GREGORIO ACANTILADO Y PASCUAL, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO DE SANTOS, OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT.

Acantilado versus De Santos

The Case

This is a case about a parcel of land registered twice under the Torrens system in the name of two different persons. Gregorio Acantilado sought registration of land in the Court of Land Registration, while Marcelino de Santos objected, claiming that a portion of that same land had already been registered in his own name in an earlier proceeding. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the land court should have investigated the alleged double registration before allowing the decree to stand. The case matters because it establishes, as between the original parties, that the first registration is lawful as against a subsequent registration of the same land in the name of another person.

Procedural History

Gregorio Acantilado filed his petition for registration in the Court of Land Registration. Notice by publication and otherwise was given. An amended complaint was later filed changing the land description, but that amended complaint was never published in the Official Gazette. The land court, through Judge Ostrand, rendered a decision ordering registration. The Acting Director of Lands then notified the court that a portion of the land had already been registered in the name of another person. The chief of the division of surveyors likewise reported that a portion had been included in a prior decree in favor of Marcelino de Santos. The court suspended its decree for three months to give De Santos an opportunity to ascertain the facts. After several motions and orders, the land court denied De Santos's motion for a rehearing but suggested he seek a revision under section 38 of Act Number 496. De Santos filed that petition for revision, and the land court denied it. From that order of denial, De Santos appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the twelfth of February, 1912, Gregorio Acantilado presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of a parcel of land in Moncada, Tarlac, composed of an east portion and a west portion. Notice of the petition was duly published. An amended complaint was later filed changing the description and the area claimed, but this amended complaint was never published in the Official Gazette. On the twenty-seventh of September, 1910, Judge Ostrand rendered a decision ordering registration of the land.

On the sixth of December, 1910, the Acting Director of Lands notified the court that a portion of the land ordered registered in the name of Acantilado had previously been registered in the name of another person. On the tenth of December, 1910, the chief of the division of surveyors reported in writing that, in his opinion, a portion of the land included in Acantilado's decree had previously been included in another decree in favor of Marcelino de Santos. The court then suspended its order of registration for three months to give De Santos an opportunity to ascertain whether his land had been included in Acantilado's decree.

On the twenty-fourth of April, 1911, Judge Ostrand rendered a decision ordering that the decree of registration be issued to Acantilado. De Santos moved to set aside that order and for a rehearing, and later moved to annul the order of registration and to exclude five hectares belonging to him. The court denied the motion but reserved to De Santos the right to seek a revision under section 38 of Act Number 496. De Santos then filed a petition for revision, presenting as proof much of the record in the earlier case. The land court denied the petition, and De Santos appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Land Registration should have ordered an investigation of the defendant's claim that a portion of his previously registered land had been included in the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
• Whether or not, as between the original parties, the first registration of land under the Torrens system is lawful as against a subsequent registration of the same land in the name of another person.

Applicable Provisions

Section 38 of Act Number 496, referred to in the decision as the provision governing a revision of the cause, provides:

Any person deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of registration obtained by fraud may, within one year after entry of the decree, file in the Court of Land Registration a petition for review.

This provision bears on the case because it was the remedy the land court suggested to De Santos, and the denial of his petition under it is the order brought on appeal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it was the duty of the land court to have ordered an investigation of the question presented by the defendant, for the purpose of determining whether the facts reported by the chief surveyor and alleged by the defendant were true. The Court clarified that the question decided was not whether there was fraud on the part of the plaintiff in securing registration, even though there may be some indications of fraud in the record, but one relating to a double registration of the same land under the Torrens system.

On the second issue, the Court held, as between the original parties, that the first registration shall be lawful as against a subsequent registration in the name of another person of the same land, citing the earlier case of Legarda and Prieto versus Saleeby. The Court noted that the land court had been reliably informed, and the fact was not denied, that a portion of the parcel had previously been registered in the name of the defendant in another action, and that the judge had properly suspended his decree upon receiving that notification.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, where the Court of Land Registration is reliably informed that a portion of land covered by a decree of registration has previously been registered in the name of another person, it is the duty of the court to order an investigation to determine the truth of that report before allowing the decree to stand. Second, as between the original parties, the first registration under the Torrens system is lawful as against a subsequent registration of the same land in the name of another person. These rules flow from the nature of the Torrens system, which secures title by decree, and from the principle that a decree of registration should not be allowed to include land already registered in another's name without inquiry.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the land court denying the revision and ordered the record returned to the proper judge for the purpose of determining whether any portion of the land previously decreed to De Santos had been included in the decree in favor of Acantilado, without any finding as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: as between the original parties, the first registration under the Torrens system is lawful as against a subsequent registration of the same land in the name of another person. Examiners use this case to test the duty of the land court to investigate an alleged double registration and the priority of the first registrant.