G.R. No. 130871 February 17, 2006
FIL-ESTATE MANAGEMENT INC., MEGATOP REALTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PEAKSUN ENTERPRISES AND EXPORT CORP., ARTURO DY, AND ELENA DY JAO, Petitioners, vs. GEORGE H. TRONO, MA. TERESA TRONO, MA. VIRGINIA TRONO, JESSE TRONO, MA. CRISTINA TRONO, PATRICIA TRONO, MA. DIVINA TRONO, INOCENCIO TRONO, JR., CARMEN TRONO, AND ZENAIDA TRONO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents filed an application for original registration of a 245,536-square meter parcel of land in Las Piñas City. Petitioners and Ayala Land, Inc. filed oppositions, asserting that the land sought to be registered overlapped with properties already registered under the Torrens system in their names. Petitioners’ title, TCT No. T-9182, was registered as early as April 28, 1989. The Land Registration Authority and DENR survey reports confirmed the overlapping. Petitioners moved to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that a registration court cannot entertain an application for land already covered by a Torrens title.
The trial court denied the motion, holding it had jurisdiction over original registration applications. The Court of Appeals, via certiorari, reversed and ordered dismissal without prejudice, ruling that the incontrovertibility of a Torrens title deprives the court of jurisdiction. Petitioners moved for partial reconsideration, seeking a dismissal with prejudice and a declaration that any action for reconveyance had prescribed. The Court of Appeals denied this motion.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court has jurisdiction over an application for original registration of land already covered by a Torrens certificate of title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the dismissal of the application with prejudice. The Court held that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over lands already registered under the Torrens system. Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 provides that registration proceedings are in rem and shall be conclusive upon all persons. Once a decree of registration is made and the title is issued, the land is deemed registered and the court loses jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent application for the same land. This is rooted in the principle of indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of a Torrens title.
Here, petitioners’ title was registered five years before respondents’ application. The title had long become incontrovertible, as any direct attack must be filed within one year from the decree of registration. Respondents’ application, though phrased as an original registration, effectively constituted a collateral attack on petitioners’ existing title, which is impermissible. The proper remedy for respondents, if they had a claim, was a direct action for reconveyance or annulment of title, but such an action had already prescribed given the age of the decree. Therefore, the dismissal must be with prejudice to bar any further registration attempts on the same property.