LTC Class Case #9 ID 1350066 parcel of land, such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose,
such issuance may contravene the policy and the purpose, and
Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998
Facts: On March, 1990, an application for registration of title of a parcel of
land situated in the Municipality of San Felipe Neri, Rizal, was filed by Spouses
Laburada (Marciano and Erlinda). After plotting, the aforesaid plan sought to be
registered; it was found that it might be a portion of parcels of land decreed in
Court of Land Registration as per plotting of the subdivision plan. On May,
1991, a letter was sent to the Register of deeds requesting for a copy of the
Original Certificate of Title (OCT). After examining the furnished OCT, it was
found that the technical description of the parcel of land described therein is not
readable, that prompted the court to send another letter requesting for a certified
typewritten copy of the OCT. After verification of the records, it was found that
another TCT was issued in the name of Escurdia Buenaflor. However the title
issued for the parcel of land cannot be located in the TCT of Beunaflor because
there were several sheets that were incomplete.
\ mandamus. The court has to decide a question according to its own judgment
Thus, issuing the corresponding decree of registration sought by petitioners
would result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land and would
contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens registration system.
In view of the foregoing explanation, the solicitor general prays that the petition
be dismissed for being premature.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent Land Registration Authority can be
compelled to issue the corresponding decree in the RTC.
Held: The Court agrees with the solicitor general. The Court holds that
mandamus is not the proper remedy for three reasons.
First: Judgment Is Not Yet Executory. Contrary to the petitioners allegations,
the judgment they seek to enforce in this petition is not yet executory and
incontrovertible under the Land Registration Law. That is, they do not have any
clear legal right to implement it. The Court have unambiguously ruled that a
judgment of registration does not become executory until after the expiration of
one year after the entry of the final decree of registration.
Second: A Void Judgment Is Possible. That the LRA hesitates in issuing a
decree of registration is understandable. Rather than a sign of negligence or
nonfeasance in the performance of its duty, the LRAs reaction is reasonable,
even imperative. Considering the probable duplication of titles over the same
thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of registration.
Third: Issuance of a Decree Is Not a Ministerial Act. The issuance of a decree
of registration is part of the judicial function of courts and is not a mere
ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus. The issuance of the
final decree can hardly be considered a ministerial act for the reason that
said Chief of the General Land Registration Office acts not as an
administrative officer but as an officer of the court and so the issuance of a final
decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one.
Indeed, it is well-settled that the issuance of such decree is not compellable by
mandamus because it is a judicial act involving the exercise of discretion
A court may be compelled by mandamus to pass and act upon a question
submitted to it for decision, but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or against
one of the parties. As stated earlier, a judicial act is not compellable by
and understanding of the law.
In view of the foregoing, it is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a
decree of registration. However, to avoid multiplicity of suits and needless
delay, the Court deems it more appropriate to direct the LRA to expedite its
study, to determine with finality whether said lot is included in the property
described in the TCT, and to submit a report thereon to the court of origin
within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Decision, after which the said court
shall act with deliberate speed according to the facts and the law, as herein
discussed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is
REMANDED to the court of origin in Pasig City. The Land Registration
Authority, on the other hand, is ORDERED to submit to the court a quo a report
determining with finality whether the lot is really included in the TCT.