GR L 45374; (May, 1939) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45374; May 27, 1939
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, applicant-appellant, vs. DANIEL TIRONA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
Manuel Rodriguez and Daniel Tirona owned adjacent lots (1127 and 1128, respectively) in Cavite. Rodriguez claimed that in 1911, they executed a public agreement fixing an embankment (pilapil) as their common boundary, with mutual conveyances of portions taken by the earlier surveys. However, this agreement was not presented during the 1915 cadastral proceedings. In 1916, a decree and original certificate of title were issued for Lot 1128 in favor of Tirona and his spouse, based on the official plan. Nineteen years later, in 1935, Rodriguez filed a motion to subdivide Lot 1128, seeking to segregate a triangular portion north of the embankment (claimed under the 1911 agreement) and obtain a separate title for it. Tirona opposed. The court denied Rodriguez’s motion. Subsequently, Tirona filed a motion for a writ of possession against Rodriguez, alleging molestation and illegal occupation of portions of Lot 1128.
ISSUE
1. Whether, after nineteen years from the issuance of a decree of registration, the plan of the registered land may be amended to segregate a portion claimed by an adjoining owner based on a prior agreement.
2. Whether, after the same period, a writ of possession may be issued against a person who was not a party-oppositor in the original registration case.
RULING
1. No. The court affirmed the denial of Rodriguez’s motion. The decree and certificate of title issued to Tirona conclusively described the land according to the official plan. Rodriguez’s failure to: (a) amend the plans after the alleged agreement, (b) oppose Tirona’s application for registration to exclude the claimed portion, or (c) file a petition for review of the decree within the one-year statutory period, forever barred his claim. Allowing the amendment would constitute an illegal revision of the decree after the prescriptive period, whether based on fraud or error.
2. No. The court reversed the order asserting jurisdiction to issue a writ of possession against Rodriguez. While a registration court may issue a writ of possession under the Land Registration Act, it is only proper against defeated oppositors in the same case. Since Rodriguez was not an oppositor in Tirona’s registration case, the remedy against him is an ordinary action, not a writ of possession.
The appealed order denying Rodriguez’s motion was affirmed; the order claiming jurisdiction to issue the writ was reversed. No costs.
AI Generated by Armztrong.