Ylarde v. Lichauco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the registration of the Hacienda "El Porvenir" in Pangasinan. An initial application for registration by Crisanto Lichauco and the Nable Jose sisters was granted by the Court of Land Registration and confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1906, resulting in Decree of Registration No. 1178 and Original Certificate of Title No. 7, based on the Rocafull Plan. Over the years, various surveys and attempts to amend or replace the original plan and titles have occurred, often leading to litigation and reversals by higher courts. The petitioners, claiming to be heirs and substituted parties of original oppositors, assert claims to portions of the land within the hacienda. 2. Procedural History: Following the initial registration, numerous legal actions ensued regarding the surveys and titles of Hacienda "El Porvenir." These included orders for new surveys, approvals and subsequent reversals of survey plans (such as the Garcia Plan and Gatchalian Plan), and appeals to the Supreme Court. The case has seen multiple judges and extensive litigation over the accuracy and validity of different surveys, including the Rocafull Plan, the Garcia Plan, and the Gatchalian Plan. Most recently, a relocation survey by Segundo Llobrera (Rel-110) was approved by respondent Judge Amado S. Santiago on March 12, 1963. Petitioners then sought to proceed with a hearing on the merits to present evidence for their claims, which was denied by the respondent judge through orders dated August 5 and August 23, 1963. These latter orders are the subject of the current petition. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus seeking to set aside the orders of August 5 and August 23, 1963, which denied their motion to proceed with the hearing on the merits. They argue that the approval of the Llobrera survey plan did not adjudicate title and that they should be allowed to present evidence for their claims. The petition also seeks to prohibit the private respondents from moving for the issuance of new decrees and titles based on the Llobrera Plan. The core of the petition is that the lower court erred in denying them the opportunity to prove their claims, thereby preventing a full adjudication of ownership within the contested land.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in denying the petitioners' motion to proceed with the hearing on the merits. Whether the approval of the Llobrera relocation survey plan reopens the decree of registration. Whether the claims of the petitioners are barred by the indefeasibility of the original decree of registration.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writs prayed for are denied. The lower court did not err in denying the motion to proceed with the hearing on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denying the motion to proceed with the hearing on the merits: The Court held that the lower court did not commit any error or abuse of discretion in denying the petitioners' motion. The Hacienda "El Porvenir" is covered by Decree of Registration No. 1178, which had become absolute and incontrovertible. This decree binds the land, quiets title, and is conclusive upon all persons, and cannot be reopened or reviewed after the lapse of one year. Allowing the presentation of evidence to prove that the registered owners are not the owners of certain portions would render the legal indefeasibility and conclusiveness of the decree a meaningless verbiage and would be tantamount to reopening a closed and settled decree. This Court has consistently held that once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system and the time to contest has elapsed, it becomes perfect, conclusive, and irrevocable and may no longer be reopened. The petitioners' claims, as successors to the original oppositors whose rights were foreclosed by the decree, are likewise barred. On the nature of the Llobrera survey and its effect on the decree: The Court clarified that the Llobrera survey was not a new survey but a relocation survey intended to retrace the footsteps of the original surveyor, Rocafull, as closely as possible, with departures only to correct errors of closure or computation. The respondent Judge's approval of the Llobrera Plan, finding it substantially in accordance with the Supreme Court's previous decisions, meant that it was more or less a reproduction of the Rocafull Plan. The proceeding was not a new registration proceeding requiring applicants to prove ownership anew, as the land was already covered by a final and conclusive decree of registration. The question of ownership could not be relitigated in the same registration proceeding. On the validity of the title: The allegation that the private respondents no longer have any certificate of title is incorrect. OCT No. 7, based on Decree of Registration No. 1178, remained valid and effective. This Court had previously declared null and void all certificates of title that attempted to supplant OCT No. 7 because they were based on erroneous or invalid resurvey plans. Consequently, when those subsequent titles were declared null and void, the basic title, OCT No. 7, remained valid and served as the basis for the respondents' title to the land within the Hacienda "El Porvenir" as shown in the Llobrera plan.
Main Doctrine
The approval of a relocation survey plan, which substantially conforms to a prior, valid, and subsisting decree of registration, does not reopen the decree. The indefeasibility and conclusiveness of a decree of registration, once it has become absolute and incontrovertible, cannot be relitigated in the same registration proceeding.