FACTS:

Respondent Claro Yap filed a petition for cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 covering a parcel of land in Carcar, Cebu. Yap alleged that he acquired ownership over the said lot through inheritance and donation, and that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous and exclusive possession of the lot since 1945. He also claimed that no certificate of title was ever issued for the lot, and that there were no encumbrances or interests of any other person other than him.

The RTC found Yap's evidence sufficient and granted his petition, ordering the cancellation of Decree No. 99500 and the re-issuance thereof in the name of Andres Abellana, as Administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez. The RTC also directed the issuance of an Original Certificate of Title in Abellana's name. Yap filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking that the decree and title be issued in his name instead of Abellana's. The RTC denied the motion.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an appeal before the CA, arguing that Yap's petition should be denied due to insufficiency of evidence and failure to implead indispensable parties. The CA upheld the RTC's ruling, stating that Yap's evidence was sufficient and dismissing the OSG's argument on joinder of indispensable parties. The OSG then filed a petition before the Supreme Court, raising similar arguments and also asserting that the action had already prescribed.

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not the RTC correctly ordered the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 and the issuance of the corresponding Original Certificate of Title covering the lot.

ISSUES:

1. Whether prescription can be raised for the first time on appeal.

2. Whether the petition is barred by the statute of limitations.

3. Whether the registration of the lot settled its ownership and is binding on the whole world.

4. Whether the December 10, 1976 decision became extinct due to the failure to execute it within the prescriptive period.

5. Whether the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 is proper and supported by evidence.

6. Whether the heirs of the original adjudicate may file the petition for cancellation and re-issuance of the decree in representation of the decedent.

7. Whether or not the cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 and the corresponding OCT covering Lot No. 922 in the name of its original adjudicate is justified.

8. Whether or not the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) was arbitrary or disregarded evidence on record.

RULING:

1. Prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The general rule is that the appellate court is not authorized to consider and resolve any question not properly raised in the courts below.

2. The petition is not barred by the statute of limitations. The issuance of the decree is a ministerial duty of the court and failure to file a motion to execute the decree cannot prejudice the owner or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered.

3. The registration of the lot settled its ownership and is binding on the whole world, including petitioner.

4. The December 10, 1976 decision did not become extinct due to the failure to execute it within the prescriptive period.

5. The cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 is proper and supported by evidence.

6. The heirs of the original adjudicate may file the petition for cancellation and re-issuance of the decree in representation of the decedent.

7. The cancellation and re-issuance of Decree No. 99500 and the corresponding OCT covering Lot No. 922 in the name of its original adjudicate is justified. The Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and holds that the cancellation and re-issuance should be under the name of the original adjudicate, Andres Abellana, as Administrator of the Estate of Juan Rodriguez. No amendment or modification to the original decree is allowed.

8. The decision of the CA was not arbitrary and did not disregard evidence on record. The Supreme Court sees no reason to overturn the factual findings and the ruling of the CA. The petitioner failed to prove that the CA's decision was arbitrarily made or that evidence on record was disregarded.

PRINCIPLES:

• Prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

• The issuance of a decree in a land registration proceeding creates a strong presumption that the decision has become final and executory.

• The statute of limitations and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court do not apply in land registration proceedings.

• After the ownership of a land has been confirmed by judicial declaration in a land registration case, no further proceeding to enforce said ownership is necessary, except when the adverse party is in possession and the winning party desires to oust him therefrom.

• The issuance of a decree in a land registration case is a ministerial duty of the court and the clerk, and failure to file a motion to execute the decree cannot prejudice the owner or the person in whom the land is ordered to be registered.

• A final judgment confirming land title and ordering its registration constitutes res judicata against the whole world and the adjudicate need not file a motion to execute the same.

• The registration of a lot settles its ownership and is binding on the whole world.

• The rules on prescription and laches do not apply to land registration cases.

• The cancellation and re-issuance of a decree may be necessary to ensure that the decree and the original certificate of title are exact replicas of each other.

• Heirs of the original adjudicate may file a petition for cancellation and re-issuance of a decree in representation of the decedent.

• The cancellation and re-issuance of a decree should be under the name of the original adjudicate, without any amendment or modification to the original decree.

• The Supreme Court will not overturn the factual findings and ruling of the CA unless there is proof that the decision was arbitrarily made or evidence on record was disregarded.