Tichangco vs Enriquez

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Tichangco v. Enriquez
G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004

Facts:

On March 1996, Renato Tichangco, in behalf of the homeowners’ association of Gagalangin and Sunog Apog (Tondo, Manila), filed a land title verification request with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), docketed as LTV No. 96-0376. The verification request was prompted by an alleged claim of ownership of a certain Manotok over the land which petitioners occupy, and which they perceive as public land, being portions of the dried or filled bed of Estero de Maypajo and Sunog Apog area, and which allegedly have already been identified as Area for Priority Development under the Urban Poor Law.

Petitioners sought the assistance of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for legal action on OCTs Nos. 820 and 7477. On 18 February 1999, the OSG wrote a letter to public respondent for a review and evaluation of the records on the issuance of TCTs Nos. 128240 to 128249, and 128270 covering parcels of land in Gagalangin, Tondo, Manila, docketed as Task Force TM No. 98-0087.

However, this case is a Petition for Review challenging the August 8, 2001 Decision and the October 29, 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 54648. The assailed Decision affirmed the findings of the then Land Registration Authority (LRA) administrator, Alfredo Enriquez, that there were no legal grounds to initiate appropriate proceedings to nullify Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. 820 and 7477 and the subsequent titles derived therefrom: Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 128240 to 128249, inclusive, and TCT No. 128270 - all covering parcels of land in Tondo, Manila registered in the names of private respondents.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals commits grave abuse of discretion tantamount to or in excess of jurisdiction when it failed to declare OCT Nos. 820 and 7477 null and void?

Held:

The CA held that OCT No. 820 had been issued on January 7, 1907, not on January 31, 1905, as petitioners claim. True, Decree No. 1424 had been issued on January 31, 1905, but it was entered or transcribed in the registration book of the Register of Deeds only in 1907. Pursuant to Section 42 of Act No. 496 (otherwise known as the Land Registration Act), OCT No. 820 took effect on January 7, 1907, the date of the transcription of the decree.

The CA also held that OCT No. 7477 was already incontrovertible, because it had been the subject of regular land registration proceedings. More than one year after its registration, the decree was not controverted by any adverse party.

The fundamental purpose of the Land Registration Law (Act No. 496, now PD 1529) is to finally settle title to real property in order to preempt any question on the legality of the title -- except claims that were noted on the certificate itself at the time of registration or those that arose subsequent thereto. Consequently, once the title is registered under the said law, owners can rest secure on their ownership and possession.

The proceedings for the judicial registration of land under the Torrens system involve more consequences than an ordinary action would. Once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the reglementary period has passed within which the decree may be questioned, the title is perfected and cannot be collaterally questioned later on.

Finally, assuming arguendo that the validity of the two titles may still be impugned, petitioners do not have any legal standing to ask directly for their annulment. The first paragraph of Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that “[n]o decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
The Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.