Lahora vs. Dayangrihang Digest

Lahora vs. Dayangrihang [G.R. No. L-28565 January 30, ISSUE: W/N the petition as regards Lot No.
as regards Lot No. 2228 should be

1971] dismissed on the ground of previous registration YES,
decision in favor of Dayangrihang
FACTS:
Spouses Lahora filed a petition before CFI Davao for the RULING:
registration of 9 parcels of land located in barrio Zaragosa, Spouses Lahora are not denying the grant of the land to
municipality of Manay, province of Davao. Dayangrihangs wife. They are trying to make a case against
o Half of which is being acquired by appellant Toribia the dismissal-order of the lower court by contending that the
Moralizon allegedly by inheritance, and the other half patent issued to Dayangrihang's wife was procured by
by purchase and by continuous, open, public and fraud, because appellants, the alleged actual occupants of
adverse possession in the concept of owner. the land, were not notified of the application for patent
o One of the said parcels of land is identified as lot No. therefor and of its adjudication.
2228, plan SWO-36856, Manay Cadastre. The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding public land patents
This was OPPOSED by Dayangrihang and alleged that the and the character of the certificate of title that may be
lands belonging to him and his wife and were included in the issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the
application for registration, mentioning specifically Lot No. government to a private individual, the corresponding
2228 which was said to be already covered by Original patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is
Certificate of Title No. P-6055 in the name of his wife. issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically
This was also OPPOSED by the Director of Lands contending brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act,
that the applicants or their predecessors-in-interest never the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the
had sufficient title over the parcels of land sought to be safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In other
registered, nor have they been in open, continuous, and words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the
notorious possession thereof for at least 30 years. certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible
Counsel for Dayangrihang filed a motion for correction of the like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.
number of the certificate of title covering Lot No. 2228, In the present case, Lot No. 2228 was registered and
erroneously referred to as OCT No. P-6055, when it should titled in the name of Dayangrihang's wife as of 21
properly be OCT No. P-6053. It is likewise prayed in the June 1956, nine (9) years earlier. Clearly, spouses
same motion that the petition be dismissed insofar as it Lahoras petition for registration of the same parcel
includes Lot No. 2228, for the reason that said lot was of land on 26 November 1965, on the ground that the
already registered and titled in the name of oppositor's wife first certificate of title (OCT No. P-6053) covering the
as of 21 June 1956. said property is a nullity, can no longer prosper.
The court ruled in favor of Dayangrihang and granted the Having become registered land under Act 496, for all legal
dismissal of the application and directed the dismissal of the purposes, by the issuance of the public land patent and the
petition as regards Lot No. 2228, on the ground that it recording thereof, further registration of the same would
having been previously registered and titled, said parcel of lead to the obviously undesirable result of two certificates of
land can no longer be the subject of adjudication in another title being issued for the same piece of land, even if both
proceeding. certificates should be in the name of the same person. And
Spouses Lahora filed an appeal before SC. They are claiming if they were to be issued to different persons, the
that the question of the validity of a certificate of title based indefeasibility of the first title, which is the most valued
on a patent allegedly obtained by fraud can be raised by characteristic of Torrens titles, would be torn away.
them in a land registration proceeding, contrary to the ruling o For this reason, this Court has ruled in Pamintuan vs.
of the court a quo. San Agustin that in a cadastral case, the court has
no jurisdiction to decree again the registration
of land already decreed in an earlier case; and
that a second decree for the same land would
be null and void. Of course, if the patent had been Even assuming arguendo, that there indeed exists a proper
issued during the pendency of the registration case for cancellation of the patent for intrinsic fraud, the
proceedings, the situation would be different. action for review of the decree should have been filed before
the one year period had elapsed.

Lahora vs. Dayangrihang Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lahora vs. Dayangrihang Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lahora vs. Dayangrihang Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lahora vs. Dayangrihang [G.R. No. L-28565 January 30, ISSUE: W/N the petition as regards Lot No.

as regards Lot No. 2228 should be

You might also like