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 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-Ugong, Quezon City, with an area of 156 hectares, more or less. 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 under TCT 77652 and TCT 77653. 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 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 which was granted 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. Petitioner maintains that Decree 1425 is itself existing and available at the Register of
Deeds of Manila and on its face shows that it covers a parcel of land with an area of only 17 hectares in
Sta. Ana while the parcel of land applied for contains an area of 156 hectares, located at Quezon City, 4
kilometers away from Sta. Ana and certified by the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forestry as
alienable and disposable

Issue: WON 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.