EN BANC

[G.R. No. 44493. November 3, 1938.]

MARIANO ANGELES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ELENA SAMIA , defendant-

appellant.

Jose Gutierrez David, for appellant.

Filemon Cajator, for appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. LAND REGISTRATION ACT AND CADASTRAL ACT; PURPOSE OF THE LAND

REGISTRATION ACT; ERROR IN THE DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND IN A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — The purpose of the Land Registration Act, as this court has
had occasion to so state more than once, is not to create and already vested, and of
course, said original certi cate of title No. 8995 could not have vested in the defendant
more right and more title than what was rightfully due her much more than she
expected, naturally to the prejudice of another, it is but just that the error, which gave
rise to said anomally, be corrected (City of Manila vs. Lack, 19 Phil., 324).
2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The defendant and her coöwners knew or, at least, came to
know that it was through error that original certi cate of title No. 8995 was issued by
the court which heard cadastral case No. 11 of Bacolor, not only in or prior to March,
1933, but from the time said certi cate was issued in their favor, that is, from
December 15, 1921. This is evidenced by the fact that, ever since, they remained
passive without even attempting to make the least showing of ownership over the land
in question, until after the lapse of more than eleven years.
3. ID.; TITLE CONFERRED BY THESE TWO ACTS; FRAUD OR ERROR IN
OBTAINING IT; CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION AUTHORIZED BY LAW. — The Land
Registration Act as well as the Cadastral Act protects only the holders of a title in good
faith and does not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud, or that one should enrich himself at the expense of another (Gustilo vs. Maravilla,
48 Phil., 442; Angelo vs. Director of Lands, 49 Phil., 838). The above-stated Acts do not
give anybody, who resorts to the provisions thereof, a better title than he really and
lawfully has. If he happened to obtain it by mistake or to secure, to the prejudice of his
neighbor, more land than he really owns, with or without bad faith on his part, the
certi cate of title, which may have been issued to him under the circumstances, may
and should be cancelled or corrected (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590).
This is permitted by section 112 of Act No. 496, which is applicable to the Cadastral
Act because it is so provided expressly by the provisions of section 11 of the latter Act.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ERROR COMMITTED IN THE PLANS DOES NOT ANNUL THE
DECREE OF REGISTRATION. — As stated in the case of Domingo vs. Santos, Ongsiako,
Lim y Cía. (55 Phil., 361), errors in the plans of lands sought to be registered in the
registry and reproduced in the certi cate of title issued later, do not annul the decree of
registration on the ground that it is not the plan but the land itself which is registered in
the registry.
5. ID.; ID.; ACTION SEEKING THE TRANSFER OF A PARCEL OF LAND
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 ERRONEOUSLY INCLUDED IN AN ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — Let it not be said
that, as the decree of registration which gave rise to original certi cate of title No. 8995
was issued on December 15, 1921, and the plaintiff failed to ask for the review of said
decree within one year, in accordance with section 38 of Act No. 496, he still has the
right to question the legality or validity of the decree in question, because the action
brought by him in this case is not for said purpose but merely to ask that the land in
dispute which was erroneously included in original certi cate of title No. 8995, be
transferred to him by the defendant, he being the owner thereof. This is possible and it
is authorized by law, upon the amendment of the plant which must be approved by the
competent court, for which purpose there is no necessity of altering or modifying in the
least the decree already issued.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; DEFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION. — The defense of
prescription which the defendant-appellant seeks to avail of to support the
irrevocability of her title and to counteract the action of the plaintiff-appellee, is
untenable because, aside from the fact that neither she nor her coöwners ever
possessed the land in question in any capacity, they never claimed to be the owners
thereof, and if she has done so after the lapse of more than 11 years from the issuance
of the title in their favor, it was due to the fact that they were declared owners thereof
through error.

DECISION

DIAZ , J : p

The question involved herein refers to the ownership of a parcel of land having an
area of 7 hectares, 13 ares and 81 centiares, situated in the municipality of Bacolor, of
the Province of Pampanga, included in lot No. 3679 described in cadastral record No.
11 of the said municipality, G. L. R. O. Cadastral Record No. 148 of Pampanga, and now
covered by the original certificate of title No. 8995 of the registry of deed of Pampanga,
registered and issued on December 15, 1921, in the name of the Macaria Angeles, Petra
Angeles, Felisberto Samia, and Elena Samia as their common undivided property in the
following proportion: One third of Macaria Angeles, 1/6 to Petra Angeles, 1/4 to
Felisberto Samia, and 1/4 to Elena Samia.
The plaintiff claims to be the exclusive owner of the property in question, and the
defendant alleges the same thing saying: (1) that said property was allotted to her
when her coöwners made a partition of all the properties owned by them in common,
and (2) that if the plaintiff ever had any right thereto prior to the issuance of said
original certificate of title, such right prescribed a long time ago.
The lower court decided the question in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the
defendant to execute the necessary deed of conveyance to the plaintiff of the land
described in the complaint, which constitutes the northern portion of 7 hectares, 13
ares and 81 centiares of said lot No. 3679, the sketch of which appears in the plan
Exhibit P as lot No. 3679-A, and to pay the costs of the trial. From this judgment the
defendant appealed, assigning in her brief the following alleged errors as committed by
the lower court, to wit:
"1. The lower court erred in not sustaining and holding that the
plaintiff's action has prescribed.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "2. The lower court erred in not holding that the plaintiff has neither
alleged nor proven facts constituting a cause of action.
"3. The lower court erred in not holding that the plaintiff's claim is
contrary to the principal objective of the Torrens System established in this
country.
"4. The lower court erred in concluding and holding that a constructive
or implicit trust exists in the present case, as claimed by the plaintiff.
"5. The lower court erred in not holding that the case of 'Villarosa vs.
Sarmiento' (46 Phil., 814), is applicable to and decides the present case, and in
holding that the case of 'Dizon vs. Datu', decided by the Supreme Court as case G.
R. No. 30517, applies to the case at bar.
"6. The lower court erred in not dismissing the complaint in this case
with costs to the plaintiff.
"7. The lower court erred in denying the defendant-appellant's motion
for new trial."
It is not disputed by the parties that the land in question was inherited by the
plaintiff from his father Antonino Angeles some time before the year 1896; that
thereafter the plaintiff possessed and occupied the land in question under claim to
ownership up to the present; that about the year 1909, he attempted to register his title
to said property in the registry of deeds pursuant to the Land Registration Act but his
application was denied due to errors found in his plan; that, this notwithstanding, he
continued to exercise acts of ownership over the land in question openly,
uninterruptedly and peacefully at least until March, 1933; that on December 15, 1921,
without the plaintiff's knowledge and without having been purposely applied for by the
defendant and her coparticipants Macaria, Petra and Felisberto, said original certi cate
of title No. 8995 was issued in the name of the latter four coöwners; that the said
coöwners having decided to partition among themselves the properties held by them in
common, the land in question was allotted to the defendant; that the defendant,
desiring to know the area of said land, had it relocated about the end of February or the
beginning of March, 1933, and, as soon as it had been done, although she was then
aware that neither she nor any of her former coparticipants ever occupied it before,
because it had always been occupied by the plaintiff long before 1896, she entered
upon said land to exercise acts of ownership, for which purpose she cut and availed
herself of the leaves of nipa palms found therein, notwithstanding the protests and
objections of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff, for the purpose of avoiding frictions,
requested the defendant, inasmuch as it was through error that the land in question had
been adjudicated to her and her coöwners, to deign to execute the corresponding deed
of transfer thereof in his favor, the land being lawfully his; that the defendant refused to
do so claiming that her title was already indefeasible; and that, in view of such attitude
of said defendant, the plaintiff brought this action one or two days later.
The defense of prescription which the defendant-appellant seeks to avail of to
support the irrevocability of her title and to counteract the action of the plaintiff-
appellee, is untenable because, aside from the fact that neither she nor her coöwners
ever possessed the land in question in any capacity, they never claimed to be the
owners thereof, and if she has done so after the lapse of more than eleven years from
the issuance of the title in their favor, it was due to the fact that they were declared
owners thereof through error. The purpose of the Land Registration Act, as this court
has had occasion to so state more than once, is not to create or vest title, but to
con rm and register title already created and already vested, and or course, said
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 original certi cate of title No. 8995 could not have vested in the defendant more title
than what was rightfully due her and her coöwners. It appearing that said certi cate
granted her much more than she expected, naturally to the prejudice of another, it is but
just that the error, which gave rise to said anomaly, be corrected (City of Manila vs.
Lack, 19 Phil., 324). The defendant and her coöwners knew or, at least, came to know
that it was through error that the original certi cate of title in question was issued by
the court which heard cadastral case No. 11 of Bacolor, not only in or prior to March,
1933, but from the time said certi cate was issued in their favor, that is, from
December 15, 1921. This is evidenced by the fact that, even since, they remained
passive without even attempting to make the least showing of ownership over the land
in question until after the lapse of more than eleven years. The Land Registration Act as
well as the Cadastral Act protects only the holders of a title in good faith and does not
permit its provisions to be used as a shield for the commission of fraud, or that one
should enrich himself at the expense of another (Gustilo vs. Maravilla, 48 Phil., 442;
Angelo vs. Director of Lands, 49 Phil., 838). The above-stated Acts do not give anybody,
who resorts to the provisions thereof, a better title than he really and lawfully has. If he
happened to obtain it by mistake or to secure, to the prejudice of his neighbor, more
land than he really owns, with or without bad faith on his part, the certi cate of title,
which may have been issued to him under the circumstances, may and should be
cancelled or corrected (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590). This is permitted
by section 112 of Act No. 496, which is applicable to the Cadastral Act because it is so
provided expressly by the provisions of section 11 of the latter Act. It cannot be
otherwise because, as stated in the case of Domingo vs. Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cía.
(55 Phil., 361), errors in the plans of lands sought to be registered in the registry and
reproduced in the certi cate of title issued later, do not annul the decree of registration
on the ground that it is not the plan but the land itself which is registered in the registry.
In other words, if the plan of an applicant for registration or claimant in a cadastral case
alleges that the land referred to in said plan is 100 or 1,000 hectares, and the land
which he really owns and desires to register in the registry is only 80 ares, he cannot
claims to be the owner of the existing difference if afterwards he is issued a certi cate
of title granting him said area of 100 or 1,000 hectares.
Let it not be said that, as the decree of registration which gave rise to original
certificate of title No. 8995 was issued on December 15, 1921, and the plaintiff failed to
ask for the review of said decree within one year, in accordance with section 38 of Act
No. 496, he still has the right to question the legality or validity of the decree in
question, because the action brought by him in this case is not for said purpose but
merely to ask that the land in dispute, which was erroneously included in original
certi cate of title No. 8995, be transferred to him by the defendant, he being the owner
thereof. This is possible and it is authorized by law, upon the amendment of the plan
which must be approved by the competent court, for which purpose there is no
necessity of altering or modifying in the least the decree already issued.
For the foregoing reasons and for those taken into consideration in the cases of
Dizo n vs. Datu (G. R. No. 30517, promulgated on June 3, 1929, not reported);
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (49 Phil.,
433); and Palet vs. Tejedor (55 Phil., 790), which are not repeated herein, for the sake of
brevity, this court holds that the errors attributed to the lower court are unfounded; that
the appeal is unwarranted, and that the appealed judgment is in accordance with the
law.
Wherefore, the appealed judgment is question is a rmed in toto, and it is
ordered that, upon the amendment of the plan of parcel No. 3679 of cadastral survey
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 11 of Bacalor, G. L. R. O. Cadastral Record No. 148 of Pampanga, the
corresponding writ of the execution of said judgment be issued by the lower court, with
the costs to the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ.,
concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com