Dolfo v. Register of Deeds (NAME) mandamus.
September 25, 2000 | Mendoza, J. | Torrens System; Purpose, advantages, benefits;
Torrens system does not create or vest title but only confirms and records one
already existing and vested.
PETITIONER: Amelita Dolfo
RESPONDENTS: THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF
CAVITE, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, CESAR E. CASAL,
RUSTICO A. CASAL, ERNESTO A. CASAL, RODOLFO A. CASAL,
ALFREDO A. CASAL, JR., EMMANUEL A. B. CASAL, RAFAEL S.
CASAL, JR., C. JOSEFINA S. CASAL, CELEDONIA S. CASAL,
WILHELMINA S. CASAL, MELANIO MEDINA, ADELAIDA MEDINA,
AURORA MEDINA, C.P.G. AGRICOM CORPORATION and HEIRS OF
DAMIAN ERMITANIO and CELEDONIA MARTINEZ,
SUMMARY: Dolfo filed a motion for intervention in 3 original applications for
land registration cases pending with the RTC. She alleged that she was in
possession of a TCT over the parcels of land subject of the registration cases.
The RTC denied her motion, and consequently the CA as well, on the finding
that her title is of doubtful authenticity. The SC held that indeed her title is
doubtful. Furthermore, Dolfo cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate.
The Torrens system does not create or vest title but only confirms and records
one already existing and vested.
DOCTRINE:
 The Torrens system does not create or vest title but only confirms and
records one already existing and vested.
 A land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land
covered by a certificate of title, but this rule applies only where there
exists no serious controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.
FACTS:
1. Dolfo filed a motion for leave to file and/or admit complaint in intervention
in 3 LRC cases filed by private respondents. She alleged that she is the
registered owner of the real property subject of the application for
registration as shown by her TCT.
2. The trial court denied her motion.
a. Complaint for intervention is not the proper remedy.
b. There is already a general order of default against those who failed
to oppose timely.
3. Dolfo’s motion for reconsideration was denied again by the trial court. This
time it based its denial on 2 reports:
a. LRA report – Dolfo’s TCT was issued without legal basis
b. NBI report – Signature of the Register of Deeds Antonia
Cabuco, who denied signing on the document, appearing on
Dolfo’s TCT was a forgery.
4. Aggrieved, she elevated the case to the CA via a petition for certiorari and
5. The CA also denied her petitions.
6. Hence this present petition for review on certiorari
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether the CA erred in not denying her petitions
a. Error in holding that the remedy is an opposition to the application.
b. Error in not admitting motion for intervention on the basis of
her possession of an indefeasible title.
c. Error in not upholding her title despite overhwhelming evidence to
prove genuineness and due execution of her title.
RULING: the petition is DENIED, and the decision and the resolution of the CA are
AFFIRMED.
RATIO:
1. Under PD 1529, the applicant and the oppositor are the only parties in cases
of original applications for land registration, unlike in ordinary civil actions
where parties may include plaintiff, defendant, third party complainant,
cross-claimant, and intervenor.
2. Thus, the proper remedy should be to file a motion to lift general order of
default and upon the lifting, file an opposition to the application. This is
because proceedings in land registration are in rem and not in personam, the
sole object being the registration applied for and not determination of any
right connected with the registration.
3. Both the trial court and the CA made factual findings that Dolfo’s title
to the land is of doubtful authenticity.
4. The rule that a title issued under the Torrens system is presumed valid and
hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land does not apply
where the certificate itself is faulty as to its purported origin.
5. In this case, Dolfo anchors her claim on the premise that her title is
indefeasible because of the abovementioned presumption. However, the
presumption on the validity of her title was overcame by the evidence
in the form of the LRA and NBI reports.
6. The investigation on her title yielded that there really existed in the
records of the Registry of Deeds of the TCT she was in possession of.
Moreover, there is also no record of the TCT from which her TCT was
derived from.
7. Even the Director of the Registry of Deeds, from his personal verification,
opined that indeed the TCT was of doubtful authenticity.
8. The petitioner cannot invoke the indefeasibility of her certificate. It
must be emphasized that the Torrens system does not create or vest
title but only confirms and records one already existing and vested.
9. Thus, while it may be true, that a land registration court has no
jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by a certificate of title,
it is also true that this rule applies only where there is no serious
controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.