August 28, 1991
Ponente: Bidin, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiff WIDORA filed before the respondent court an application for registration of a parcel of land alleging that said is coveredcovered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 and issued in the name of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and acquiredsaid property from the heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro situated in at Malitlit-Uoogong, Quezon City, with an area of 156 hectares,more or less, described in Plan No. LRC (SWO)-15352.
Respondent of the previous case, Molina, filed an opposition to the CA, claiming ownership over 12 to 14 hectares of Lot 8.Petitioner Ortigas filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that said court had no jurisdiction over the case, the land being appliedfor having been already registered under the Torrens System and in the name of Ortigas under TCT 77652 and TCT 77653.
The court issued an order directing the applicant to prove its contention that TCT 77652 and TCT 77653 are not proper derivatives of the original certificates of titles. petitioner Ortigas filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging among others that Land RegistrationCommission itself has advised the court that the 156 hectare property sought to be registered is covered by valid and subsistingtitles in the name of Ortigas, but was later denied by the same court.
The CA, dated dated November 27, 1989, declared respondent Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership (Ortigas) as the registeredowner of the disputed parcel of land is covered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. Respondent filed a motion forreconsideration which was again denied.
Later, respondent Ortigas instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before respondent court praying for theannulment prayed that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the land registration case. Which was granted by the court.
The petition on hand, WIDORA argues that respondent court erred in sustaining the validity of TCTs Nos. 77652 and 77653 despitethe absence of a supporting decree of registration and instead utilized secondary evidence, OCT 351 which is supposedly a copy of Decree 1425. . Petitioner maintains that Decree 1425 is itself existing and available at the Register of Deeds of Manila and on its faceshows that it covers a parcel of land with an area of only 17 hectares in Sta. Ana while the parcel of land applied for contains an areaof 156 hectares, located at Quezon City, 4 kilometers away from Sta. Ana and certified by the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry as alienable and disposable.
RULING:
Whether or not the respondent trial court erred in sustaining the validity of the TCT NOs. . 77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration. - YES.
Under Act 496, it is the decree of registration issued by the Land Registration Commission which is the basis for the subsequentissuance of the certificate of title by the corresponding Register of Deeds that quiets the title to and binds the land. Consequently, if no decree of registration had been issued covering the parcel of land applied for, then the certificate of title issued over the saidparcel of land does not quiet the title to nor bind the land and is null and void..
As for the error of the court, Sec. 108, PD 1529 states that: “no correction of certificate of title shall be made except by order of the court in a petition filed for the purpose and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered” and jurisprudence held that:
“While the law fixes no prescriptive period therefor, the court, however, is not auth
orized to alter orcorrect the certificate of title if it would mean the reopening of the decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law.”
As jurisprudence stated: “One who relies on a document evidencing his title to the property must prove not only the genuineness thereof but also the identity of the land therein referred to” In the case at bar, private respondent's TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 tracetheir origins from OCT Nos. 337, 19, 336 and 334 and not from OCT 351 as it is now claimed by respondent Ortigas.
As for the decision of the trial court in the previous case, ..." Nowhere in said decision, however, is a pronouncement that TCT Nos.77652 and 77653 were issued from TCT No. 227758. On the contrary, it is not disputed by the parties that TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653themselves show that they were derived from OCT No. 337, 19, 336 and 334 and not from OCT 351 or TCT 227758. If indeed, thereal origin thereof is OCT No. 351, what respondent Ortigas should have done was to file a petition for the correction of the TCTs inquestion as stated earlier.
Wherefore, , the assailed judgment of respondent court is SET ASIDE and the orders of the trial court in dismissing Ortigas’ motion todismiss and motion for reconsideration are reinstated.
