GR L 13333; (November, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-13333; November 24, 1959
ZOSIMO ROJAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE CITY OF TAGAYTAY and HON. JOSE B. JIMENEZ, Judge, Branch III, Court of First Instance of Cavite, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Zosimo Rojas, et al., are the registered owners of a parcel of land under Original Certificate of Title No. 29, issued on December 5, 1940, pursuant to a decree in Land Registration Case No. 398. The land, with an area of 67,434 square meters, is covered by plan Psu-103916. On January 22, 1957, the City of Tagaytay filed Land Registration Case No. 323, applying for the original registration of six parcels, including Lot No. 1 of plan Psu-103916-Amd. (an amendatory/subdivision plan of Psu-103916), with an area of 21,812 square meters. The City claimed it purchased this lot from Zosimo Rojas in 1937, but the deed was allegedly lost. No opposition was filed, and the court, after an order of general default, decreed the registration of Lot No. 1 in favor of the City on June 30, 1957. On July 15, 1957, the petitioners filed a petition to set aside this decision, alleging that Lot No. 1 was part of their already registered property and that they, as adjoining owners cited in the application, did not receive actual notice as required. The lower court denied their petition on December 2, 1957, prompting the petitioners to file this certiorari action.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance, sitting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction to decree the registration of Lot No. 1 in favor of the City of Tagaytay, considering that the same lot was already previously decreed and registered in the names of the petitioners.
RULING
No. The Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the lower court’s order of December 2, 1957, and its decision dated June 30, 1957, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.
The Court held that a court has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration of land already decreed in an earlier land registration case. The prior decree in favor of the petitioners and the issuance of OCT No. 29 constituted a proceeding in rem, binding upon the whole world, including the respondent City. The registration of the property in the petitioners’ name serves as a standing notice that the land is already registered. To allow a second decree for the same land would defeat the purpose of the Torrens system to quiet title and guarantee indefeasibility. The City’s proper remedy, if it indeed purchased the lot, was to have its deed registered and obtain a transfer certificate of title, not to apply for original registration. The Court’s decision was limited to nullifying the land registration court’s action of issuing a second decree for an already registered property.