5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

*
G.R. No. 94033. May 29, 1995.

FELICIANO RAMOS, Substituted by his heirs through

VALERIANA VDA. DE RAMOS, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE FRANCISCO C. RODRIGUEZ, Presiding
Judge, RTC, Branch 77, San Mateo, Rizal and LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondents.

Land Registration Cadastral Law Judgments As long as a

final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration
Authority and the period of one year has not yet elapsed from the
date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and
the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under
the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
Petitioners are now asking the Court to set aside the trial courts
May 29, 1990, order on the strength of the principle of finality of
judgments. This issue has already been settled in a similar case,
where the Court declared that: x x x Unlike ordinary civil
actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land
registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of
incontrovertibility(,) until after the expiration of one (1) year after
(sic) the entry of the final decree of registration. This Court, in
several decisions, has held that as long as a final decree has not
been entered by the Land Registration Commission (now
NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from the
date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and
the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under
the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.
Same Same Same If land registration officials are in doubt
upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the
decree of registration, it is their duty to refer the matter to the
court.It is also argued by petitioners that the issuance of the
decree of registration and the certificate of title by the LRA is a
ministerial duty which follows as a matter of course the order of
the court directing it to issue said decree. This, too, has been
squarely met in Gomez, thus: Petitioners insist that the duty of
the respondent land registration officials to issue the decree is

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

purely ministerial. It is ministerial in the sense that they act

under the orders of the court and the decree must be in
conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found
in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However,
if they are in doubt upon

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

419

VOL. 244, MAY 29, 1995 419

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the

decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act,
in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative
officials, 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 The Land Registration Authority is not
legally obligated to follow the courts order to issue a decree where
the subject lot sought to be registered is discovered to have been
already decreed and titled in the name of another.In the case at
bench, Administrator Bonifacio filed his report as an officer of the
court precisely to inform the latter that the NLTDRA cannot
comply with the order to issue a decree because the subject lot
sought to be registered was discovered to have been already
decreed and titled in the name of the Payatas Estate. Under these
circumstances, the LRA is not legally obligated to follow the
courts order.
Same Same Same The oneyear period within which a
petition to reopen and review the decree of registration clearly
refers to the decree of registration prepared and issued by the
Commissioner of Land Registration.This is also one of the
reasons why we have to reject the claim of petitioners that the
courts Order for Issuance of Decree is the reckoning point in
determining the timeliness of a petition to reopen or review the
decree of registration in view of the ministerial nature of the
LRAs duty. The other reason is that the oneyear period stated in
Section 32 of P.D. 1529 within which a petition to reopen and
review the decree of registration clearly refers to the decree of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

registration described in Section 31 of the said P.D., which decree

is prepared and issued by the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Same Same Torrens System A title issued under the Torrens
system enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity.It must be
noted that petitioners failed to rebut the LRA report and only
alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate was spurious, without
offering any proof to substantiate this claim. TCT No. 8816,
however, having been issued under the Torrens system, enjoys
the conclusive presumption of validity. As we declared in an early
case, [t]he very purpose of the Torrens system would be
destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought under a
second action for registration. The application for registration of
the petitioners in this case would, under the circumstances,
appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No. 8816 which is not
allowed under Section 48 of P.D. 1529.

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

Same Courts This controversy could have been avoided had

the proper procedure in land registration cases been observed by
both the trial court, acting as a land registration court, and by the
LRA, acting as an agent of the court.At this point, it may be
stated that this controversy could have been avoided had the
proper procedure in land registration cases been observed by both
the trial court, acting as a land registration court and by the LRA,
acting as an agent of the court. The court should have rendered
its decision only after considering the evidence and the reports of
the Commissioner of Land Registration and the Director of
Lands, as mandated by Section 29 of P.D. 1529, instead of
precipitately adjudicating the land in question to the applicant
and directing the Commissioner to issue a decree of registration
and certificate of title when the report of the LRA was still
forthcoming. On the other hand, if a faster disposition of the
proceedings were really desired, the court could facilely wield the
powers of its office in order to compel the LRA to speed up its
investigation, report, and recommendation.
Same Solicitor General The Solicitor General is reminded to
be more vigilant in handling cases which his office should properly
represent.Finally, the Solicitor General is reminded to be more
vigilant in handling cases which his office should, under the law,
properly represent.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

PETITION for review of a decision of the Regional Trial

Court of San Mateo, Rizal, Br. 77.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Joanes G. Caacbay for petitioner.

ROMERO, J.:

Feliciano Ramos applied for the registration of a parcel of

land in San Jose, Rodriguez, Montalban, Rizal, identified
as Lot 125B of subdivision plan Psd760 with a total area
of 156,485 square meters. Upon his death on April 6, 1982
and during the pendency of said application, Feliciano was
substituted by his heirs, petitioners herein.
After issuing an order of general default, respondent
judge rendered a decision on July 28, 1988, adjudicating
the said lot to the petitioners.
On September 12, 1988, the court a quo issued an Order
for Issuance of Decree stating that the July 28, 1988
decision had

421

VOL. 244, MAY 29, 1995 421

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

become final and directing the Administrator of National

Land Titles 1
and Deeds Registration Administration
(NLTDRA) to comply with Section 39 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529, that is, to prepare the decree and
certificate of registration.
Instead of issuing the said decree, NLTDRA
Administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio submitted a report
dated September 26, 1988, which was earlier required by
the court, recommending that the July 28, 1988 decision be
set aside after due hearing because the subject lot was part
of Lot 125, Psu32606 which is already covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 8816 issued on October 29,
1924, in Case No. 1037 in the name of the Payatas Estate
Improvement Company, and which was assigned Decree
No. 1131 on January 31, 1905. Petitioners later claimed
that TCT No. 8816 was fraudulent but they failed to
present any evidence in support of such allegation.
Several settings for the hearing were made before the
court in an order dated February 2, 1990, merely noted the
said report. The court opined that it cannot set aside its
(July 28, 1988) decision on the basis of the report dated
September 26, 1988, which was received by this Court on

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

October 10, 1988, after the finality of its decision. It added

that the proper remedy of the government was an action for
annulment of judgment.
Bonifacio filed on March 9, 1990, through the Chief
Legal Officer of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), a
motion for reconsideration of the February 2, 1990, order.
On May 29, 1990, the court a quo issued an order
granting the motion for reconsideration, denying
petitioners application for registration, setting aside its
decision dated July 28, 1988, as well as its order for the
issuance of decree dated September 12, 1988 and denying
the petition to redirect the LRA to issue the decree of
registration. The court noted that the subject lot was
already covered by an existing certificate of title and that
no final decree has yet been issued by the LRA.
Petitioners are now asking the Court to set aside the
trial courts May 29, 1990, order on the strength of the
principle of

_______________

1 Formerly Land Registration Commission (LRC), and now called the

Land Registration Authority (LRA) by virtue of Executive Order No. 292
(otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of 1987), which
took effect on November 24, 1989.

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

finality of judgments. 2
This issue has already been settled in a similar case,
where the Court declared that:

x x x Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a

cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final, in
the sense of incontrovertibility(,) until after the expiration of one
(1) year after (sic) the entry of the final decree of registration.
This Court, in several decisions, has held that as long as a final
decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission
(now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed
from the date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally
adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding
continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court
rendering it.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

It is also argued by petitioners that the issuance of the

decree of registration and the certificate of title by the LRA
is a ministerial duty which follows as a matter of course the
order of the court directing it to issue said decree. This, too,
has been squarely met in Gomez, thus:

Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land

registration officials to issue the decree is purely ministerial. It is
ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court
and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the
court and with the data found in the record, and they have no
discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any
point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it
is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this
respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials,
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.

In the case at bench, Administrator Bonifacio filed his

report as an officer of the court precisely to inform the
latter that the NLTDRA cannot comply with the order to
issue a decree because the subject lot sought to be
registered was discovered to have been already decreed and
titled in the name of the Payatas

_______________

2 Gomez v. Court of Appeals, No. L77770, December 15, 1988, 168

SCRA 503.

423

VOL. 244, MAY 29, 1995 423

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

Estate. Under these circumstances, the LRA is not legally

obligated to follow the courts order.
This is also one of the reasons why we have to reject the
claim of petitioners that the courts Order for Issuance of
Decree is the reckoning point in determining the timeliness
of a petition to reopen or review the decree of registration
in view of the ministerial nature of the LRAs duty. The
other reason is that the oneyear period stated in Section
32 of P.D. 1529 within which a petition to reopen and
review the decree of registration clearly refers to the decree
of registration described in Section 31 of the said P.D.,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

which decree is prepared and issued by the Commissioner

of Land Registration.
Finally, petitioners aver that respondent judge
committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the
July 28, 1988, decision and the order for issuance of decree
dated September 12, 1988, upon the mere motion for
reconsideration filed by the LRA, not by the Solicitor
General, of the February 2, 1990 order.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Solicitor
General is bound to [r]epresent the Government
3
in all
land registration and related proceedings. Add to this the
fact that P.D. 1529 itself, specifically Section 6 thereof
which enumerates the functions of the Commissioner of
Land Registration, is bereft of any grant of power to the
LRA or to the Commissioner to make the same
representation as the Office of the Solicitor General in
behalf of the government in land registration proceedings.
The court a quo could not have committed grave abuse of
discretion because it was merely following the earlier
recommendation of the LRA which was then acting as an
agent of the court.
Nevertheless, even granting that procedural lapses have
been committed in the proceedings below, these may be4
ignored by the Court in the interest of substantive justice.
This is especially true when, as in this case, a strict
adherence to the rules would result in a situation where
the LRA would be compelled to issue a decree of
registration over land which has already been decreed to
and titled in the name of another.

_______________

3 Section 35(5), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV.

4 B.E. San Diego, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80223, February 5,
1993, 218 SCRA 446.

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ramos vs. Rodriguez

It must be noted that petitioners failed to rebut the LRA

report and only alleged that the title of the Payatas Estate
was spurious, without offering any proof to substantiate
this claim. TCT No. 8816, however, having been issued
under the Torrens system, enjoys the conclusive5
presumption of validity. As we declared in an early case,
[t]he very purpose of the Torrens system would be
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

destroyed if the same land may be subsequently brought

under a second action for registration. The application for
registration of the petitioners in this case would, under the
circumstances, appear to be a collateral attack of TCT No.
8816 which is not allowed under Section 48 of P.D. 1529.
At this point, it may be stated that this controversy
could have been avoided had the proper procedure in land
registration cases been observed by both the trial court,
acting as a land registration court and by the LRA, acting
as an agent of the court. The court should have rendered its
decision only after considering the evidence and the
reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the
Director of Lands, as mandated by Section 29 of P.D. 1529,
instead of precipitately adjudicating the land in question to
the applicant and directing the Commissioner to issue a
decree of registration and certificate of title when the
report of the LRA was still forthcoming. On the other hand,
if a faster disposition of the proceedings were really
desired, the court could facilely wield the powers of its
office in order to compel the LRA to speed up its
investigation, report, and recommendation.
Finally, the Solicitor General is reminded to be more
vigilant in handling cases which his office should, under
the law, properly represent.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition for review is
hereby DENIED, and the order of respondent court dated
May 29, 1990, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Feliciano (Chairman), Melo, Vitug and Francisco,

JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

_______________

5 Reyes and Nadres v. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil. 791.

425

VOL. 244, MAY 29, 1995 425

People vs. Lucero

Notes.Wellsettled is the rule that land grants, being

gratuitous in nature, are always construed favorably in
favor of the government and strictly against the grantee.
(Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona, 236 SCRA
336 [1994])

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
5/6/2017 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME244

The Solicitor Generals withdrawal of his appearance on

behalf of the PCGG was beyond the scope of his authority
in the management of a case. As a public official, it is his
sworn duty to provide legal services to the Government,
particularly to represent it in litigations. And such duty
may be enjoined upon him by the writ of mandamus.
(Gonzales vs. Chavez , 205 SCRA 816 [1992])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015bdcf742e21f2a4c6c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9