THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 231116, February 07, 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CLARO YAP, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
WHEREFORE, the court grants the petition in favor of the petitioner Claro Yap. The Land Registration Authority thru the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu is hereby directed to cancel Decree No. 99500 issued on November 29, 1920 and to re-issue a new copy thereof in the name of Andres Abellana, as Administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez, and on the bases of the new copy of Decree No. 99500, to issue an Original Certificate of Title covering Lot No. [922] in the name of Andres Abellana, as administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez.Since the order of the RTC was for the re-issuance of the decree under the name of its original adjudicate, Yap filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration15 stating that the new decree and OCT should be issued under his name instead of Andres Abellana.
Further, the Register of Deeds is directed to furnish the petitioner, Claro Yap, with the re-issued copy ofDecree No. 99500 and the copy of its title upon payment of any appropriate fees.
SO ORDERED.14
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 20, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 06, Cebu City, in LRC REC. NO. Lot No. 922, Cad. 30, Carcar City, Cebu, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.Thus, the OSG filed the instant petition raising essentially the same arguments but this time also advancing the theory that Yap's action had already prescribed.
SO ORDERED.22
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant in support of the above assignment, except in so far as it supports his theory that after a decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another proceeding to enforce the judgment, which may be enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10 years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules refers to civil actions and is not applicable to special proceedings, such as a land registration case. This is so because a party in a civil action must immediately enforce a judgment that is secured as against the adverse party, and his failure to act to enforce the same within a reasonable time as provided in the Rules makes the decision unenforceable against the losing party. In special proceedings the purpose is to establish a status, condition or fact; in land registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a parcel of land is sought to be established. After the ownership has been proved and confirmed by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse or losing party had been in possession of the land and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.The foregoing pronouncements were echoed in Heirs of Cristobal Marcos v. de Banuvar30 and reiterated by the Court in the more recent Ting v. Heirs of Diego Lirio31 wherein We ruled that a final judgment confirming land title and ordering its registration constitutes res judicata against the whole world and the adjudicate need not file a motion to execute the same, thus:
Furthermore, there is no provision in the Land Registration Act similar to Sec. 6, Rule 39, regarding the execution of a judgment in a civil action, except the proceedings to place the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of possession. The decision in a land registration case, unless the adverse or losing party is in possession, becomes final without any further action, upon the expiration of the period for perfecting an appeal.
The third assignment of error is as follows:
THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A DECREE OF REGISTRATION IN THE NAMES OF THE OPPOSITORS-APPELLEES BASED ON A DECISION WHICH HAS ALLEGEDLY NOT YET BECOME FINAL, AND IN ANY CASE ON A DECISION THAT HAS BEEN BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
We also find no merit in the above contention. There is nothing in the law that limits the period within which the court may order or issue a decree. The reason is what is stated in the consideration of the second assignment error, that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not need to be asserted or enforced against the adverse party. Furthermore, the issuance of a decree is a ministerial duty both of the judge and of the Land Registration Commission; failure of the court or of the clerk to issue the decree for the reason that no motion therefore has been filed cannot prejudice the owner, or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered. (Emphasis supplied)
In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private land, with or without opposition, the judgment of the court confirming the title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its registration in his name constitutes, when final, res judicata against the whole world. It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary period is taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration.For the past decades, the Sta. Ana doctrine on the inapplicability of the rules on prescription and laches to land registration cases has been repeatedly affirmed. Clearly, the peculiar procedure provided in the Property Registration Law32 from the time decisions in land registration cases become final is complete in itself and does not need to be filled in. From another perspective, the judgment does not have to be executed by motion or enforced by action within the purview of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.33
The land registration proceedings being in rem, the land registration court's approval in LRC No. N-983 of spouses Diego Lirio and Flora Atienza's application for registration of the lot settled its ownership, and is binding on the whole world including petitioner.
x x x x
The December 10, 1976 decision became "extinct" in light of the failure of respondents and/or of their predecessors-in-interest to execute the same within the prescriptive period, the same does not lie.
1. Under the premises, the correct proceeding is a petition for cancellation of the old decree, re-issuance of decree and {or issuance of OCT pursuant to that re-issued decree.Based from the foregoing, the RTC correctly ordered the cancellation of Decree No. 99500, the re-issuance thereof, and the issuance of the corresponding OCT covering Lot No. 922 in the name of its original adjudicate, Andres Abellana, as Administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez.
In the landmark decision of Teofilo Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R No. 123361, March 3, 1997, our Supreme Court had affirmed the efficacy of filing a petition for cancellation of the old decree; the reissuance of such decree and the issuance of OCT corresponding to that reissued decree.
"Thus, petitioner filed an omnibus motion for leave of court to file and to admit amended petition, but this was denied. Petitioner elevated the matter to his Court (docketed as Teofilo Cacho vs. Hon. Manindiara P. Mangotara, G.R. No. 85495) but we resolved to remand the case to the lower court, ordering the latter to accept the amended petition and to hear it as one for re-issuance of decree under the following guidelines:Considering the doctrines in Sta. Ana vs. Menla, 1 SCRA 1297 (1961) and Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. de Banuvar, 25 SCRA 315 [1968], and the lower court findings that the decrees had in fact been issued, the omnibus motion should have been heard as a motion to reissue the decrees in order to have a basis for the issuance of the titles and the respondents being heard in their opposition.Following the principle laid down in the above-quoted case, a question may be asked: Why should a decree be canceled and re-issued when the same is valid and intact? Within the context of this discussion, there is no dispute that a decree has been validly issued. And in fact, in some instances, a copy of such decree is intact. What is not known is whether or not an OCT is issued pursuant to that decree. If such decree is valid, why is there a need to have it cancelled and re-issued?
Considering the foregoing, we resolve to order the lower court to accept the amended petition subject to the private respondent's being given. the opportunity to answer and to present their defenses. The evidence already on record shall be allowed to stand but opportunity to controvert existing evidence shall be given the parties."
Again, we invite you back to the highlighted provision of Section 39 of PD 1529 which states that: "The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration." This provision is significant because it contemplates an OCT which is an exact replica of the decree. If the old decree will not be canceled and no new decree issued, the corresponding OCT issued today will bear the signature of the present Administrator while the decree upon which it was based shall bear the signature of the past Administrator. This is not consistent with the clear intention of the law which states that the OCT shall be true copy of the decree of registration. Ostensibly, therefore, the cancellation of the old decree and the issuance of a new one is necessary.
x x x x
4. The heirs of the original adjudicate may file the petition in representation of the decedent and the re-issued decree shall still he under the name of the original adjudicate.
It is a well settled rule that succession operates upon the death of the decedent. The heirs shall then succeed into the shoes of the decedent. The heirs shall have the legal interest in the property, thus, they cannot be prohibited from filing the necessary petition.
As the term connotes, a mere re-issuance of the decree means that the new decree shall be issued which shall, in all respects, be the same as that of the original decree. Nothing in the said decree shall be amended nor modified; hence, it must be under the name of the original adjudicate. (Emphasis and underscoring in tlie original)
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig; rollo, pp. 48-53.
2 Penned by Judge Ester M. Veloso; id. at 54-56.
3 Entitled "Petition for the Re-issuance of a Decree and for the Issuance of Original Certificate of Title"; id. at 57-64.
4 Id. at 57-61.
5 Id. at 79.
6 Id. at 80-81.
7 Id. at 66-67.
8 Id. at 65.
9 Id. at 71.
10 Id. at 68-70.
11 Tax Declaration for the year 2002 was attached to the petition; id. at 72-73.
12 Id. at 87-97.
13 Id. at 99.
14 Id. at 55-56.
15 Id. at 100-102.
16 Id. at 110-115.
17 Id. at 116-117.
18 Id. at 121-124.
19 Id. at 50-51.
20 Id. at 51.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 53.
23J. M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Macalindong, No. L-15398, December 29, 1962; Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004.
24Ramos v. Osorio, G.R. No. 27306, April 29, 1971, 38 SCRA 469.
25 Section 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.
26 Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides:
The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment (Emphasis supplied).
27Rollo, p. 26.
28 As stated in Decree No. 99500; id. at 66-67.
29 No. L-15564, April 29, 1961, 1 SCRA 1297.
30 No. L-22110, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 316.
31 G.R. No. 168913, March 14, 2007.
32 Presidential Decree No. 1529, entitled "Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes."
33Republic v. Nillas, G.R. No. 159595, January 23, 2007.
34 Rollo, p. 33.
35 Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, witlrin fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send, witlrin fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original certificate of title shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where U1e property is situated for entry in his registration book.
36 G.R. No. 212388, December 10, 2014.