G.R. No. L-4463; March 24, 1953
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, for and in representation of the INSULAR GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, now the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL, THE CHIEF OF THE GENERAL LAND REGISTRATION OFFICE, respondents. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MALABON, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

On March 9, 1912, Judge Norberto Romualdez of the Court of Land Registration rendered a decision confirming the title of the Government of the Philippine Islands to a parcel of land. This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court on August 25, 1917. However, the decree issued on May 19, 1922, and the corresponding certificate of title were issued in the name of the Municipality of Malabon, not the Government. On September 12, 1949, the Director of Lands filed a petition in the original land registration case, alleging that the issuance in favor of the Municipality was due to a clerical error. The Director prayed for an order compelling the Municipality to surrender its certificate of title and for the Register of Deeds to issue a new one in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The Court of First Instance of Rizal, through Judge Gavino Abaya, granted the petition. The Municipality of Malabon appealed this order.

ISSUE

1. Was an error actually committed in the issuance of the decree and certificate of title in favor of the Municipality of Malabon?
2. Assuming there was an error, is the remedy provided under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) appropriate?

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order.
1. On the first issue, the Court found that the registration in the name of the Municipality was not necessarily erroneous or anomalous. A salvaged motion dated October 8, 1918, from the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, indicated that the Insular Government had ceded the land to the Municipality for school purposes and that a writ of possession was granted. The Court gave credence to this motion, noting the Fiscal’s statement that he was authorized by the Attorney General. The Court further noted that Section 29 of Act No. 496 allows for the conveyance of land under application after trial and before decree issuance, permitting the decree to be entered in the name of the transferee. Thus, the registration in the Municipality’s name could have been proper.
2. On the second issue, the Court held that Section 112 of the Land Registration Act was misinterpreted and misapplied. This section only authorizes alterations that do not impair recorded rights, are consented to by all concerned parties, or correct obvious mistakes. The Court emphasized that a decree of registration becomes incontrovertible after one year under Section 38 of the same Act. The procedure followed by the lower court, seeking to correct an alleged clerical error nearly 30 years after the decree’s issuance, constituted a substantial revision and nullification of the decree against the objection of the titleholder. This strikes at the foundation of the Torrens system’s indefeasibility. The proper remedy for a landowner whose property was wrongfully registered in another’s name, after one year from the decree, is not to set aside the decree but to file an ordinary action for reconveyance or, if the property has been transferred to an innocent purchaser, for damages. The appealed order was reversed, without prejudice to the Republic pursuing such an ordinary action.