THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. FABIAN ARIAS, OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT.

This appeal by bill of exceptions was taken by counsel for Fabian
Arias from the judgment of August 24, 1914, in which the court ordered
the cancellation of the Torrens title issued to the said Arias in case
No. 303 and directed that he be given another in accordance-with the
result of the cadastral survey made in case No. 8007.

As a result of the cadastral proceedings No. 8007 brought in the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo, the interests of the appellant
Fabian Arias and, among other persons, Maria Gay and Gregorio
Montinola, were affected. Fabian Arias, in case No. 303 of the Court of
Land Registration, was awarded a Torrens title to a parcel of real
estate belonging to him; and Gregorio Montinola secured title to a
parcel of real estate by a decree issued in case No. 1341. Maria Gay
holds no title issued under the Land Registration Act. The plan Exhibit
D, according to the report made by the surveyor Veal, found on page 745
of the record, shows that the parcel of land of which Fabian Arias is
the exclusive owner by reason of the decree of registration issued to
him in 1904, in case No. 303, is erroneous, inasmuch as a triangular
portion situated to the north of the title 2-3, on the side next to
Calle Iznart, is included in the lot 2-b that ought to belong to Maria
Gay (see Veal’s plan, record, p. 745) and that another triangle of
Arias’ land, indicated by the letters T-Y-C, is claimed by Gregorio
Montinola as being included in his certificate of title obtained in
case No. 1341 (see Pope’s plan, record, p. 1645).

Consequently the court ordered the surveyor to amend the cadastral
plan Exhibit D in such wise as to adjust these variations between the
plans of the interested parties, the new survey to be made after notice
should have been served on the parties affected, as provided by the
Cadastral Act No. 2259. Pursuant to this order the surveyor Veal made
the new survey in the presence of Fabian Arias, Maria Gay and Gregorio
Montinola and other persons interested, all of whom assented to the
subdivision made. Thereafter, as the technical plans of the titles
secured in cases Nos. 303 and 1341 and the old plans of the other
owners of the lands did not agree with that prepared for the cadastral
survey making the subdivision necessary, the said surveyor recommended
that the court issue new plans based on the subdivision made by him, in
substitution of the technical plans issued in the cases Nos, 303, 1081,
1341 and 1350 (record, p. 745).

The chief of the surveying division of the Court of Land
Registration also recommended that the plan secured by Arias’ Torrens
title (case No. 303) be corrected so that to agree with that drawn as a
result of the cadastral survey. He called attention to the fact that
the lines in (black) ink indicate the parcel registered in case No.
303, and those in red ink, lots Nos. 2 and 3 of the plan Exhibit D
(record, p. 1068). The court, therefore, at the close of the trial,
rendered the judgment aforementioned wherein he ordered Arias’ Torrens
title cancelled and another title issued that should accord with the
plan Exhibit D.

From this judgment Arias appealed, for, as may be seen by the plans
on file in the record, the area of the land that belongs to him and
which was recognized as his by the decree issued in case No. 303 of the
Court of Land Registration was considerably reduced. From the western
part of his land, facing Calle Iznart de Iloilo, the portion marked as
lot 2-b was taken away, as was also a triangular piece on the north.

Notwithstanding that it was held in the judgment appealed from that
the plan of the appellant Arias’ land, attached to the record in case
No. 303, is erroneous, yet the survey of this land and the verification
of its area for the purpose of ascertaining whether it agreed with that
of the appellant’s said plan, according to his certificate of title
(which survey was made by the surveyor of the Bureau of Lands, H. D.
Pope, under authority of the court, record, p. 1645), shows that the
appellant’s plan attached to the record in case No. 303 is correct.

It was admitted by the parties and shown by the plans and other
evidence taken at the trial, that Lot 3 of the cadastral survey as well
also as lot 2-b and a triangular piece of land situated to the north
and claimed by Gregorio Montinola, were all included in Fabian Arias’
certificate of title. The decree of the Court of Land Registration, by
which the appellant was awarded the piece of land included in the plan
attached to the record in said case No. 303, was issued in 1904. Since
that time he has continued to be the indisputable owner of this
property and the said judgment is final and conclusive. There is no
legal reason whatever to warrant the changing or alteration of a
Torrens title so as to make it agree with a plan subsequently drawn,
and if in applying the Cadastral Act it becomes necessary to issue new
titles, these should include the entire area of the land which had
previously been adjudicated to a holder of a certificate of title by
Virtue of a decree of the Court of Land Registration.

It is to be noted that Gregorio Montinola claims the portion
designated by the letters T-Y-C on the plan drawn by the surveyor Pope;
this also belongs to Fabian Arias, and since the latter obtained a
Torrens title before Montinola, he must be considered to be the
absolute owner of the said land.

While surveyor Veal testified that the plan presented in evidence in
case No. 303 was erroneous, because it did not agree with the plan that
he had drawn (Exhibit D), another surveyor, H. D. Pope, stated that
Arias’ plan, filed in said case No. 303, is correct; and this
divergence of opinion between two experts only goes to justify the
respect which, pursuant to law, should be accorded the title obtained
by appellant Arias, notwithstanding the report of the expert Veal
appearing in the record of the proceedings of the cadastral survey and
which cannot prevail over the said title.

In The Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Caballero
(34 Phil. Rep., 540), a case which is on all fours with the case at
bar, this court declared that it is unlawful to make any change in the
title oi a person holding his land under a Torrens title and laid down
the following rule, found in the syllabus:

“A certificate of title to land made in accordance with the
provisions of the Cadastral Act (No, 2259), issued to one holding a
valid Torrens title for lands within the cadastral survey, must include
all the land contained in the certificate of such Torrens title.”

And, at the close of the reasoning contained in the decision cited, the court said:

“We see no reason why a part of the appellant’s land, which is
covered by a Torrens title, should be taken from her and given to
someone else. It may be true that in administering the Cadastral Law it
will be necessary to issue new certificates of title to these holding
Torrens’ titles for lands within the cadastral survey, but if this is
done, the new certificate must cover all of the land contained in the
old one.”

In view of the provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496, section 11
of the Cadastral Act No. 2259 and of the decisions rendered in the
cases of Cuyugan and Lim Tuico vs. Sy Quia (24 Phil. Rep., 567) and Legarda and Prieto vs.
Saleeby (31 Phil. Rep., 590), the judgment appealed from is hereby set
aside, the record will be remanded to the court from whence it came,
together with a certified copy of this decision, in order that the
judge of first instance may, in a new trial, proceed to determine
whether the description of Fabian Arias’ land as shown in the record of
the cadastral proceedings agrees with that given in the decree of
registration issued in case No. 303 and in the title issued to
appellant Arias by virtue of the said decree, and whether the
description and plan of the said cadastral proceedings includes all of
Arias’ land described in the decree and Torrens title obtained by him
in case No. 303; it is to be understood that under the law the plan
presented by Arias in case No. 303 can be rectified only if it be found
not to be in agreement with the title issued to him. So ordered.

Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.