Republic v.

Guerrero Temanel, Xy
GR No. 133168
GARCIA, J.

Topic: Indefeasibility

A. FACTS
● Sometime in Dec. 1964, Guerrero filed with the Bureau of Lands a Miscellaneous Sales Application No. V-83191
covering a parcel of land situated at Pugad Lawin, Quezon City, consisting of 256 square meters. Upon
favorable report and recommendation of the District Land Officer, Guerrero’s application was approved per
Order of Award (Exhibit "B"), with the boundaries of the land awarded specified as follows: N-Lot No. 10-C,
Psd-37801; S-Culiat Creek; E-Road; and W-Public Land. A sketch of the land awarded is contained at the back of
the Order of Award.
● One Angelina Bustamante filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands claiming that respondent obtained the sales
patent through fraud, false statement of facts and/or omission of material facts considering that 174 square
meters awarded to respondent covered the land where her house is situated and where she has been residing
since 1961.
● Director of Lands issued an order dismissing the protest of Angelina Z. Bustamante. The dismissal of the protest
was affirmed by the then Minister of Natural Resources and by the Office of the President in a Decision dated July
22, 1985.
● Bustamante filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated July 22, 1985. Acting on the motion for
reconsideration, the President, ordered that the case be remanded to the DENR [Department of Environment and
Natural Resources] for the latter’s office to conduct an ocular investigation and resurvey of the disputed area.
● Findings: that 83 square meters of the titled property of Guerrero consisting of 174 square meters is under
ACTUAL PHYSICAL POSSESSION of Marcelo Bustamante (husband of Angelina Bustamante) with only 91 square
meters under the physical possession of Guerrero. It was also found out that OCT No. 0-28 is supposed to be
traversed by a road 3 meters wide, as even the Order of Award in favor of Guerrero, shows by the boundaries of
the land indicated therein, viz: bounded on the N-Lot No. 10-C, Psd-37801, S-Culiat Creek, E-Road and W-Public
Land.
● The Office of the President then issued an order directing the DENR to implement the Report for the ‘proper
correction’ of the technical description of the land covered by OCT No. 0-28 issued to respondent.
● Pursuant to the directive of the Office of the President, the Director of Lands [on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines] instituted the instant action [Petition for Amendment of Plan and Technical Description of OCT No. 0-
28 in the name of Benjamin Guerrero] on November 7, 1989.
● Benjamin Guerrero filed a motion to dismiss the petition …, alleging among other things, that the RTC of Quezon
City was without jurisdiction over the Director of Lands’ petition and that the said petition was defective in form
and substance, inasmuch as it failed to name [Guerrero] who holds a certificate of title (OCT No. 0-28) over the
properties subject of the petition, as respondent in the action, and that the title sought to be amended was
irrevocable and can no longer be questioned. –Denied
● RTC: Republic failed to prove its allegation that respondent obtained the sales patent and the certificate of title
through fraud and misrepresentation, rendered judgment finding for the latter. The trial court likewise ruled that
the original certificate of title (OCT No. 0-28) in the name of respondent acquired the characteristics of
indefeasibility after the expiration of one (1) year from the entry of the decree of registration. CA affirmed.

A. 1. ARGUMENTS / CONTENTIONS

Petitioner Respondent

Insists that respondent’s title had yet to attain the status Contends that his OCT No. 0-28 which he secured
of indefeasibility. As argued, Angelina Bustamante was pursuant to a sales patent is conclusive and indefeasible
able to timely file a protest on July 29, 1983, which was under the Torrens system of registration. As such, his title
well within the one-year prescriptive period. can no longer be altered, impugned or cancelled.
 B. ISSUE

W/N respondent had attain the status of indefeasibility?

C. RULING

YES. While Angelina Bustamante indeed protested the award of a sales patent in favor of respondent, the protest was,
however, filed with the Bureau of Lands instead of with the regional trial court as mandated by the aforequoted provision
of Section 38 of Act No. 496. Said provision expressly states that a petition for review of a decree of registration shall be
filed in the "proper Court of First Instance". The law did not say that such petition may be filed with an administrative
agency like the Bureau of Lands. To be sure, what the law contemplates in allowing a review of the decree of registration
is a full-blown trial before a regular court where each party could be afforded full opportunity to present his/its case and
where each of them must establish his case by preponderance of evidence and not by mere substantial evidence, the
usual quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings. The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to
evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it; at bottom, it
means probability of truth. On the other hand, substantial evidence refers to such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine
otherwise.

As the review of a decree of registration constitutes an attack on the very integrity of land titles and the
Torrens system, a full-blown trial on the merits before a regular court is necessary for the purpose of
achieving a more in-depth and thorough determination of all issues involved.

Hence, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the protest filed by Bustamante with the Bureau of Lands cannot be considered
in the context of a petition to review the decree of registration issued to respondent. It was only on November 7, 1989
that such petition was filed by the Director of Lands with the RTC and obviously, it was way beyond the one-year period
prescribed by law.

It is worth stressing that the Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most effective
measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller’s title thereto is valid,
he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to
him. What is worse is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The
further consequence would be that land conflicts could be even more abrasive, if not even violent. The government,
recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued
thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied.

Instead of stabilizing the Torrens system, petitioner, in filing a suit for the amendment of OCT No. 0-28, derogates the
very integrity of the system as it gives the impression to Torrens title holders, like herein respondent, that their titles can
be questioned by the same authority who had approved their titles. In that case, no Torrens title holder shall be at peace
with the ownership and possession of his land, for land registration officers can question his title any time they make a
finding unfavorable to said title holder. This is all the more frustrating for respondent Guerrero considering that he had
bought the subject lot from the government itself, the very same party who is now impugning his title.

While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands but merely a system of registration of titles to
lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of the mistake or
negligence of the State’s agents, in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third
persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the
legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the registration or that may arise
subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be sullied by the ineptitude and
inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.

Respondent’s certificate of title, having been registered under the Torrens system, was thus vested with
the garment of indefeasibility.

***Petition Denied