laburada v. LRA

LABURADA vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY [G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998]

FACTS: Sps. Laburada applied for the registration of Lot 3-A which was approved by the trial court. Upon motion of petitioners, the trial court issued an order requiring the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA refused. Hence, petitioners filed an action for mandamus. The LRA revealed that based on records, Lot 3-A which sought to be registered by Sps. Laburada is part of Lot No. 3, over which TCT No. 6595 has already been issued. Upon the other hand, Lot 3-B of said Lot 3 is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 29337 issued in the name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, which was issued as a transfer from TCT No. 6595. The LRA contended that to issue the corresponding decree of registration sought by the petitioners, it would result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, and thus contravene the policy and purpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the same. ISSUE: Whether or not the LRA may be compelled by mandamus to issue a decree of registration if it has evidence that the subject land may already be included in an existing Torrens certificate of title? HELD: NO. It is settled that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void, since the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once. Thus, if it is proven that the land which petitioners are seeking to register has already been registered in 1904 and 1905, the issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners will run counter to said principle. 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. It is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a decree of registration. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is REMANDED to the court of origin in Pasig City. The LRA, on the other hand, is ORDERED to submit to the court a quo a report determining with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in the property described in TCT No. 6595, within sixty (60) days from notice. After receipt of such report, the land registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, with deliberate and judicious speed, to settle the issue of whether the LRA may issue the decree of registration, according to the facts and the law as herein discussed.