SPOUSES MARIANO AND ERLINDA LABURADA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

Laburada versus Land Registration Authority

The Case

This is a special civil action for mandamus brought by Spouses Mariano and Erlinda Laburada, through their attorney-in-fact, against the Land Registration Authority. The petitioners had been adjudged in a land registration proceeding to have a registrable title over a parcel of land in Mandaluyong City, and they ask the Supreme Court to compel the Land Registration Authority to issue the corresponding decree of registration. The Authority refused, because its records suggested that the very land sought to be registered might already be covered by a Torrens certificate of title issued long ago. The case matters because it draws the line between a final judgment of registration and the decree that gives it life, and it tells us when mandamus will not lie against a registration official.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed an application for registration of Lot 3-A in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, sitting as a land registration court. On January 8, 1991, that court rendered a decision declaring, confirming, and ordering the registration of the petitioners' title, and directing that the corresponding decree issue in their names once the decision became final. After the decision became final, the trial court, upon the petitioners' motion, issued an order dated March 15, 1991 requiring the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree. The Authority refused. The petitioners then went directly to the Supreme Court by a special civil action for mandamus under Rule 65, asking that the Authority be directed to issue the decree. The case was deemed submitted for resolution in March 1997.

Facts

The petitioners applied to register Lot 3-A of a subdivision plan situated in Mandaluyong City. The trial court found their application meritorious and, on January 8, 1991, declared, confirmed, and ordered the registration of their title, directing that the decree issue in the names of the spouses once the decision became final. The decision became final, and the trial court ordered the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree.

The Authority refused. In a report dated April 29, 1992, its director of registration explained that after plotting the subdivision plan on the municipal index sheet, the land appeared to be a portion of parcels already decreed in old Court of Land Registration cases, with decrees issued in 1904 and 1905. The Authority had requested from the Register of Deeds of Pasig a certified copy of the original certificate of title issued in the name of Compania Agricola de Ultramar, but the technical description in the copy furnished was not readable. Verification also showed that a neighboring lot was covered by a transfer certificate of title in the name of another person, traceable to an earlier transfer certificate of title, but the title for Lot 3-A itself could not be located because that earlier certificate was incomplete.

The Authority warned that issuing the decree would result in a duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, contravening the policy and purpose of the Torrens system. The Solicitor General prayed that the petition be dismissed as premature. When the Court later required the Solicitor General to report what concrete steps had been taken to verify whether the land might be a portion of the earlier decreed parcels, the compliance submitted merely reiterated the Authority's position that the case should be dismissed to avoid a duplication of title.

Issues

• Whether or not the Land Registration Authority may be compelled by mandamus to issue the corresponding decree of registration in the land registration case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 38 of Act Number 496, the old Land Registration Act, provides:

Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general description "To all whom it may concern." Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud to file in the competent Court of First Instance a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible.

This provision supplies the petitioners' argument that a decree of registration is binding on the whole world, but it also fixes the one-year period after entry of the decree before the title becomes incontrovertible, which the Court uses to show that the judgment is not yet beyond recall.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition. Mandamus is not the proper remedy, for three reasons.

First, the judgment is not yet executory. The petitioners have no clear legal right to implement the decision, because a judgment of registration does not become executory until one year after the entry of the final decree of registration. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in Gomez versus Court of Appeals:

Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration.

Second, a void judgment is possible. The Authority's hesitation is not negligence but is reasonable, even imperative, given the probable duplication of titles. The Court held that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case, and a second decree for the same land would be null and void, since the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once. The Authority's refusal rests on documents which, if verified, may render the trial court's judgment void.

Third, the issuance of a decree is not a ministerial act. It is part of the judicial function of the courts and involves the exercise of discretion, and so it cannot be compelled by mandamus. The writ lies only where the petitioner's legal right to the performance of the particular act sought is clear and complete; where the right is in substantial doubt or dispute, as here, mandamus cannot issue. A court may be compelled to act upon a question, but never to decide for or against a party.

To avoid a multiplicity of suits and needless delay, however, the Court directed the Authority to expedite its study, to determine with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the property described in the earlier transfer certificate of title, and to report to the court of origin within sixty days, after which that court shall act with deliberate speed according to the facts and the law.

Doctrine

A judgment of registration does not become final and incontrovertible until one year after the entry of the final decree of registration; until then, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision remains under the control and sound discretion of the registration court. A land registration court has no jurisdiction to decree the registration of land already decreed in an earlier land registration case, and a second decree for the same land is null and void, because original registration registers a parcel of land only once. The issuance of a decree of registration is a judicial, not a ministerial, act, and mandamus will not lie to compel it where the right asserted is in substantial doubt or dispute.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, but the case was remanded to the court of origin in Pasig City, with the Land Registration Authority ordered to submit within sixty days a report determining with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the property described in the earlier transfer certificate of title, after which the land registration court shall act with deliberate and judicious speed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the issuance of a decree of registration is a judicial act, not a ministerial one, and mandamus will not compel it where the right is in doubt. Examiners use this case to test the one-year rule before a decree becomes incontrovertible, the rule that land may be registered only once, and the limits of mandamus against registration officials.