Feliciano Ramos vs. Hon. Francisco Rodriguez G.R. No.

94033, May 29, 1995

Main principle involved: Petition for Review of Decree

FACTS
Feliciano Ramos, applied for registration of a parcel of land in San Jose, Rizal, identified as Lot 125-B of subdivision plan
Psd-760.

July 28, 1988 RTC, acting as a Land Registration Court, rendered a decision adjudicating the said lot to Ramos.

Sep. 12, 1988
- The same court, issued an Order of Issuance of Decree stating its July 28, 1988 decision has become final and
executory.
- The same court directed the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA), to prepare
the decree pursuant to Sec. 39 of PD No. 1529 and prepare the certificate of registration.

Instead of issuing the said certificate, NLTDRA through its administrator Teodoro Bonifacio:
- Submitted a report dated Sep. 26, 1988, recommending that the decision made on July 28, 1988 be set aside
since Lot 125-B was already covered by an existing TCT (TCT #8816), issued on October 29, 1984, in the name
of Payatas Estate Improvement Company.

The Ramos claimed that the said TCT was fraudulent but they failed to present any evidence in support of such
allegation.

The RTC, on the other hand, contend that it cannot set aside its decision on July 28, 1988 since it already became final
and executory. It added that the proper remedy of the government was an action for annulment of judgment.

Teodoro Bonifacio, through the chief legal officer of the LRA, filed a motion for reconsideration.

Mar. 29, 1990
- The court quo [wala ko kahibaw unsa nang court quo, whether CA bah or lain na RTC] issued an order
granting the motion for reconsideration. It also denied Ramos application for registration and sets aside the
decision made on July 28, 1988.
- The court noted that the subject lot was covered by an existing TCT and that no final decree has yet been issued
by the LRA

ISSUE:
Whether or not a final and executory decision, after a lapse of more than 15 days, of a Trial Court acting as the Land
Registration Court, can be validly set aside?

RULING:
The Supreme Court held that unlike any ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration
proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility, until the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final
decree of registration.

As long as the final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of
1 year has not yet elapsed from the date of such entry of the decree, the title is not yet finally adjudicated and the decision
of the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

Petitioner Ramos Contends:
- The issuance of the decree of registration and the certificate of title by the LRA is a ministerial duty which follows
of course the order of the court directing it to issue said decree.

The SC held:
Citing the case of Gomez --- The role of the LRA is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and
the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court.

However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to
refer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their
act is the act of the court. They are specifically upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
registration proceedings.

In the case at bar:
Adminstrator Teodoro Bonifacio filed his report to the court precisely to inform the court that NLTDRA cannot comply with
its order since the subject lot was already registered and titled in the name of the Payatas Estate. Under this
circumstances, the LRA is not legally obliged to follow the courts order.




Petitioner Ramos Contends:
- Petitioner contends that a decision by the court cannot be set aside upon the mere motion for reconsideration
filed by the LRA, the motion must be properly brought before the court by the Solicitor General.

The SC held:
Under the Administrative Code of 1987 the Solicitor General is bound to represent the Government in all land
registration and related proceedings. However, PD 1529, section 6, specifically enumerates the function of the
Commission of the Land Registration, the same law did not in any way, took away LRAs power to make the
representation the same as that of the Solicitor General in land registration proceedings.

Even granting that there are procedural lapses that have been committed in the proceedings. These may be ignored by
the Court in the interest of substantive justice.

Furthermore, the SC held that this controversy could have been avoided hand the proper procedure in the land
registration proceeding was observed. The court should have rendered its decision only after considering the evidence
and the reports of the Commissioner of the Land Registration and the Director of Lands.

If a faster disposition of the proceedings were really desired, the court could have wielded its power in the office of the
LRA to speed up its investigation, report and recommendation.