Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC.

,
(WIDORA) vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP G.R. No.91797 August 28, 1991
Facts:
This is a petition for review seeking to annul the judgment of the Courts of Appeals and prays that
the case be remanded to the trial court andthere be tried on the merits
Facts as found by the respondent trial court:
Then respondent WIDORA filed before the respondent court an application for registration of
a parcel of land alleging that said is covered by Titulo de PropriedadNumero 4136 and issued in the name
of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and acquired siad property from the heirs of Don Mariano
San Pedro situated at Malitlit-Uoogong, Quezon City, with an area of 156 hectares, more or less,
described in Plan No. LRC (SWO)-15352.
Molina, a respondent of the previous case, 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 and that the Land
Registration Commission itself has advised the court that the 156 hectares property sought to be
registered is covered by valid and subsisting titles in the name of Ortigas.
On March 30, 1988, the respondent (trial) court denied the motion to dismiss of petitioner Ortigas,
holding, among others, that TCT 77652 and TCT 77653 on their face show that they were derived from
OCT 337, 19, 336, 334, pursuant to Decree 142; that the contention of Ortigas that Decree No. 1425
covers an area in Manila and also a part of Rizal is not credible, for if this were true then the area of said
Rizal portion should appear on the face of said decree of registration, which is not the case; that TCT
77652 and TCT 77653 were not derived from any decree of registration, and that the said TCTs being null
and void, cannot be used as basis to contest the right of the applicant to apply for registration over the
subject land.
Petitioner Ortigas filed a motion for consideration of the said order of March 30, 1988 but was
once again denied. Not satisfied, respondent Ortigas instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus before respondent court praying for the annulment of the March 30, 1988 and May 19, 1989
and prayed that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the land registration case. Respondent court granted
said petition.
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 face shows
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.
Issue
W/N 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.

Held:
Yes, Under Act 496, it is the decree of registration issued by the Land Registration Commission
which is the basis for the subsequent issuance 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 said parcel 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 exceptby 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 authorized 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
genuinenessthereof 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.