Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Spouses Mariano vs. Land Registration Authority G.R. No. 101387 March 11, 1998 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michael Renz Palabay
    The petitioners applied to register Lot 3-A with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and were granted a decision by the trial court confirming their registrable title. However, the LRA refused to issue the decree of registration because Lot 3-A was part of Lot 3 which had already been registered under a different title. The LRA argued that registering the lot under another title would result in duplicate titles over the same land. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA could not be compelled to issue the decree for three reasons: 1) the trial court's judgment was not yet final, 2) registering the same land twice could void the original title, and 3) issuing a decree is a judicial act, not a minister

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Spouses Mariano vs. Land Registration Authority G.R. No. 101387 March 11, 1998 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michael Renz Palabay
    23 views2 pages
    The petitioners applied to register Lot 3-A with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and were granted a decision by the trial court confirming their registrable title. However, the LRA refused to issue the decree of registration because Lot 3-A was part of Lot 3 which had already been registered under a different title. The LRA argued that registering the lot under another title would result in duplicate titles over the same land. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA could not be compelled to issue the decree for three reasons: 1) the trial court's judgment was not yet final, 2) registering the same land twice could void the original title, and 3) issuing a decree is a judicial act, not a minister

    Original Title

    SPOUSES MARIANO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners applied to register Lot 3-A with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and were granted a decision by the trial court confirming their registrable title. However, the LRA refused to issue the decree of registration because Lot 3-A was part of Lot 3 which had already been registered under a different title. The LRA argued that registering the lot under another title would result in duplicate titles over the same land. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA could not be compelled to issue the decree for three reasons: 1) the trial court's judgment was not yet final, 2) registering the same land twice could void the original title, and 3) issuing a decree is a judicial act, not a minister

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views2 pages

    Spouses Mariano vs. Land Registration Authority G.R. No. 101387 March 11, 1998 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Michael Renz Palabay
    The petitioners applied to register Lot 3-A with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) and were granted a decision by the trial court confirming their registrable title. However, the LRA refused to issue the decree of registration because Lot 3-A was part of Lot 3 which had already been registered under a different title. The LRA argued that registering the lot under another title would result in duplicate titles over the same land. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA could not be compelled to issue the decree for three reasons: 1) the trial court's judgment was not yet final, 2) registering the same land twice could void the original title, and 3) issuing a decree is a judicial act, not a minister

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SPOUSES MARIANO vs.

    LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY


    G.R. No. 101387 March 11, 1998
    FACTS:
    Petitioners were the applicants in LRC Case No. N-11022 for the registration of Lot 3-A
    located in Mandaluyong City. On January 8, 1991, the trial court, acting as a land registration
    court, rendered its decision, finding the application meritorious and it appearing that the
    applicants, Spouses Marciano and Erlinda Laburada, have a registrable title over the parcel of
    land described as Lot 3A, the Court declares, confirms and orders the registration of their title
    thereto. After the finality of the decision, the trial court, upon motion of petitioners, issued an
    order  dated March 15, 1991 requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of
    registration. However, the LRA refused. Hence, petitioners filed an action for mandamus. The
    LRA revealed that based on records, Lot 3-A which sought to be registered by Sps. Laburada is
    part of Lot No. 3, over which TCT No. 6595 has already been issued. Upon the other hand, Lot 3-
    B of said Lot 3 is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337 issued in the name of Pura
    Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, which was issued as a transfer from TCT No. 6595. The LRA
    contended that to issue the corresponding decree of registration sought by the petitioners, it
    would result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, and thus contravene the
    policy andpurpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the same.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Respondent Land Registration Authority can be compelled to issue the
    corresponding decree in LRC Case No. N-11022 of the Regional Trial Court.
    HELD:
    Respondent Land Registration Authority cannot be compelled to issue the
    corresponding decree in LRC Case No. N-11022 of the Regional Trial Court. Mandamus is not
    the proper remedy for three reasons. First, judgment is not yet executory. the judgment they
    seek to enforce in this petition is not yet executory and incontrovertible under the Land
    Registration Law. That is, they do not have any clear legal right to implement it. The Supreme
    Court ruled that a judgment of registration does not become executory until after the
    expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree of registration. Second, a void
    judgment is possible. Considering the probable duplication of titles over the same parcel of
    land, such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose, and thereby destroy the
    integrity, of the Torrens system of registration. In Ramos vs. Rodriguez, it was ruled that the
    LRA is mandated to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation
    and the issuance of a decree of registration. In this respect, LRA officials act not as
    administrative officials but as officers of said court, 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." The Supreme Court also added that the LRA's refusal to issue a
    decree of registration is based on documents which, if verified, may render the judgment of the
    trial court void.
    Also, it is settled that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the
    registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.
    A second decree for the same land would be null and void,  since the principle behind original
    registration is to register a parcel of land only once. Thus, if it is proven that the land which
    petitioners are seeking to register has already been registered, the issuance of a decree of
    registration to petitioners will run counter to said principle. Third, issuance of a decree is not a
    ministerial act. The issuance of a decree of registration is part of the judicial function of courts
    and is not a mere ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus. Accordingly, it is
    not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a decree of registration

    You might also like