Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 94033 May 29, 1995 FELICIANO RAMOS, Subs ! u "# by $!s $"!%s $%ou&$ 'ALERIANA '(A. (E RAMOS, )" ! !o*"%s, +s. ,ONORA-LE FRANCISCO C. RO(RIGUE., P%"s!#!*& /u#&", RTC, -%a*0$ 11, Sa* Ma "o, R!2a3 a*# LAN( REGISTRATION AUT,ORIT4, %"s)o*#"* s. ROMERO, J.: Feliciano Ramos applied for the registration of a parcel of land in San ose! Rodrigue"! Montalban! Ri"al! identified as #ot $%&'( of subdi)ision plan Psd'*+, -ith a total area of $&+!./& s0uare meters1 2pon his death on 3pril +! $4/% and during the pendenc5 of said application! Feliciano -as substituted b5 his heirs! petitioners herein1 3fter issuing an order of general default! respondent 6udge rendered a decision on ul5 %/! $4//! ad6udicating the said lot to the petitioners1 On September $%! $4//! the court a quo issued an Order for Issuance of Decree stating that the ul5 %/! $4// decision had become final and directing the 3dministrator of National #and Titles and Deeds Registration 3dministration 7N#TDR38 1 to compl5 -ith Section 94 of Presidential Decree No1 $&%4! that is! to prepare the decree and certificate of registration1 Instead of issuing the said decree! N#TDR3 3dministrator Teodoro :1 (onifacio submitted a report dated September %+! $4//! -hich -as earlier re0uired b5 the court! recommending that the ul5 %/! $4// decision be set aside after due hearing because the sub6ect lot -as part of #ot $%&! Psu'9%+,+ -hich is alread5 co)ered b5 Transfer ;ertificate of Title 7T;T8 No1 //$+ issued on October %4! $4%.! in case No1 $,9* in the name of the Pa5atas <state Impro)ement ;ompan5! and -hich -as assigned Decree No1 $$9$ on anuar5 9$! $4,&1 Petitioners later claimed that T;T No1 //$+ -as fraudulent but the5 failed to present an5 e)idence in support of such allegation1 Se)eral settings for the hearing -ere made before the court in an order dated Februar5 %! $44,! merel5 noted the said report1 The court opined =that it cannot set aside its 7 ul5 %/! $4//8 decision on the basis of the report dated September %+! $4//! -hich -as recei)ed b5 this ;ourt on October $,! $4//! after the finalit5 of its decision1= It added that the proper remed5 of the go)ernment -as an action for annulment of 6udgment1 (onifacio filed on March 4! $44,! through the ;hief #egal Officer of the #and Registration 3uthorit5 7#R38! a motion for reconsideration of the Februar5 %! $44,! order1 On Ma5 %4! $44,! the court a quo issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration! den5ing petitioner>s application for registration! setting aside its decision dated ul5 %/! $4//! as -ell as its order for the issuance of decree dated September $%! $4// and den5ing the petition to re'direct the #R3 to issue the decree of registration1 The court noted that the

sub6ect lot -as alread5 co)ered b5 an e?isting certificate of title and that no final decree has 5et been issued b5 the #R31 Petitioners are no- as@ing the ;ourt to set aside the trial court>s Ma5 %4! $44,! order on the strength of the principle of finalit5 of 6udgments1 This issue has alread5 been settled in a similar case!
2

-here the ;ourt declared thatA

1 1 1 2nli@e ordinar5 ci)il actions! the ad6udication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final! in the sense of incontro)ertibilit57!8 until after the e?piration of one 7$8 5ear after 7 sic8 the entr5 of the final decree of registration1 This ;ourt! in se)eral decisions! has held that as long as a final decree has not been entered b5 the #and Registration ;ommission 7no- N#TDR38 and the period of one 7$8 5ear has not elapsed from the date of entr5 of such decree! the title is not finall5 ad6udicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it1 It is also argued b5 petitioners that the issuance of the decree of registration and the certificate of title b5 the #R3 is a ministerial dut5 -hich follo-s as a matter of course the order of the court directing it to issue said decree1 This! too! has been s0uarel5 met in Gomez! thusA Petitioners insist that the dut5 of the respondent land registration officials to issue the decree is purel5 ministerial1 It is ministerial in the sense that the5 act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformit5 -ith the decision of the court and -ith the data found in the record! and the5 ha)e no discretion in the matter1 Ho-e)er! if the5 are in doubt upon an5 point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree! it is their dut5 to refer the matter to the court1 The5 act! in this respect as officials of the court and not as administrati)e officials! and their act is the act of the court1 The5 are specificall5 called upon to =e?tend assistance to courts in ordinar5 and cadastral land registration proceedings1= In the case at bench! 3dministrator (onifacio filed his report as an officer of the court precisel5 to inform the latter that the N#TDR3 cannot compl5 -ith the order to issue a decree because the sub6ect lot sought to be registered -as disco)ered to ha)e been alread5 decreed and titled in the name of the Pa5atas <state1 2nder these circumstances! the #R3 is not legall5 obligated to follo- the court>s order1 This is also one of the reasons -h5 -e ha)e to re6ect the claim of petitioners that the court>s Order for Issuance of Decree is the rec@oning point in determining the timeliness of a petition to re'open or re)ie- the decree of registration in )ie- of the ministerial nature of the #R3>s dut51 The other reason is that the one'5ear period stated in section 9% of P1D1 $&%4 -ithin -hich a petition to re'open and re)ie- the decree of registration clearl5 refers to the decree of registration described in Section 9$ of the said P1D1! -hich decree is prepared and issued b5 the ;ommissioner of #and Registration1 Finall5! petitioners a)er that respondent 6udge committed gra)e abuse of discretion in setting aside the ul5 %/! $4//! decision and the order for issuance of decree dated September $%! $4//! upon the mere motion for reconsideration filed b5 the #R3! not b5 the Solicitor :eneral! of the Februar5 %! $44, order1

2nder the 3dministrati)e ;ode of $4/*! the Solicitor :eneral is bound to =BrCepresent the :o)ernment in all land registration and related proceedings1= 3 3dd to this the fact that P1D1 $&%4 itself! specificall5 Section + thereof -hich enumerates the functions of the ;ommissioner of #and Registration! is bereft of an5 grant of po-er to the #R3 or to the ;ommissioner to ma@e the same representation as the Office of the Solicitor :eneral in behalf of the go)ernment in land registration proceedings1 The court a quo could not ha)e committed gra)e abuse of discretion because it -as merel5 follo-ing the earlier recommendation of the #R3 -hich -as then acting as an agent of the court1 Ne)ertheless! e)en granting that procedural lapses ha)e been committed in the proceedings belo-! these ma5 be ignored b5 the ;ourt in the interest of substanti)e 6ustice1 4 This is especiall5 true -hen! as in this case! a strict adherence to the rules -ould result in a situation -here the #R3 -ould be compelled to issue a decree of registration o)er land -hich has alread5 been decreed to and titled in the name of another1 It must be noted that petitioners failed to rebut the #R3 report and onl5 alleged that the title of the Pa5atas <state -as spurious! -ithout offering an5 proof to substantiate this claim1 T;T No1 //$+! ho-e)er! ha)ing been issued under the Torrens s5stem! en6o5s the conclusi)e presumption of )alidit51 3s -e declared in an earl5 case! 5 =BtChe )er5 purpose of the Torrens s5stem -ould be destro5ed if the same land ma5 be subse0uentl5 brought under a second action for registration1= The application for registration of the petitioners in this case -ould! under the circumstances! appear to be a collateral attac@ of T;T No1 //$+ -hich is not allo-ed under Section ./ of P1D1 $&%41 3t this point! it ma5 be stated that this contro)ers5 could ha)e been a)oided had the proper procedure in land registration cases been obser)ed b5 both the trial court! acting as a land registration court and b5 the #R3! acting as an agent of the court1 The court should ha)e rendered its decision onl5 =after considering the e)idence and the reports of the commissioner of #and Registration and the Director of #ands!= as mandated b5 Section %4 of P1D1 $&%4! instead of precipitatel5 ad6udicating the land in 0uestion to the applicant and directing the ;ommissioner to issue a decree of registration and certificate of title -hen the report of the #R3 -as still forthcoming1 On the other hand! if a faster disposition of the proceedings -ere reall5 desired! the court could facilel5 -ield the po-ers of its office in order to compel the #R3 to speed up its in)estigation! report! and recommendation1 Finall5! the Solicitor :eneral is reminded to be more )igilant in handling cases -hich his office should! under the la-! properl5 represent1 3;;ORDIN:#D! the instant petition for re)ie- is hereb5 D<NI<D! and the order of respondent court dated Ma5 %4! $44,! is 3FFIRM<D1 SO ORD<R<D1 Feliciano, Melo, Vitug and Francisco, JJ., concur.