G.R. No. L-25777




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-25777 November 10, 1926 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF CEBU, applicant, vs. PHILIPPINE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner-appellant, and VICTORINO REYNES, respondent-appellee. Block, Johnson & Greenbaum for appellant. Cabahug & Cabahug for appellee. JOHNSON, J.: The questions presented by this appeal are: (a) Whether the strip or parcel of land in question was registered in the name of both of the parties to this action — the Philippine Railway Company and Victorino Reynes, — and (b) which of said parties is now the owner thereof. It appears from the record that on the 11th day of May, 1909, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu presented a petition for registration of two parcels of land (G. L. R. O. Record No. 5497), which parcels were marked A and B. The petition was accompanied by a plan and a technical description of the two parcels of land. The plan (Exhibit A, p. 6) showed that said parcels were divided by a public street named "Carretera Provincial a Danao." According to said parcel A contained an area of 96,291 square meters and parcel B contained an area of 11,438.76 square meters. After the hearing of said petition had been closed, the Honorable Jesse George, auxiliary judge of the Court of Land Registration, entered a decree denying the registration of said parcel B. No appeal was taken from that decree. The court granted a prayer of the petition and entered a decree on the 31st of May, 1910, for the registration of parcel A (the part which was north of said street), but directed, before a final decree should be issued that a new plan of said parcel A be prepared and presented on September 1, 1910. After much delay and several orders of the court relating to said amended plan, it was presented apparently on the 13th day of June, 1911 (see p. 63, Expediente). By reference to said amended plan, it will be seen that parcel A of the original petition was divided into three lots, numbered 1, 2 and 11. Parcel B of the original petition does not appear in the new amended plan. The following is a copy of the amended plan, and shows the relation of the three lots in which the original parcel A was divided. By reference to said amended plan, it will be seen that lot No. 1 contains an area of 70,362 square meters; that lot No. 2 contains an area of 16,446, square meters. The area of lot No. 11, which was described as the land of the Philippine Railway Company, is not given on the amended plan. The area, however, of lot No. 11, as it appears in plan Exhibit Y (p. 97, Expediente), is 3,999 square meters. On the 22nd day of June, 1911, the Honorable Jesse George, judge, ordered that a decree be issued in favor of the petitioner, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu, for the registration of the land in accordance with said amended plan (Expediente No. 5497). In accordance with said order the clerk of the Court of Land Registration drafted a decree on the 21st day of July, 1911. An examination of a decree of the 21st of July, 1911, shows clearly that it was decree for the registration of the lot No. 1 only as described in the amended plan and covered the 70,362 square meters of said lot. No reference whatever is made in said decree of lot No. 2, which lies immediately southeast of lot No. 11 of the Philippine Railway Company (see amended plan). By reference to the copy of the amended plan above, it will be seen that lot No. 11, the property of Philippine Railway Company join said lot No. 1 on the southwest. It will also be noted that lot No. 11 of the Philippine Railway Company lies immediately north and northwest of lot No. 2. Nothing further seems to have occurred with reference to the registration of lot No. 2 of the amended plan until the 6th day of November, 1923, when the Judge of the Court of Land Registration issued a decree, directing that said lot No. 2 be registered in the name of Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu (p. 77, Expediente). Evidently the mistake in not including lot No. 2 of the amended plan in a decree of July 21, 1911, was not discovered until or on about the 6th day of November, 1923. Said lot No. 2 of the amended plan is bounded on the north and northwest by the property of the Philippine Railway Company according to said decree, as will be seen in the plan inserted above, which fact is also noted in the technical description of the decree of lot No. 2 of the amended plan. On the 28th day of December, 1923, or within two months after the decree was issued in favor of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu to lot No. 2, the same was sold to Victorino Reynes, and a new certificate of title was issued to him (title No. 3340). In the meantime, however, and long before the decree was issued to lot No. 2 in favor of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu, the Philippine Railway Company presented a petition on the 2nd day of June, 1913 (General Land Registration Record No. 9642) for the registration of various lots, the ownership of which it had acquired on or about the year 1908, among which was said lot No. 11 in said petition was that of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu, which opposition was later withdrawn for the reason "that the Philippine Railway Company had acquired the rights said lot from the Bishop of Cebu (see pp. 332 and 370, Expediente 9642). The proceedings of the registration of said lots, including No. 11, continued and finally on the 11th day of December, 1917, an order for a registration of said lot No. 11 was made and a certificate of title was issued to said Philippine Railway Company (No. 358) on the 1st day of January, 1918. The description of the land included in the lot No. 11 shows that it was bounded on the north or northwest by lot No. 1 of the amended plan and on the south or southeast by lot No. 2 of the amended plan. The contention now of the Philippine Railway Company is, that when lot No. 2 of the amended plan was sold by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu to Victorino Reynes there was included therein a part of the land which had theretofore been sold to it as a part of lot No. 11 and which was registered in its name on the 1st day of January, 1918, a decree therefore having been issued on the 11th day of December, 1917. The following plan , Exhibit X, in the part marked B, shows the land which, it is claimed, had been registered twice — first, in 1918, in the name of the Philippine Railway Company, and again in 1923, in favor of Victorino Reynes. The facts contained in said Exhibit X (p.90) are corroborated by the facts found in plan Exhibit Y (p. 97). If it be true that said lot, marked Exhibit B in plans X and Y, was registered twice, under the Torrens system — first, in 1918, in the name of the Philippine Railway Company, and again in 1923, in the name of Victorino Reynes, and we believe the record justifies the statement that it was so registered — it must follow, in accordance with the decisions of this court heretofore pronounced, that the Philippine Railway Company being first to have said parcel registered, must be held to be the owner. (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590; Acantilado vs. De Santos, 32 Phil., 350, 354; De los Reyes vs. Razon, 38 Phil., 480, 483; Aquino vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil., 850, 858; Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Zamora and Santo Domingo, 41 Phil., 905, 908; Director of Lands vs. Insa and Enriquez, 47 Phil., 158.) It is contended , however, that in case of double registration, he who obtained the final sentence or decree of registration is the owner rather than the person who obtained the first certificate of title. In reply to that contention of the appelle our attention has been called to the case of De los Reyes vs. De Villa, (48 Phil., 227), where the question, when the decree for the registration of land under the Torrens system becomes final, is discussed. In that case this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Ostrand, decided that the decision of the trial court in a land registration case, ordering the issuance of the decree, is not in itself a decree of registration within the meaning of section 38 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496), and that, in the absence of the evidence to the contrary, the date noted on the final decree of registration as the date of its issuance and entry, must be regarded as true date of such entry. From the examination of this record, in view of that contention, and in the light of that decision, we find the following facts: lawphil.net First. That the decision of the court ordering the issuance of a decree for the registration of the parcels of land (lots Nos. 1 and 2) of the amended plan, was made on the 22nd day of June, 1911, in favor of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu. Second. That the final decree for the registration of lot No. 1 only was prepared by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, acting in his capacity of chief clerk of the Courts of First Instance in land registration matters, at 8:20 o'clock a.m. on the 21st day of July, 1911, and a certificate of title was issued for said lot (No. 1) on the ________ day of _________, 1911. Third. That the final decree for registration of lot No. 2 in the name of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu was prepared by the Chief of the Land Registration Office, acting in his capacity as chief clerk of the Courts of First Instance in land registration matters at 9:23 o'clock a.m. on the 6th day of November, 1923, and a certificate of title therefore was issued on the 15th day of November, 1923 (title No. 11328). On the 28th day of December, 1923, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu sold said lot No. 2 to the appellee Victorino Reynes, and there was issued to him a transfer certificate of title No. 3340. Said certificate of title No. 11328, upon the issuance of transfer certificate of title No. 3340, was cancelled. Fourth. That the final decree for the registration of lot No. 11 in the name of the Philippine Railway Company was prepared by the Chief of the Land Registration Office acting in his capacity as chief clerk of the Courts of First Instance in land registration matters on the 11th day of December, 1917, and the certificate of title (No. 358) was issued on the 1st day of January, 1918, in favor of said Railway Company. From the foregoing facts relating to the priority of the final decree of lots No. 11 and No. 2, it will be noted that the final decree for the registration of lot No. 11 was issued on the 11th day of December, 1917, and the certificate of title was issued on the 1st day of January, 1918, while the final decree for the registration of lot No. 2 was issued on the 6th day of November, 1923, and the certificate of title was issued on the 15th day of November, 1923. Thus it will be seen that both the final decree and the certificate of title for lot No. 11 were each issued, and antedate the final decree and the certificate of title for lot No. 2 for about five years. These facts leave no doubt that the Philippine Railway Company obtain the first title to lot No. 11, including the strip or parcel marked B in Exhibit X. There remains one question yet to be discussed, and that is, In the registration of lot No. 2 was there included a part of lot No. 11? The Philippine Railway Company asserts that a mistake was made and that the parcel or lot B in plan Exhibit X was a part of lot No. 11 but had been erroneously included in the decree for lot No. 2 in 1923. It is asserted that the railway station of said company is located upon said lot B of plan Exhibit X. Victorino Reynes upon the contrary contends that lot B of plan Exhibit X was rightfully included in and constituted part of lot No. 2 and that he should be given the possession of the same as the owner. Upon the question whether the mistake was made, as contended by the Philippine Railway Company, an examination of the record discloses, by the agreed statement of facts (pp. 112, 113)as well as the report of the surveyor, that in the certificate of transfer by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu to Victorino Reynes (No. 3340) there was included therein as a part of lot No. 2 a portion of lot No. 11, to which the Philippine Railway Company held certificate of title No. 358, issued on the 1st day of January, 1918. It is also admitted that when the decree for registration of lot No. 11 was issued he did not note the conflict which existed between the plan of lot No. 2 and the plan for lot No. 11. (See statement of surveyor, pp. 92, 93.) From all of the foregoing facts it clearly appears: First, that in the registration of lot No. 2 there was erroneously included therein that portion of lot No. 11 which is marked B in plan Exhibit X above; second, that said parcel B was registered in the names of both the Philippine Railway Company and Victorino Reynes; and third, that the final decree in favor of the Philippine Railway Company was issued long before the final decree in favor of Victorino Reynes was issued. It must follow, therefore, in accordance with the decisions of this Court above cited, that the Philippine Railway Company is the owner of lot B of plan Exhibit X. (De los Reyes vs. De Villa, 48 Phil., 227; Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590.) Therefore, the judgment of the lower court, giving said lot B to Victorino Reynes, should be and is hereby revoked. And without any finding as to costs, it is ordered. Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation