Gov of the Phil Island v Abural

1. LAND REGISTRATION; TORRENS SYSTEM; PURPOSE. — The prime purpose of the Torrens System, as
established in the Philippine Islands by the Land Registration Law (Act No. 496), is to decree land titles
that shall be final, irrevocable, and indisputable.

2. ID.; CADASTRAL SYSTEM; PURPOSE. — The purpose of the offspring of the Torrens System here
known as the Cadastral System, as established in the Philippine Islands by the Cadastral Act (No. 2259),
is, like the purpose of the Torrens System, proper incontestability of title. As stated in Section 1 of the
Cadastral Act, the purpose is to serve the public interest, by requiring that the titles to any lands "be
settled and adjudicated."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; PROCEEDINGS. — Many precautions are taken to guard against injustice.

4. ID.; ID.; ID. — After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken. The first adjudicates ownership in
favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes the decision — the judgment — the decree of the court.
The second action is the declaration by the court that the decree is final and its order for the issuance of
the certificates of title by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within thirty
days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is taken from the decision. The third
and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration Office.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINALITY OF DECREE. — For a decree to exist in legal contemplation, it is not necessary to
await the preparation of a so-called decree by the Land Registration Office.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — Cadastral proceedings commenced. Notice published in the Official Gazette. Trial
judge also issued general notice. S asks for the registration in his name of lot No. 1608. Hearing had. On
September 21, 1916, the court in a decree awarded the lot to S. On November 23, 1916, the time for an
appeal having passed, the court declares the decree final. On July 23, 1917, before the issuance by the
Land Registration Office of the so-called technical decree, V and G ask that the case be reopened to
receive proof relative to the ownership of the lot. Motion denied by the trial court. Held: That since the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of September 21, 1916, has become final, and since no action
was taken within the time provided by law for the prosecution of an appeal by bill of exceptions, the
Supreme Court is without jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.

7. ID.; ID.; RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. — Whether Sections 113 and 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure
apply to cadastral proceedings, quare.
8. GENERAL LAND REGISTRATION OFFICE. — The General Land Registration Office has been instituted
"for the due effectuation and accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land."
(Administrative Code of 1917, Sec. 174.)

___________________________________________________________________

DE LA MERCED, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,||| (De la Merced v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-
17757, [May 30, 1962], 115 PHIL 229-237)

LAND TITLES, REGISTRATION OF; VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION UNDER ACT 496; WHAT DECREE QUIETS
TITLE TO AND BINDS THE LAND. — In voluntary registrations under Act 496, it is the decree of
registration to be issued by the Land Registration Commissioner, which shall be the basis of the
certificate of title to be issued subsequently by the corresponding register of deeds, that quiets title to,
and binds the land.

2. ID.; PUBLIC LANDS; ENTRY IN REGISTRATION BOOK NECESSARY TO EFFECT REGISTRATION. — In cases
of public land, the property is not considered registered, until the final act or the entry in the
registration book of the registry of deeds has been accomplished.

3. ID.; ID.; CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS; WHEN TITLE BECOMES VESTED ONCE REGISTERED, LAND NOT
LOST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. — In the absence of fraud, title to land in a cadastral proceeding is
vested on the owner, upon the expiration of the period to appeal from the decision or adjudication by
the cadastral court, without such appeal being perfected; and from that time the land becomes
registered property which cannot be lost by adverse possession.

||| (De la Merced v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-17757, [May 30, 1962], 115 PHIL 229-237)

___________________________________________________________________

||| (Calimpong v. Heirs of Gumela, G.R. No. 163751, [March 31, 2006], 520 PHIL 973-981)
Whether a certificate of title was issued in the name of respondent's predecessors-in-interest is
immaterial. For, following De la Merced, the title of ownership on respondent's predecessors-in-interest
was vested as of 1927. The lot, for all intents and purposes, had become from said date registered
property which could not be acquired by adverse possession and was, therefore, beyond the jurisdiction
of the Land Management Bureau of the DENR (formerly the Bureau of Lands) to subject it to free
patent.||| (Calimpong v. Heirs of Gumela, G.R. No. 163751, [March 31, 2006], 520 PHIL 973-981)

We hardly can subscribe to the Republic's argument that the publication of the amendment in
petitioners' application is a condition sine qua non for the RTC, acting as cadastral court, to acquire
jurisdiction. Sec. 7 38 of Act No. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act, and Sec. 35 39 of PD 1529,
otherwise known as the Land Registration Decree, provide for the publication of the application for
registration and the schedule of the initial hearing. This is so since judicial cadastral proceedings, like
ordinary administrative registration, are in rem, and are governed by the usual rules of practice,
procedure, and evidence. Due publication is required to give notice to all interested parties of the claim
and identity of the property that will be surveyed. And any additional territory or change in the area of
the claim cannot be included by amendment of the plan or application without new publication,
otherwise the cadastral court does not acquire jurisdiction over the additional or amended claim. But
where the identity and area of the claimed property are not the subjects of amendment but other
collateral matters, a new publication is not needed.

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that due publication was made for Lot No. 1524, its identity and
area. The amendment in petitioners' application in the relief portion neither altered the area and
identity of the subject lot nor added any territory. Thus, no new publication is required. Besides, the
Republic, through Prosecutor Bayona, has been duly notified of such amendment. Consequently, the
Republic could not plausibly argue that it was deprived of its day in court.

||| (Heirs of the de Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 168848 & 169019, [June 30, 2009], 609 PHIL 84-104)

_______________________________________________________

After a careful study of the case We are convinced that the respondent Judge committed an error in
denying the petition for the issuance of a writ of possession. The findings of the respondent Judge that a
writ of possession cannot be issued in the cadastral case because the respondents were not parties in
said registration proceedings, or that they were not occupants of the land during the registration
proceedings prior to the issuance of the final decree of registration is not supported by the evidence and
law. The respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes cannot be said to be strangers to the registration
proceedings. A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody, including the
respondents herein, who are deemed included in the general order of default entered in the case.
Besides, it appears that the said respondent heirs of Alejandro Abes filed a petition for the review of the
decree of registration, thereby becoming a direct party in the registration proceedings by their voluntary
appearance.||| (Rodil v. Benedicto, G.R. No. L-28616, [January 22, 1980], 184 PHIL 107-115)

____________________________________________________________

RES JUDICATA; DECLARATION THAT LOTS APPLIED FOR ARE PUBLIC LANDS BARS SUBSEQUENT ACTION
FOR REGISTRATION OF SAME LOTS. — Where, as in the present case, the parcels of land sought to be
registered are the same lots already declared public lands in a cadastral proceedings where the
applicant and the Director of Lands were parties, and the applicant failed to show acquisition of the
lands by any of the legal modes of acquiring public lands, the decision declaring the lots part of the
public domain must be deemed res judicata.||| (Navarro v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-18814, [July 31,
1962], 115 PHIL 824-832)

____________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT; TEST TO DETERMINE RES JUDICATA; CASE AT BAR. — In the Cadastral Proceedings, the
disputed lots were claimed in ownership by defendant spouses and Alejandro Abes, plaintiffs' ancestor.
The cadastral court adjudicated the said lots to defendant spouses. Torrens title was issued in pursuance
of this decision. Subsequently the heirs of Alejandro Abes lodged in court a petition for review of the
registration decree on the ground of fraud. The petition was given due course and the case was set for
hearing. After receiving and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence presented by the petitioning
heirs, the cadastral court issued an order denying the petition for review on the ground that the
petitioning heirs failed to overcome the evidence of the claimants adjudicatees. No appeal was taken
from this order. Instead, the heirs sued the registered owners, defendants and asked for reconveyance
of the titled properties upon the same ground of fraud as in their petition for review. ISSUE: Has res
judicata set in? HELD: The test for determining the existence of res judicata is simply this: "Would the
same evidence support and establish both the present and former cause of action?". Here the answer is
in the affirmative. The evidence both in the cadastral proceedings and in the present reconveyance case,
is directed at the question of ownership. Thus, the same evidence would support the one and the other.
Moreover this Court has ruled that where, as here, fraud was alleged in the first case and the same
fraud was relied upon in the second, the judgment in the former case operated as res judicata ||| (Abes
v. Rodil, G.R. No. L-20996, [July 30, 1966], 124 PHIL 238-242)