Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MARIANO AND ERLINDA LABURADA v. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 148748 2015-01-14	SYJUCO v. FELISA D. BONIFACIO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Moreover, the rule on the incontrovertibility or indefeasibility of title has no application in this case given the fact that the contending parties claim ownership over the subject land based on their respective certificates of title thereon which originated from different sources. Certainly, there cannot be two or even several certificates of title on the same parcel of real property because "a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case" and "a second decree for the same land would be null and void, since the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once."[47] The indefeasibility of a title under the Torrens system could be claimed only if a previous valid title to the same parcel of land does not exist. Where the issuance of the title was attended by fraud, the same cannot vest in the titled owner any valid legal title to the land covered by it; and the person in whose name the title was issued cannot transmit the same, for he has no true title thereto. This ruling is a mere affirmation of the recognized principle that a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered and that an earlier certificate for the same land is in existence.[48]
	GR No. 141019 2011-11-23	JOSE TEOFILO MERCADO v. VALLEY MOUNTAIN MINES EXPLORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Again, there is no showing that the above recommendation was duly considered and acted upon by the trial court. It also did not wait for the submission of reports requested by the LRA from the aforementioned agencies concerning the status of Lot 4831-B, whether it is covered by any kind of public land application/land patent, is a portion of or identical to any parcel of land covered by previously approved isolated survey, and is inside the alienable and disposable land of the public domain.[94]It should be stressed that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence, and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property. Otherwise stated, all facts must indicate that no other person, including the government, will be prejudiced by the adjudication of the land to the applicant.[95]Indeed, a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void.[96]
	GR No. 150462 2011-06-15	TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION v. LUIS FAJARDO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In this case, the RTC of Pasig, cognizant of a previous decree of registration instead ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates in favor of the heirs of Gregorio, erroneously declaring that such certificates are in lieu of OCT Nos. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680. Said court exceeded its authority when it ordered the issuance of transfer certificates in the name of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them covering the sae parcel of land. This caused the duplication of titles held by the heirs of Gregorio over Lot 1. Thus, while there was only one decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and private respondent, Emilio Gregorio, the latter's heirs were able to secure two transfer certificates covering the same land. Indeed it could not order the issuance of another OCT as it would result to duplication of titles or "double titling."[44] A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.[45] Issuance of another decree covering the same land is therefore null and void.[46]
	GR NO. 152149 2006-04-25	BENJAMIN SUBIDO v. REPUBLIC GARCIA, J.
First, a closer scrutiny of its photocopy, TCT No. 95582 is indeed derivative of OCT No. 632. Second, the attention of the trial court has been called not only once but twice, initially on the first Supplementary Report of LRA dated April 10, 1997, and on the Second Supplementary Report together with the decision of this Court in Ragua case, both of which were attached in the Opposition filed by the Republic of the Philippines. Verily, the trial court should have not granted precipitately the reconstitution of TCT No. 95582 by striking off from the records the Republic's Opposition on the grounds that it was filed out of time, and not relevant to the instant case. Therein, lies the flaw in the decision. In Ramos vs. Rodriguez[18], reiterated in Laburada vs. LRA[19], the Court ruled that LRA is mandated to refer to the trial court any doubt it may have in regard to the preparation and issuance of decree of registration. In this respect, LRA officials act not only as administrative officials, but as officers of said court, and their act is the act of the court. By the same vein, LRA is mandated also to refer to the court any doubt existing on the petition for reconstitution of certificate of title.
	GR NO. 143870 2005-09-30	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. RIVERA VILLAGE LESSEE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TINGA, J.
A writ of mandamus can be issued only when petitioner's legal right to the performance of a particular act which is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. A clear legal right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law.[28]
	GR NO. 152823 2003-09-23	RUFINA CHUA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Petitioner Chua's petition for mandamus in G.R. No. 152823, which seeks to compel the Court of Appeals to consider the records of the case as reconstituted, must fail. Reconstitution is not a ministerial task. It involves the exercise of discretion on the part of a court in evaluating the authenticity and relevance of all evidence to be presented before it. Thus, the extraordinary writ of mandamus cannot be used to dictate upon the court how it will rule in the admission of the reconstituted evidence, inasmuch as this calls for the exercise of discretion. We have ruled that the court may be compelled by mandamus to pass and act upon a question submitted to it for decision, but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or against one of the parties. A judicial act is not compellable by mandamus; the court has to decide a question according to its own judgment and understanding of the law.[19]