Republic vs. Heirs of Sta. Ana,
G.R. No. 233578, March 15, 2021,
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.
Case Digest
Subjects:
Remedial Law –
Immutability of Judgment
Civil Law – Land Titles
and Deeds
Facts:
Respondents Heirs of Julian
Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig
City an application for registration of Lot 459, Pasig Cadastre, Psc-14
docketed as LRC Case No. N-5999.
On March 22, 1999, respondents filed
an Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Issuance of a Decree3 on the basis of a final and
executory Decision dated October 26, 1967 previously rendered by the trial
court in a similar application for registration of the same lot initiated by
their predecessors-in-interest Julian Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana.
According to respondents, the
aforesaid decision was assailed before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
24531. By Decision dated October 8, 1991, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It
also denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by a certain Anita
Gonzal. On May 19, 1992, the corresponding entry of judgment was issued.
Back to respondents' Urgent Ex Parte
Motion for Issuance of a Decree in LRC Case No. N-5999, the trial court granted
it and consequently issued an Order for the Issuance of Decree dated May 19,
1999. There, the trial court directed the Commissioner of the LRA to comply
with Section 398 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529).
In response, the Director of LRA's
Department on Registration, Pelino Cortez submitted his Supplementary Report
dated October 11, 2000, informing the trial court that a portion of subject lot
was already covered by a prior registration proceeding in Cadastral Case No.
10, Cadastral Record No. 984 and that a second registration thereof on the
basis of the trial court's Decision dated October 26, 1967 would result in
double registration.
Acting thereon, the court, by Order
dated December 5, 2013, directed respondents to submit, within twenty (20) days
from notice, the amended plan of Lot 459, Pasig Cadastre, Psc-14, together with
its technical description, segregating the already titled portion of the
subject lot per Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral Record No. 984.
In their Manifestation with Urgent
Motion for Reconsideration, respondents posited that their painstaking effort
to comply with the said order was all in vain because: 1) there was no copy of
the decision in Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral Record No. 984; 2) no record
of the decision can be found either in the files of the concerned government
agencies, except a notation on page 80 of Book "K" of the Record Book
of Cadastral Lots; and 3) the Regional Technical Director for Lands has no
record of any public land application or patent on the subject lot.
In its Opposition, the Republic
countered that the urgent motion for reconsideration was filed out of time and
respondents did not comply with the directive.
Trial court required the LRA to
issue a title in the name of respondents' predecessors-in-interest over Lot
459, Pasig Cadastre, Psc-14 consistent with its final and executory Decision
dated October 26, 1967. Court of Appeals
dismissed the Republic's petition for certiorari.
SolGen argues that a land
registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of a lot
already decreed in the name of another through an earlier land registration
case. The LRA reported on three (3) separate occasions that a portion of subject
lot is already covered by a title issued in Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral
Record No. 984. The LRA has invariably recommended that respondents submit an
amended plan of the subject lot, together with its technical description,
segregating the already titled portion to ascertain which part of the subject
lot is covered by the trial court's Decision dated October 26, 1967. The trial
court even ordered respondents to comply with the LRA's recommendation but they
failed to do so.
Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals
commit reversible error when it affirmed the trial court's directive to issue a
registration decree on the entire Lot 459 in the name of respondents'
predecessors-in-interest?
Held:
No; the
issue hinges on whether respondents are legally entitled to a registration
decree issued in the name of their predecessors-in-interest covering the whole
Lot 459, Pasig Cadastre, Psc-14. The LRA though had reported to the court that
a portion of Lot 459, Psc-14, Pasig Cadastre is already covered by a
certificate of title issued in Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral Record No. 984.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals nonetheless adopted that portion
of the same LRA report as well as the factual finding of the trial court that no single record
exists bearing this proceeding, much less, a copy of the purported title
or decree. The courts thus ruled that the issuance of a registration decree or
title in the name of respondents' predecessors-in-interest over the entire Lot
459 per Decision dated October 26, 1967 is the correct and logical thing to do.
We
agree that indeed, there are no available records bearing the so called
Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral Record No. 984 or the decision or decree of
registration or title issued therein. The only single entry in the records is
found on page 80 of the LRA Record Book of Cadastral Lots: "a portion of
said lot is already covered by a certificate of title pursuant to the decision
rendered in Cad. Case No. 10." But no matter how we look at it, we cannot
deduce therefrom the actual text of the decision, the exact portion of Lot 459
affected, or the parties in whose favor the supposed title was issued,
including the details of this supposed title. For sure, it would be the height
of injustice for respondents to be held hostage or punished by reason of the
plain scarcity of the records on file with the government agencies concerned.
It is certainly illegal, immoral, and against public policy and order for
respondents who have been vested with a legal right to be precluded from
exercising it, sans any real remedy under the law.
In
Tichangco v. Enriquez, this Court emphasized that the fundamental purpose of
the land registration law is to finally settle title to real property.
Consequently, once the title is registered under the said law, owners can rest
secure on their ownership and possession. The Court also held that proceedings
for land registration that led to the issuance of a registration decree -
ninety (90) years ago – were presumed to have regularly and properly been
conducted. To overturn this legal presumption carelessly, will not only
endanger judicial stability, but also violate the underlying principle of the
Torrens system. Indeed, to do so would reduce the vaunted legal indefeasibility
of Torrens titles to meaningless verbiage.
Here, the trial court's
Decision dated October 26, 1967 in LRC Case No. N-5999 was rendered almost
sixty-seven (67) years ago. Surely, to challenge its validity now and to deny a
registration decree to respondents would be an affront to the fundamental purpose
of the registration law.
We therefore fully concur with the
trial court and the Court of Appeals that the only right and logical thing to
do under the circumstances is to allow the execution of the final and executory
Decision dated October 26, 1967 for registration of the entire Lot 459 filed by
the same Julian Sta. Ana and Mercedes Sta. Ana who are respondents'
predecessors-in-interest thereto. Remarkably, no private party has ever come
forward to oppose the claim of ownership invariably asserted by respondents'
predecessors-in-interest over the entire Lot 459 or a portion thereof. In any
event, whatever decision, if any, may have been issued over a portion of Lot
459 in Cadastral Case No. 10, Cadastral Record No. 984, there is no existing
title found in the records pertaining to that portion. Consequently, there can
be no double titling to speak of resulting from the order of execution in LRC
Case No. N-5999 (in relation to the Decision dated October 26, 1967), as
affirmed in CA-G.R. SP No. 139385.
No comments:
Post a Comment