Widows and Orphans Association v.

CA

FACTS
Widows and Orphans Association (Widora) filed LRC Case no. Q-336 before the QC RTC in 1974. It
alleged that the land, situated at Malilit-Uoogong, QC, had an area of 156 hectares and was
covered by Titulo de Propriedad 4136 from 1894 issued in the name of Mariano San Pedro y
Esteban. It acquired the land from the heirs of Don Mariano in 1954.

Dolores Molina (not a party to the SC case, but party to the RTC proceedings) filed an opposition,
claiming ownership of 12 to 14 hectares of the lot. Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court since the land was already registered
under TCT 77652 and 77653 under the name of Ortigas.

The RTC issued an order directing Ortigas to prove its contention that 77652 and 77653 are not
proper derivatives of the OCTs from which they were previously issued. It set the case for hearing
on 28 Jun 1979. One day before, on 27 Jun, Ortigas filed an MR against the order, alleging that a
Torrens title becomes indefeasible after a year and is conclusive upon the whole world, and the
LRC has advised the court that the land is covered by valid titles in the name of Ortigas, and that
previous cases have sustained Ortigas' title.

The MR was denied but the MTD was reset for hearing at 18 and 19 Oct. The MTD was later
denied by the RTC, holding that TCT 77652 and 77653 show that they were derived from OCTs
337, 19, 336, 334, pursuant to Decree 1425, and that Decree 1425 shows that it only covers 17
hectares in Sta. Ana, Manila, four kilometers away from the QC land. MR for the denial was also
denied.

Instead of appealing, Ortigas filed for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the CA
questioning the order denying his MTD. The CA granted the petition, holding that TCT Nos. 77652
and 77653, albeit reflecting their origins as OCT Nos. 337, 19, 336 and 334, are actually derivatives
of OCT No. 351, the latter having been issued pursuant to Decree 1425 and that since OCT 351 is
allegedly a copy of Decree 1425, the mere fact that the original copy of Decree 1425, or a certified
copy thereof, can no longer be located or produced, does not mean that Decree 1425 covering the
lots embraced in TCT Nos. 77652 and 77653 was not issued.

Petition for review on certiorari to the SC.

ISSUE
[Evidence]
W/N Respondent Ortigas proved Decree 1425. NO
[LTD]
W/N the CA properly made factual findings. NO.
W/N the SC decision in Ortigas & Co. v. Ruiz recognized that TCT 227758 from which TCTs 77652
and 77653 were issued are covered by Decree 1425. NO

HELD
a. Ortigas did not properly prove Decree 1425, although it did allege that OCT 351 is a copy of
the decree. The evidence submitted was merely secondary (plan submitted by Ortigas,
 testimony of the surveyor and OCT 351). Before secondary evidence may be admitted, there
must be proof of 1) execution of the original writing and 2) that it has been destroyed or
cannot be produced in court or that it is in the possession of the adverse party who has
failed to produce it after reasonable notice.

a. Futhermore, the CA should not have substituted its own findings of fact on the coverage of
the land included in TCTs 77652 and 77653. This matter is for the land registration court
and only for a full fledged trial on the merits. The parties have yet to present fully their
evidence with the trial court, and the TC actually set the case for hearing on the merits on
19 May 1989.

It also covers a huge tract of land covering 156 hectares in both Sta. Ana and QC. The
disputed facts necessitate a trial.

Under Act 496, it is the decree of registration issued by the LRC 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.

a. Ortigas should also not have appealed the interlocutory order denying the motion to
dismiss. The proper remedy is to appeal after trial and judgment on the merits and not a
writ of prohibition.

a. CA also committed a procedural lapse in correcting the alleged errors in the question TCTs.
A certificate of title cannot be altered, amended or cancelled except in a direct proceeding
in accordance with law. Also, 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. 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.

a. The decision in Ortigas v. Ruiz does not apply here. Nowhere in the decision, 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 Ortigas should have done was
to file a petition for the correction of the TCTs in question as stated earlier.

a. Although a land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by
a certificate of title, the rule applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to the
certificate's authenticity vis-à-vis the land covered therein. The parties here admit that the
TCTs do not show they are derivatives of OCT 351, as claimed by Ortigas. If a person obtains
a title, under the Torrens System, which includes by mistake or oversight land which cannot
be registered under the Torrens System, he does not, by virtue of said certificate alone,
become the owner of the lands illegally included