Abapo v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Catalina Gabuya and others filed a petition for the reconstitution of a lost Certificate of Title and/or application for registration of Lot 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu. Constancio Abapo (petitioner), Jovencio Abapo, and the Republic of the Philippines opposed this petition. Antonio A. Zosa was later allowed to intervene. The initial proceedings concerned the ownership and registration of this parcel of land. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch 1, initially dismissed the petition for registration on August 24, 1973. However, upon motion for reconsideration by Antonio A. Zosa, the court amended its decision on November 29, 1973, approving the application for registration of specific portions of Lot 4673 in favor of Zosa and adjudicating other portions to Constancio Abapo and Jovencio Abapo. Constancio Abapo appealed this amended decision to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal for failure to file a brief. Subsequently, the lower court granted a motion for the issuance of a decree and writ of possession, further dividing the lots between Constancio Abapo and Jovencio Abapo. A report from the Land Registration Commissioner indicated that issuing new decrees would result in duplication, as Decree No. 687556 for Lot 4673 was issued in 1938. Constancio Abapo then moved to set aside the November 29, 1973 order, which was denied as the order had become final and executory. 3. The Petition: Constancio Abapo filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, with preliminary and/or mandatory injunction seeking to annul the November 29, 1973 order and prohibit further proceedings. He argued that the original petition was for reconstitution of a lost title, not for registration, and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering registration when proof of the lost title was lacking and a prior decree existed. The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious, reinstating the August 24, 1973 decision which dismissed the registration application, and enjoining further proceedings on the re-registration of Lot No. 4673.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in issuing the order of November 29, 1973, which amended its earlier decision of August 24, 1973, by ordering registration of title when the original petition was for reconstitution and evidence of the lost title was wanting. Whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the registration of title, considering the existence of Decree No. 687556 and the principles of res judicata. Whether the August 24, 1973 decision, which dismissed the petition for registration and directed reconstitution, should be reinstated.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious and tenable. The order dated November 29, 1973, is SET ASIDE, and the decision dated August 24, 1973, is REINSTATED. Respondent is enjoined from further proceeding with the re-registration of Lot No. 4673 of the Cadastral Survey of Cebu.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the lower court's error in issuing the November 29, 1973 order: The Supreme Court found that the lower court erred. The original petition was solely for reconstitution under Republic Act No. 26. The court's duty is limited to complying with the law's mandate if there is a title to be reconstituted (Director of Lands vs. Gan Tan). The evidence presented did not justify reconstitution, as proof of the allegedly lost certificate of title was wanting. The lower court correctly dismissed the petition on August 24, 1973. By reconsidering and ordering registration on November 29, 1973, the court exceeded its jurisdiction, as it was limited to resolving the propriety of reconstitution and erred in adjudicating ownership and ordering registration. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction: The records showed that Decree No. 687556 was issued on November 3, 1938, for Lot 4673. The lower court acknowledged this decree, which had become conclusive under the principle of res judicata as of November 3, 1939. The issuance of such a decree brought the land under the Torrens System, and the court had no further authority to adjudicate the case anew (Reyes v. Borbon). To declare the non-existence of a decree that was in fact issued would lead to confusion. Therefore, the order of November 29, 1973, which attempted to adjudicate and order registration, was an act beyond the court's jurisdiction. On the issue of reinstating the August 24, 1973 decision: The August 24, 1973 decision, which dismissed the petition for registration and directed reconstitution, should be reinstated because the lower court correctly determined that reconstitution was not proper due to the lack of evidence of the lost title and because the subsequent order of November 29, 1973, exceeded the court's jurisdiction by adjudicating ownership and ordering registration despite the existence of a prior decree and the principles of res judicata.
Main Doctrine
A court's jurisdiction in a petition for reconstitution of title is limited to determining whether reconstitution is proper. It cannot adjudicate ownership or order the registration of title, as these matters should be threshed out in a separate appropriate action. An order that transcends this jurisdiction is void.