8/11/2019 Ramos vs. Rodriguez G.R. No. 94033, 1995 Case Digest

1/2

Feliciano Ramos vs. Hon. Francisco Rodriguez G.R. No. 94033, May 29, 1995

Main principle involved: Petition for Review of Decree

FACTSFeliciano Ramos, applied for registration of a parcel of land in San Jose, Rizal, identified as Lot 125-B of subdivision planPsd-760.

July 28, 1988RTC, acting as a Land Registration Court, rendered a decision adjudicating the said lot to Ramos.

Sep. 12, 1988- The same court, issued an Order of Issuance of Decree stating its July 28, 1988 decision has become final and

executory.- The same court directed the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA), to prepare

the decree pursuant to Sec. 39 of PD No. 1529 and prepare the certificate of registration.

Instead of issuing the said certificate, NLTDRA through its administrator Teodoro Bonifacio:- Submitted a report dated Sep. 26, 1988, recommending that the decision made on July 28, 1988 be set aside

since Lot 125-B was already covered by an existing TCT (TCT #8816), issued on October 29, 1984, in the nameof Payatas Estate Improvement Company.

The Ramos claimed that the said TCT was fraudulent but they failed to present any evidence in support of suchallegation.

The RTC, on the other hand, contend that it cannot set aside its decision on July 28, 1988 since it already became finaland executory. It added that the proper remedy of the government was an action for annulment of judgment.

Teodoro Bonifacio, through the chief legal officer of the LRA, filed a motion for reconsideration.

Mar. 29, 1990- The court quo [wala ko kahibaw unsa nang court quo, whether CA bah or lain na RTC] issued an order

granting the motion for reconsideration. It also denied Ramos application for registration and sets aside thedecision made on July 28, 1988.

- The court noted that the subject lot was covered by an existing TCT and that no final decree has yet been issuedby the LRA

ISSUE:Whether or not a final and executory decision, after a lapse of more than 15 days, of a Trial Court acting as the LandRegistration Court, can be validly set aside?

RULING:The Supreme Court held that unlike any ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registrationproceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility, until the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the finadecree of registration.

As long as the final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of1 year has not yet elapsed from the date of such entry of the decree, the title is not yet finally adjudicated and the decisionof the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

Petitioner Ramos Contends:- The issuance of the decree of registration and the certificate of title by the LRA is a ministerial duty which follows

of course the order of the court directing it to issue said decree.

The SC held:Citing the case of Gomez --- The role of the LRA is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court andthe decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court.

However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty torefer the matter to the court. They act, in this respect as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and theiract is the act of the court. They are specifically upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral landregistration proceedings.

8/11/2019 Ramos vs. Rodriguez G.R. No. 94033, 1995 Case Digest

2/2

In the case at bar:Adminstrator Teodoro Bonifacio filed his report to the court precisely to inform the court that NLTDRA cannot comply withits order since the subject lot was already registered and titled in the name of the Payatas Estate. Under thiscircumstances, the LRA is not legally obliged to follow the courts order.

Petitioner Ramos Contends:- Petitioner contends that a decision by the court cannot be set aside upon the mere motion for reconsideration

filed by the LRA, the motion must be properly brought before the court by the Solicitor General.

The SC held:Under the Administrative Code of 1987the Solicitor General is bound to represent the Government in all landregistration and related proceedings. However, PD 1529, section 6, specifically enumerates the function of theCommission of the Land Registration, the same law did not in any way, took away LRAs power to make therepresentation the same as that of the Solicitor General in land registration proceedings.

Even granting that there are procedural lapsesthat have been committed in the proceedings. These may be ignored bythe Court in the interest of substantive justice.

Furthermore, the SC held that this controversy could have been avoided hand the proper procedure in the landregistration proceeding was observed. The court should have rendered its decision only after considering the evidence

and the reports of the Commissioner of the Land Registration and the Director of Lands.

If a faster disposition of the proceedings were really desired, the court could have wielded its power in the office of theLRA to speed up its investigation, report and recommendation.