ee = os ee ow ee ——— In tne case at bar, the LRA fs not legaly cbigsted ta falow the courts erder because the subject land sought to be regatered was fund to be already decreed Sand thlesurder the Paya Estate “he one-year pered stated in Sec 32 of PD 1929 witrin which a peition to reopen and reve the cecree of eghtrasion Edesentein sac aLetthe sais eb wnien decree is prepared and Issued by the Crrrissioner of Land Regetration E. Certineete of The PONCE DE LEON VS. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP, 38 SORA 289 (1878) Facts: Ponce procured an industrial oan from AFC in £961. Ae securey, Ponce mortgaged a parcel of land in Paranaque whieh was registeredin the name of Francisco Soriano (FS) ~ OCT No. 8054 ~ rmartadto Tomas Focrigiez. A thetime ot Signing ofthe morcgage deed, Tomasa was afeagy dead leaung her his, her chlsren None of Temasa's children signed the rmertgage dee. Ponce failed to pay the amorizatons due. REC tock steps to extre- idiclally foreclose the properties, "Upon foreclosure, AFC purchased the Paranacue et. rorto ene expiration ofthe one- year perod rederption pared FS ffredto Fepurehase the PQLE lt for P14,000, but {he bane (REC) rejected the effer. REC scheduled the puble see of the bt. In 1936, Ponce fied the present action qlstionng the valdty ofthe sheris fereclsive sat, an requesing 8 vt of torestrain RFC fram carrying out Its ‘Sheil sa ‘The Sorianos filed a 3 paty carpleht conending that the morgage at ‘eid insofar a2 PSs concerned for ack of tensideration; and that the PQUE lot bebngedtothe coriugal provety, andthat “Terasa was afeady deat a the thre. and the heirs who have inverted i have nat ‘Sgnedthe martgage exrract The Te demissed Ponce’: campltt, and deckred the ertgage of 1/2 tfthe PQUE lot of void because t belongs tothe hare offeraca, Al the three partes eppeded lesuse: WON the TC ered in valaing the ele ta the AFL of the POLE lot, upan the (ound thatthe sarne formed part af the enjigalparnershp ofthe Sonano spauses, Hale! Retio Decidendi » The Tere in spplyng the sad presuretin, The saleto Fre levale Ie appears thet the property was rgtteredin thereof Frarcece Sofare frarmadta Tornasa Redrguss.” anc that bbered onthe fact alone, the TC presumed thar tbelongeta the coniiga parershe The TC erred in applying the said presuretin. "We shoud et overbok the fc thet the thle sal propeny wasrat a renster catcate of tle, but an orbind one, sued Fracrorwance nih adores whkh, pursiart to lv, mersiy confrme apre-actng t= Seid OCT does rot establish, therefore, the time of aculeton ofthe POU propery by Ue regstered owner rect