CONSTANCIO ABAPO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUAN Y. REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH I, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, THE HONORABLE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSIONER, ANTONIO A. ZOSA…

Catalina Gabuya, Prudencio Gabuya, Felipa Jaca,
Leonarda N. Tomakin, and Lucas Nadela filed a “Petition for
Reconstitution of Lost Certificate of Title and/or Application for Registration
of Title” of a parcel of land, more particularly identified as Lot 4673 of
the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, situated in Cebu City, before the
then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I.

Constancio Abapo, herein
petitioner, Jovencio Abapo, herein private respondent, and the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, opposed the
petition.

Upon motion, Antonio A.
Zosa, herein private respondent, was allowed by the court to intervene.

The required notice and
publication were complied with and, after hearing, the lower court rendered a
decision, dated August 24, 1973, the decretal portion of which reads –

“ACCORDINGLY, this Court dismisses the petition application
for registra­tion. The Land
Registration Commissioner is directed to immediately issue a reconstructed
decree of registration of Lot No. 4673 under date of November 3, 1938 in the
end that the Register of Deeds of Cebu City may issue the corresponding
original certificate of title in the name of Juana Gabuya, and said
Register of Deeds is hereby commanded and directed to register, pursuant to
existing and pertinent provisions of the Land Registration Act, all subsequent
tran­sactions affecting said property involving the rights and interests of
Antonio A. Zosa and Remedios Abelgas in said original certificate of title
especially with respect to portions or sublots therein conveyed to them upon
presentation of the proper documents, reserving the right of the oppositors to
institute a separate and appropriate civil action for recovery of possession of
and/or ownership over the aforestated portion or sublots.

“Let the ownership and possession of the Government over
Eighty-Five (85) square meters, which is now part of C. Padilla Street,
otherwise known as the Cebu
South Road by virtue of a road right of way agreement affecting the land, be noted in the original
certificate of title to be issued pursuant to this decision, said right having
been explicitly admitted by the parties in open court.

‘”No pronouncement as to costs.” (Underlining supplied,
pp. 51-52, Rollo)

Private respondent
Antonio A. Zosa filed a “Motion for Reconsideration and/or for
Clarification of the Dispositive Portion of the Court Decision,” and the court a quo, on November 29, 1973, issued an order (decision), the dispositive portion of which states –

“For all the foregoing, this Court reconsiders its decision of
August 24, 1973 and the disposition thereof
is hereby amended and/or altered so as to appear and read, as follows:

“ACCORDINGLY, this Court renders judgment:

“(1)    Approving
the application of Antonio A. Zosa, married to Remedios Abelgas, Filipino
citizen, and a resident of Cebu
City, Philippines, for registration of Lots Nos. 4673-C, 4673-D, and 4673-E,
portions of Lots. No. 4673, of the
Cadastral Survey of Cebu, containing areas of 1,673, 1,673, and 1,673 square
meters, respectively, as described in the corresponding plans and technical
descriptions, and ordering the confirmation and registration of titles to the
aforestated lots, including improvements thereon, in the name of said
applicants;

“(2)    Ordering the confirmation and registration
of title to Lot No. 4673-A, portion of Lot 4673, Cebu Cadastral Survey, in favor of Constancio Abapo, single, resident of Cebu City and Jovencio
Abapo, married to Faustina Cabaluna, likewise a resident of Cebu City, in equal undivided shares,
including the improvements thereon.

“This decision shall be subject to the provisions of Section
39 of Act 496. Further, let the ownership and possession of the National
Government over eighty-five (85) square meters, which is now part of C. Padilla
Street, otherwise known as the Cebu South Road by virtue of right of way agreement, affecting Lot No. 4673 be
noted in the original certificate of title, said right having been explicitly
admitted and conceded by the parties.

“SO ORDERED.”

(pp. 64-65, Rollo)

Herein petitioner
Constancio Abapo appealed to the then Court of Appeals which, however,
dismissed the appeal due to failure on his part to file the appeal brief. As a consequence, herein private respondent
Antonio A. Zosa filed with the court a quo a “Motion for
Issuance of Decree and for a Writ of Possession.” The motion was granted
by the court in its order, dated June 16, 1976, “adjudicating Lot No. 2,
of the Sketch Plan of Lots 4673-A and 4673-B, to Jovencio Abapo, having an area
of 906 square meters, and Lot No. 1, having an area of 907 square meters to
Constancio Abapo,” and ordering the Land Registration Commission to issue
the corresponding and separate decrees for the respective shares of the aforenamed
oppositor and co-oppositor. (p. 119,
Rollo)

On March 9, 1977, the
Land Registration Commissioner submitted a report to the court a quo
that it can not comply with its order of June 16, 1976 because –

“1.    x x x upon verification and examination of
our Records Book Cadastral Lots, it was found that Decree No. 687556 was issued
on November 3, 1938; for Lot No. 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, Province of Cebu. Copy, however, of the aforesaid decree is no longer available in this Commission. Our records further show that this Lot No.
4673 is the subject of an annotation, to wit: ‘R.A. 26, January 25, 1960.’;

“2.    x x
x in the order of the Court dated June 16, 1976, Lot No. 1 and Lot No. 2 of Ces-07-01-000011 (Before Lots
4673-A and 4673-B, Psd-­6880 Amd.), were adjudicated to Constancio Abapo and
Jovencio Abapo, respectively, and ordering as well the issuance of the
corresponding decrees for the said adjudicatees; and

“3.    x x x it will result to a duplication of
decree and/or title.” (p, 69, Rollo)

Whereupon, herein
petitioner Constancio Abapo filed a
motion praying that the court’s order (decision) dated
November 29, 1973, be set aside and the decision of August 24, 1973 be
maintained.

The court denied the
motion “for utter lack of merit, x x x the order (decision) of November
29, 1973 having already become final and executory.” (p. 78, Rollo) Hence,
the filing of this petition for certiorari,
prohibition with preliminary and/or mandatory injunction seeking to annul
and/or set aside the order of the lower court dated November 29, 1973, and to
prohibit respondent court from proceeding with the petition for registration
covering Lot No. 4673 of the Cebu Cadastre.

We find the petition to
be meritorious and tenable.

The petition filed before
the lower court was for reconstitution of lost certificate of title. In fact, paragraphs two,
three and four of the said petition state:

“That sometime in 1938 or subse­quently thereto an original
certificate of title No. (N.A.) was issued in favor of the following persons: Regina Gabuya, Rufino Gabuya, Catalina Gabuya and Matea Gabuya in equal
shares and a portion measuring 140 square meters, more or less, on the right
side of said land facing the Provincial Road to Epifania Gabuya;

“That the certificate of title which was issued was valid and
existing but the same was lost and/or destroyed
by reason of the operation of the last World War and despite diligent
and repeated endeavors to locate them could not be found even up to the present;

“That the report of the General Land Registration Commission
concerning the issuance of said
certificate of title is hereto attached and marked annex ‘C’ and made a
part of this petition;” (pp.
19-20, Rollo)

Thus, the only issue is
whether there is a title to be reconstituted. “That is the only purpose of
the law (Republic Act No. 26). If there
is, then it is the duty of the court to comply with its mandate. Whether the petitioner has the right to
acquire the land or not, is beyond the province of this proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper
action (Director of Lands vs. Gan Tan, 89 Phil. 184, 187).” And, as
properly observed by the
Solicitor General in his comment to the petition, “[i]n the case at bar,
the evidence could not justify reconstitution. Proof of the certificate of title allegedly lost was
wanting. The court a quo, therefore, correctly
dismissed the petition in its Decision dated August 24, 1973. But when it reconsidered said decision by
ordering the registration of the property per its order dated November 29,
1973, it patently transcended its jurisdiction and overlooked the doctrine
above reproduced. It was an error to do
so. For, as stated, the court a quo was limited to
resolving whether reconstitution was proper or not.” (pp. 178-179, Rollo)

Records of the Land
Registration Commission show that Decree No. 687556 was issued on November 3,
1938, for Lot No. 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu, Province of Cebu. As aptly stated by the court a quo in its decision of August 24, 1973 –

“It cannot be denied however that there has been no original
certificate of title which has been issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu covering the aforestated property, and thus
all subsequent dealings affect­ing such property could not be registered as
provided by law. To declare that there
has been no decree of registration would be to brush aside the certifica­tion
of the Land Registration Commis­sion that Decree No. 687556 was issued on
November 3, 1938 covering Lot 4673. This affirmation of the office in charge of the duties of issuing
decrees of registration must be given weight and credibility. Hence, such decree of registration No.
687556 prevents this Court, by the principle of res judicata, from adjudicating
the case anew because the aforestated decree of 1938 has already become
conclusive upon all persons and against the whole world effective as of
November 3, 1939 or thereabouts. The
resultant effect of such decree was to bring the land under the Torrens Act
which is an agreement running with the land, theoretically binding upon the
appli­cant and all persons claiming title or an interest therein at the time of
the original hearing of the registration proceedings. (See Nidlack, Analysis of the Torrens System, Sec. 60, p.
101; see also Section 45, Act No. 496). In the final legal analysis, this Court has no further authority or
jurisdiction to adju­dicate the case anew because the original decision and
decree have already become final and conclusive. (Reyes vs. Borbon, 50 Phil. 791). To declare the non-existence of a decree which in fact was issued
would moreover result in long drawn out confusion, multiplicity of suits,
uncertainty of the statue of the lot in question, especially with respect to
the persons who are at present claim­ing possessory or proprietary rights over
the same.” (pp. 48-49, Rollo)

It was an error on the part of the lower court to issue the order
(decision) of November 29, 1973.

ACCORDINGLY, the order (decision) of November 29, 1973 is
SET ASIDE and the decision of the court a quo, dated August 24, 1973, is reinstated. Respondent is hereby enjoined from further
proceeding with the re-registration of Lot No. 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of
Cebu.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., (Chairman), in
the result.