[ G.R. No. 8242. November 30, 1915 ] 32 Phil. 350
[ G.R. No. 8242. November 30, 1915 ]
GREGORIO ACANTILADO Y PASCUAL, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO DE SANTOS, OBJECTOR AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The question presented by the present appeal relates to the legality of the registration, under the torrens system, of the same parcel of land in the name of two different persons. From an examination of the record, the following facts appear to be undisputed: 1. That on the 12th of February, 1912, the said Gregorio Acantilado y Pascual presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration, for the registration of a certain piece or parcel of land located “en el sitio de Lapsing a Bassit,” of the municipality of Moncada, Province of Tarlac, which parcel is particularly described in paragraph 1 of the complaint. The said parcel of land is described as composed of two pieces, one known as the east portion and the other as the west portion. The complaint alleged that it contained 37 hectares, 84 ares, and 94 centiares. 2. That notice by publication and otherwise was given of the presentation of said petition and of the pendency of the action for the registration of said parcel of land. 3. That on the 26th of September, 1910, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, in which the description of the land set out in the first paragraph of said complaint was changed. The amended complaint asked for the registration of 38 hectares, 61 ares, and 61 centiares. Said amended complaint was never published in the Official Gazette. 4. That on 27th of September, 1910, the day following the day on which the amended complaint was presented, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, one of the judges of the land court, rendered a decision, in which he ordered the registration of the parcel of land in question (without indicating whether it was the parcel described in the original complaint or that described in the amended complaint) in conformity with paragraph 6 of section 54 of Act No. 926. 5. That on the 6th of December, 1910, the Acting Director of Lands notified the Court of Land Registration, through its clerk, that a portion of the land ordered to be registered in the name of Gregorio Acantilado y Pascual had theretofore been registered in the name of another person, in the Court of Land Registration, in a case known as cause No. 5550. 6. That on the 10th of December, 1910, the chief of the division of surveyors of the Court of Land Registration notified said court in writing that, in his opinion, a portion of the land included the decree of the present plaintiff had theretofore been included in another decree in favor of Marcelino de Santos, in cause No. 5550. 7. That on the 22d of December, 1910, the clerk of the Court of Land Registration, by order of the court, sent a copy of the written statement referred to in paragraph 6, to Marcelino de Santos. 8. That on the 16th of January, 1911, the judge of the Court of Land Registration issued an order suspending the order decreeing the registration of the parcel of land in question in favor of the plaintiff herein, for a period of three months, for the purpose of giving the said Marcelino de Santos an opportunity to ascertain whether or not his land, involved in the decree in said cause No. 5550, had been included in the decree in favor of the plaintiff herein. 9. That on the 6th of April, 1911, the chief of the division of surveyors of the Court of Land Registration, in writing notified the court that a portion of the land included in the petition of the plaintiff herein (cause No. 6263) had theretofore been registered in the name of Marcelino de Santos, in cause No. 5550. 10. That on the 24th of April, 1911, the Honorable James A. Ostrand rendered a decision, in which many of the foregoing facts are related, and ordered that the decree of registration in accordance with his order of the 27th of September, 1910, be issued to the plaintiff. 11. That on the 4th day of May, 1911, the said Marcelino de Santos, through his attorneys, (record, page 80), presented a motion and prayed the court to set aside its order of the 24th of April, 1911, and to grant a rehearing. 12. That on the 8th of May, 1911, the Honorable James A. Ostrand set said motion down for hearing for the 20th of May, 1911, and suspended the execution of the decree of registration, pending the resolution of said motion. 13. That on the 25th of May, 1911, said motion was brought on for hearing. 14. That on the 29th of August, 1911, Marcelino de Santos presented another motion, in which he prayed that the court grant a rehearing in said cause and annul his order decreeing the registration, of the 27th of September, 1910, and exclude, from the land included in said decree, 5 hectares of land which belonged to him and which had theretofore been registered in cause No. 5550, in the Court of Land Registration. 15. That on the 31st of August, 1911, the Honorable James A. Ostrand denied said motion for a rehearing, declaring the decree of registration of the 27th of September, 1910, to be in full force and effect, without prejudice to the right of Marcelino de Santos to present a petition asking for a revision of the cause, in accordance with the provisions of section 88 of Act No. 496. (See record, page 99.) 16. That on the 1st of September, 1911, Marcelino de Santos, through his attorneys, presented a petition for the revision of all of the procedure taken and had in the present cause, in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496. 17. That after due notice to all the interested parties, said motion for a revision of the present case was brought on for hearing on the 14th of September, 1911, during the consideration of which motion the said Marcelino de Santos presented as proof much of the record in cause No. 5550. 18. That after hearing the respective parties upon said motion for revision, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, judge, denied said motion, to which order of denial the defendant duly excepted and appealed to this court, and made several assignments of error. From all the foregoing facts, there are two important facts to be taken into consideration in the solution of the question presented in the present appeal: (1) That the Court of Land Registration had issued a decree for the registration of a certain parcel of land; and (2) That before that decree became final the court was reliably informed, and that fact has not been denied, that a portion of said parcel of land had theretofore been registered in the name of another party, the defendant herein, in another action, theretofore pending in said court. The decree ordering the registration of said parcel of land was made on the 27th of September, 1910; the judge was duly notified on both the 6th and the 10th of December, 1910, that said decree for the registration of said parcel of land included a portion of the land theretofore registered in the name of the defendant. Upon receiving said notification, the judge properly suspended his decree, for a period of three months. After several motions and several orders, the lower court intimated that the remedy of the defendant was to ask for a revision of the cause, in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496. A petition for that revision was presented and later denied. The defendant stood ready at all times to demonstrate to the court that a portion of his land which had theretofore been registered under the torrens system had been reregistered in the name of the plaintiff, in another action, and included in another certificate. From the foregoing, we have the important question presented whether or not the Court of Land Registration should not only have permitted the defendant to have demonstrated that a portion of his land, which had theretofore been registered, had again been registered in the name of another person subsequently, but should also have required the plaintiff, under the allegation of the defendant, to have demonstrated that the certificate which had been ordered granted to him did not included land theretofore registered in the name of another. In view of the decision of this court in the case of Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby (31 Phil. Rep., 590), we are of the opinion and so hold, that it was the duty of the court to have ordered an investigation of the question presented by the defendant, for the purpose of determining whether or not the facts reported to the court by the chief surveyor and alleged by the defendant, were true. The question which we have decided is not whether or not there existed fraud on the part of the plaintiff in securing the registration of the land in question, even though there may be some indications of fraud in the record. (For example, the fact that the plaintiff did not describe the defendant as one of the adjoining owners of the land in question, even though that fact was well known to him.) The question which we have decided is one relating to a double registration of the same land, under the torrens system. We have decided, 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. (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra.) For all of the foregoing, the order of the court denying a revision of the cause, dated October 17, 1911, (record, page 122) is hereby reversed, arid it is hereby ordered, and decreed that the record be returned to the proper judge, having jurisdiction of the land in question, for the purpose of determining whether or not any portion of the land heretofore decreed to the defendant in cause No. 5550 had been included in the decree in favor of the plaintiff herein, in cause No. 6263, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered. Arellano, C. J., Torres and Araullo, JJ., concur.