G.R. No. 136280 ; August 30, 2001
ORCHARD REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On February 8, 1994, petitioner Orchard Realty and Development Corporation filed an application for original registration of a 51,046-square meter parcel of land in Tagaytay City, which it allegedly acquired in 1993 from its predecessors-in-interest who had possessed it publicly, continuously, and adversely since time immemorial. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the application, alleging the applicant and its predecessors were not in possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite granted the application on December 9, 1994. The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the appeal, the Court of Appeals granted petitioner’s motion to remand the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence. After the additional evidence was submitted, the Court of Appeals, on March 31, 1998, reversed the RTC decision. It found that the land sought to be registered was a portion of Lot 4020, which had already been titled in the name of Rosita Belarmino under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. OP-760, issued by virtue of Free Patent No. 023382 in 1986. The Court of Appeals held that unless and until OCT No. OP-760 was cancelled, the application for original registration of a portion thereof could not be entertained. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching a January 13, 1998 RTC decision in a separate case (Civil Case No. TG-1740) that declared Free Patent No. 023382 and OCT No. OP-760 null and void ab initio. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the application for registration on the ground that the land was already covered by a subsisting certificate of title (OCT No. OP-760) issued to another person.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court ruled that at the time petitioner filed its application for registration on February 8, 1994, the land was already covered by OCT No. OP-760 issued to Rosita Belarmino on July 20, 1986. Consequently, the land had ceased to be part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public domain and could no longer be acquired by acquisitive prescription or registered under Section 14(1) of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The proper procedure was to first seek the annulment of the existing title. The subsequent RTC decision in Civil Case No. TG-1740 (dated January 13, 1998) declaring the title null and void did not alter the fact that a title existed and was subsisting at the time of the application’s filing. The legal effect of that annulment decision was to revert the property to the public domain, to be disposed of under the Public Land Act, not to validate petitioner’s application for original registration. The Court emphasized the need to prevent the proliferation of titles over the same land and to safeguard the integrity of the Torrens system.