SPOUSES CARPO v. AYALA LAND, INCORPORATED
[G.R. No. 166577 February 3, 2010]
Land Titles and
Deeds Case Digest by John Paul C. Ladiao (11 Sept 2015)
Topic: Survey of the Land – Forms and
Contents (Section 15-19)
On February 16, 1995, petitioner
spouses Morris and Socorro Carpo (Carpos) filed a Complaint for Quieting of
Title with the RTC of Makati City
against Ayala Corporation, Ayala Property Ventures Corporation (APVC), and the
Register of Deeds of Las Pias.
In their Complaint, the Carpos
claimed to be the owners of a 171,209-square meter parcel of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 296463 issued in their names. They further alleged that Ayala Corporation
was claiming to have titles (specifically, TCT Nos. 125945, T-4366, T-4367 and
T-4368) over the property covered by the Carpos TCT No. 296463 and that Ayala
Corporation had made such property its equity contribution in APVC to be
developed into a residential subdivision.
According to the complaint, TCT Nos.
125945, T-4366, T-4367 and T-4368 and their derivatives appear to have been
issued in the name of Ayala and purport to cover and embrace the Carpos
property or portion thereof duly covered registered under the already indefeasible
and incontrovertible TCT [No.] 296463 are inherently invalid and enforceable
(sic) for not being the duly issued derivatives of the Carpos title. The Carpos additionally applied for a
restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin Ayala
Corporation and APVC from doing construction and development works on the
properties in purported violation of the Carpos rights.
Whether or not, THE TITLE OF
RESPONDENT IS VALID EVEN WITHOUT THE REQUISITE SURVEY PLAN APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR
OF LANDS.
NO. Petitioners clearly
misunderstood or deliberately misread the CAs ruling on this point. It is the
CAs view that the trial courts pronouncement that OCT No. 242 was issued
without an approved survey plan was unwarranted in view of the presumption of
regularity that said title enjoys.
It
is admitted that a survey plan is one of the requirements for the issuance of
decrees of registration, but upon the issuance of such decree, it can most
certainly be assumed that said requirement was complied with by ALIs original
predecessor-in-interest at the time the
latter sought original registration of the subject property. Moreover, the
land registration court must be assumed to have carefully ascertained the
propriety of issuing a decree in favor of ALIs predecessor-in-interest, under
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions by
public officers. The court upon which the law has conferred jurisdiction, is deemed
to have all the necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction, and to have
exercised it effectively. This is as it should be, because
once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system, and the time
has passed within which that decree may be questioned the title is perfect and cannot later on be questioned. There would
be no end to litigation if every litigant could, by repeated actions, compel a
court to review a decree previously issued by another court forty-five (45)
years ago. The very purpose of the Torrens system would be destroyed if the
same land may be subsequently brought under a second action for registration,
as what the court a quo did when it faulted ALIs failure to allege that its
predecessor-in-interest submitted a survey plan approved by the Director of the
Bureau of Lands in the original land registration case.
The
Court need not emphasize that it is not for ALI to allege in its pleadings,
much less prove, that its predecessor-in-interest complied with the
requirements for the original registration of the subject property. A party
dealing with a registered land need not
go beyond the Certificate of Title to determine the true owner thereof so as to
guard or protect his or her interest. Hence, ALI
was not required to go beyond what appeared in the transfer certificate of
title in the name of its immediate
transferor. It may rely solely, as it did, on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued for the subject property and the law will in no way oblige it to go behind the certificate of title
to determine the condition of the property. This is the fundamental nature
of the Torrens System of land registration, to give the public the right to
rely upon the face of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need
of inquiring further.
No comments:
Post a Comment