Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
The CA held, among others, that petitioner was not able to comply with
the requirement of possession and occupation under Section 14 (1) of
P.D. No. 1529. Her admission that the subject lot was not physically
turned over to her due to some objections and oppositions to her title
suggested that she was not exercising any acts of dominion over the
subject property, an essential element in the requirement and
occupation contemplated under Section 14 (1) of P.D. No. 1529.
Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to order the registration of
land already decreed in the name of another [OCT OP-1840] in an
earlier land registration case. [NO]
2. Whether or not petitioner, in her Application and subsequent
proceedings, can collaterally attack the validity of respondent’s OCT
OP-1840 on the ground that it was secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. [NO]
3. Whether or not petitioner has other remedy. [YES.
Petitioner can institute and action for specific performance, or an
action for reconveyance, or an action for rescission]
Ruling:
Petition is Denied.
Parties’ Arguments:
Petitioner presents the theory that she must be deemed to have been in
possession and occupation of the subject property through respondent,
her predecessor-in-interest, who after the sale in 1993 and despite
demands from her, unexpectedly and unjustifiably continued to occupy
the property and refused to turn over physical possession to her.
Petitioner argues that it is not necessary that the person in possession
should himself be the occupant as the occupancy can be held by another
in his name.
I.
P.D. 1529, otherwise known as Property Registration Decree, governs
the original registration proceedings of unregistered land. The subject
application for original registration was filed pursuant to Sec. 14(1) of
PD 1529, which provides the condition necessary for registration. Thus:
SEC 14. Who may apply.—The following persons may file in the proper
Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land,
whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives:
In the case of Republic vs. Umali,5 this Court ruled that once a patent is
registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land
ceases to be part of public domain and becomes private property over
which the Director of Lands has neither control nor jurisdiction. A public
land patent, when registered in the corresponding Register of Deeds, is
a veritable Torrens title, and becomes as indefeasible upon the
expiration of one (1) year from the date of issuance thereof. Said title,
like one issued pursuant to a judicial decree, is subject to review within
one (1) year from the date of the issuance of the patent. This rule is
embodied in Section 103 of PD 1529, which provides that:
The RTC was, thus, correct in denying petitioner’s "Motion for Leave to
File Supplemental Pleading and to Admit Attached Supplemental
Complaint For Reconveyance." Allowing it would not have been
permissible because the application for original registration of title over
a parcel of land already registered is a collateral attack itself. It is settled
that an application for registration of a parcel of land already covered by
a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack, not permitted under the
principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.13