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

MANUEL SANTOS, JR., petitioner,

vs.
LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent.
G.R. No. 101387
March 11, 1998

FACTS:

1. Petitioners Spouses Marciano and Erlinda Laburada, were the applicants in LRC Case
No. N-11022 for the registration of Lot 3-A, Psd-1372, located in Mandaluyong City.

2. On January 8, 1991, the RTC, acting as a land registration court, granted the
application.

3. After finality of the decision, the RTC, upon motion of Petitioners, issued an Order
requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA
refused. Hence, Petitioners filed this action for mandamus.

4. The LRA explained that after plotting the aforesaid plan sought to be registered in their
Municipal Index Sheet, it was found 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.

Moreover, on May 23, 1991, a letter was sent to the Register of Deeds, Pasig,
requesting for a certified true copy of the Original Certificate of Title No. 355, issued in
the name of Compania Agricola de Ultramar.

After examining the furnished OCT NO. 355, it was found that the technical description
of the parcel of land is not readable which prompted to send another letter dated
Register of Deeds of Pasig, requesting for a certified typewritten copy of OCT No. 355,
or in lieu thereof a certified copy of the subsisting certificate of title with complete
technical description of the parcel of land involved therein. There was, however, no reply
to such letter.

After verification in the Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, it was found that Lot
3-B of the subdivision plan Psd-1372 being a portion of Lot No. 3, Block No. 159, Plan
S.W.O. — 7237, is covered by TCT No. 29337 issued in the name of Pura Buenaflor.
Said TCT No. 29337 is a transfer from TCT No. 6595. However, the title issued for Lot 3-
A of the subdivision plan Psd-1372 cannot be located because TCT No. 6595 consisting
of several sheets are incomplete.

Hence, for the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration sought by the
petitioners, would result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, and thus
contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the
integrity of the same.
 5. In view of the foregoing explanation, the solicitor general prays that the petition be
dismissed for being premature.

6. Petitioners filed an urgent motion for an early resolution of the case wherein the Court
resolved to require the Solicitor General to report in detail, within fifteen (15) days from
receipt, what concrete and specific steps, if any, have been taken by respondent since
the date of respondent's Memorandum to actually verify whether the lot subject of LRC
Case No. N-11022 (RTC Pasig), described as Lot 3A, Psd-1372 and might be a portion
of the parcels of land decreed in Court of Land Registration Case (CLR) Nos. 699, 875
and 917.

7. The OSG submitted his compliance thru enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Hon.
Ramon S. Desuasido stating that Lot 3-B, of the subdivision plan Psd-1372, a portion of
Lot 3, Blk. 159, Swo-7237 is really covered by TCT No. 29337 issued in the name of
Pura Bunaflor which was transferred from TCT No. 6395, per verification of the records
on file in the Register of Deeds of Rizal. However, the title issued for the subject lot, Lot
3-A of the subdivision plan Psd-1372, cannot be located because TCT #6595 is
incomplete.

8. The case has been submitted to the SC for dismissal to avoid duplication of title over the
same parcel of land.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Respondent LRA can be compelled to issue the corresponding decree in
LRC Case No. N-11022 of the RTC Pasig (or is mandamus the right remedy?)

RULING:

No, mandamus if not the property remedy for three reasons, to wit: (a) judgement is not
yet executory, (b) a void judgement is possible, and (c) the issuance of a decree is not a
ministerial act.

On the first reason, the judgement Petitioners’ 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. A judgement of registration does not become executory until
after the expiration of one year after the entry of the final decree of registration.

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 the entry of the final decree of registration.

On the second point, a void judgement is possible. That the LRA hesitates in issuing a
decree of registration is understandable. 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.

As the title of the respondents, who hold certificates of title under the LRA becomes
indefeasible, it follows that the CFI has no power or jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for the
registration of the same parcels of land covered by the certificates of title of the respondents.
 The CFI has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an
earlier land registration case and a second decree for the same land is null and void. This is so,
because when once decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land thus
determined is already a res judicata binding on the whole world, the proceedings being in rem.
The court has no power in a subsequent proceeding (not based on fraud and within the
statutory period) to adjudicate the same title in favor of another person. Furthermore, the
registration of the property in the name of first registered owner in the Registration Book is a
standing notice to the world that said property is already registered in his name. Hence, the
latter applicant is chargeable with notice that the land he applied for is already covered by a title
so that he has no right whatsoever to apply for it. To declare the later title valid would defeat the
very purpose of the Torrens system which is to quiet title to the property and guarantee its
indefeasibility.

On the third issue, 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.

Examining section 40, the decrees of registration must be stated in convenient form for
transcription upon the certificate of title and must contain an accurate technical description of
the land. Moreover, it frequently occurs that only portions of a parcel of land included in an
application are ordered registered and that the limits of such portions can only be roughly
indicated in the decision of the court. In such cases amendments of the plans and sometimes
additional surveys become necessary before the final decree can be entered. That can hardly
be done by the court itself; the law very wisely charges the chief surveyor of the General Land
Registration Office with such duties (Administrative Code, section 177).

Furthermore, although the final decree is actually prepared by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, the administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can hardly be
considered a ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land Registration
Office acts not as an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and so the issuance of a
final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one.

Indeed, it is well-settled that the issuance of such decree is not compellable

by mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion. Likewise, the writ
of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioners' legal right to the performance of the
particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. Under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court, a clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a
matter of law. If the right is clear and the case is meritorious, objections raising merely technical
questions will be disregarded.  But where the right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt
or dispute, as in this case, mandamus cannot issue.

Hence, the petition is dismissed but the case is remanded to the court of origin in Pasig and the
LRA 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.

RATIO:
Although the final decree is actually prepared by the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, the administrative officer, the issuance of the final decree can hardly be considered a
ministerial act for the reason that said Chief of the General Land Registration Office acts not as
an administrative officer but as an officer of the court and so the issuance of a final decree is a
judicial function and not an administrative one