G.R. No. L-6095
MARIA SALUD FLORES, applicant, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, opponent.
December 16, 1910

FACTS:
Maria Salud Flores applied for the registration of two parcels of land. Her application was initially approved. Subsequently, Mariano Limjap petitioned for a revision regarding one of the parcels (located in Samboanga, Antipolo). During the new hearing, Flores recognized Limjap’s right to a portion of this land (437.50 square meters), which Limjap had acquired at a public auction. The Court of Land Registration (CLR) then decreed the adjudication and registration of this specific portion to Limjap (later conveyed to Cayetano Arguelles).

To segregate Arguelles’s portion from Flores’s, Flores presented a plan, which she stated was an exact copy of a Bureau of Lands (BoL) plan, but with the segregated portion demarcated. This plan, signed only by Maria Salud Flores, indicated Arguelles’s land as 437.50 sq m and Flores’s as 18,706.50 sq m. The CLR initially ordered a decree based on this plan.

However, a CLR surveyor pointed out that the plan was signed by an unauthorized person (Flores) and recommended that it be returned for a new plan duly approved by the BoL, as required by Act No. 1937 . The CLR clerk also noted incorrect area statements and suggested an amended application, which Flores and Arguelles filed, slightly rectifying the areas. Despite the surveyor’s objection, the CLR ruled to admit the plan. The Attorney-General protested this ruling, arguing it was contrary to Acts Nos. 1875 and 1937, and moved for reconsideration. The CLR denied the motion, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE:
Is it necessary for a plan, which segregates a portion of land from a larger parcel (whose original plan was drawn by the Bureau of Lands), to be signed by an authorized surveyor and subsequently approved by the Bureau of Lands, especially when the segregation is due to a prior claim and the property has not yet been finally registered?

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the appealed order admitting the plan signed only by the applicant is reversed. The Court emphasized that the property had not yet been registered, and the segregation was a result of an opponent’s claim, not a post-registration sale. Therefore, strict adherence to the requirements of the law, specifically Act No. 1937 , for accurate measurements and proper authorization of the surveyor, is necessary. The plan, having been signed by an unauthorized person and containing inaccuracies in area, was not acceptable. The Court ordered the Court of Land Registration to require the filing of another plan prepared in conformity with the provisions of Act No. 1937 .