[ G.R. No. 47566. August 20, 1941 ] 73 Phil. 606
[ G.R. No. 47566. August 20, 1941 ]
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. BASILIO ABACHE ET AL., CLAIMANTS; SANTIAGO IMPERIAL, MOVANT-APPELLEE, VS. LUIS MENESES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, J.:
In a cadastral proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Albay, Lina F. Vda. de Imperial and Santiago Imperial, mother and son, appeared and claimed lot No. 8305, the latter asserting ownership over the lot and the former, her usufructuary rights as widow. After hearing, wherein Domingo Imperial appeared as sole witness for the claimants, the lot was awarded to them. This notwithstanding, in the written decision subsequently rendered, the lot appeared to have been awarded in favor of Inocencio, Simeona, David, Constancio, Salvacion and Solomon, all surnamed Adornado, who have neither claimed the lot nor appeared at the trial; and, thereafter, original certificate of title No. 15150 was issued in their name. The lot was later mortgaged by the Adornados to one Luis Meneses. And, lastly, Santiago Imperial filed a motion asking that said certificate of title and the lien noted thereon be declared null and void and that a new certificate of title be issued in his favor, her mother having died. The Adornados assented to this motion, thus admitting that they have never been the owners of the lot in question. The lower court sustained the motion, declared the certificate of title No. 15150 null and void, as well as the lien noted thereon in favor of Luis Meneses, and ordered a new certificate of title issued in the name of Santiago Imperial. Luis Meneses appealed. In Laureano vs. Stevenson (45 Phil., 252), following a cadastral survey, a property was mistakenly registered in the name of Kilayco, although no petition for title was filed by him and he never asserted any right of ownership thereover. Laureano, the rightful owner of the property, took no steps to protect his right during the one year period following the issuance of the title. Eventually, however, judgment was obtained in the court in favor of Laureano through the acquiescence and consent of Kilayco. It was held that the creditor of Kilayco could acquire no higher or better right than Kilayco had in the property, which in that case was nothing, and that it is just and legal to give to Laureano full right and title to the property. And in Government of P. I. vs. Triño (50 Phil., 708, 718), it was held that “in a cadastral proceeding, a court has no jurisdiction to decree a lot to one who has put in no claim to it. The written declaration claiming certain described property is the very basis of jurisdiction to render a judgment. In a cadastral proceeding, under an opposition claiming an undefined portion of a certain lot, a court has no jurisdiction to make an award of the whole lot. Such an opposition is void for vagueness and uncertainty and cannot serve as a basis of award. Also, in a cadastral proceeding, a court has no jurisdiction to decree a lot as not contested when it is contested, and to proceed to adjudication without giving the opposing parties an opportunity to be heard. That would be voidable of the most rudimentary legal principles.” These rulings apply in the instant case. Indeed, it has been rightly said that land is not affected by operations under the Torrens system unless there has been an application to register it, and registration has been made pursuant to such application (Niblack sec. 154, pp. 237-238). The cadastral court had no jurisdiction to decree lot No. 8305 to the Adornados who have put in no claim to it and have never asserted any right of ownership thereover. Luis Meneses, creditor of the Adornados, could acquire no higher or better right than what the Adornados had in the property, which, in the instant case, is nothing. It is said, however, that to avoid a mortgage executed in favor of an innocent third person, like Meneses, is to destroy public confidence in a Torrens title. Such cannot be the effect, for Meneses may collect his credit in a personal action against the Adornados and perhaps subsidiarily against the assurance fund. It is contended that Santiago Imperial is guilty of laches he having filed his motion to annul the certificate of title issued in favor of the Adornados thirteen years after such certificate was issued. But Santiago Imperial filed his claim in the cadastral case, appeared at the trial, and the lot was awarded to him and to his mother Lina F. Vda. de Imperial. He had the right to expect that the corresponding decree of registeration and certificate of title would be issued in his favor and that of his mother. There are no data as to how long the cadastral case has been pending and when has Santiago Imperial acquired knowledge of the certificate of title issued in favor of the Adornados. Considering that in many instances cadastral cases remain pending for years, and that Santiago Imperial filed his motion as soon as he knew that the property was awarded to the Adornados, it is neither safe nor sound to declare him guilty of laches. Order is affirmed, with costs against appellant. Avanceña, C. J., Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ., concur.