WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION, INC., (WIDORA) vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and

ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP G.R. No. 91797 August 28, 1991
Facts: Plaintiff WIDORA filed before the respondent court an application for registration of a
parcel of land alleging that said is covered covered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 and
issued in the name of the deceased Mariano San Pedro y Esteban and acquired said property
from the heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro situated in at Malitlit-Uoogong, Quezon City, with an
area of 156 hectares, more or less, described in Plan No. LRC (SWO)-15352. Respondent of
the previous case, Molina, filed an opposition to the CA, claiming ownership over 12 to 14
hectares of Lot 8. Petitioner Ortigas filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that said court
had no jurisdiction over the case, the land being applied for having been already registered
under the Torrens System and in the name of Ortigas. The court issued an order directing the
applicant to prove its contention that TCT 77652 and TCT 77653 are not proper derivatives of
the original certificates of titles. petitioner Ortigas filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging
among others that Land Registration Commission itself has advised the court that the 156
hectare property sought to be registered is covered by valid and subsisting titles in the name of
Ortigas, but was later denied by the same court. The CA, dated dated November 27, 1989,
declared respondent Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership (Ortigas) as the registered
owner of the disputed parcel of land is covered by Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was again denied. Later, respondent
Ortigas instituted an action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before respondent court
praying for the annulment prayed that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the land registration
case whichgranted by the court. The petition on hand, WIDORA argues that respondent court
erred in sustaining the validity of TCTs Nos. 77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a
supporting decree of registration and instead utilized secondary evidence, OCT 351 which is
supposedly a copy of Decree 1425.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent trial court erred in sustaining the validity of the TCT NOs.
77652 and 77653 despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration.
Held: Yes. Under Act 496, it is the decree of registration issued by the Land Registration
Commission which is the basis for the subsequent issuance of the certificate of title by the
corresponding Register of Deeds that quiets the title to and binds the land. Consequently, if no
decree of registration had been issued covering the parcel of land applied for, then the
certificate of title issued over the said parcel of land does not quiet the title to nor bind the land
and is null and void. As for the error of the court, Sec. 108, PD 1529 states that no correction
of certificate of title shall be made except by order of the court in a petition filed for the purpose
and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered and
jurisprudence held that While the law fixes no prescriptive period therefor, the court, however,
is not authorized to alter or correct the certificate of title if it would mean the reopening of the
decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law As jurisprudence stated One who
relies on a document evidencing his title to the property must prove not only the genuineness
thereof but also the identity of the land therein referred to In the case at bar, private
respondent's TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 trace their origins from OCT Nos. 337, 19, 336 and
334 and not from OCT 351 as it is now claimed by respondent Ortigas. As for the decision of the
trial court in the previous case, ..." Nowhere in said decision, however, is a pronouncement that
TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 were issued from TCT No. 227758. On the contrary, it is not
disputed by the parties that TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 themselves show that they were
derived from OCT No. 337, 19, 336 and 334 and not from OCT 351 or TCT 227758. If indeed,
the real origin thereof is OCT No. 351, what respondent Ortigas should have done was to file a
petition for the correction of the TCTs in question as stated earlier.