UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LOJA
OBJETIVOS ESPECÍFICOS:
PANGANIBAN@
J4
FACTS4
Sps. Laburada applied for t!e registration of Lot ;HA !ic! as appro&ed b# t!e trial court. =pon "otion of petitioners, t!e trial court issued an order re%uiring t!e LRA to issue t!e corresponding decree of registration. (oe&er, t!e LRA refused. (ence, petitioners filed an action for "anda"us. T!e LRA re&ealed t!at based on records, Lot ;HA !ic! soug!t to be registered b# Sps. Laburada is part of Lot $o. ;, o&er !ic! TCT $o. /44 !as alread# been issued. =pon t!e ot!er !and, Lot ;H of said Lot ; is co&ered b# Transfer Certificate of Title $o. ;;? issued in t!e na"e of Pura 2scurdia 3da. de uenaflor, !ic! as issued as a transfer fro" TCT $o. /44. T!e LRA contended t!at to issue t!e corresponding decree of registration soug!t b# t!e petitioners, it ould result in t!e duplication of titles o&er t!e sa"e parcel of land, and t!us contra&ene t!e polic# and purpose of t!e Torrens registration s#ste", and destro# t!e integrit# of t!e sa"e.ISS3E4
7!et!er or not t!e LRA "a# be co"pelled b# "anda"us to issue a decree of registration if it !as e&idence t!at t!e subject land "a# alread# be included in an e+isting Torrens certificate of title8 $HELD4
$. t is settled t!at a land registration court !as no jurisdiction to order t!e registration of land alread# decreed in t!ena"e of anot!er in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for t!e sa"e land ould be null and &oid, since t!e principle be!ind original registration is to register a parcel of land onl# once. T!us, if it is pro&en t!at t!e land !ic! petitioners are see@ing to register !as alread# been registered in -0> and
-04, t!e issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners ill run counter to said principle. T!e issuance of a decree of registration is part of t!e judicial function of courts and is not a "ere "inisterial act !ic! "a# be co"pelled t!roug! "anda"us. t is not legall# proper to re%uire t!e LRA to issue a decree of registration.
T!e issuance of a decree of registration is part of t!e judicial function of courts and is not a "ere "inisterial act !ic! "a# be co"pelled t!roug! "anda"us. T!us, t!is Court !eld in@almonte an :acinto &s. 'able:
Moreo&er, after t!e rendition of a decision b# a registration or cadastral court, t!ere re"ain "an# t!ings to be done before t!e final decree can be issued, suc! as t!e preparation of a"ended plans and a"ended descriptions, especiall# !ere t!e decision orders a subdi&ision of a lot, t!e segregation t!erefro" of a portion being adjudicated to anot!er part#, to fit t!e said decision.
As said b# t!is Court in t!e case of De los Re#es &s. De 3illa, >< P!il., ?, ;>:
2+a"ining section >0, e find t!at t!e decrees of registration "ust be stated in con&enient for" for transcription upon t!e certificate of title and "ust contain an accurate tec!nical description of t!e land. T!is re%uires trained tec!nical "en. Moreo&er, it fre%uentl# occurs t!at onl# portions of a parcel of land included in an application are ordered registered and t!at t!e li"its of suc! portions can onl# be roug!l# indicated in t!e decision of t!e court. n suc! cases a"end"ents of t!e plans and so"eti"es additional sur&e#s beco"e necessar# before t!e final decree can be entered. T!at can !ardl# be done b# t!e court itselfK t!e la &er# isel# c!arges t!e c!ief sur&e#or of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice it! suc! duties )Ad"inistrati&e Code, section -??*.
urt!er"ore, alt!oug! t!e final decree is actuall# prepared b# t!e C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice, t!e ad"inistrati&e officer, t!e issuance of t!e final decree can !ardl# be considered a "inisterial act for t!e reason t!at said C!ief of t!e eneral Land Registration ffice acts not as an ad"inistrati&e officer but as an officer of t!e court and so t!e issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an ad"inistrati&e one .
ndeed, it is ellHsettled t!at t!e issuance of suc! decree is not co"pellable b# "anda"us because it is a judicial act in&ol&ing t!e e+ercise of discretion. Li@eise, t!e rit of "anda"us can be aarded onl# !en t!e petitioners legal rig!t to t!e perfor"ance of t!e particular act !ic! is soug!t to be co"pelled is clear and co"plete. =nder Rule /4 of t!e Rules of Court, a clear legal rig!t is a rig!t !ic! is indubitabl# granted b# la or is inferable as a "atter of la. f t!e rig!t is clear and t!e case is "eritorious, objections raising "erel# tec!nical %uestions ill be disregarded. ut !ere t!e rig!t soug!t to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute, as in t!is case, "anda"us cannot issue.
A court "a# be co"pelled b# "anda"us to pass and act upon a %uestion sub"itted to it for decision, but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or against one of t!e parties. As stated earlier, a judicial act is not co"pellable b# "anda"us. T!e court !as to
decide a %uestion according to its on judg"ent and understanding of t!e la.
t is not legall# proper to re%uire t!e LRA to issue a decree of registration.
(oe&er, to a&oid "ultiplicit# of suits and needless dela#, t!is Court dee"s it "ore appropriate to direct t!e LRA to e+pedite its stud#, to deter"ine it! finalit# !et!er Lot ;HA is included in t!e propert# described in TCT $o. /44, and to sub"it a report t!ereon to t!e court of origin it!in si+t# )/0* da#s fro" receipt of t!is Decision, after !ic! t!e said court s!all act it! deliberate speed according to t!e facts and t!e la.
Case is R2MA$D2D to t!e court of origin in Pasig Cit#. T!e LRA, on t!e ot!er !and, is RD2R2D to sub"it to t!e court a %uo a report deter"ining it! finalit# !et!er Lot ;HA is included in t!e propert# described in TCT $o. /44, it!in si+t# )/0* da#s fro" notice. After receipt of suc! report, t!e land registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, it! deliberate and judicious speed, to settle t!e issue of !et!er t!e LRA "a# issue t!e decree of registration, according to t!e facts and t!e la as !erein discussed.
RE+EDIES
HEIRS OF +AN3EL RO6AS -S CA
FACTS4
Maguesun Corporation filed an Application for Registration of to parcels of unregistered land located in Taga#ta#. n support of its application for registration t!e# presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June -0, -0, e+ecuted b# Uenaida MelliEa as &endor !o boug!t t!e propert# fro" Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as to and a !alf "ont!s earlier, as e&idenced b# a Deed of Sale dated Marc! /, -0 and an Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication dated Marc! >, -0. $otices of t!e initial !earing ere sent b# t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# to (ilario Luna, Jose il and Leon Luna !ile Trinidadde Leon &da. de Ro+as as not notified because s!e as not na"ed as an adjoining oner, occupant or ad&erse clai"ant. Publication as "ade in t!e fficial aEette and t!e Record $esee@l#. After an rder of general default as issued, t!e trial court proceeded to !ear t!e land registration case.
n ctober >, -0, LRA reported t!at t!e subject parcels of land !ad pre&iousl# been applied for registration at t!e C of Ca&ite b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon but no decision !as been "ade.
ebruar# -;, -- t!e RTC granted Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration. Conse%uentl# RTC issued t!e rder for ssuance of t!e Decree on Marc! ->, --, after it ordered
t!e application of Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon dis"issed.
t as onl# !en t!e careta@er of t!e propert# as being as@ed to &acate t!e land t!at petitioner Trinidad de Leon 3da. de Ro+as learned of its sale and t!e registration of t!e lots in Maguesun Corporation6s na"e. (ence, s!e filed a petition for re&ie before t!e RTC to set aside t!e decree of registration on t!e ground t!at Maguesun Corporation co""itted actual fraud, alleging t!at !er signature as forged in bot! t!e Deed of Sale and t!e Affida&it of SelfHAdjudicationK t!at Maguesun Corporation intentionall# o"itted !er na"e as an ad&erse clai"ant, occupant or adjoining oner in t!e application for registration sub"itted to t!e LRA, suc! t!at t!e latter could not send !er a $otice of nitial (earing RTC t!at Maguesun Corporation did not co""it actual fraud and dis"issed t!e petition for re&ie of decree of registration April -4, -.
CA affir"ed t!e findings of RTC, ruling t!at Ro+as' failed to and de"onstrate t!at t!ere as actual or e+trinsic fraud, not "erel# constructi&e or intrinsic fraud, a prere%uisite for purposes of annuling a judg"ent or re&ieing a decree of registration. (ence t!is petition.
ISS3E4
7as t!ere actual fraud on t!e part of Maguesun Corp. to arrant t!e reopening and t!e setting aside of t!e registration decree8HELD4
T!e Court !ere finds t!at respondent Maguesun Corp. co""itted actual fraud in obtaining t!e decree of registration soug!t to be re&ieed b# Ro+as.+ct!al #ra!A Define.
raud is of to @inds: actual or constructi&e. Actual or positi&e fraud proceeds fro" an intentional deception practiced b# "eans of t!e "isrepresentation or conceal"ent of a "aterial fact. Constructi&e fraud is construed as a fraud because of its detri"ental effect upon public interests and public or pri&ate confidence, e&en t!oug! t!e act is not done or co""itted it! an actual design to co""it positi&e fraud or injur# upon ot!er persons.
raud "a# also be eit!er e+trinsic or intrinsic. raud is regarded as intrinsic !ere t!e fraudulent acts pertain to an issue in&ol&ed in t!e original action, or !ere t!e acts constituting t!e fraud ere or could !a&e been litigated t!erein, and is regarded as e+trinsic !ere it pre&ents a part# fro" !a&ing a trial or fro" presenting !is entire case to t!e court, or !ere it operates upon "atters pertaining not to t!e judg"ent itself but to t!e "anner in !ic! it is procured, so t!at t!ere is not a fair sub"ission of t!e contro&ers#. 2+trinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral to t!e transaction sued upon.
T!e distinctions are significant because onl# actual fraud or e+trinsic fraud !as been accepted as grounds for a judg"ent to be annulled or, as in t!is case, a decree of registration reopened and re&ieed. T!e 1fraud1 conte"plated b# t!e la in t!is case )Section ;, P.D. $o -4* is actual and e+trinsic, !ic! includes an intentional o"ission of fact re%uired b# la.
Intentional Bmission of 'ame
n t!e corporation6s application for registration filed it! t!e RTC onl# t!e folloing na"es appeared: (ilario Luna, Jose il, Leon Luna, Pro&incial Road. T!e court found t!at t!e so"e ords are
t#ped in it! a different t#periter, it! t!e first fi&e letters of t!e ord 1pro&incial1 t#ped o&er correction fluid.
(oe&er, Maguesun Corporation, anne+ed a differentl#Horded application for t!e petition to re&ie t!e application of t!e Ro+as' !ere in instead of PR3$CAL RAD, t!e na"e RVAS appeared.T!e discrepanc# !ic! is une+plained appears intentional.
t is reasonable to assu"e t!at t!e reason is to "islead t!e court into t!in@ing t!at 1Ro+as1 as placed in t!e original application as an adjoining oner, encu"brancer, occupant or clai"ant, t!e sa"e application !ic! for"ed t!e basis for t!e LRA in sending out notices of initial !earing. Section -4 of Presidential Decree $o. -4 also re%uires t!e applicant for registration to state t!e full na"es and addresses of all occupants of t!e land and t!ose of adjoining oners, if @non and if not @non, t!e e+tent of t!e searc! "ade to find t!e". Maguesun Corporation failed to co"pl# it! t!is re%uire"ent.
Possession in BC/'B
T!e trut! is t!at t!e Ro+as fa"il# !ad been in possession of t!e propert# uninterruptedl# t!roug! t!eir careta@er, Jose Ra"ireE. Maguesun Corporation also t!at t!e subject land as unoccupied !en in trut! and in fact, t!e Ro+as fa"il# careta@er resided in t!e subject propert#. Maguesun Corporation is li@eise c!arged it! t!e @noledge of suc! possession and occupanc#, for its President, !o signed t!e Deed of Sale o&er t!e propert#, @ne full# ell t!at !er grandaunt Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as oned t!e propert#. t is reasonable to e+pect !er as a bu#er to !a&e inspected t!e propert# prior to t!e sale suc! t!at t!e ascertain"ent of t!e current possessors or occupants could !a&e been "ade facilel#.
Maguesun Corporation intentional conceal"ent and representation of Ro+as' interest in t!e subject lots as possessor, occupant and clai"ant constitutes actual fraud justif#ing t!e reopening and re&ie of t!e decree of registration.
Concealment of the /istence of -rinia Roas
Mention of t!e late President6s na"e as ell as t!at of Trinidad as "ade principall# in t!e or"al ffer of 2+!ibits for Maguesun Corporations ta+ declarations and as predecessorHinH interest. (oe&er, t!is is not sufficient co"pliance it! !at t!e la re%uires to be stated in t!e application for registration. Disclosure of petitioner6s ad&erse interest, occupation and possession s!ould be "ade at t!e appropriate ti"e, i .e., at t!e ti"e of t!e application for registration, ot!erise, t!e persons concerned ill not be sent notices of t!e initial !earing and ill, t!erefore, "iss t!e opportunit# to present t!eir opposition or clai"s.
P!blication of 'otice of Initial 9earin0
7!ile publication of t!e notice in t!e fficial aEette is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon t!e court, publication in a nespaper of general circulation re"ains an indispensable procedural re%uire"ent. Couc!ed in "andator# ter"s, it is a co"ponent of procedural due process and ai"ed at gi&ing 1as ide publicit# as possible1 so t!at all persons !a&ing an ad&erse interest in t!e land subject of t!e registration proceedings "a# be notified t!ereof. Alt!oug! jurisdiction of t!e court is not affected, t!e fact t!at publication as not "ade in a nespaper of general circulation is "aterial and rele&ant in assessing t!e applicant6s rig!t or title to t!e land.
#or0er" an Discrepancies
A close scrutin# of t!e e&idence on record leads t!e Court to t!e irresistible conclusion t!at forger# as indeed attendant in t!e case at bar. Alt!oug! t!ere is no proof of respondent Maguesun Corporation6s direct participation in t!e e+ecution and preparation of t!e forged instru"ents, t!ere are sufficient indicia !ic! pro&es t!at Maguesun Corporation is
not
t!e 1innocent purc!aser for &alue1 !o "erits t!e protection of t!e la.T!e %uestioned signatures ta@en fro" t!e Deed of Sale and Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication are star@l# different fro" t!e sa"ple signatures in se&eral docu"ents e+ecuted b# Trinidad. T!e %uestioned signatures are s"oot! and rounded and !a&e none of t!e jagged and s!a@# c!aracter of petitioner6s signatures c!aracteristic of t!e pen"ans!ip of elderl# persons.
T!e fact t!at petitioner as not t!e sole !eir as @non to t!e general public, as ell as t!e de"ise of t!e late President on April -4, ->/ !ile deli&ering a speec! at Clar@ ield,
Pa"panga. T!e afore"entioned irregularities are too glaring to !a&e been ignored. f Tinidad did in fact e+ecute said Affida&it, t!ere is no reason !# s!e s!ould state facts ot!er t!an t!e unadulterated trut! concerning !erself and !er fa"il#.
HEIRS OF RO6AS
&s.CO3RT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. // +%r# /@ /00
FACTS4
n Jul# , -0, Maguesun Manage"ent and De&elop"ent Corporation )Maguesun Corporation* filed an Application for Registration of to parcels of unregistered land. n support of its application for registration, Maguesun Corporation presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June -0, -0, e+ecuted b# Uenaida MelliEa as &endor and indicating t!e purc!ase price to be P-?0,000.00. Uenaida MelliEa in turn, boug!t t!e propert# fro" t!e original petitioner !erein, Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as for P00,000.00 to and a !alf "ont!s earlier, as e&idenced b# a Deed of Sale dated Marc! /, -0 and an Affida&it of SelfHAdjudication dated Marc! >, -0.$otices of t!e initial !earing ere sent b# t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# )t!e $ational Land Titles and Deeds Registration Aut!orit# or $ALTDRA* to ; parties on t!e basis of Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration. Since Trinidad de Leon &da. de Ro+as as not na"ed as an adjoining oner, occupant or ad&erse clai"ant, s!e as not sent a notice of t!e proceedings. Publication as "ade. After an rder of general default as issued, t!e trial court proceeded to !ear t!e land registration case. n ctober >, -0, t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# reported, a"ong ot!er t!ings, t!at t!e subject parcels of land !ad pre&iousl# been applied for registration in Land Registration Case b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon but no decision !as been rendered t!ereon. 2&entuall#, on ebruar# -;, -- t!e Regional Trial Court granted Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration.
Conse%uentl#, on ebruar# ->, --, Land Registration Case applied for b# Manuel A. Ro+as and Trinidad de Leon, dis"issed.
t as onl# !en t!e careta@er of t!e propert# as being as@ed to &acate t!e land t!at petitioner Trinidad de Leon 3da. de Ro+as learned of its sale and t!e registration of t!e lots in Maguesun Corporation6s na"e.
(ence, on April -, --, petitioner filed a petition for re&ie before t!e Regional Trial Court, to set aside t!e decree of registration on t!e ground t!at Maguesun Corporation co""itted actual fraud. S!e alleged t!at t!e lots ere a"ong t!e properties s!e in!erited fro" !er !usband, for"er President Manuel A. Ro+as, and t!at !er fa"il# !ad been in open, continuous, ad&erse and uninterrupted possession of t!e subject propert# in t!e concept of oner for "ore t!an t!irt# #ears before t!e# applied for its registration under t!e Torrens S#ste" of land titling. Petitioner furt!er denied t!at s!e sold t!e lots to Uenaida MelliEa !o" s!e !ad ne&er "et before and t!at !er signature as forged in bot! t!e Deed of Sale and t!e Affida&it of SelfH Adjudication. n support of !er clai"s, s!e also listed a nu"ber
of irregularities in t!e docu"ents to pro&e actual fraud. n addition, and per!aps "ore significantl#, s!e clai"ed t!at Maguesun Corporation intentionall# o"itted !er na"e as an ad&erse clai"ant, occupant or adjoining oner in t!e application for registration sub"itted to t!e Land Registration Aut!orit# suc! t!at t!e latter could not send !er a $otice of nitial (earing. As a result, an order of general default as issued and Maguesun Corporation6s application for registration as granted.