DEL PRADO VS CABALLERO

Several parcels of land, including Cadastral Lot No. 11909, were adjudicatedin favor of Spouses
Antonio and Leonarda Caballero in 1985; hence, the courtordered for the issuance of the decree
of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor of the Caballeros.On June 11,
1990, Spouses Caballero sold to Carmen del Prado, Cadastral LotNo. 11909 on the basis of the
tax declaration covering the property. On March 20,1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastral
proceedings a "Petition for Registrationof Document Under PD 1529" in order that a certificate
of title be issued in hername, covering the whole Lot No. 11909, which is in excess of the
allotted area tobe sold. In the petition, she alleged that the tenor of the instrument of
saleindicated that the sale was for a lump sum, in which case, the vendor was bound todeliver all
that was included within said boundaries even when it exceeded the areaspecified in the contract.

Issue
WON the petitioner’s recourse, by filing the petition for registration in thesame cadastral case,
was proper.

Ruling
Petitioner’s recourse, by filing the petition for registration in the samecadastral case, was
improper. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that acertificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title tothe property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein. Suchindefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of the
decree of registration. Inasmuch as the petition for registration of document did not interruptthe
running of the period to file the appropriate petition for review and consideringthat the
prescribed one-year period had long since expired, the decree of registration, as well as the
certificate of title issued in favor of respondents, hadbecome incontrovertible.In addition, what
really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculatedwith more or less certainty, mentioned
in its description, but the boundaries thereinlaid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its
limits. However, numerical dataare not the sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or
deficiency in area. Inthe instant case, the parties agreed on the purchase price of P

40,000.00 for apredetermined area of 4,000 sq m, with the specified boundaries. Clearly,
thediscrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference in quantity. Itis not a
reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in thedeed of sale