Ting v. Heirs of Lirio (2007, G.R. No. 168913)

 Rolando Ting v. Heirs of Diego Lirio 

March 14, 2007, G.R. No. 168913

Lirio applied for and was granted title to a lot in Cebu in 1976, and the Court ordered the issuance of the title in 1982. Ting applied for title to the same lot in 1997. In 2003, the heirs of Lirio used as basis the 1976 decision to dismiss the application of Ting. SC: court decisions in land registration constitutes res judicata even if the issuance of title is delayed.

Facts:

Lirio applied for and was granted title to a lot in Cebu in 1976, and the Court ordered the issuance of the title in 1982. Ting applied for title to the same lot in 1997. In 2003, the heirs of Lirio used as basis the 1976 decision to dismiss the application of Ting.

Issue: W/N the 1976 decision constitutes res judicata in the application of Ting in 1997.

Held: Yes, the 1976 decision constitutes res judicata. It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary period is taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration.

Basis: Section 30 of PD 1529:

SEC. 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. – The judgment rendered in a land registration proceeding becomes final upon the expiration of thirty days8 to be counted from the date of receipt of notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases.

After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to registration. (Emphasis supplied)

Doctrines:

Ministerial duty, meaning

• 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.

Section 6, Rule 39 of Rules of Court not applicable in land registration

• in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) 
• refers to civil actions 
• not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. 
• Reason: a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. 
• In special proceedings 
• purpose: to establish a status, condition or fact (SCF) 
• in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. 
• After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.
• The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.

 

Esconde v J. Barlongay (1987, G.R. No. L-67583)

 Basilisa Esconde v. Hon. Samilo Barlongay & Ramon Delfin

July 31, 1987, G.R. No.  L-67583

Delfin applied for registration of his title to his land, with due notice to the Escondes based on documents during the initial hearing and survey. Esconde refused to leave the land despite the writ of possession. SC: The whole world, including the Escondes, is bound to the title. Action for reconveyance is not proper as there was no showing of irregularity or fraud in the subject title registration proceedings.

Facts:

    In 1969, Delfin applied for registration of title at the CFI and was granted in the same year. OTC No. -05002 was issued in 1971, and in 1978, Delfin filed a Petition for Writ of Possession against spouses Esconde. Esconde also filed a complaint for reconveyance against Delfin. 

    The writ of possession was issued and the sheriff delivered the property to Delfin, but Esconde re-entered the premisses. In 1983, Delfin filed a Motion for an Alias Writ of Possession. But Delfin was still barred by Esconde from entering the premises, and so the former asked for a writ of demolition for the removal of any construction of the Esconde family.

Issue: W/N the Escondes are bound by the certificate of title when they claim to only come to know of the land registration case upon receipt of petition for writ of possession?

Held: The Escondes are bound. There are records that they received due notice (in the notice of initial hearing they were said to have appeared, and in the survey notification letter, Esconde's husband signed as one of the adjoining owners present.

    Land registration proceedings are valid and conclusive against the whole world. The land registration is binding on the whole world because “by the description in the notice (of initial hearing of the application for registration) “To Whom It May Concern,” all the world are made parties defendant.”

    Reconveyance is not the proper remedy in this case because there is no proof of irregularity in the issuance of title. It was also not established that there was fraud.

Doctrines:

• The applicable law in this case is Act 496 as PD 1529 was enacted only in Jan. 23, 1979.

• It is a settled doctrine that when a decree of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party defrauded has only one year from entry of the decree to file a petition for review before a competent court, provided that the land has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value

• There is no question that notice to her husband is notice to her under the law, her husband being the administrator of the conjugal partnership (Art. 165, Civil Code).

Reconveyance as a remedy

• remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him
• does not bar a landowner whose property was wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens System from bringing an action, after one year from the issuance of the decree, for the reconveyance of the property in question. 
• does not aim or purport to re-open the registration proceeding and set aside the decree of registration,
• does not seek to set aside the decree 
• respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the rightful owner 
• Prescription: An action for reconveyance of real property on the ground of fraud must be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of an original certificate of title

Castillo v Escutin (2009, G.R. No. 171056)

 Dinah C. Castillo v. Antonio Escutin et al.

March 13, 2009, G.R. No. 171056

Castillo's tax declaration was cancelled and around the same time, Summit Realty's TCT over the same lot was issued based on the title of Catigbac. As ROD and City Assessor's Office has processed the documents of Summit, Castillo charged them with violation of RA 3019 on corrupt practices. SC: the title of Catigbac has superior right over the tax declaration of Castillo. Absent any sign of irregularities, the officers cannot be charged with corrupt practices.

Facts:

    Castillo filed charges against the respondents for violation of RA 3019 for allegedly cancelling her TCT in favor of Summit Realty. Castillo was a judgement credit of Moratilla, and to satisfy said judgment Castillo went after Lot 13713 co-owned by Moratilla. Said lot was part of the area which Summit applied for conversion from agricultural landholding to residential, commercial, and recreational uses.

    To satisfy the judgment credit, said lot was subject to public auction sale in May 2002, and Castillo bought 1/3 pro-indiviso share of the lot. Castillo then obtained Tax Declaration 00942-A for the same. When Castillo attempted to pay real estate taxes, she found out that her TD was cancelled, and the area was encompassed in TCT No. 129642 and TD 00949-A in the name of Francisco Catigbac, and supposedly sold to Summit.

    In July 2002, TCT 129642 was cancelled and TCT T-134609 was issued in favor of Summit. As such, Castillo charted several public officers for the said cancellation and transfer of ownership of the subject lot. 

    

Issue: W/N the tax declaration of Castillo can be cancelled on the basis of Section 109 of PD 1529.

Held: Petition has no merit.  Section 109 provides for the issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title, and not related to the cancellation of Castillo's tax declaration. The cancellation of Castillo's TD was based on the fact that the same lot is covered by TCT 181 and subsequently by TCT No. 129642.

   Accordingly, Summit bought Lot 1-B from Catigbac (through his AIF, Yagin), and thus TCT No. 181 in the name of Catigbac was issued covering the purchased lot, on which the sale was registered in Summit's favor. Lot 1-B was separated from Lot 1, and TCT 129642 was issued in the name of Catigbac and then the same was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-134609 in the name of Summit.

    Since Lot 1-B is already covered by a tax declaration in the name of Catigbac, accordingly, any other tax declaration for the same property or portion thereof in the name of another person, not supported by any certificate of title, such that of petitioner, must be cancelled; otherwise, the City Assessor would be twice collecting a realty tax from different persons on one and the same property.

Title v Certificate of title

• Title: lawful cause or ground of possessing that which is ours
• the foundation of ownership of property (real or personal)
• that which constitutes a just cause of exclusive possession
• Certificate of Title: mere evidence of ownership
• not the title of the land itself

Doctrines:

• two systems of land registration 
• the registration of an instrument under the wrong system produces no legal effect
• these systems are separate and distinct from each other
1. Torrens system for registered lands under the Property Registration Decree
2. System of registration for unregistered land under Act No. 3344 (now Section 113 of the Property Registration Decree)