FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 7298. January 24, 1913. ]
FRANCISCA LIM CUMPAO, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. HONORATA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., opponents-appellees.
Perfecto Gabriel for Appellants.
Jose Santiago for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; SUBSTITUTION OF PETITIONERS BY AGREEMENT IN A PENDING ACTION NOT PERMISSIBLE. — An opponent cannot, by agreement with a petitioner, in an action for the registration of land under the Torrens system, he substituted for the latter and have the land registered in his name. If the opponent desires to have the property registered in his name, he must commence an original action for the purpose and must comply with all the requirements of the law relating to the publication of notice, etc.
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
This was an action commenced in the Court of Land Registration to register, under the Torrens system in favor of the plaintiffs, a parcel of land particularly described in the complaint. The registration in the name of the plaintiff was opposed by the defendants.
After the publication of the notices required by law, the original plaintiffs, on or about the 3rd of November, 1910, attempted to have substituted one of the opponents, Vicente Rodriguez, as party plaintiff. There is nothing in the record which shows that the said amendment was ever allowed by the court. Neither was there any additional publication of the notices required by law, announcing that the petitioner in the original action had been changed. At the time of the attempted substitutions of Vicente Rodriguez in place of the original petitioner, Vicente Rodriguez has already appeared as one of the opponents. This court has heretofore decided that the respondent in an action for the registration of land, under the Torrens system, if he desires to have the land registered in his name, must begin a new proceeding in the Land Court for the purpose and follow the procedure marked our by the law. (Tecson v. Dominicos, 19 Phil. Rep., 79; City of Manila v. Lack, 19 Phil. Rep., 324.) This doctrine is also supported by the cases of Foss v. Atkins (201 Mass., 158; 204 Mass., 337); People ex. ret. Smith v. Crissman (41 Colo., 450).
Following the above doctrine as heretofore announced, we are of the opinion that the opponent cannot, by agreement with the petitioner in an action for the registration of land under the Torrens system, be substituted for the latter, and have the title to the land registered hi his name. This certainly cannot be done under the present law and under the facts in the present case. If an opponent desires to have the property registered in his name me must commence an original action for that purpose and must comply with all the requirements of the law as to publication of notices, etc.
The lower court, after hearing the evidence adduced, found that the original plaintiff was not entitled to the registration of the land in question and dismissed the petition. From the decision an appeal was taken to this court.
After a careful examination of the record and for the reason hereinbefore stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.
After the publication of the notices required by law, the original plaintiffs, on or about the 3rd of November, 1910, attempted to have substituted one of the opponents, Vicente Rodriguez, as party plaintiff. There is nothing in the record which shows that the said amendment was ever allowed by the court. Neither was there any additional publication of the notices required by law, announcing that the petitioner in the original action had been changed. At the time of the attempted substitutions of Vicente Rodriguez in place of the original petitioner, Vicente Rodriguez has already appeared as one of the opponents. This court has heretofore decided that the respondent in an action for the registration of land, under the Torrens system, if he desires to have the land registered in his name, must begin a new proceeding in the Land Court for the purpose and follow the procedure marked our by the law. (Tecson v. Dominicos, 19 Phil. Rep., 79; City of Manila v. Lack, 19 Phil. Rep., 324.) This doctrine is also supported by the cases of Foss v. Atkins (201 Mass., 158; 204 Mass., 337); People ex. ret. Smith v. Crissman (41 Colo., 450).
Following the above doctrine as heretofore announced, we are of the opinion that the opponent cannot, by agreement with the petitioner in an action for the registration of land under the Torrens system, be substituted for the latter, and have the title to the land registered hi his name. This certainly cannot be done under the present law and under the facts in the present case. If an opponent desires to have the property registered in his name me must commence an original action for that purpose and must comply with all the requirements of the law as to publication of notices, etc.
The lower court, after hearing the evidence adduced, found that the original plaintiff was not entitled to the registration of the land in question and dismissed the petition. From the decision an appeal was taken to this court.
After a careful examination of the record and for the reason hereinbefore stated, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.
