GR 231116; (February, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 231116 February 7, 2018
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Claro Yap, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Claro Yap filed a petition for the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 covering Lot No. 922 and for the issuance of a corresponding Original Certificate of Title (OCT). He claimed ownership through inheritance and donation, asserting that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession since June 12, 1945, or earlier. Yap presented evidence including a certified copy of the 1920 decree, a certification from the Register of Deeds that no title had ever been issued for the lot, tax declarations from 1948 onwards, and documents tracing his acquisition. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition but ordered the re-issued decree and new OCT to be issued in the name of the original adjudicate, Andres Abellana, as administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez. Yap filed a partial motion for reconsideration, while the Republic, through the OSG, opposed, arguing insufficiency of evidence and failure to implead indispensable parties.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision to grant Yap’s petition for the re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 and the issuance of a corresponding OCT.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of a decree of registration and the proper remedy when a decree exists but no title is issued. A decree of registration is the operative act that confers title, while the certificate of title is merely the best evidence of such title. The Court held that where a valid decree exists but no certificate of title was ever issued, the remedy is not an original registration under the Property Registration Decree but a petition for the issuance of a decree pursuant to Section 39 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The RTC correctly ordered the re-issuance of the decree based on the original adjudication. The claim of the Republic regarding non-joinder of indispensable parties was unavailing as registration proceedings are in rem, binding the whole world upon publication. Furthermore, the OSG’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC decision rendered the factual findings of the trial court final and binding. The evidence on record, including the existence of the decree and the long-term possession and tax declarations, amply supported the grant of the petition.