G. R .No. 39095. September 27, 1934

A. A. ADDISON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Decisions / Signed Resolutions September 27, 1934 HULL, J.:
Download PDF


HULL, J.:


Plaintiff brought suit in the Court of
First Instance of Rizal claiming to be the owner of a strip of land
situated in that province, then in the possession of defendants, and
for damages for its unlawful detention. After the case had been pending
in the trial court for many years, an agreed statement of facts was
entered into between the parties and signed by themselves and by their
various attorneys of record.

Defendants are the owners of a parcel of land described in the
original certificate of title No. 333 of the office of the register of
deeds of the Province of Rizal, issued on the 31st of January, 1905,
pursuant to land registration proceedings. Subsequently, in cadastral
proceedings, plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a large tract of
land, part of which was claimed to have been included in the
certificate of title No. 333, above mentioned.

In the statement of facts it was agreed that the strip of land in
dispute was included within the original certificate of title of
defendants, and in view of this stipulation of fact, the trial court
held that defendants were the owners of the land in question and
therefore were entitled to its possession and were not responsible in
damages for its detention.

Section 134 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes judgment on
an agreed statement of facts. This appeal therefore raises only the
narrow question of law, “Can land which has been duly registered and
for which Torrens certificate of title has been issued be given to
another in a cadastral proceeding?”

This question has been repeatedly answered by this court. The two cases of Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby (31 Phil., 590), and Reyes and Nadres vs.
Borbon and Director of Lands (50 Phil, 791), are sufficient to show
that the original owner cannot be divested of title by subsequent
cadastral proceedings.

The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed. No expression as to costs. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Abad Santos, Wickers, and Diaz, JJ., concur.