Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 119 views

    Spouses Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998 - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gee
    The Land Registration Authority (LRA) refused to issue a decree of registration for Lot 3-A, which was subject of a land registration case, because it found evidence that the lot may already be included in an existing title covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6595. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue the decree in these circumstances, as doing so could duplicate titles over the same land and undermine the Torrens system. It remanded the case to the lower court and ordered the LRA to determine conclusively whether Lot 3-A is included in TCT No. 6595's coverage, and report its findings to the lower court within 60 days so

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved

    Spouses Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998 - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gee
    119 views3 pages
    The Land Registration Authority (LRA) refused to issue a decree of registration for Lot 3-A, which was subject of a land registration case, because it found evidence that the lot may already be included in an existing title covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6595. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue the decree in these circumstances, as doing so could duplicate titles over the same land and undermine the Torrens system. It remanded the case to the lower court and ordered the LRA to determine conclusively whether Lot 3-A is included in TCT No. 6595's coverage, and report its findings to the lower court within 60 days so

    Original Title

    Spouses Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998 _ case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Land Registration Authority (LRA) refused to issue a decree of registration for Lot 3-A, which was subject of a land registration case, because it found evidence that the lot may already be included in an existing title covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6595. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue the decree in these circumstances, as doing so could duplicate titles over the same land and undermine the Torrens system. It remanded the case to the lower court and ordered the LRA to determine conclusively whether Lot 3-A is included in TCT No. 6595's coverage, and report its findings to the lower court within 60 days so

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    119 views3 pages

    Spouses Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998 - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Gee
    The Land Registration Authority (LRA) refused to issue a decree of registration for Lot 3-A, which was subject of a land registration case, because it found evidence that the lot may already be included in an existing title covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6595. The Supreme Court ruled that the LRA cannot be compelled by mandamus to issue the decree in these circumstances, as doing so could duplicate titles over the same land and undermine the Torrens system. It remanded the case to the lower court and ordered the LRA to determine conclusively whether Lot 3-A is included in TCT No. 6595's coverage, and report its findings to the lower court within 60 days so

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    of 3

    G.R. No.

    101387 March 11, 1998

    SPOUSES MARIANO and ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL


    SANTOS, JR., petitioner, vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent.

    Land Titles; Land Registration; Execution; A judgment of registration does not become executory until
    after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree of registration.—Contrary to the
    petitioners’ allegations, 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. We have unambiguously 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.

    Same; Same; Same; 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 Ramos vs. Rodriguez, this Court 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.”

    Same; Same; Same; 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.—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 in 1904 and
    1905, the issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners will run counter to said principle.

    Topic: Nature of Registration

    Facts:

    On March 6, 1990, an application for registration of title of a parcel of land, Lot 3-A of the subdivision
    plan Psd-1372, a portion of Lot 3, Block No. 159, Swo-7237, situated in the Municipality of San Felipe
    Neri, Province of Rizal was filed by Spouses Marciano [sic] Laburada and Erlinda Laburada but it was
    found out that it might be a portion of the parcels of land decreed in Court of Land Registration (CLR)
    Case Nos. 699, 875 and 817, as per plotting of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-319932.

    LRC Case No. N-11022 for the registration of Lot 3-A, Psd-1372, was approved by the trial court on
    January 8, 1991. Upon motion of petitioners, the trial court issued an order dated March 15, 1991
    requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA refused. Hence,
    petitioners filed this action for mandamus on August 27, 1991.

    LRA found out based on records, that Lot 3-A which sought to be registered by the petitioners is part of
    Lot No. 3, over which TCT No. 6595 has already been issued. At the same time, Lot 3-B of the said Lot
    3 is covered by TCT No. 29377 issued in the name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor. The LRA
    contended that to issue the corresponding degree of registration sought by the petitioners, it would
    result in the duplication of the titles over the same parcel of land, thus will contravene the policy and
    purpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the same.
    In view of the foregoing explanation, the solicitor general prays that the petition be dismissed for being
    premature.

    Lot No. 3, Block No. 159, Plan S.W.O. — 7237 (where Lot 3-A and 3-B is part of this lot)
    THE LOT IN QUESTION: Lot 3-A of the subdivision plan Lot 3-B of the subdivision plan Psd-1372 is covered by
    Psd-1372 cannot be located because TCT No. 6595 Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337 issued in the name of
    consisting of several sheets are [sic] incomplete. Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor. Said TCT No. 29337 is a
    transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6595.
    W/N the lot subject of LRC Case No. N-11022 (Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 68), described as Lot 3A, Psd-1372
    and situated in Mandaluyong City, might be a portion of the parcels of land decreed in Court of Land Registration Case
    (CLR) Nos. 699, 875 and 917
    However, we must point out that the letters of Silverio G. Perez and Felino M. Cortez, dated April 29, 1992 and November
    27, 1995, respectively, clearly stated that, after verification from the records submitted by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal,
    the property which petitioners are seeking to register — Lot 3-A of Subdivision Plan Psd-1372 — is a portion of Lot No.
    3, Block 159, Plan S.W.O.-7237, over which TCT No. 6595 has already been issued. Upon the other hand, in regard to Lot
    3-B of said Lot 3, TCT No. 29337 was issued in lieu of TCT No. 6595. Thus, 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.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Respondent Land Registration Authority can be compelled by mandamus to issue the
    corresponding decree of registration if it has evidence that the subject land may already be included in
    an existing Torrens certificate of title?
    Ruling

    No.

    Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding
    does not become final, until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of
    registration.

    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, this Court 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 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. A court may be compelled by mandamus
    to pass and act upon a question submitted to it for decision, but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or
    against one of the parties. The court has to decide a question according to its own judgment and
    understanding of the law.
    In view of the foregoing, it is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a decree of registration.
    However, to avoid multiplicity of suits and needless delay, this Court deems it more appropriate to
    direct the LRA to expedite its study, to determine with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the
    property described in TCT No. 6595, and to submit a report thereon to the court of origin within sixty
    (60) days from receipt of this Decision, after which the said court shall act with deliberate speed
    according to the facts and the law.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is REMANDED to the court of origin
    in Pasig City. The Land Registration Authority, on the other hand, is ORDERED to submit to the court
    a quo a report determining with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the property described in TCT
    No. 6595, within sixty (60) days from notice. After receipt of such report, the land registration court, in
    turn, is ordered to ACT, with deliberate and judicious speed, to settle the issue of whether the LRA may
    issue the decree of registration, according to the facts and the law as herein discussed.

    You might also like