BENIN ET.AL., ALCANTARA ET.AL., PILI ET.AL., VS.

TUASON (EN BANC)

CASE NO:57 scra 531 june 28, 1974

CHAPTER: P 329 ORIGINAL REGISTRATION AND REMEDIES
PONENTE J. Zaldivar

FACTS

3 sets of plaintiffs field 3 separate complaints containing substantially the same allegations. They alleged that the
defendants has dispossessed and deprived the plaintiffs of the parcels of land which they claimed as their own and of
which they had been in actual, open and continuous possession, and that their land was wrongfully included in the
certificate Tittle #735 obtained by the defendants. They further alleged that the certificate of tittle was procured
invalidly because it resulted from an invalid decree bec. of irregular registration proceeding. As it failed to satisfy the
publication .requirement under Act 496. Further, the alleged that they were not notified of the registration
proceedings. the lower court sustained the petitioners. The defendants on appeal posed the A; Argument:4.
Requirements for valid registration of tittle wer complied 5. Buyers of good faith Alleged irregularity in Pub.
requirement: 1. Amended plan of the parcel of land in ques. was not pub.2. Description of the land in the decree not
identical with the one published3. Transcription of the decree was not made in accordance with the law

Issue:

Won amendment of the application for registration requires pub.

Won a disorderly transcription of the decree of registration invalidates the same

RULING:

1. It depends. If the amendments consists in the inclusion of an area or parcel of land not included in the original.
Applications published. A new publication of the amended application must be made to give notice to all persons that
may be affected who may have the opportunity to present thesis claims which might be prejudice. But if the
amendment consist only in the exclusion of a portion of the area covered. A new publication is not necessary. In the
case at bar, the amendment in the original application showed that such amendment was made to exclude certain
areas of land in question. Since no new parcel of land was included, the publication is not necessary. In order to vest
the LRC with jurisdiction to hear and decide the application for registration. And to order the issuance of a decree of
registration upon which a certificate of title was based. Thus, the lower court used in declaring the OCT null and void.

2. The lower court also based its discussion on the fact that the description of the land area in the application for
registration and that published in OG is not identical in that there is a 27.10 sq. meter inc. in the application than that
published. Even in granting that the registration court had no jurisdiction over the inc. area of 27.10 sq. meters. the
most that the lower court could have done was to nullify the decree and the certificate of title in solar as that area of
27.10 is concerned.

 Once the registration court has acquired jurisdiction over a certain parcel, or parcels of land in the
registration proceedings in virtue of the publication of the application, the jurisdiction attaches to the land or
lands mentioned in the registration for application.

17
 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS- FACULTAD DE DERECHO CIVIL
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

If it shal be later shown that the decree of registration had included land or lands not included in the original
application as published, then the registration proceedings and the decree of registration shal/must be declared
null and void but only in solar as the land not included in the publication concerned bec. the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the land not included in the publication the pub. being the basis of the jurisdiction of the court.
Registration does not vest title nor is it a mean of acquiring one. It is merely for evidential, documentation
purposes.

* Transcription of decree of registration although disorderly doe not invalidate the decree of registration so long as
the necessary inputs are found therein to satisfy the purpose of said transcription.

Rule regarding reconveyance of land: (when he claims it was wrongly registered in the name of another)
1. Recognize the validity of the certificate of title of the latter
2. Can only be had if the same is still registered under the name of the person who procured the wrongful registration.
3. No action for reconveyance can be placed as against a thieved person who acquired the same in good faith
and for value.
4. If reconveyance is not available, damages can be demanded fr. the person who procured the wrongful
registration. * the petitioners further contends that they have a cause of action against the dependants, that the
same has no
prescribed and dependants are not parties who acquired the prop. in good faith.

a. The OCt was issued originally to may or as go Tuason which become involved a litigation. During the pending of
the case, the BPI administered his prop. and the court ordered that said prop. be transferred and assigned in favor
of D.Tuason upon payment of a sum. TCT in favor of D. Tuason and his heirs were issued. This was approved by
the court. The heirs then of D. Tuason sold the prop. to S.M. Tuason. This if the heirs of D. Tuason had acquired
the land in a transaction authorized by the court for a valuable consideration, thereby acquiring good title, then the
same can be said to the acquisition by j.m. Tuason even if the incorporators of the two corporation belong to the
same Tuason family as it may happen that they have diff. and distinct and separate assets.

b. They do not have cause of action against defendants bec. J.M. Tuason was /is not one of the original registered
owners that procured the registration of the land. They are not parties nor privies to it. They have nothing to with
reg. proceedings that led to the issuance of the OCT. the statue of

c. Their action is barred by limitations. The proceeding of the LRC is in the sum in that personal notification is not
required bec. Of pub. Notice. And the decree of registration bound that lands covered and quieted title thereto, and
conclusive upon and against all persons. And the same can only be reopened within one year after entry of the
decree, if it still i[i]has not passed upon the hands of third persons who acquired it in good faith and for value. In
the case at bar, no petition for review of decree was filed within 1 yr. aster July 8, 1914, the date it was entered. *
Petition dismissed. Decision of the RTC reverse.