GR 38554; (June, 1934) (Digest)
G.R. No. 38554; June 19, 1934
FRANCISCO P. SINGIAN, applicant-appellee, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Francisco P. Singian applied for registration of two parcels of land. The Court of First Instance of Tarlac rendered a decision on February 10, 1928, ordering the registration and adjudication of the lots in favor of Singian, subject to an amended plan (Psu-27825-Amd.) to be approved. The court approved the amended plan by order dated November 24, 1930, and directed the issuance of the corresponding decree. However, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Decree No. 447619 on July 31, 1931, which contained an alteration not in conformity with the approved amended plan. Singian moved to cancel this decree. The Manila Railroad Company, which had obtained a decree in a subsequent land registration case (No. 1003) that allegedly included a portion of the land awarded to Singian, opposed the motion. The trial court granted Singian’s motion, ordered the cancellation of the decree, and directed the issuance of a new decree in accordance with the approved amended plan. The Manila Railroad Company appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the Chief of the General Land Registration Office can issue a decree that departs from the court’s decision and approved plan in a land registration case.
RULING
No. The order of the trial court is affirmed. The judgment in a land registration case is a judgment in rem and binds the whole world. The decree of registration must strictly conform to the decision of the court authorizing its issuance. The duty of the Chief of the General Land Registration Office in issuing the decree is purely ministerial. Since the decision of February 10, 1928, had become final and required issuance of a decree based on the approved amended plan (Psu-27825-Amd.), the Chief had no authority to alter it. The proceedings in the subsequent registration case (No. 1003) involving the Manila Railroad Company could not affect the final and executory decision in Singian’s case. A court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an earlier case.
AI Generated by Armztrong.