the interest o thevendor onl!. $ections 2 , , and ((' o Act No. )+ indicate that thevendee ma! ac< ire rights and &e protected against de enses which thevendor wo ld not. $aid sections spea6 o availa&le rights in avor o thirdparties which are c t of &! virt e o the sale o the land to an ?innocentp rchaser.? That is to sa!, persons who had had a right or interest inland wrong ll! incl ded in an original certi0cate wo ld &e na&le toen orce s ch rights against an ?innocent p rchaser,? &! virt e o theprovisions o said sections. 9n the present case Te s had his land,incl ding the wall, registered in his name. ;e s &se< entl! sold thesame to the appellee. 9s the appellee an ?innocent p rchaser,? as thatphrase is sed in said sections8 #a! those who have &een deprived otheir land &! reason o a mista6e in the original certi0cate in avor o

Te s &e deprived o their right to the same, &! virt e o the sale &! himto the appellee8 $ ppose the appellants had sold their lot, incl ding thewall, to an ?innocent p rchaser,? wo ld s ch p rchaser &e incl ded inthe phrase ?innocent p rchaser,? as the same is sed in said sections87nder these e%amples there wo ld &e two innocent p rchasers o thesame land, is said sections are to &e applied .Ghich o the two innocentp rchasers, i the! are &oth to &e regarded as innocent p rchasers,sho ld &e protected nder the provisions o said sections8 These

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

5/36

< estions indicate the di=c lt! with which we are met in givingmeaning and efect to the phrase ?innocent p rchaser,? in said sections.

#a! the p rchaser o land which has &een incl ded in a ?second originalcerti0cate? ever &e regarded as an ?innocent p rchaser,? as against therights or interest o the owner o the 0rst original certi0cate, his heirs,assigns, or vendee8 The 0rst original certi0cate is recorded in the p &licregistr!. 9t is never iss ed ntil it is recorded. The record notice to all theworld. All persons are charged with the 6nowledge o what it contains.All persons dealing with the land so recorded, or an! portion o it, m st&e charged with notice o whatever it contains. The p rchaser is chargedwith notice o ever! act shown &! the record and is pres med to 6nowever! act which the record discloses .This r le is so well esta&lishedthat it is scarcel! necessar! to cite a thorities in its s pport1Northwestern National Ban6 vs. Freeman, (D( 7.$., +'*, +')> 3elvin on

eal Estate, sections D(*, D(* KaL4.

Ghen a conve!ance has &een properl! recorded s ch record isconstr ctive notice o its contents and all interests, legal and e< ita&le,incl ded therein. 1 randin vs. Anderson, ( /hio $tate, ' +, ' )>/rvis vs. Newell, (D Conn., )D> B chanan vs. 9ntentional Ban6, D 9ll.,

**> Mo ngs vs. Gilson, 'D N.M., 2 (> #cCa&e vs. re!, '* Cal., *)>#onte0ore vs. Browne, D ;o se o ords Cases, 2 (.4

7nder the r le o notice, it is pres med that the p rchaser has e%aminedever! instr ment o record afecting the title. $ ch pres mption isirre& ta&le. ;e is charged with notice o ever! act shown &! the recordand is pres med to 6now ever! act which an e%amination o the recordwo ld have disclosed. This pres mption cannot &e overcome &! proo o innocence or good aith. /therwise the ver! p rpose and o&"ect o thelaw re< iring a record wo ld &e destro!ed. $ ch pres mption cannot &ede eated &! proo o want o 6nowledge o what the record contains an!more than one ma! &e permitted to show that he was ignorant o theprovisions o the law. The r le that all persons m st ta6e notice o the

acts which the p &lic record contains is a r le o law. The r le m st &e

a&sol te. An! variation wo ld lead to endless con sion and selesslitigation.

Ghile there is no stat tor! provision in orce here re< iring that originaldeeds o conve!ance o real propert! &e recorded, !et there is a r lere< iring mortgages to &e recorded. 1Arts. ( D and +*+ o the CivilCode.4 The record o a mortgage is indispensa&le to its validit!. 1Art .( D .4 9n the ace o that stat te wo ld the co rts allow a mortgage to&e valid which had not &een recorded, pon the plea o ignorance o thestat tor! provision, when third parties were interested8 #a! a p rchasero land, s &se< ent to the recorded mortgage, plead ignorance o itse%istence, and &! reason o s ch ignorance have the land released roms ch lien8 Co ld a p rchaser o land, a ter the recorded mortgage, &erelieved rom the mortgage lien &! the plea that he was a bona

de p rchaser8 #a! there &e a bona de p rchaser o said land, bonade in the sense that he had no 6nowledge o the e%istence o the

mortgage8 Ge &elieve the r le that all persons m st ta6e notice o whatthe p &lic record contains in " st as o&ligator! pon all persons as ther le that all men m st 6now the law> that no one can plead ignorance othe law. The act that all men 6now the law is contrar! to thepres mption. The cond ct o men, at times, shows clearl! that the! donot 6now the law. The r le, however, is mandator! and o&ligator!,notwithstanding. 9t wo ld &e " st as logical to allow the de ense oignorance o the e%istence and contents o a p &lic record.

9n view, there ore, o the oregoing r les o law, ma! the p rchaser oland rom the owner o the second original certi0cate &e an ?innocentp rchaser,? when a part or all o s ch land had thereto ore &eenregistered in the name o another, not the vendor8 Ge are o the opinionthat said sections 2 , , and ((' sho ld not &e applied to s chp rchasers. Ge do not &elieve that the phrase ?innocent p rchasersho ld &e applied to s ch a p rchaser. ;e cannot &e regarded as an?innocent p rchaser? &eca se o the acts contained in the record o the0rst original certi0cate. The r le sho ld not &e applied to the p rchasero a parcel o land the vendor o which is not the owner o the originalcerti0cate, or his s ccessors. ;e, in nonsense, can &e an ?innocent

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

6/36

p rchaser? o the portion o the land incl ded in another earlier originalcerti0cate. The r le o notice o what the record contains precl des theidea o innocence. B! reason o the prior registr! there cannot &e aninnocent p rchaser o land incl ded in a prior original certi0cate and in aname other than that o the vendor, or his s ccessors. 9n order tominimi e the di=c lties we thin6 this is the sa e r le to esta&lish. Ge&elieve the phrase ?innocent p rchaser,? sed in said sections, sho ld&e limited onl! to cases where nregistered land has &een wrong ll!incl ded in a certi0cate nder the torrens s!stem. Ghen land is once&ro ght nder the torrens s!stem, the record o the original certi0cateand all s &se< ent trans ers thereo is notice to all the world. That &eingthe r le, co ld Te s even regarded as the holder in good 0 th o that parto the land incl ded in his certi0cate o the appellants8 Ge thin6 not.$ ppose, or e%ample, that Te s had never had his lot registered nderthe torrens s!stem. $ ppose he had sold his lot to the appellee and hadincl ded in his deed o trans er the ver! strip o land now in < estion.Co ld his vendee &e regarded as an ?innocent p rchaser? o said strip8Go ld his vendee &e an ?innocent p rchaser? o said strip8 Certainl!not. The record o the original certi0cate o the appellants precl des thepossi&ilit!. ;as the appellee gained an! right &! reason o theregistration o the strip o land in the name o his vendor8 Appl!ing ther le o notice res lting rom the record o the title o the appellants, the< estion m st &e answered in the negative. Ge are o the opinion thatthese r les are more in harmon! with the p rpose o Act No. )+ thanthe r le contended or &! the appellee. Ge &elieve that the p rchaser

rom the owner o the later certi0cate, and his s ccessors, sho ld &ere< ired to resort to his vendor or damages, in case o a mista6e li6ethe present, rather than to molest the holder o the 0rst certi0cate whohas &een g ilt! o no negligence. The holder o the 0rst originalcerti0cate and his s ccessors sho ld &e permitted to rest sec re in theirtitle, against one who had ac< ired rights in conJict therewith and whohad ll and complete 6nowledge o their rights. The p rchaser o landincl ded in the second original certi0cate, &! reason o the actscontained in the p &lic record and the 6nowledge with which he ischarged and &! reason o his negligence, sho ld s fer the loss, i an!,

res lting rom s ch p rchase, rather than he who has o&tained the 0rstcerti0cate and who was innocent o an! act o negligence.

The oregoing decision does not solve, nor pretend to solve, all thedi=c lties res lting rom do &le registration nder the torrens s!stemand the s &se< ent trans er o the land. Neither do we now attempt todecide the efect o the ormer registration in the ordinar! registr! ponthe registration nder the torrens s!stem. Ge are inclined to the view,witho t deciding it, that the record nder the torrens s!stem, s persedeall other registries. 9 that view is correct then it will &e s =cient, indealing with land registered and recorded alone. /nce land is registeredand recorded nder the torrens s!stem, that record alone can &ee%amined or the p rpose o ascertaining the real stat s o the title tothe land.

9t wo ld &e seen to a " st and e< ita&le r le, when two persons haveac< ired e< al rights in the same thing, to hold that the one whoac< ired it 0rst and who has complied with all the re< irements o thelaw sho ld &e protected.

9n view o o r concl sions, a&ove stated, the " dgment o the lowerco rt sho ld &e and is here&! revo6ed. The record is here&! ret rned tothe co rt now having and e%ercising the " risdiction hereto ore e%ercised&! the land co rt, with direction to ma6e s ch orders and decrees in thepremises as ma! correct the error hereto ore made in incl ding the landin the second original certi0cate iss ed in avor o the predecessor othe appellee, as well as in all other d plicate certi0cates iss ed.

G.R. No. 8 68 A/ri0 1 , 1989

RE&U)L'C O ( E & 'L'&&'NES, re/re!e#te$ b the D'REC(ORO LANDS, petitioner,vs.

ONORA)LE %AR'ANO %. U%AL', i# hi! c"/"cit "! &re!i$i# + $ e, Re io#"0 (ri"0 Co rt, o rth + $ici"0 Re io#, )r"#ch 23,(rece %"rtire! Cit , RE%ED'OS %'CLA(, +UAN C. &UL'DO,

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

7/36

ROSAL'NA NA4AL, "#$ the REG'S(ER O DEEDS OCA4'(E, respondents.

The petitioner see6s reversion o a parcel o land on the gro nd that theoriginal sale thereo rom the government was tainted with ra d&eca se &ased on a orger! and there ore void ab initio . The presentholders o the propert! claiming to &e innocent p rchasers or val e andnot priv! to the alleged orger!, contend that the action cannot lieagainst them.

The land in < estion is sit ated in Tan a, Cavite, and consists o D , +s< are meters. 1 9t was originall! p rchased on installment rom thegovernment on l! (, ()(* &! Florentina Bo&adilla, who allegedl!trans erred her rights thereto in avor o #artina, Tomasa, regorio and

lio, all s rnamed Ceni al, in ()''. 2 Tomasa and lio assigned theirshares to #artina, #aria and regorio. 3 9n ()D( these three assigneesp rportedl! signed a "oint a=davit which was 0led with the B rea o

ands to s pport their claim that the! were entitled to the iss ance o acerti0cate o title over the said land on which the! said the! had alread!made ll pa!ment. /n the &asis o this a=davit, the $ecretar! oAgric lt re and Nat ral eso rces e%ec ted 3eed No. I-(*)(* 1$aleCerti0cate No. (' *4 on $eptem&er (*, ()D(, in avor o the saida=ants. 5 $ &se< entl!, on /cto&er (2, ()D(, TCT No. * 1replacingBo&adilla5s /CT No. ( *4 was iss ed &! the register o deeds o Cavite in

avor o #aria Ceni al, regorio Ceni al, and 1in lie o #artina Ceni al4osalina Naval, Naval, and Enri< e Naval. 6

Ghen the complaint or reversion was 0led on /cto&er (*, () , theregistered owners o the land, ollowing several trans ers, were

emedios #iclat nder TCT No. *2)', an C. @ lido nder TCT No.*2)2, and osalina, and Enri< e Naval nder TCT No.*2) . The! were named as de endants and as6ed to ret rn the

propert! to the $tate on the a orestated gro nds o orger! and ra d. The plaintif claimed that regorio Ceni al having died on Fe&r ar! ' ,() 2, and #aria Ceni al on an ar! , () ), the! co ld not have signed

the "oint a=davit dated A g st ), ()D(, on which 3eed No. I-(*)(*1$ale Certi0cate No. (' *4 was &ased. 8

9n their answer, @ lido and the Navals denied an! participation in the "oint a=davit and said the! had all ac< ired the propert! in good aithand or val e. B! wa! o a=rmative de enses, the! invo6ed estoppel,laches, prescription and res judicata . 9 For her part, #iclat moved todismiss the complaint, contending that the government had no ca se oaction against her &eca se there was no allegation that she had violatedthe plaintif5s right, that the government was not the real part!-in-interest &eca se the s &"ect land was alread! covered &! the Torrenss!stem, and that in an! event the action was &arred &! prescription orlaches. 1

The respondent co rt, in its order dated /cto&er ', () D, granted themotion. 11 The petitioner, contesting this order, now insists that it has avalid ca se o action and that it is not &arred &! either prescriptionor res judicata .

The Co rt will o&serve at the o tset that the "oint a=davit is indeed aorger!. Apart rom the act that two o the s pposed a=ants were

alread! dead at the time the! were s pposed to have signed the swornstatement, even the most c rsor! e%amination o the doc ment willshow that the three signat res a=%ed thereto were written &! one andthe same hand. 12 There is no do &t a&o t it. 9t is indeed di=c lt to

nderstand how s ch an o&vio s orger! co ld have deceived thepeople in the B rea o ands who processed the papers o this caseand made possi&le the ra d lent trans er o the land.

B t given s ch deception, wo ld the sale itsel &e considered n ll andvoid rom the start, as the petitioner insists, so as to ma6e all titlesderived there rom also inefect al ab initio 8

Ge agree with the contention that there is no allegation in thecomplaint 13 0led &! the petitioner that an! one o the de endants waspriv! to the orged "oint a=davit or that the! had ac< ired the s &"ect

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

8/36

land in &ad aith. Their stat s as innocent trans erees or val e wasnever < estioned in that pleading. Not having &een disproved, thatstat s now accords to them the protection o the Torrens $!stem andrenders the titles o&tained &! them there nder inde easi&le andconcl sive. The r le will not change despite the Jaw in TCT No. * .

$ection 2) o the and egistration Act clearl! provided:

$ec. 2). Ever! person receiving a certi0cate o title in p rs ance o adecree o registration, and ever! s &se< ent p rchaser o registeredland who ta6es a certi0cate o title or val e in good aith shall hold thesame ree o all enc m&rance e%cept those noted on said certi0cate.

The r lings on this provision are indeed as n mero s as the! areconsistent:

Th s, nder $ection o @.3. ( ') 1then $ec. 2) o the and eg. Act4,ever! registered owner receiving a certi0cate o title in p rs ance o adecree o registration, and ever! s &se< ent p rchaser o registeredland ta6ing a certi0cate o title or val e and in good aith, shall hold thesame ree rom all enc m&rances e%cept those noted on the certi0cateand an! o the enc m&rances which ma! &e s &sisting, and en meratedin the law. 7nder said provision, claims and liens o whatever character,e%cept those mentioned &! law as e%isting against the land prior to theiss ance o certi0cate o title, are c t of &! s ch certi0cate i not notedthereon, and the certi0cate so iss ed &inds the whole world, incl dingthe government. 1

%%% %%% %%%

A holder in &ad aith is not entitled to the protection o $ec. 2) o theand egistration Act. 15

%%% %%% %%%

The real p rpose o the Torrens $!stem o land registration is to < iettitle to land> to p t a stop orever to an! < estion o the legalit! o thetitle, e%cept claims which were noted at the time o registration in thecerti0cate, or which ma! arise s &se< ent thereto. That &eing thep rpose o the law, it wo ld seem that once the title was registered, theowner might rest sec re, witho t the necessit! o waiting in the portalso the co rt, or sitting in the ?mirador de s casa,? to avoid thepossi&ilit! o losing his land. 16

The decision in Piero v . Director of Lands 1 is not applica&le to thepresent proceeding &eca se the lands involved in that case had not !etpassed to the hands o an innocent p rchaser or val e. The! were stillheld &! the @ineros. The action or reversion was 0led &! thegovernment against them as the original trans erees o the properties in< estion. The! were the direct grantees o the ree patents iss ed &!the government p rs ant to which the corresponding certi0cates o titlewere iss ed nder the Torrens s!stem. The ra d alleged &! thegovernment as a gro nd or the reversion so ght was imp ta&le di rectl!to the @ineros, who co ld not plead the stat s o innocent p rchasers orval e.

The diference &etween them and the private respondents is that thelatter ac< ired the land in < estion not &! direct grant & t in act a terseveral trans ers ollowing the original sale thereo to Bo&adilla in ()(*.

The pres mption is that the! are innocent trans erees or val e in thea&sence o evidence to the contrar!. The petitioner contends that it was@edro #iclat who ca sed the alsi0cation o the "oint a=davit, & t that isa &are and hardl! pers asive allegation, and indeed, even i tr e, wo ldstill not prove an! coll sion &etween him and the private respondents.

The mere act that emedios #iclat was the da ghter and heiress o#iclat, witho t more, wo ld not necessaril! visit pon her the allegedsins o her ather.

The $olicitor eneral also arg es that emedios is an e%tension o the " ridical personalit! o her ather and so cannot claim to &e an innocentp rchaser or val e &eca se she is charged with 6nowledge o her

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

9/36

ather5s deceit. $ ch concl sion has no &asis in act or law. #oreover,there is evidence that emedios did not merel! inherit the land & tact all! p rchased it or val a&le consideration and witho t 6nowledgeo its original de ect. The agreement to s &divide, 18 which shepresented to show that she had ac< ired the land or val a&lecon ederation, is more accepta&le than the con"ect res o the petitioner.9t is also consonant with the pres mption o good aith.

The land &eing now registered nder the Torrens s!stem in the names o the private respondents, the government has no more control or

" risdiction over it. 9t is no longer part o the p &lic domain or, as the$olicitor eneral contends as i it made an! diference o the Friar

ands. The s &"ect propert! ceased to &e p &lic land when /CT No. ( *was iss ed to Florentina Bo&adilla in ()(* or at the latest rom the dateit was sold to the Ceni als in ()D( pon ll pa!ment o the p rchaseprice. As private registered land, it is governed &! the provisions o the

and egistration Act, now denominated the @ropert! egistration3ecree, which applies even to the government.

The pertinent provision o the and egistration Act was $ection ('',which read as ollows:

$ec. (''. Ghenever p &lic lands in the @hilippine 9slands&elonging to the overnment o the 7nited $tates or tothe overnment o the @hilippine 9slands are alienated,granted, or conve!ed to persons or to p &lic or privatecorporations, the same shall &e &ro ght orthwith nderthe operation o this Act and shall &ecome registeredlands. 19

This sho ld &e related to $ection (' o the Friar ands Act, providingth s:

$ec. ('. . . . pon the pa!ment o the 0nal installmenttogether with all accr ed interest, the overnment willconve! to s ch settler and occ pant the said land so held

&! him &! proper instr ment o conve!ance, which shall&e iss ed and &ecome efective in the manner provided insection one h ndred and twent!-two 1$ec. (''4 o the

and egistration Act.

The petitioner claims that it is not &arred &! the stat te o limitations&eca se the original trans er o the land was n ll and void ab initio anddid not give rise to an! legal right. The land there ore contin ed to &epart o the p &lic domain and the action or this reversion co ld &e 0ledat an! time. The answer to that is the statement made &! the Co rt in;eirs o Tanak Panga aran Pati ayan v . !artine" 2 that ?even irespondent Tagwalan event all! is proven to have proc red the patentand the original certi0cate o title &! means o ra d, the land wo ld notrevert &ac6 to the $tate,? precisel! &eca se it has &ecome private land.#oreover, the petitioner errs in arg ing that the original trans er wasn ll and void ab initio, or the act is that it is not so. 9t was onl!voida&le. The land remained private as long as the title thereto had not&een voided, & t it is too late to do that now. As the Co rt has heldin #amire" vs . $ourt of %ppeals . 21

A certi0cate o title ra d lentl! sec red is not n ll andvoid ab initio, nless the ra d consisted inmisrepresenting that the land is part o the p &lic domain,altho gh it is not. 9n s ch case the n llit! arises, not romthe ra d or deceit, & t rom the act that the land is not

nder the " risdiction o the B rea o ands. 9nasm ch asthe land involved in the present case does not &elong tos ch categor!, /CT No. ' '-A wo ld &e merel! voida&leor reviewa&le 1Ida. de C a!cong vs. Ida. de $eng&engco,((* @hil. ((24: 1(4 pon proo o act al ra d> 1'4 altho ghvalid and efective, ntil ann lled or reviewed in a directproceeding there or 1 egarda vs. $alee&!, 2( @hil. )*4,not collaterall! 1$orongon vs. #a6alintal, * @hil. ' ),'+'> 3irector o ands vs. an Tan, ) @hil. ( >;enderson vs. arrido, )* @hil. +' ,+2*> $amonte vs.$am&ilon, (*D @hil. () ,'**4> 124 within the stat tor!

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

10/36

period there or 1$ec. 2 , Act )+> Ielasco vs. och ico 22@hil. 2+2> 3elos e!es vs. @aterno, 2 @hil. '*> $n!der vs.@rovincial Fiscal, ' @hil. D+(, D+ > e!es vs. Bor&on, *@hil. D)(> Clemente vs. 6&an, 2 @hil. )2(> $ ga!an vs.$olis, + @hil. 'D+, 'D)> ;eirs o icha co vs. 3irector o

ands, D* @hil. +)4> 1 4 a ter which, the title wo ld &econcl sive against the whole world, incl ding the

overnment 1 egarda vs. $alee&!, 2( @hil. )*, )+>Central Capi vs. amire , * @hil. 2> . #. T ason vs.$antiago, )) @hil. +( 4.

And as we declared in !unicipality of &agonoy vs . 'ecretary of %griculture and (atural #esources : 22

. . . )nce a patent is registered and t*e correspondingcerti cate of title is issued, t*e land ceases to be part of

public domain and becomes private property over *ic*t*e director of Lands *as neit*er control nor jurisdiction . Ap &lic land patent, when registered in the corresponding

egister o 3eeds, is a verita&le Torrens Title, and&ecomes as inde easi&le as Torrens Title pon thee%piration o one 1(4 !ear rom the date o iss ancethereo . $aid title is, li6e one iss ed p rs ant to a " dicialdecree, s &"ect to review within one 1(4 !ear rom thedate o the iss ance o the patent. Be!ond said period,the action or the ann lment o the certi0cate o titleiss ed pon the land grant can no longer &e entertained.1Emphasis s pplied4.

9t is worth o&serving here that in two earlier cases, the privaterespondents were challenged &! the heirs o #atilde Ceni al Arg son& t &oth were dismissed and the titles o the registered owners werecon0rmed &! the trial co rt. 23 This decision was later s stained &! thisCo rt. 2 Ghile this is not to sa! that the present petition is &arred&! res judicata, as the government was not a part! in these cases, itdoes s ggest that the iss e it wants to ra6e p now has long &een

settled. 9t sho ld not &e the s &"ect o rther " dicial in< ir!, especiall!at this late ho r. itigation m st stop at some point instead o draggingon intermina&l!.

The Torrens s!stem was adopted in this co ntr! &eca se it was &elievedto &e the most efective meas re to g arantee the integrit! o land titlesand to protect their inde easi&ilit! once the claim o ownership isesta&lished and recogni ed. 9 a person p rchases a piece o land on theass rance that the seller5s title thereto is valid, he sho ld not r n theris6 o &eing told later that his ac< isition was inefect al a ter all. Thiswo ld not onl! &e n air to him. Ghat is worse is that i this werepermitted, p &lic con0dence in the s!stem wo ld &e eroded and landtransactions wo ld have to &e attended &! complicated and notnecessaril! concl sive investigations and proo o ownership. The rtherconse< ence wo ld &e that land conJicts co ld &e even more n mero sand comple% than the! are now and possi&l! also more a&rasive i noteven violent. The government, recogni ing the worth! p rposes o the

Torrens s!stem, sho ld &e the 0rst to accept the validit! o titles iss edthere nder once the conditions laid down &! the law are satis0ed. As inthis case.

Ge 0nd that the private respondents are trans erees in good aith andor val e o the s &"ect propert! and that the original ac< isition

thereo , altho gh ra d lent, did not afect their own titles. These arevalid against the whole world, incl ding the government.

ACC/ 39N M, the petition is 3EN9E3, witho t an! prono ncement as tocosts. 9t is so ordered.

G.R. No. 9 11 + #e 19, 1991

EL'C'S'%A &'NO, petitioner,vs.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

11/36

COUR( O A&&EALS, DE%E(R'A GA UD, RO%UALDO GA UD,ADOL O GA UD RA*%UNDO GA UD, respondents.

The decision o respondent Co rt o Appeals in CA- . . CI No. '( Dwhich a=rmed in toto , the decision o the egional Trial Co rt oEchag e, 9sa&ela, Branch ' in Civil Case No. ' -*()*, the dispositiveportion o which latter decision reads:

G;E EF/ E, premises considered, " dgment is here&! rendered:

(. 3eclaring the 3eed o A&sol te $ale made &! a aela 3onatoIda. de af d in avor o the de endant on ne (*, ()D* over

ot +-B o the s &division plan 1 C4 @sd-+ 2) &eing a portion o ot + o the Echag e Cadastre C Cad. ec. No. (*+2,

containing an area o ((,*) s< are meters, more or less, n lland void inso ar as the shares o Cicero af d and a!m ndo

af d are concerned, which is one-hal -thereo , or appro%imatel!, D. s< are meters, more or less>

'. /rdering the cancellation o TCT No. )2 * in the name o thede endant>

2. /rdering the de endant to reconve! one-hal o the propert!s &"ect o this proceeding to the plaintifs within ten 1(*4 da!s

rom 0nalit! o this 3ecision, ailing which the same shall &e doneat the cost o the de endant &! the Cler6 o Co rt and s ch act,when so done, shall have li6e efect as i done &! her>

. /rdering the de endant to pa! the plaintifs @ ,***.** &! wa!o attorne!5s ees.

No costs.

$/ / 3E E3. 1pp. '*-'(, #ollo 4

is now &eing assailed in the instant petition or certiorari pon thegro nd

T;AT E$@/N3ENT C/7 T /F A@@EA $ C/##9TTE3 A AIE AB7$E /F39$C ET9/N, A#/7NT9N T/ ACO /F 7 9$39CT9/N @ET9T9/N

9G;EN 9T E E3 9N C/NC 739N T;AT T;E @ET9T9/NE 9$ N/TAN 9NN/CENT @7 C;A$E /F T;E $7B ECT @ /@E TM>

99G;EN 9T E E3 9N C/NC 739N T;AT @ E$C 9@T9/N G/7 3N/T 9E T/ BA @ 9IATE E$@/N3ENT$5 ACT9/N> and

999G;EN 9T E E3 9N N/T 3EC A 9N A$ IA 93 T;E T AN$FE /F

T;E $7B ECT @ /@E TM F /# T;E / 9 9NA E 9$TE E3/GNE $ T/ AFAE A 3/NAT/>

The pertinent &ac6gro nd acts as o nd &! the trial co rt and adopted&! the respondent Co rt o Appeals in its now assailed decision are the

ollowing:

The propert! s &"ect o the controvers! is a parcel o land sit ated inEchag e, 9sa&ela, identi0ed as ot +-B o the $ &division @lan 1 C4 @sd-+ 2) , &eing a portion o ot + containing an area o ((,*) s< aremeters, more or less.

ot + has an area o (',D)) s< are meters, more or less. 9t was ac< iredin ()' &! the spo ses an af d and a aela 3onato. an af ddied in ()2+. /n an ar! ((, ()2 , ot + was originall! registered in the

egistration Boo6 o the /=ce o the egister o 3eeds o 9sa&ela, nder/riginal Certi0cate o Title No. 2 * p rs ant to 3ecree No. + *' Diss ed nder . .C. Cadastral ecord No. (*+2 in the names o a aela3onato, a!m ndo af d and Cicero af d 1 a!m ndo and Cicero arethe sons o the spo ses4 as co-owners thereo in ee simple s &"ect tos ch o the inc m&rances mentioned in $ection 2) o said act and to

$ection , le D , les o Co rt. The said lot was sold to a aela3onato thro gh a 3eed o Trans er which cancelled /.C.T. No. 2 * andin lie thereo T.C.T. No. T-2* *D was iss ed in the name o a aela3onato.

/n Fe&r ar! ' , ()+D, a aela 3onato sold a portion o said ot +,consisting o (,D* s

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

12/36

containing an area o (,D* s

1&4 that the action o private respondents was alread! &arred &!prescription when it was 0led> and

1c4 that the trans er o the s &"ect propert! rom the originalregistered owners to a aela 3onato was valid. 1pp. +(-+', #ollo 4

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

13/36

The r le applica&le to this controvers! is well-settled. Ghere thecerti0cate o title is in the name o the vendor when the land is sold, thevendee or val e has the right to rel! on what appears on the certi0cateo title. 9n the a&sence o an!thing to e%cite or aro se s spicion, saidvendee is nder no o&ligation to loo6 &e!ond the certi0cate andinvestigate the title o the vendor appearing on the ace o saidcerti0cate. The rationale or the r le is stated th s:

The main p rpose o the Torrens5 $!stem is to avoid possi&leconJicts o title to real estate and to acilitate transactionsrelative thereto &! giving the p &lic the right to rel! pon the

ace o a Torrens Certi0cate o Title and to dispense with the needo in< iring rther, e%cept when the part! concerned had act al6nowledge o acts and circ mstances that sho ld impel areasona&l! ca tio s man to ma6e s ch rther in< ir!. 1@asc a v.Cap !oc, DD $C A D 4 Th s, where innocent third persons rel!ingon the correctness o the certi0cate th s iss ed, ac< ire tightsover the propert!, the co rt cannot disregard s ch rights.13irector o and v. A&ache, et al., D2 @hil. +*+4

9n the case at &ar, the evidence on record discloses that when petitionerp rchased the s &"ect propert! on ne (*, ()D*, the title thereto 1TCTNo. T-2'+ 24 was in the name o her vendor #afaela Donato alone . Thesaid TCT No. T-2'+ 2 was shown to petitioner which shows on its acethe ollowing:

is registered in accordance with the provisions o the andegistration Act in the name o

AFAE A 3/NAT/, Filipino, o legal age, widow and withresidence and postal address at Centro, Echag e, 9sa&ela,@hilippines as owner thereo in ee simple, s &"ect to s ch o the

enc m&rances mentioned in $ection 2) o said Act as ma! &es &sisting, and to $ection , le D , o the les o Co rt. 1E%.A, p. (+), ecord4

@etitioner was advised &! her law!ers that she co ld proceed to & ! thepropert! &eca se the same was registered in the name o the vendor.

Th s, on pp. (2 P ( o the Transcript o $tenographic Notes o thehearing o 3ecem&er (', () +, petitioner testi0ed as ollows:

Att!. #alla&o:

H Be ore !o &ro ght this propert! madam witness, were !oshown a cop! o the title o a aela 3onato vda. de af d on thepropert!8

A Mes, sir, she showed me the title. And 9 saw that the title was in

her name.

H Ghen the ofer was made to !o and the title was shown to!o , do !o remem&er i !o have done an!thing8

A Mes, sir, &e ore 9 &o ght the propert!, 9 showed the doc mentsshe &o ght to me to o r law!er, C stodia Iillalva and Concepcion

Tag din.

H Gh! did !o show them the title #adam witness8

A To &e s re that the title does not have an! enc m&rance and

&eca se 9 do not 6now an!thing a&o t legal matters.

H Ghat did the! advise !o 8

A Mes, /6e!, 9 can p roceed in & !ing the propert!, the title wasregistered in her name, it was her personal propert!. 1pp. ( -(+, #ollo 4

9n the case o #ag iling v. 7madha!, 122 $C A )), (*24 this Co rt held:

;owever, while the 7madha! spo ses cannot rel! on the title,the same not &eing in the name o their grantor, respondent

Crisanta $. m&an stands on a diferent ooting altogether. Atthe time she p rchased the land the title thereto was alread! inthe name o her vendors 1T.C.T, ( ''4. $he had the right to rel!on what appeared on the ace o said title. There is nothing in therecord to indicate that she 6new o an! nregistered claims to ore< ities in the land pertaining to other persons, s ch as that oherein petitioner, or o an! other circ mstances which sho ld p ther on g ard and ca se her to in< ire &ehind the certi0cate.

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

14/36

According to the Co rt o Appeals she too6 all the necessar!preca tions to ascertain the tr e ownership o the propert!,having engaged the services o a law!er or the speci0c p rposeand, it was onl! a ter said co nsel had ass red her thatever!thing was in order did she ma6e the 0nal arrangements top rchase the propert!. The appellate co rt5s concl sion thatrespondent Crisanta $. m&an was a p rchaser in good aithand or val e is correct, and the title she has thereo ac< ired isgood and inde easi&le.

@etitioner paid the s m o @(*,***,** in consideration o the sale whichis air and reasona&le considering that in ()+D Fort nato @asc a paidthe s m o @2)*.** or the portion o the land consisting o (,D* s< aremeters. 1E%hs. ( and 4

The co rt a +uo , however, r led and this was s stained &! respondentCo rt o Appeals that petitioner was not an innocent p rchaser.

The de ense o an innocent p rchaser or val e co ld &e o nohelp to appellant in the a&sence o the doc ment on e%tra-

" dicial partition indicating that the con" gal propert! has &eenad" dicated to a aela 3onato Ida. de af d and which wo ld&e the so rce o her a thorit! in trans erring the s &"ect propert!to de endant. The sensi&le thing to do &! an! pr dent person isto e%amine not onl! the certi0cate o title o said propert! & talso all the act al circ mstances necessar! or him to determinei there are an! Jaws in vendor5s capacit! to trans er the land. 1p.(*, #ollo 4

Ge do not 0nd an! evidence in the record that wo ld s stain s ch a0nding. The e%tra-" dicial partition adverted to in said r ling wase%ec ted &! the heirs o an af d prior to, and as the &asis or, the

iss ance o the /riginal Certi0cate o Title No. 2 * in the names o theheirs o an af d, as testi0ed to &! witness 3emetria af d in thiswise:

H Gere !o a&le to read the title that was 6ept &! !o r &rother inlaw8

A Mes, sir.

H Gho was the registered owner8A a aela 3onato, a!m ndo af d and Cicero af d, co-owner.H 9n other words, the title !o read appears that the owners were

a!m ndo, Cicero and a aela8A Mes, sir.H 3o !o 6now what a title is 8A Mes, it is thic6.H Mo said that the propert! was &o ght &! an af d and

a aela af d, how come that there is no name an af d inthe title8A Beca se he was alread! dead when 9 got married.H 3o !o have a 6nowledge how the title come to have the nameo a!m ndo, a aela and Cicero8A Mes, sir. 1p. ++, #ollo 4

The e%tra-" dicial settlement, pon which was &ased the lien imposed &!$ection , le D , les o Co rt, was e%ec ted after the death o an

af d in ()2+ & t before the iss ance o the original title on anuary--, - /0 so that the title wo ld &e iss ed in the names o the heirs o

an af d, namel!: a aela 3onato, a!m ndo af d and Ciceroaf d.

This concl sion is s pported 1a4 &! the act that the s &"ect propert!was registered onl! on anuary --, - /0, *ic* is around t o 123 yearsafter t*e deat* of uan 4a5ud in - /6, and there ore the title co ld nothave &een iss ed in the name o an af d> 1&4 &! the act that thelien imposed &! $ection , le D , les o Co rt as inscribed on t*eface of t*e title itself and was not entered on the #emorand m oEnc m&rances as were done with the mortgages and their releaseswhich were inscri&ed nder their Entr! N m&ers on the page or#emorand m o Enc m&rances and 1c4 &! the act that the /riginalCerti0cate o Title was iss ed in the names o the heirs o an af d.

The e%tra-" dicial settlement, there ore, has no &earing on whether ornot there was ra d in the trans er o the s &"ect propert! to a aela3onato.

/n the other hand, it was a Deed of Transfer which trans erred thes &"ect propert! rom the original owners to a aela 3onato as stated in

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

15/36

E%hi&it 2 which is the petition to cancel the conditions imposed &!$ection , le D , les o Co rt, to wit:

That since the time o the e%ec tion o the Deed of transfer fromt*e original o ners to *erein petitioner in - 67 , and also sincethe time o the registration o the said trans er at egister o3eeds o 9sa&ela last #arch ', ()+D, more than two 1'4!ears have alread! elapsed>

That rom the time o the Deed of Transfer and within the periodo two !ears therea ter, N/ C A9# G;AT$/EIE has &een 0ledagainst the herein petitioner with respect to the propert! t*ussold to *er . 1p. +D, #ollo 4

Even granting that the e%tra-" dicial settlement was the doc mentwhich trans erred the s &"ect propert! rom the original owners to

a aela 3onato the non-prod ction thereo 1 private respondents sho ldhave presented it, not petitioner 4 does not prove that there was ra dcommitted in its e%ec tion and neither does it prove that petitioner wasa part! thereto. There was no allegation, and m ch less an! evidence,that the trans er o the s &"ect propert! rom the original owners to

a aela 3onato was ra d lent.

Ghat private respondents allege as ra d lent was the e%tra-" dicialsettlement o the estate o an af d. B t it has &een shown that thissettlement was not the &asis o the trans er o the s &"ect propert! to

a aela 3onato, petitioner5s vendor.

That petitioner is an innocent p rchaser or val e is within the scope oesta&lished " rispr dence.

The decision o the lower co rt wo ld set at na ght the settleddoctrine that the holder o a certi0cate o title who ac< ired thepropert! covered &! the title in good aith and or val e can restass red that his title is per ect and incontroverti&le. 1Benin v.

T ason, D $C A 2(, (4

% % % % % % % % %

ided &! previo s decisions o this Co rt, good aith consists inthe possessor5s &elie that the person rom whom he received thething was the owner o the same and co ld conve! his title1Ariola v. ome dela $erna, ( @hil. +'D4. ood aith, while it isalwa!s pres med in the a&sence o proo to the contrar!,re< ires a well- o nded &elie that the person rom whom titlewas received &! himsel the owner o the land, with the right toconve! it 1$antiago v. Cr , () @hil. ( 4. There is good aithwhere there is an honest intention to a&stain rom ta6ing an!

nconscientio s advantage rom another 1F le v. egare, D $C A2 (4. /therwise stated, good aith is the opposite o ra d and itre ers to the state o mind which is mani ested &! the acts o theindivid al concerned. 9n the case at &ar, private respondents1petitioner in this case4, in good aith relied on the certi0cate otitle in the name o Fe $. 3 ran 1 a aela 3onato in this case4and . . . ?even on the s pposition that the sale was void, thegeneral r les that the direct res lt o a previo s illegal contractcannot &e valid 1on the theor! that the spring cannot rise higherthan its so rce4 cannot appl! here or Ge are con ronted with the

nctionings o the Torrens $!stem o egistration. The doctrine

to ollow is simple eno gh: a ra d lent or orged doc ment osale ma! &ecome the //T o a valid title i the certi0cate o titlehas alread! &een trans erred rom the name o the tr e owner tothe name o the orger or the name indicated &! the orger.13 ran v. 9ntermediate Appellate Co rt, (2 $C A ), ) 4.

% % % % % % % % %

Th s, where innocent third persons rel!ing on the correctness othe certi0cate o title iss ed, ac< ire rights over the propert!, theco rt cannot disregard s ch rights and order the totalcancellation o the certi0cate or that wo ld impair p &liccon0dence in the certi0cate o title> otherwise ever!one dealingwith propert! registered nder the torrens s!stem wo ld have toin< ire in ever! instance as to whether the title had &eenreg larl! or irreg larl! iss ed &! the co rt. 9ndeed, this iscontrar! to the evident p rpose o the law. Ever! person dealingwith registered land ma! sa el! rel! on the correctness o thecerti0cate o title iss ed there or and the law will in no wa!o&lige him to go &ehind the certi0cate to determine the conditiono the propert!. $tated diferentl!, an innocent p rchaser or

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

16/36

val e rel!ing on a torrens title iss ed is protected . . . 13 ran v.9ntermediate Appellate Co rt, (2 $C A ), ) - ) 4. 1pp. + -D*, #ollo 4

9n the case o Centeno v. Co rt o Appeals 1(2) $C A , 4 thesame r le was o&served &! this Co rt when it r led

. . . Gell settled is the r le that all persons dealing with propert!covered &! torrens certi0cate o title are not re< ired to go&e!ond what appears on the ace o the title. Ghen there isnothing on the certi0cate o title to indicate an! clo d or vice inthe ownership o the propert!, or an! enc m&rance thereon, thep rchaser is not re< ired to e%plore rther than what the torrenstitle pon its ace indicates in < est or an! hidden de ect orinchoate right that ma! s &se< entl! de eat his right thereto.1Gilliam Anderson v. arcia, + @hil. *+> F le v. egare, D $C A2 (4. 1p. D(, #ollo 4

@etitioner &eing an innocent p rchaser or val e, private respondentswill have no ca se o action against her. ?The iss e alone that petitioneris a p rchase in good aith and or val e s =cientl! constit tes a &ar tothe complaint o private respondents . . .?1#edina v. Chanco, ((D $C A'*(, '* 4.

9 an action or reconve!ance &ased on constr ctive tr st cannot reachan innocent p rchaser or val e, the remed! o the de ra ded part! is to&ring an action or damages against those who ca sed the ra d or wereinstr mental in depriving him o the propert!. And it is now well-settledthat s ch action prescri&es in ten !ears rom the iss ance o the Torrens

Title over the propert!. 1Armerol v. Bag m&aran, ( $C A 2)+, *D>Caro v. Co rt o Appeals, ( * $C A *(, *D> Galstron v. #apa, r., ( ($C A 2(, '4.

Trans er Certi0cate o Title No. T-2'+ 2 was iss ed in the name oa aela 3onato on #arch ', ()+D. The present action or reconve!ance

was 0led onl! on #arch ), () '. Clearl! then, the action has alread!prescri&ed &eca se it was 0led 0 teen 1( 4 !ears a ter the iss ance o

TCT No. T-2'+ 2. Even i the period were to &e rec6oned rom theregistration o the deed o a&sol te sale in avor o petitioner on l! (2,()D*, which is also the date o the iss ance o Trans er Certi0cate o

Title No. T- )2 * in the name o petitioner, the action o privaterespondents had alread! prescri&ed &eca se a period o eleven 1((4!ears, seven 1D4 months and twent!-si% 1'+4 da!s has elapsed rom l!(2, ()(* to #arch ), () '.

G;E EF/ E, the petition is ANTE3> the assailed decision o the Co rto Appeals is EIE $E3 and $ET A$93E and another one rendereddismissing Civil Case No. Br. I-D +, o the egional Trial Co rt, Branch' , Echag e, 9sa&ela.

7G.R. No. 1 138 . %"rch 11, 1998

S&OUSES %AR'ANO "#$ ERL'NDA LA)URADA, re/re!e#te$ btheir "ttor#e -i#- "ct, %ANUEL SAN(OS, +R., petitioners,vs. LAND REG'S(RA('ON AU( OR'(*, respondent.

&ANGAN')AN, J:

9n an original land registration proceeding in which applicants have&een ad" dged to have a registra&le title, ma! the and egistrationA thorit! 1 A4 re se to iss e a decree o registration i it has evidencethat the s &"ect land ma! alread! &e incl ded in an e%isting Torrenscerti0cate o title8 7nder this circ mstance, ma! the A &e compelled&! mandam s to iss e s ch decree8

(he C"!e

These are the < estions con ronting this Co rt in this special civilaction or mandam s K(L nder le + which as6s this Co rt to direct the

and egistration A thorit! 1 A4 to iss e the corresponding decree o registration in and egistration Case 1 C4 No. N-((*''. K'L

(he "ct!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn1

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

17/36

@etitioners were the applicants in C Case No. N-((*'' or theregistration o ot 2-A, @sd-(2D', located in #andal !ong Cit!. /n

an ar! , ())(, the trial co rt, acting as a land registration co rt,rendered its decision disposing th s: K2L

G;E EF/ E, 0nding the application meritorio s and it appearing thatthe applicants, $po ses #arciano KsicL and Erlinda a& rada, have aregistra&le title over the parcel o land descri&ed as ot 2A, @sd-(2D',the Co rt declares, con0rms and orders the registration o their titlethereto.

As soon as this decision shall &ecome 0nal, let the corresponding decree&e iss ed in the name o spo ses #arciano KsicL and Erlinda a& rada,&oth o legal age, married, with residence and postal address at No. *

i al Ave., #anila.

A ter the 0nalit! o the decision, the trial co rt, pon motion o petitioners, iss ed an order K L dated #arch ( , ())( re< iring the A toiss e the corresponding decree o registration. ;owever, the Are sed. ;ence, petitioners 0led this action or mandam s. K L

Attached to the As comment on the petition is a report dated April'), ())' signed &! $ilverio . @ere , director o the A 3epartment o

egistration, which e%plained p &lic respondents re sal to iss e thesaid decree: K+L

9n connection with the @etition or #andam s 0led &! @etitioners thro ghco nsel, dated A g st 'D, ())( relative to the a&ove-noted caseQrecord,the ollowing comments are respect ll! s &mitted:

/n #arch +, ())*, an application or registration o title o a parcel oland, ot 2-A o the s &division plan @sd-(2D', a portion o ot 2, Bloc6No. ( ), $wo-D'2D, sit ated in the # nicipalit! o $an Felipe Neri,@rovince o i al was 0led &! $po ses #arciano KsicL a& rada andErlinda a& rada>

A ter plotting the a oresaid plan so ght to &e registered in o r # nicipal9nde% $heet, it was o nd that it might &e a portion o the parcels o landdecreed in Co rt o and egistration 1C 4 Case Nos. +)), D and (D,as per plotting o the s &division plan 1 C4 @sd-2())2', a cop! o saids &division plan is Anne% A hereo >

The records on 0le in this A thorit! show that C Case Nos. +)), D P)(D were iss ed 3ecree Nos. ' *, +)+ and ( ' on A g st ' , ()* ,$eptem&er ( , ()* and April '+, ()* , respectivel!>

/n #a! '2, ())(, a letter o this A thorit! was sent to the egister o3eeds, @asig, #etro #anila, a cop! is Anne% B hereo , re< esting or acerti0ed tr e cop! o the /riginal Certi0cate o Title No. 2 , iss ed inthe name o Compania Agricola de 7ltramar>

/n #a! '*, ())(, a certi0ed tr e cop! o the /riginal Certi0cate o Title1/CT4 No. 2 was received &! this A thorit!, a cop! is Anne% C hereo ,per nsigned letter o the egister o 3eeds o @asig, #etro #anila, acop! is Anne% 3 hereo >

A ter e%amining the rnished /CT N/. 2 , it was o nd that thetechnical description o the parcel o land descri&ed therein is notreada&le, that prompted this A thorit! to send another letter dated April( , ())' to the egister o 3eeds o @asig, #etro #anila, a cop! isAnne% E hereo , re< esting or a certi0ed t!pewritten cop! o /CT No.2 , or in lie thereo a certi0ed cop! o the s &sisting certi0cate o titlewith complete technical description o the parcel o land involvedtherein. To date, however, no repl! to o r letter has as !et &een received&! this A thorit!>

A ter veri0cation o the records on 0le in the egister o 3eeds or the@rovince o i al, it was o nd that ot 2-B o the s &division plan @sd-(2D' &eing a portion o ot No. 2, Bloc6 No. ( ), @lan $.G./. -D'2D, iscovered &! Trans er Certi0cate o Title No. ')22D iss ed in the name o@ ra Esc rdia Ida. de B enaJor, a cop! is attached as Anne% F hereo .$aid TCT No. ')22D is a trans er rom Trans er Certi0cate o Title No.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn6

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

18/36

+ ) . ;owever, the title iss ed or ot 2-A o the s &division plan @sd-(2D' cannot &e located &eca se TCT No. + ) consisting o severalsheets are KsicL incomplete.

For this A thorit! to iss e the corresponding decree o registrationso ght &! the petitioners p rs ant to the 3ecision dated an ar! ,())( and /rder dated #arch ( , ())(, it wo ld res lt in the d plicationo titles over the same parcel o land, and th s contravene the polic!and p rpose o the Torrens registration s!stem, and destro! the integrit!o the same 1 . . No. +2( ), @edro E. $an ose vs. ;on. E tropio #igrio,et al.,4> % % %.

9n view o the oregoing e%planation, the solicitor general pra!s thatthe petition &e dismissed or &eing premat re.

A ter the 0ling o memoranda &! the parties, petitioners 0led anrgent motion, dated $eptem&er , ()) , KDL or an earl! resol tion o the

case. To this motion, the Co rt responded with a esol tion, dated/cto&er '2, ()) , which ordered: K L

% % % Acting on the rgent motion or earl! resol tion o the case dated* $eptem&er ()) 0led &! petitioner Erlinda a& rada hersel , theCo rt resolved to re< ire the $olicitor eneral to report to the Co rt indetail, within 0 teen 1( 4 da!s rom receipt o this esol tion, whatconcrete and speci0c steps, i an!, have &een ta6en &! respondent since() #a! ())2 1the date o respondents #emorand m4 to act all! veri !whether the lot s &"ect o C Case No. N-((*'' 1 egional Trial Co rt o@asig, Branch + 4, descri&ed as ot 2A, @sd-(2D' and sit ated in#andal !ong Cit!, might &e a portion o the parcels o land decreed inCo rt o and egistration Case 1C 4 Nos. +)), D and )(D.

/n 3ecem&er '), ()) , the solicitor general s &mitted hiscompliance with the a&ove resol tion, to which was attached a letterdated Novem&er 'D, ())D o Felino #. Corte , chie o the A /rdinar!and Cadastral 3ecree 3ivision, which states: K)L

Gith re erence to !o r letter dated Novem&er (2, ()) , enclosedherewith is a cop! o o r letter dated ') April ())' addressed to ;on.

amon $. 3es asido stating among others that ot 2-B, o thes &division plan @sd-(2D', a portion o ot 2, Bl6. ( ), $wo-D'2D isreall! covered &! Trans er Certi0cate o Title No. ')22D iss ed in thename o @ ra Esc rdia Ida. de B naJor KsicL which was trans erKedL

rom Trans er Certi0cate o Title No. +2) , per veri0cation o the recordson 0le in the egister o 3eeds o i al. ;owever, the title iss ed or thes &"ect lot, ot 2-A o the s &division plan @sd-(2D', cannot &e located&eca se TCT R+ ) is incomplete.

9t was also in ormed KsicL that or this A thorit! to iss e thecorresponding decree o registration so ght &! the petitioners p rs antto the decision dated an ar! ), ())( and order dated #arch ( , ())(,wo ld res lt in the d plication o KtheL title over the same parcel o land,and th s contravene the polic! and p rposes o the torrens registrations!stem, and destro! the integrit! o the same 1/. . No. +2( ) @edro O.$an ose vs. ;on. E tropio #igrio, et. al.4.

;ence, this case will &e s &mitted to the Co rt or dismissal to avoidd plication o title over the same parcel o land.

'!! e

@etitioners s &mit this lone iss e: K(*L

Ghether or not espondent and egistration A thorit! can &ecompelled to iss e the corresponding decree in C Case No. N-((*'' o the egional Trial Co rt o @asig, Branch SI999 1+ 4.

(he Co rt! R 0i#

The petition is not meritorio s.

So0e '!! e: Is Mandamus the Right Remedy?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn10

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

19/36

@etitioners contend that mandam s is availa&le in this case, or theA nlaw ll! neglectKedL the per ormance o an act which the law

speci0call! en"oins as a d t! res lting rom an o=ce % % %. The! cite o rreasons wh! the writ sho ld &e iss ed. 8irst, petitioners claim that the!have a clear legal right to the act &eing pra!ed or and the A has theimperative d t! to per orm &eca se, as land registration is an inrem proceeding, the " risdictional re< irement o notices and p &licationsho ld &e complied with. K((L $ince there was no showing that the A0led an opposition in this proceeding, it cannot re se to iss e thecorresponding decree. 'econd, it is not the d t! o the A to ta6e thec dgels or the private persons in possession o /CT No. 2 , TCT No.')22D sn KsicL TCT No. + ) . ather, it is the sole concern o saidprivate person-holders o said titles to instit te in a separate & t properaction whatever claim the! ma! have against the propert! s &"ect o petitioners application or registration. T*ird, petitioners contend thatthe! s fered rom the dela! in the iss ance o their title, &eca se o the

ail re o the egister o 3eeds o @asig, #etro #anila to rnish A o KsicL the certi0ed copies o TCT No. ')22D and TCT No. + )

notwithstanding the lac6 o opposition rom the holders o said titles.K('L 8ourt*, the $tate consented to its &eing s ed in this caseK>L th s, thelegislat re m st recogni e an! " dgment that ma! &e rendered in thiscase as 0nal and ma6e provision or its satis action. K(2L

/n the other hand, the A, represented &! the solicitor general,contends that the decision o the trial co rt is not valid, considering thatKtheL Co rt o First 9nstance has no " risdiction to decree again theregistration o land alread! decreed in an earlier land registration caseand KsoL a second decree or the same land is n ll and void. K( L /n the< estion o whether the A can &e compelled to iss e a decree o

registration, the solicitor general cites #amos vs. #odrigue" K( L whichheld: K(+L

Nevertheless, even granting that proced ral lapses have &eencommitted in the proceedings &elow, these ma! &e ignored &! the Co rtin the interest o s &stantive " stice. This is especiall! tr e when, as inthis case, a strict adherence to the r les wo ld res lt in a sit ation

where the A wo ld &e compelled to iss e a decree o registration overland which has alread! &een decreed to and titled in the name oanother.

9t m st &e noted that petitioners ailed to re& t the A report and onl!alleged that the title o the @a!atas Estate was sp rio s, witho t oferingan! proo to s &stantiate this claim. TCT No. (+, however, having&een iss ed nder the Torrens s!stem, en"o!s the concl sivepres mption o validit!. As we declared in an earl! case, 1t4he ver!p rpose o the Torrens s!stem wo ld &e destro!ed i the same land ma!&e s &se< entl! &ro ght nder a second action or registration. Theapplication or registration o the petitioners in this case wo ld, nderthe circ mstances, appear to &e a collateral attac6 o TCT No. (+which is not allowed nder $ection o @.3. ( '). 17nderscorings pplied.4

Ge agree with the solicitor general. Ge hold that mandam s is notthe proper remed! or three reasons.

ir!t: Judgment Is Not Yet Executory

Contrar! to the petitioners allegations, the " dgment the! see6 toen orce in this petition is not !et e%ec tor! and incontroverti&le nderthe and egistration aw. That is, the! do not have an! clear legal rightto implement it. Ge have nam&ig o sl! r led that a " dgment oregistration does not &ecome e%ec tor! ntil a ter the e%piration o one!ear a ter the entr! o the 0nal decree o registration. Ge e%plained thisin 4ome" vs. $ourt of %ppeals :K(DL

9t is not disp ted that the decision dated A g st () ( had &ecome0nal and e%ec tor!. @etitioners vigoro sl! maintain that said decisionhaving &ecome 0nal, it ma! no longer &e reopened, reviewed, m chless, set aside. The! anchor this claim on section 2* o @.3. No. ( ')1@ropert! egistration 3ecree4 which provides that, a ter " dgment has&ecome 0nal and e%ec tor!, the co rt shall orthwith iss e an order tothe Commissioner o and egistration or the iss ance o the decree o

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn17

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

20/36

registration and certi0cate o title. @etitioners contend that section 2*sho ld &e read in relation to section 2' o @.3. ( ') in that, once the

" dgment &ecomes 0nal and e%ec tor! nder section 2*, the decree oregistration m st iss e as a matter o co rse. This &eing the law,petitioners assert, when respondent dge set aside in his decision,dated ' #arch () , the decision o A g st () ( and the order o +/cto&er () (, he clearl! acted witho t " risdiction.

@etitioners contention is not correct. 7nli6e ordinar! civil actions, thead" dication o land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding doesnot &ecome 0nal, in the sense o incontroverti&ilit! ntil a ter thee%piration o one 1(4 !ear a ter the entr! o the 0nal decree oregistration. This Co rt, in several decisions, has held that as long as a0nal decree has not &een entered &! the and egistration Commission1now N T3 A4 and the period o one 1(4 !ear has not elapsed rom dateo entr! o s ch decree, the title is not 0nall! ad" dicated and thedecision in the registration proceeding contin es to &e nder the controland so nd discretion o the co rt rendering it.

$econd: % 9oid udgment :s Possible

That the A hesitates in iss ing a decree o registration isnderstanda&le. ather than a sign o negligence or non easance in the

per ormance o its d t!, the As reaction is reasona&le, evenimperative. Considering the pro&a&le d plication o titles over the sameparcel o land, s ch iss ance ma! contravene the polic! and thep rpose, and there&! destro! the integrit!, o the Torrens s!stem o registration.

9n #amos vs. #odrigue", K( L this Co rt r led that the A is mandatedto re er to the trial co rt an! do &t it ma! have in regard to thepreparation and the iss ance o a decree o registration. 9n this respect,

A o=cials act not as administrative o=cials & t as o=cers o saidco rt, and their act is the act o the co rt. The! are speci0call! called

pon to e%tend assistance to co rts in ordinar! and cadastral landregistration proceedings.

Tr e, land registration is an in rem proceeding and, there ore, thedecree o registration is &inding pon and concl sive against all personsincl ding the government and its &ranches, irrespective o whether the!were personall! noti0ed o the application or registration, and whetherthe! 0led an answer to said application. This stance o petitioners 0ndss pport in $ec. 2 o Act )+ which provides:

$EC. 2 . 9 the co rt a ter hearing 0nds that the applicant or adverseclaimant has title as stated in his application or adverse claim andproper or registration, a decree o con0rmation and registration shall &eentered. Ever! decree o registration shall &ind the land, and < iet titlethereto, s &"ect onl! to the e%ceptions stated in the ollowing section. 9tshall &e concl sive pon and against all persons, incl ding the 9ns lar

overnment and all the &ranches thereo , whether mentioned &! namein the application, notice, or citation, or incl ded in the generaldescription To all whom it ma! concern. $ ch decree shall not &e opened&! reason o the a&sence, in anc!, or other disa&ilit! o an! personafected there&!, nor &! an! proceeding in an! co rt or reversing

" dgments or decrees> s &"ect, however, to the right o an! persondeprived o land or o an! estate or interest therein &! decree oregistration o&tained &! ra d to 0le in the competent Co rt o First9nstance a petition or review within one !ear a ter entr! o the decree,provided no innocent p rchaser or val e has ac< ired an interest. 7ponthe e%piration o said term o one !ear, ever! decree or certi0cate otitle iss ed in accordance with this section shall &e incontroverti&le. 9there is an! s ch p rchaser, the decree o registration shall not &eopened, & t shall remain in ll orce and efect orever, s &"ect onl! tothe right o appeal herein &e ore provided: Provided, *o ever, That nodecree or certi0cate o title iss ed to persons not parties to the appeal

shall &e cancelled or ann lled. B t an! person aggrieved &! s ch decreein an! case ma! p rs e his remed! &! action or damages against theapplicant or an! other person or ra d in proc ring thedecree. Ghenever the phrase innocent p rchaser or val e or ane< ivalent phrase occ rs in this Act, it shall &e deemed to incl de aninnocent lessee, mortgagee, or other enc m&rancer or val e. 1 %s

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn18

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

21/36

amended by 'ec. /, %ct (o. /62-; and 'ec. -, %ct (o. /6/

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

22/36

descriptions, especiall! where the decision orders a s &division o a lot,the segregation there rom o a portion &eing ad" dicated to anotherpart!, to 0t the said decision. As said &! this Co rt in the case o 3e los

e!es vs. 3e Iilla, @hil., ''D, '2 :

E%amining section *, we 0nd that the decrees o registration m st &estated in convenient orm or transcription pon the certi0cate o titleand m st contain an acc rate technical description o the land. Thisre< ires trained technical men. #oreover, it re< entl! occ rs that onl!portions o a parcel o land incl ded in an application are orderedregistered and that the limits o s ch portions can onl! &ero ghl! indicated in the decision o the co rt. 9n s ch casesamendments o the plans and sometimes additional s rve!s &ecomenecessar! &e ore the 0nal decree can &e entered. That can hardl! &edone &! the co rt itsel > the law ver! wisel! charges the chie s rve!oro the eneral and egistration /=ce with s ch d ties 1AdministrativeCode, section (DD4.

F rthermore, altho gh the 0nal decree is act all! prepared &! the Chieo the eneral and egistration /=ce, the administrative o=cer, theiss ance o the 0nal decree can hardl! &e considered a ministerial act

or the reason that said Chie o the eneral and egistration /=ceacts not as an administrative o=cer & t as an o=cer o the co rt and sothe iss ance o a 0nal decree is a " dicial nction and not anadministrative one 13e los e!es vs. 3e Iilla, supra 4. % % %17nderscoring s pplied.4

9ndeed, it is well-settled that the iss ance o s ch decree is notcompella&le &! mandam s &eca se it is a " dicial act involving the

e%ercise o discretion. K'2L i6ewise, the writ o mandam s can &eawarded onl! when the petitioners legal right to the per ormance o thepartic lar act which is so ght to &e compelled is clear and complete.K' L7nder le + o the les o Co rt, a clear legal right is a right whichis ind &ita&l! granted &! law or is in era&le as a matter o law. 9 theright is clear and the case is meritorio s, o&"ections raising merel!technical < estions will &e disregarded. K' L B t where the right so ght to

&e en orced is in s &stantial do &t or disp te, as in this case,mandam s cannot iss e.

A co rt ma! &e compelled &! mandam s to pass and act pon a< estion s &mitted to it or decision, & t it cannot &e en"oined to decide

or or against one o the parties. K'+L As stated earlier, a " dicial act is notcompella&le &! mandam s. K'DL The co rt has to decide a < estionaccording to its own " dgment and nderstanding o the law. K' L

9n view o the oregoing, it is not legall! proper to re< ire the A toiss e a decree o registration. ;owever, to avoid m ltiplicit! o s itsand needless dela!, this Co rt deems it more appropriate to direct the

A to e%pedite its st d!, to determine with 0nalit! whether ot 2-A isincl ded in the propert! descri&ed in TCT No. + ) , and to s &mit areport thereon to the co rt o origin within si%t! 1+*4 da!s rom receipto this 3ecision, a ter which the said co rt shall act with deli&eratespeed according to the acts and the law, as herein disc ssed.

; ERE ORE, the petition is here&! 39$#9$$E3 & t the case isE#AN3E3 to the co rt o origin in @asig Cit!. The and egistration

A thorit!, on the other hand, is / 3E E3 to s &mit to the co rt a < o areport determining with 0nalit! whether ot 2-A is incl ded in thepropert! descri&ed in TCT No. + ) , within si%t! 1+*4 da!s romnotice. A ter receipt o s ch report, the land registration co rt, in t rn, isordered to ACT, with deli&erate and " dicio s speed, to settle the iss eo whether the A ma! iss e the decree o registration, according tothe acts and the law as herein disc ssed.

7G.R. No. 15611 . %" 26, 2 5

RE&U)L'C O ( E & 'L'&&'NES, petitioner, vs . +ERE%'AS ANDDA4'D ER)'E(O, respondents .

Be ore this Co rt is a @etition or eview on $ertiorari , nder le o the ())D les o Civil @roced re, see6ing the reversal o the 3ecisiono the Co rt o Appeals in CA- . . CI No. +D+' , dated '' Novem&er

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/101387.htm#_edn28

7/25/2019 LTD Cases 11-25

23/36

'**', K(L which a=rmed the dgment o the # nicipal Trial Co rt 1#TC4o Consolacion, Ce& , dated '( 3ecem&er ())), K'Lgranting theapplication or land registration o the respondents.

espondents in the present @etition are the ;er&ieto &rothers, eremias and 3avid, who 0led with the #TC, on '2 $eptem&er ()) , asingle application or registration o two parcels o land, ots No. ''and '2, located in Ca&angahan, Consolacion, Ce& 1$ &"ect ots4.

The! claimed to &e owners in ee simple o the $ &"ect ots, which the!p rchased rom their parents, spo ses regorio ;er&ieto and 9sa&el/watan, on ' ne ()D+. K2L Together with their application orregistration, respondents s &mitted the ollowing set o doc ments:

1a4 Advance $ rve! @lan o ot No. '', in the name orespondent eremias> and Advance $ rve! @lan o ot No.

'2, in the name o respondent 3avid> K L

1&4 The tech