SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 61416. March 18, 1985.]

FELDA ALBIENDA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

ANGELES SUMAGPAO and RUBEN SUMAGPAO, respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; LAND TITLES AND DEEDS; TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND

REGISTRATION; PURPOSE. — We find the petition impressed with merit. The
primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to
land, to put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title
except claims which were noted in the certificate at the time of registration,
or which may have arisen subsequent thereto.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; INCONTROVERTIBLE ONE
YEAR AFTER ITS ISSUANCE. — Section 38 of the Land Registration Act which
is pertinent to the issue at hand is clear and unambiguous: "Every decree of
registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto . . . it shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons . . . whether mentioned by name in
the application, notice, or citations, or included in the general description 'To
All Whom It May Concern.'" It is a settled doctrine that even when the decree
of registration has been obtained by fraud, the party defrauded has only one
year from entry of the decree to file a petition for review before a competent
court, and such petition can prosper only if no innocent purchaser for value
has acquired an interest in the land. Said Section 38 categorically declares
that "upon the expiration of the said term of one [1] year every decree or
certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be
incontrovertible."
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, it is
undisputed that the original certificate of title covering Lot 1550 was issued
on July 23, 1958 in favor of Enesaria Goma, the petitioner's predecessor-in-
interest. The fact that sometime in October 1958 Loida Baterbonia had
written the Director of Lands for a recomputation of the area set forth in the
certificate of the said land is of no moment, for up until the sale of Lot 1550
to petitioner in 1972, no action had been brought before a court of
competent jurisdiction to correct the error, if indeed there was such error.
The instant action to correct the certificate of title in question was filed on
July 13, 1977 or about 19 years after the issuance of said certificate of title.
Since the period allowed by law for setting aside the decree of registration of
a certificate of title had long elapsed, the original certificate of title issued in
the name of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had become indefeasible.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE OR REGISTERED
LAND SHALL HOLD THE SAME FREE OF ALL ENCUMBRANCES. — The Transfer
Certificate of Title derived therefrom is likewise unassailable, for under
Section 39 of Act 496, "every person receiving a certificate of title in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of
registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall
hold the same be free of all encumbrance except those noted on said
certificate."
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; EVERY PERSON DEALING WITH REGISTERED LAND
NEED NOT GO BEYOND THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. — We have heretofore
emphasized, and we do so now, that every person dealing with registered
land may rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and
the law will in no way oblige them to go behind the certificate to determine
the condition of the property. As aptly put in Cabanos vs. Register of Deeds:
"After the absolute and exclusive ownership of a realty is decreed by a court
in favor of a person, if a right, whatever its nature is, born before the judicial
decree of registration, can afterwards be exercised in an ordinary suit
beyond the period fixed by the aforesaid section 38 of the Land Registration
Act No. 496, then all the provisions and decrees of said Act would be useless
inasmuch as the holder and the possessor of the title, which, according to
the Act is indefeasible and efficacious, would never be secure in his
possession and enjoyment of his property, for he would always be exposed,
by one motive or another, to lose his right over the realty notwithstanding
the title he has secured."

DECISION

ESCOLIN, J : p

The issue posed for resolution in this petition for review of the decision
of the then Court of Appeals is whether or not the description of a parcel of
land in the petitioner's certificate of title may be corrected to conform with
the technical description appearing in the "survey return" on file in the
Bureau of Lands, notwithstanding the lapse of more than one (1) year since
the issuance of said certificate of title.
Both the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur and the Court of
Appeals held that such correction is proper. We reverse. Such holding is
contrary to the settled principles applicable to the Torrens System of land
recording. cdphil

There is no dispute as to the facts. The spouses Ruben Sumampao and

Angeles Sumampao, private respondents herein, were applicants for a free
patent over a piece of the land designated as Lot No. 1548, Pls-67, situated
in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. Claiming that an 8 hectare portion thereof
was erroneously included in the technical description of the certificate of
title covering Lot 1550, the adjoining land belonging to petitioner Felda
Albienda, respondents instituted in the then Court of First Instance of Agusan
del Sur an action against Albienda for correction of the latter's certificate of
title, TCT No. T-1718, and for recovery of possession of said portion of the
land, with damages.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The complaint alleged inter alia that respondents acquired Lot 1548
under a deed of sale dated November 11, 1968 executed in their favor by
Antonio Baldonase; that the latter previously purchased said land from Loida
Baterbonia, who in turn had bought it from Galicano Ontua, the primitive
owner thereof; that having acquired the land in 1968, respondents occupied
and cultivated the same, and paid the taxes thereon; that sometime in 1973,
petitioner Albienda, claiming ownership over the adjoining land designated
as Lot No. 1550, took possession not only of said Lot 1550, but also usurped
a portion of eight [8] hectares of Lot 1548 belonging of respondents; and
that despite repeated demands, Albienda refused to vacate said portion and
to restore possession thereof to respondents.
In her answer, petitioner averred that Lot 1550, containing an area of
196,848 square meters, originally belonged to Enesaria Goma, in whose
name the same was registered under the Torrens System on July 23, 1958;
that on July 14, 1959, Enesaria Goma sold the land to Gliceria Senerpida who
possessed it continuously and peacefully until November 21, 1972, when
petitioner acquired the same for value in good faith; that upon registration
of the deed of sale executed in favor of petitioner, the latter was issued TCT
No. T-1718 covering Lot 1550 with an area of 196,848 square meters, which
is the same area stated in the certificates of title of petitioner's aforenamed
predecessors-in-interest. LLpr

As special defense, petitioner alleged that even granting arguendo that

the technical description appearing in her certificate of title was erroneous,
the action for correction thereof and for reconveyance of the disputed
property was unavailable, considering that more than one year had elapsed
since the issuance of the original certificate of title in 1958 to petitioner's
predecessor-in-interest, Enesaria Goma.
The reply subsequently filed by respondents contained the following
admissions: that Lot No. 1550 originally belonged to Enesaria Goma, who
commenced possession thereof sometime in 1940; that said land was
registered in her name on July 23, 1958; that on July 14, 1959 Enesaria
Goma sold the land to Gliceria Senerpida who in turn conveyed it to
petitioner Albienda by virtue of a deed of absolute sale dated November 21,
1972. Respondents further admitted that petitioner was issued a certificate
of title covering the said Lot No. 1550, but claimed that "the technical
description in the title is spurious in origin because it does not tally or
conform to the technical description in the survey return submitted by the
Bureau of Lands surveyors who conducted the survey of the said land." 1
Issues having been joined, the respondents filed a motion for summary
judgment. Said motion, as well as the documents and affidavits attached
thereto disclose that on August 22, 1958 Loida Baterbonia, respondents'
predecessor-in-interest, wrote the Director of Lands requesting a
recomputation of the respective areas of the adjoining properties known as
Lot 1548 and Lot 1550; that the chief of survey party No. 15-D, stationed in
San Francisco, Agusan, to whom said letter was referred, issued an
indorsement dated December 2, 1958 stating that "it is believed that there
has been a mistake in the computation of the technical description of Lot
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 1550 . . . inasmuch as at the time the said computation was done in Manila
the plan was not yet available as it was still in this [the Agusan] office." 2 It
appears that thereafter no further action was taken on Baterbonia's letter. LibLex

Acting on the motion for summary judgment, the trial court rendered a
decision in favor of the respondents Sumampaos, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
"In view of the foregoing considerations, the court hereby
renders summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against
defendants and hereby orders the government officials concerned to
make the necessary corrections in TCT No. 1718 in the name of Felda
Albienda of Lot No. 1550, Pls-67, Rosario and Vicinity Public Lands
Subdivision, Lapinigan, San Francisco, Agusan del Sur to conform to
the survey return and technical descriptions prepared by Guillermo
Ferraris, Chief, Regional Surveys Division, Bureau of Lands, Cagayan de
Oro City [Exh. B]; that defendants are hereby ordered to vacate the
area overlapped or encroached by them on said lot and to turn over
the possession of the same to plaintiffs. With costs against
defendants." [p. 26, Record on Appeal].

Failing to obtain reconsideration of the decision, petitioners appealed

to the then Court of Appeals which affirmed said decision in toto. Hence, the
present petition.
We find the petition impressed with merit. The primary and
fundamental purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land, to put a
stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title except claims
which were noted in the certificate at the time of registration, or which may
have arisen subsequent thereto. 3
Section 38 of the Land Registration Act which is pertinent to the issue
at hand is clear and unambiguous: "Every decree of registration shall bind
the land, and quiet title thereto . . . it shall be conclusive upon and against
all persons . . . whether mentioned by name in the application, notice, or
citations, or included in the general description 'To All Whom It May
Concern.'" It is a settled doctrine that even when the decree of registration
has been obtained by fraud, the party defrauded has only one year from
entry of the decree to file a petition for review before a competent court, and
such petition can prosper only if no innocent purchaser for value has
acquired an interest in the land. Said Section 38 categorically declares that
"upon the expiration of the said term of one [1] year every decree or
certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be
incontrovertible."
In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the original certificate of title
covering Lot 1550 was issued on July 23, 1958 in favor of Enesaria Goma,
the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The fact that sometime in October
1958 Loida Baterbonia had written the Director of Lands for a recomputation
of the area set forth in the certificate of the said land is of no moment, for up
until the sale of Lot 1550 to petitioner in 1972, no action had been brought
before a court of competent jurisdiction to correct the error, if indeed there
was such error. LexLib

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 The instant action to correct the certificate of title in question was filed
on July 13, 1977 or about 19 years after the issuance of said certificate of
title. Since the period allowed by law for setting aside the decree of
registration of a certificate of title had long elapsed, the original certificate of
title issued in the name of petitioner's predecessor-in-interest had become
indefeasible. The Transfer Certificate of Title derived therefrom is likewise
unassailable, for under Section 39 of Act 496, "every person receiving a
certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for
value in good faith shall hold the same be free of all encumbrance except
those noted on said certificate."
We have heretofore emphasized, and we do so now, that every person
dealing with registered land may rely on the correctness of the certificate of
title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige them to go behind the
certificate to determine the condition of the property. As aptly put in
Cabanos vs. Register of Deeds: 4
"After the absolute and exclusive ownership of a realty is
decreed by a court in favor of a person, if a right, whatever its nature
is, born before the judicial decree of registration, can afterwards be
exercised in an ordinary suit beyond the period fixed by the aforesaid
section 38 of the Land Registration Act No. 496, then all the provisions
and decrees of said Act would be useless inasmuch as the holder and
the possessor of the title, which, according to the Act is indefeasible
and efficacious, would never be secure in his possession and
enjoyment of his property, for he would always be exposed, by one
motive or another, to lose his right over the realty notwithstanding the
title he has secured."

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby set aside. No

costs.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., concurring:

I concur because Felda Albienda is a purchaser in good faith and for

value of Lot No. 1550 with an area of 19.6 hectares which was originally
registered in 1958 in the name of Enesaria Goma who sold it in 1959 to
Gliceria Senerpida. Albienda acquired the lot from Senerpida in 1972 and
obtained TCT No. T-1718. Cdpr

In contrast, the adjoining Lot No. 1548, or which a portion of eight

hectares was allegedly erroneously included in the title for Lot No. 1550, is
unregistered land. Galicano Ontua in 1958 sold it to Loida Baterbonia who in
turn sold the same lot to Antonio Baldonase. The latter sold it to the
Sumagpao spouses in 1968.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 It is risky to buy unregistered land because its area has not been
determined with finality. Baterbonia in 1958 already wrote to the Director of
Lands about the supposed mistake in the area of Lot No. 1548: prLL

The remedy of the Sumagpaos is against their predecessors-in-

interest, not against Albienda who justifiably relied on the Torrens title.

Footnotes

1. p. 21, Record on Appeal.

2. p. 27, Record on Appeal.

3. Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 593.
4. 40 Phil. 620.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com