View full case

WIDOWS v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. (Widora), filed an application for registration of title for a parcel of land in Quezon City. They claimed that the land was covered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 issued in the name of Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership (Ortigas) filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that they were the registered owner of the land under TCT 77652 and TCT 77653. The trial court issued an order directing Widora to prove that the said TCTs were not proper derivatives of the original certificates of title.

Ortigas filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that a Torrens title becomes indefeasible after a year and that the Land Registration Commission had advised the court that the land being applied for was covered by valid titles in their name. The trial court denied Ortigas' motion and held that the TCTs were null and void. Ortigas filed a motion for reconsideration, disputing the ruling that the TCTs were null and void and arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the application since the land was already registered. The trial court affirmed its previous order. Ortigas then filed a petition for review seeking to annul the trial court's decision.

The case involves a land registration dispute between Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership (Ortigas) and Widora Development Corporation (Widora). Ortigas applied for registration of two parcels of land covered by TCT 77652 and TCT 77653, claiming that these parcels are within the larger parcel of land covered by OCT 351. Widora filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the application for registration since the parcels of land were already covered by Torrens Certificates of Title. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration and set the hearing on the merits.

Unsatisfied, Ortigas filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the respondent court, seeking the annulment of the orders of the trial court. The respondent court granted the petition and dismissed the land registration case. Ortigas argued that TCTs 77652 and 77653, although reflecting their origins as OCTs 337, 19, 336, and 334, are actually derivatives of OCT 351, which was issued pursuant to Decree 1425. The respondent court held that the absence of the original copy of Decree 1425 does not mean that it was not issued, and concluded that there was a mistake in the entries in TCTs 77652 and 77653, which should have referred to OCT 351 as their source.

Widora filed a petition before the Supreme Court arguing that the respondent court's decision contradicts the law and applicable decisions of the Court and that the court wrongly upheld the existence of TCTs 77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration. Widora also maintained that the respondent court utilized secondary evidence, OCT 351, instead of the original document. Widora further argued that the respondent court had no authority to enjoin the trial on the merits of the land registration case since jurisdiction resides with the Regional Trial Court acting as a land registration court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondent court erred in sustaining the validity of TCTs Nos. 77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration and the use of secondary evidence.

  2. Whether the respondent court had the authority to enjoin the trial on the merits of LRC No. Q-336.

  3. Whether or not a certificate of title can be deemed conclusive evidence of ownership when the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin.

  4. Whether or not the denial of respondent Ortigas' motion to dismiss deprived it of any participation in the case and factual determination of the parties' allegations.

RULING:

  1. The petitioner's contention is meritorious. The evidence presented by the respondent to prove the contents of Decree 1425, which includes the plan submitted by respondent Ortigas, the testimony of its surveyor, and OCT 351, is secondary evidence. Before secondary evidence can be admitted, there must be proof of the execution of the original writing and that it has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court. The respondent failed to meet these requisites, thus the secondary evidence should not have been admitted.

  2. The respondent court had no authority to substitute its findings regarding the extent of the coverage of the land included in TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653. Such function is properly lodged with the trial court sitting as a land registration court and only after a full investigation of the matter on the merits. The case involves a vast tract of land and calls for a full trial on the merits to resolve the disputed facts.

  3. A certificate of title cannot be considered conclusive evidence of ownership when the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin. This is in line with the pronouncement of the Court in previous cases such as Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby, Caragay-Layno v. Court of Appeals, Coronel v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Goloy v. Court of Appeals, and Miranda v. Court of Appeals.

  4. The denial of respondent Ortigas' motion to dismiss does not mean that it is deprived of any participation in the case and factual determination of the parties' allegations. The trial court correctly stated that the denial of the motion only signifies that Ortigas can still present its evidence regarding its alleged ownership of the property subject of the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Before admitting secondary evidence, there must be proof of the execution of the original writing and that it has been lost, destroyed, or cannot be produced in court.

  • The trial court sitting as a land registration court has the authority to determine the extent of the coverage of land titles and should conduct a full investigation of the matter on the merits.

  • The title to and binds the land only if a decree of registration had been issued covering the said land.

  • An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and should be corrected by appeal after trial and judgment on the merits.

  • A certificate of title cannot be altered, amended, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

  • No correction of a certificate of title shall be made except by order of the court in a petition filed for the purpose and entitled in the original case where the decree of registration was entered.

  • The court is not authorized to alter or correct the certificate of title if it would mean reopening the decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law.

  • A certificate of title cannot be considered conclusive evidence of ownership when it is faulty as to its purported origin. (Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby, Caragay-Layno v. Court of Appeals, Coronel v. Intermediate Appellate Court, Goloy v. Court of Appeals, and Miranda v. Court of Appeals)