GR L 14918; (October, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14918; October 18, 1920
Case Title: The Government of the Philippine Islands, petitioner-appellee, vs. Domingo Zamora and Fausta Santo Domingo, claimants-appellants. Maria Concepcion Martinez Cañas de Reguera, claimant-appellee.
FACTS:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in a cadastral proceeding. The appeal concerns Lots 9 and 10. Appellant Domingo Zamora purchased a parcel (allegedly Lot 9) from the Government on January 27, 1908, and obtained a Torrens certificate of title on July 12, 1913. Appellant Fausta Santo Domingo likewise purchased a parcel (allegedly Lot 10) from the Government on January 27, 1908, and obtained her Torrens title on the same date, July 12, 1913. In the cadastral proceedings, they opposed the registration of these lots based on their existing certificates. Their claim was opposed by claimant-appellee Maria Concepcion Martinez Cañas de Reguera, who asserted ownership over strips of land on the southern boundaries of both lots, claiming these strips were integral parts of the Payatas Estate. Reguera based her claim on Certificate of Title No. 333, issued to her on January 31, 1905, under the Torrens system. The lower court sustained Reguera’s contention, prompting Zamora and Santo Domingo to appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the strips of land on the southern boundaries of Lots 9 and 10 had been registered under the Torrens system in the name of Maria Concepcion Martinez Cañas de Reguera prior to the issuance of the certificates of title to appellants Domingo Zamora and Fausta Santo Domingo.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. After a careful examination of the evidence, the Court found that the preponderance of evidence showed the disputed strips of land had been registered in the name of Reguera several years before certificates of title were issued to the appellants. Applying the doctrine established in Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby (31 Phil. 590), the Court held that where two certificates of title include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. In successive registrations, the person holding under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the person who obtained the later certificate. Since Reguera’s title (1905) was earlier than those of the appellants (1913), her ownership over the disputed portions was upheld. The decree of registration is conclusive against all persons. The judgment was affirmed without costs.