GR 10366; (December, 1916) (Digest)

Case Digest: Tambunting v. Manuel (G.R. No. 10366, December 12, 1916)

Doctrine: A motion to reopen a judgment of ownership in a land registration case, made before the issuance of the final decree of registration, is permissible. However, the burden of proof rests on the movant to present sufficient and competent evidence to overcome the applicant’s established title. A surveyor’s report based on assumptions, probabilities, and defective plans, without clear and definitive evidence, is insufficient to meet this burden.

Facts:
1. Ildefonso Tambunting (applicant-appellant) filed an application for land registration.
2. The Court of Land Registration rendered a judgment declaring Tambunting the owner of the property described in his application. However, no formal decree of registration was issued at that time.
3. Three months later, the heirs of Mariano Manuel (objectors-appellees) filed a motion to vacate the judgment. They sought to exclude three parcels of land, claiming these were already included in a Torrens title they obtained in 1905 (Case No. 1668).
4. The movants presented no evidence to support their claim. The court, sua sponte, ordered the Manila city surveyor to investigate.
5. The surveyor’s report concluded that:
Lot 2 of Tambunting’s plan was included in the Manuel title, based on an old wall and measurements, though he noted discrepancies and that the old plans were “undoubtedly defective.”
Lots 3 and 10 were likely not included, as the old plan’s distances were erroneous and contradicted by existing structures.
6. Relying solely on this report, the Court of Land Registration modified its original judgment and excluded Lot 2 from Tambunting’s registration.
7. Tambunting appealed, arguing the judgment was final and the evidence was insufficient.

Issue:
1. Whether the Court of Land Registration erred in reopening its judgment declaring Tambunting the owner.
2. Whether the surveyor’s report constituted sufficient evidence to overcome Tambunting’s established title and warrant the exclusion of Lot 2.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Court of Land Registration.

Reasoning:
1. On the Finality of the Judgment: The Court distinguished between a judgment of ownership and a decree of registration. Under Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act), it is the decree of registration that becomes final, subject only to the grounds in Section 38 (e.g., fraud, lack of jurisdiction). Since no decree had been issued in this case, the proceeding was still pending. Therefore, the court had the power to reopen or modify its judgment on ownership before issuing the final decree.

2. On the Sufficiency of Evidence: The Supreme Court held that the surveyor’s report was inadequate to support the exclusion of Lot 2.
Burden of Proof: The burden shifted to the Manuels (movants) to prove their claim that the lot was already registered under their name. They presented no evidence of their own.
Defects in the Report: The surveyor’s report was based on defective plans and admitted an inability to precisely locate boundaries due to obliterated reference points. His conclusion regarding Lot 2 was based on “assumption,” “argument,” and “probabilities,” not on clear, definitive evidence.
* Insufficient to Overcome Title: Tambunting’s ownership had already been established by evidence (undisputed at the time of the original judgment). The speculative and inconclusive surveyor’s report was not the “fair preponderance of evidence” required to overcome that established title.

Disposition:
The order and judgment excluding Lot 2 were reversed. The case was remanded to the Court of Land Registration with instructions to deny the motion of the Manuels and to proceed with the issuance of the decree in accordance with law.

Concurrence:
Justice Trent concurred in the result only.