Ramos vs Rodriguez
Whether or not the court can still set aside its order on the
Facts:
Feliciano Ramos applied for the registration of a parcel of
land in san jose. Rodriguez, Montalban, Rizal, with a total
area of 156, 485 square meters.
He died and was substituted by his heirs
An Order of general default was issued, adjudicating said lot
to petitioners.
The court a quo issued an Order for Issuance of Decree stating
that the July 28, 1988 decision had become final
The court directed the Administrator of National Land Titles
and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) to comply with
Section 39 of PD 1529 to prepare the decree and certificate of
registration
But instead of issuing the said decree, NLTDRA
Administrator submitted a report recommending that the July
28,1988 decision be set aside because the subject lot is
already covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
8816 issued on October 29, 1924, in case No. 1037 in the name
of the Payatas Estate Improvement Company
The court issued an order denying petitioners application for
registration, setting aside its decision dated July 28, 1988,
as well as its order for the issuance of decree dated
September 12, 1988 and denying the petition to re-direct the
LRA to issue the decree of registration. The court noted that
the subject lot was already covered by an existing certificate
of title and that no final decree has yet been issued by the
LRA.
Petitioners questioned the order raising the principle of
finality of judgments
Petitoners argued that the issuance of a decree of
registration and the certificate of title by the LRA is a
ministerial duty which follows as a matter of course the order
of the court directing it to issue said decree.
Issues:
1.
strength of the principle of finality of judgments.
2. Whether or not the issuance of a decree of registration and
certificate of title by the LRA is purely ministerial
Held:
1. Yes. Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land
in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become
final, in the sense of incontrovertibility(,) until after the
expiration of one (1) year after (sic) the entry of the final
decree of registration. This Court, in several decisions, has
held that as long as a final decree has not been entered by
the Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period
of one (1) year has not elapsed from the date of entry of such
decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision
in the registration proceeding continues to be under the
control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
2. Yes, it is ministerial in the sense that they act under the
orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with
the decision of the court and with the data found in the
record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if
they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the
preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to
refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect as
officials of the court and not as administrative officials,
and their act is the act of the court. They are specifically
called upon to "extend assistance to courts in ordinary and
cadastral land registration proceedings."
In the case at bench, Administrator Bonifacio filed his report
as an officer of the court precisely to inform the latter that
the NLTDRA cannot comply with the order to issue a decree
because the subject lot sought to be registered was discovered
to have been already decreed and titled in the name of the
Payatas Estate. Under these circumstances, the LRA is not
legally obligated to follow the court's order.
DOLFO VS REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE Province of Cavite, Trece
Martires City et al.
Facts:
Petitioner and Yangtze properties filed a motion for
leave to file and/or admit complaint-in-intervention in
LRC Cases pending before the RTC of Bacoor, Cavite.
The first case is for reconstitution of Original
Certificate of Title No. 362 purportedly covering the
subject real property, while the last two were cases for
registration of title.
Petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of
the real property subject of the said LRC Cases as shown
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-320601 issued in
her name by the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires
City. Yangtze, petitioner's co-movant, had earlier
entered into a Contract to Sell with petitioner over the
said property.
the trial court denied the aforementioned motion on the
grounds that: 1) it is a procedural error to file a
complaint for intervention in cases involving original
application for land registration, the proceedings
therein being in rem; and 2) there had already been an
order of general default entered by the court against
those who failed to oppose the applications.
Petitioners filed a MR which was treated by the court as
a motion to lift the order of general default.
But The trial court gave greater weight to the report of
the Land Registration Authority (LRA) that petitioner's
certificate of title was issued without any legal basis
and the report of the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI) that the signature of Antonia Cabuco, the Register
of Deeds of the Province of Cavite signatory on the
certificate, was a forgery.
Meanwhile, on August 1, 1996, Atty. Artemio Caa, in his
capacity as Acting Register of Deeds of the Province of
Cavite, filed a complaint for the annulment of
petitioner's certificate of title before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 89, Bacoor, Cavite.[5] The matter
remains pending in that court.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite rendered
a joint decision recognizing and confirming the rights of
private respondents over the litigated property and
ordered the issuance of a Decree of Registration in their
favor.
Later, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul and set
aside the above orders of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite. Petitioner also prayed that
the latter be compelled to give due course to her motion
for leave to intervene and/or admit complaint-in-
intervention.
The CA denied the petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the proper remedy in land registration cases is
an opposition to the application of the applicants and not a
motion to intervened in the proceedings before the trial
court.
2. Whether or not the CA seriously erred in not holding that the
respondent trial court gravely erred in not admitting
petitioner's motion for intervention on the basis of
petitioner's possession of her indefeasible title over the
subject properties
3. Whether or not the CA erred in in not upholding the title of
the petitioner over the properties in question despite
petitioner's overwhelming evidence to prove the genuineness
and due execution of her title, and despite its express and
categorical acknowledgment of the fact that petitioner indeed
presented numerous documents to prove the authenticity of her
title.
Held;
1. Yes. The provisions of 14 and 25 of P.D. No. 1529 (Property
Registration Decree) show that the applicant and the oppositor
 are the only parties in cases of original applications for Even the Primary Entry Book for Act 496 under the date 18 November
land registration, unlike in ordinary civil actions where 1991 does not indicate that a document was presented for registration
in favor of Amelita Dolfo affecting TCT No. 11520 which resulted in
parties may include the plaintiff, the defendant, third party
the issuance of TCT No. T-320601.
complainants, cross-claimants, and intervenors.
Instead, page 232 of the Primary Entry Book, Volume 47 (Annex "B")
It is now settled that a motion to intervene in a land
shows that under the date - 18 November 1991 there appears no
registration case cannot be allowed. A party wishing to be document entered therein at 11:05 a.m. in favor of Amelita Dolfo or
heard should ask for the lifting of the order of general in her behalf affecting the parcel of land described in TCT No. T-
default, and then if lifted, file an opposition to the 320601.
application for registration. This is so because proceedings
in land registration are in rem and not in personam, the sole The cavite RD show that the Judicial forms were consumed and used for
the Cert of Title in favor of Manuel dela Cruz and not for the
object being the registration applied for, not the
certificate of Dolfo.
determination of any right connected with the registration.
Furthermore, registry records show, particularly the same Issuance
Book of title-forms, page 88 (Annex "H"), that the Judicial Forms 109
2. The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is and 109-D used for the genuine TCT No. 320601 were with Serial No.
presumed valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a 2037534 (erroneously typed in the certification as 2037519); and that
piece of land does not apply where the certificate itself is the said TCT No. 320601 was issued in the name of Molino Homes and
not in favor of Amelita Dolfo.
faulty as to its purported origin.
Thus, petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her
In this case, petitioner anchors her arguments on the premise
certificate of title. It bears emphasis that the Torrens
that her title to the subject property is indefeasible because
system does not create or vest title but only confirms and
of the presumption that her certificate of title is
records one already existing and vested.[18] Thus, while it may
authentic. However, this presumption is overcome by the
be true, as petitioner argues, that a land registration court
evidence presented, consisting of the LRA report dated May 24,
has no jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a
1996 that TCT No. T-320601 was issued without legal basis and
certificate of title, it is equally true that this rule
the NBI report dated June 20, 1996] that the signature of
applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to
Antonia Cabuco was a forgery. Although petitioner submitted
the authenticity of the certificate.
documents purporting to show the genuineness of Antonia
Cabuco's signature, she has not refuted the findings contained
3. to allow petitioner to intervene in the LRC cases would not
in the LRA report that her certificate of title has no legal
avoid multiplicity of suits in view of the case for annulment
basis.
and cancellation of TCT No. T-320601 now pending before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Bacoor, Cavite. It is
premature for petitioner to intervene in the LRC cases because
her certificate of title, supposedly her best proof of
no document on file in the registry vault to support the issuance of
TCT No.T-320601 in favor of Amelita Dolfo. ownership over the property described therein, is
questionable. Besides, inasmuch as the authenticity of her
certificate of title is also being questioned in the LRC
cases, the evidence that she will present to the prove the
contrary would be the same evidence she will present in the
case for annulment of title. At this point, where there is
already a decree of registration issued in favor of private
respondents, it is moot and academic to allow petitioner to
participate in the LRC cases for the purpose of preventing
possible double titling of property. As the trial court
correctly stated, petitioner is not left without remedy even
if she was not allowed to intervene. If it is shown that her
certificate of title is genuine and that she is the true owner
of the litigated property, the proceedings in the land
registration cases would then be null and void because the
trial court has no jurisdiction on the matter. Otherwise, she
could sue for damages.