Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals

A certificate of title under the Torrens system cannot be collaterally attacked; a party seeking to nullify an existing certificate of title covering the same property must institute a direct action for annulment or cancellation of title, and a land registration court has no jurisdiction to resolve conflicting claims of ownership in a mere motion for execution of a final registration decree. The registered owner under an extant Torrens title is entitled to the protection of the Torrens system until that title is annulled or cancelled in a direct proceeding, and the Land Registration Authority may properly withhold compliance with an order to issue a decree of registration where doing so would create a third certificate of title over the same land.

The controversy traces to a parcel of land measuring 125 hectares in Barrio Patiis, San Mateo, Rizal, which Purita Landicho caused to be registered in her name in 1965 under Land Registration Case No. N-5098. The property subsequently passed through several hands — from Landicho to Blue Chips Projects, Inc., then to Winmar Poultry Farm, Inc., and finally to respondent Philippine Chinese Charitable Association, Inc. (PCCAI), which held TCT No. 482970. A separate chain of title over the same area ran from Meerkamp Co., which held OCT No. 301 issued pursuant to Decree No. 1480 in 1906, through A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. and eventually to Amado Araneta under TCT No. 70589, with a pending action, Civil Case No. 12044, before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Petitioner Deogenes O. Rodriguez anchored his claim on a 1996 deed of absolute sale executed in his favor by Landicho, whose registered title had been issued as a transfer certificate of title rather than an original certificate of title.

On January 29, 1965, Purita Landicho filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an application for registration of a 125-hectare parcel of land located in Barrio Patiis, San Mateo, Rizal, docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-5098. The evidence she presented established that the land had formerly consisted of several smaller parcels owned and possessed by the spouses Felix San Pascual and Juanita Vertudes, Ignacio Santos and Socorro Santos, Caconto Cayetano and Verneta Bartolome, Gavino Espiritu and Asuncion Cruz, and Lucio Manuel and Justina Ramos, all of whom executed instruments of conditional sale in her favor in January 1960 and a joint final deed of absolute sale on July 20, 1965. Gavino Espiritu testified that he and his co-vendors had possessed the land since 1930 and that Landicho's possession, together with that of her predecessors-in-interest, had been open, peaceful, continuous, and adverse against the whole world in the concept of an owner. The land lay within the Alienable or Disposable Block-I of I.C. Project No. 26 of San Mateo, Rizal, was classified as "montañoso" with an assessed value of ₱12,560.00 under Tax Dec. No. 7081, and was not mortgaged or encumbered. The oppositor, the Director of Lands, presented no testimonial evidence but submitted the investigation report of Land Investigator Pedro R. Feliciano dated August 23, 1965, which stated that no public land application was involved and no reservation was affected, together with a first indorsement dated August 24, 1965 of the District Land Officer recommending withdrawal of the opposition and an office memorandum dated September 23, 1965 of the Chief of the Records Division of the Bureau of Lands stating that plan Psu-201023 was not covered by any public land application or patent. On November 16, 1965, the CFI rendered judgment confirming Landicho's title and ordering its registration in her name, and dismissing the opposition of the Director of Lands.

Upon finality of that decision, the CFI issued an Order dated December 22, 1965 directing the Commissioner of the Land Registration Commission to comply with Section 21 of Act No. 2347 on the issuance of a decree and original certificate of title. On July 11, 1966, Jose D. Santos, Register of Deeds for the Province of Rizal, issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167681 in Landicho's name. Notably, Santos issued a transfer certificate of title rather than an original certificate of title, and although TCT No. 167681 stated that it was issued pursuant to Decree No. 1480, no other detail regarding the decree and the original registration of the subject property was filled out. The property was thereafter sold several times, with the old certificates of title of the vendors cancelled and new ones issued to the buyers: from Landicho to Blue Chips Projects, Inc., which acquired TCT No. 344936 on November 10, 1971; then to Winmar Poultry Farm, Inc., TCT No. 425582, on November 5, 1973; and finally to respondent Philippine Chinese Charitable Association, Inc. (PCCAI), TCT No. 482970, on July 15, 1975.

Meanwhile, A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. (ADRDI) instituted Civil Case No. 12044, still pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 167, of Pasig City as of 2008, asserting ownership over the subject property as a portion of a bigger tract measuring around 513 hectares covered by TCT No. 42999 dated February 20, 1956 in its name. That bigger tract had originally been registered in the name of Meerkamp Co. under OCT No. 301, pursuant to Decree No. 1480, GLRO Record No. 2429, issued on November 22, 1906. ADRDI caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on BCPI's TCT No. 344936 and, following the ruling in A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, also had its notice of adverse claim annotated on TCT Nos. 344936 and 425582 of BCPI and WPFI, respectively. ADRDI subsequently transferred the subject property to Amado Araneta, to whom TCT No. 70589 was issued on March 25, 1983.

On November 14, 1996, Landicho executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of petitioner Deogenes O. Rodriguez. Landicho died on June 1, 1998. Seven years later, on May 18, 2005, Rodriguez filed an Omnibus Motion before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, of San Mateo, Rizal, in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098, alleging that the November 16, 1965 Decision and the December 22, 1965 Order had never been executed because no decree of registration had been issued by the LRC Commissioner and no original certificate of title had ever been issued by the Register of Deeds in Landicho's name. Claiming to be Landicho's successor-in-interest, he prayed that the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City be directed to transmit the complete records and expediente of the case; that the LRA Administrator be directed to issue the decree of registration in his name in accordance with the tenor of the 1965 Decision and Order; and that the Register of Deeds for Marikina City be ordered to issue the corresponding original certificate of title in his name. In the course of the proceedings, Rodriguez himself submitted as his Exhibit "GG" PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 but alleged that it was fictitious. The RTC thereupon issued a subpoena on November 3, 2006 commanding PCCAI to appear at the hearing set on November 8, 2006, to bring its TCT No. 482970 and Tax Declaration No. SM-02-0229, and to testify in connection therewith.

On November 17, 2006, PCCAI filed a Verified Motion for Leave to Intervene, asserting that it was an indispensable party with substantial legal interest as registered owner under TCT No. 482970; that Rodriguez maliciously failed to allege that the certificate remained valid and subsisting absent any direct action or final decree for its cancellation; and that the Omnibus Motion constituted an unsanctioned collateral attack on its title. The RTC granted Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion in an Order dated April 10, 2007, holding that it had jurisdiction because the proceedings were merely a continuation of the land registration case commenced in the CFI of Pasig and that a final and executory judgment in a land registration case, being merely declaratory in nature, does not prescribe. It reiterated the December 22, 1965 Order and directed the LRA to issue a decree of registration and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal to issue an original certificate of title, both in the name of Purita Landicho. The RTC denied PCCAI's Motion for Leave to Intervene and Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated November 22, 2007, ruling that intervention would not be allowed after the decision had become final and executory and that the only issue was the issuance of a decree of registration. The LRA then filed a Manifestation dated February 4, 2008 informing the trial court that it could not comply because two titles already covered the subject property — TCT No. 70589 of Araneta, traced to OCT No. 301 of Meerkamp Co., and TCT No. 482970 of PCCAI, traced to Landicho's TCT No. 167681 — and that issuing a decree and original certificate of title in Landicho's name would only aggravate the problem of double titling. The LRA explained that the Register of Deeds had issued a transfer certificate of title rather than an original certificate of title in 1966 following the Order dated July 7, 1966 of then LRC Commissioner Antonio H. Noblejas, who took cognizance of the fact that the subject property, as part of a bigger parcel, was already registered under OCT No. 301 in the name of Meerkamp Co. pursuant to Decree No. 1480.

• Open-Ended Judgment: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction when it rendered an open-ended judgment, abdicating its jurisdiction to resolve disputes upon the mere manifestation of the LRA that there were issues of ownership which first had to be resolved, and resolving an issue that was irrelevant, immaterial, or had otherwise been resolved.
• Lack of Standing and Right to Intervene: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that PCCAI had legal standing to prevent or suspend the operation of the land registration laws through the order directing the Land Registration Administrator to comply with the December 22, 1965 Order, contending that PCCAI had no right to intervene in LRC No. N-5098.
• Absence of Buyer in Good Faith: Petitioner asserted that PCCAI could not claim the status of a buyer in good faith because its title was defective on its face, and that because the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 167681 for the subject property in Landicho's name, the November 16, 1965 Decision in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 was not validly implemented since no original certificate of title was issued; he further alleged that PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 was spurious.
• Entitlement to Certiorari: Petitioner argued that he was entitled to the corrective and prerogative writ of certiorari to ensure that the land registration laws are properly and fully implemented.

• Impropriety of Execution Due to Supervening Facts: Respondent PCCAI acknowledged that it is the ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of execution for a final and executory decision or order, but argued that when subsequent facts and circumstances transpire which render the execution of the final and executory decision or order unjust or inequitable, the trial court should refrain from issuing a writ of execution.
• Lack of Jurisdiction Over Ownership Claims: Respondent asserted that the RTC, as a land registration court, did not have jurisdiction to resolve conflicting claims of ownership over the subject property.
• Indispensable Party and Propriety of Intervention: Respondent maintained that it was an indispensable party in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 and that it should have been allowed by the RTC to intervene during the hearing of Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion for the execution of the November 16, 1965 Decision and the December 22, 1965 Order of the CFI, having substantial legal interest as the registered owner of the subject property under TCT No. 482970.
• Collateral Attack on Title: Respondent averred that Rodriguez maliciously failed to allege in his Omnibus Motion that TCT No. 482970 remains valid and subsisting, there being no direct action or final court decree for its cancellation, and that the Omnibus Motion constituted a collateral attack on its title which is not sanctioned by law and jurisprudence.
• Validity of the Issuance of TCT No. 167681: Respondent insisted that the issuance of TCT No. 167681 to Landicho, from which its own TCT No. 482970 may be traced back, was a valid execution of the CFI decision.

• Open-Ended Judgment: Whether the Court of Appeals acted without jurisdiction in rendering an open-ended judgment and in abdicating its jurisdiction to resolve the dispute on the mere manifestation of the Land Registration Authority.
• Standing and Intervention: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that PCCAI had legal standing to prevent or suspend the operation of the land registration laws, and whether PCCAI had the right to intervene in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098.
• Good Faith and Validity of Title: Whether PCCAI may be considered a buyer in good faith given that its title was allegedly defective on its face.
• Entitlement to Certiorari: Whether Rodriguez is entitled to the corrective and prerogative writ of certiorari to ensure that the land registration laws are properly and fully implemented.

• Open-Ended Judgment: No. The Court of Appeals clearly and categorically reversed and set aside the RTC Orders, and its cease-and-desist directive was a mere superfluity; the phrase referring to a proper case did not mean the reversed Orders could be revived, but only that Rodriguez's remedies could be litigated in an appropriate proceeding before a court of proper jurisdiction.
• Standing and Intervention: No. PCCAI, as registered owner under TCT No. 482970, has a legal interest in the subject property, and the particular circumstances of the case justified the relaxation of the period for intervention under Rule 19 of the Rules of Court; the Court of Appeals did not abdicate its jurisdiction when it gave weight to the LRA's Manifestation, the LRA having filed it as an officer of the court.
• Good Faith and Validity of Title: PCCAI, as between it and Rodriguez, is better entitled to the protection of the Torrens system and may rely on TCT No. 482970 until the same is annulled or cancelled in a direct proceeding; Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion is a collateral attack on that certificate, proscribed under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
• Entitlement to Certiorari: No. The petition is without merit, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction having been shown on the part of the Court of Appeals.

• Open-Ended Judgment: The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated May 26, 2008 clearly and categorically reversed and set aside the Orders dated April 10, 2007 and November 22, 2007 of the RTC in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098. The cease-and-desist order in the second line of the same dispositive portion was therefore a superfluity, since by reversing and setting aside the foregoing Orders there was nothing more to implement. The phrase "pending the outcome of a proper case before an appropriate court where the issue of ownership of the subject land can be put to rest" did not mean that the very same Orders could later be revived or reinstated; it meant that the remedies sought by Rodriguez could be litigated and granted in an appropriate proceeding by a court with proper jurisdiction. The issue brought before the Court of Appeals did not involve the question of ownership — the appellate court only concerned itself with the proper execution of the November 16, 1965 Decision in Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 but, due to the intricacy of the matter, was compelled to take notice of the controversy between Rodriguez and PCCAI, both of whom trace their titles to Landicho.

• Standing and Intervention: The subject property is presently covered by TCT No. 482970 in the name of PCCAI. As registered owner, PCCAI clearly has a legal interest in the subject property, and the issuance of another certificate of title to Rodriguez would adversely affect PCCAI, constituting a cloud on its TCT No. 482970. Although Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides that a motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court, the Court has allowed exceptions when demanded by the higher interest of justice — interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. The allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances, and Rule 19 is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. The particular circumstances justified relaxation: first, the interests of both PCCAI and Rodriguez in the subject property arose only after the CFI Decision dated November 16, 1965 became final and executory, PCCAI having bought the property from WPFI on November 13, 1973 and been issued TCT No. 482970 on July 15, 1975, while Rodriguez bought it from Landicho on November 14, 1996; second, both PCCAI and Rodriguez trace their titles back to Landicho, so PCCAI's intervention could not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of Landicho, the original party; third, the latest proceedings involved Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion praying for execution of the 1965 Decision, and PCCAI moved to intervene only to oppose it on the ground that the property is already registered in its name under TCT No. 482970, which originated from Landicho's TCT No. 167681; and fourth, after learning of Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion via the November 3, 2006 subpoena, PCCAI was reasonably expected to oppose the same, such action being the most opportune and expedient remedy available to prevent the RTC from ordering the issuance of a decree of registration and OCT in Rodriguez's name. The RTC should therefore have allowed PCCAI's intervention. On the weight given to the LRA's Manifestation dated February 4, 2008, the LRA exists for the sole purpose of implementing and protecting the Torrens system of land titling and registration, and its duty to issue decrees of registration is ministerial in the sense that its officials act under the orders of the court, with the decree conforming to the decision of the court and the data found in the record. However, if in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, these officials ought to seek clarification from the court, acting as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, their act being the act of the court. In Ramos vs. Rodriguez, the land registration court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing itself because it was merely following the recommendation of the LRA, which was then acting as an agent of the court. In Spouses Laburada vs. Land Registration Authority, the Court refused to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the LRA to issue a decree of registration as ordered by a land registration court, taking into account the LRA report that the parcels of land were already registered, and holding that the LRA's hesitation was reasonable, even imperative, since the issuance may contravene the policy and purpose, and thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system of registration. In this case, the LRA filed its Manifestation to inform the RTC that the subject property is already covered by two TCTs, both uncancelled and extant, and that it cannot comply with the April 10, 2007 Order as it would further aggravate the already existing problem of double titling. In filing the Manifestation, the LRA was only faithfully pursuing its mandate to protect the Torrens system and performing its function of extending assistance to the RTC. Contrary to Rodriguez's assertion, the Court of Appeals did not abdicate its jurisdiction when it granted PCCAI's Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition largely based on the LRA's Manifestation, since the LRA filed such Manifestation as an officer of the court.

• Good Faith and Validity of Title: The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality; once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. A Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. PCCAI is the registered owner of the subject property under TCT No. 482970, which could be traced back to TCT No. 167681 issued to Landicho; as between PCCAI and Rodriguez, the former is better entitled to the protection of the Torrens system and can rely on its TCT No. 482970 until the same has been annulled and/or cancelled. Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 explicitly provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. In Decaleng vs. Bishop of the Missionary District of the Philippine Islands of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Court declared that a Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally, and the issue on its validity can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose; a collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an incident in said action. Land Reg. Case No. N-5098 was an application for registration instituted by Landicho, granted by the CFI in its Decision dated November 16, 1965. Rodriguez, asserting that he was Landicho's lawful successor-in-interest, filed an Omnibus Motion seeking the issuance of a decree of registration and an OCT in his name pursuant to the CFI judgment. He acknowledged the existence of PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 for the same property but simply brushed it aside for allegedly being spurious; he did not pray that it be declared void and/or cancelled, and even if he did, the RTC had no jurisdiction to grant such relief in a land registration case. The Omnibus Motion is thus a collateral attack on said certificate, proscribed under Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree. If Rodriguez wants a decree of registration and OCT issued in his (or even in Landicho's) name, he should have directly challenged the validity of the extant TCT No. 482970 in an action specifically instituted for such purpose, such as a petition for annulment and/or cancellation of title or a petition for quieting of title, and prayed that the certificate be annulled or cancelled. The proper court in an appropriate action can try the factual and legal issues involving the alleged fatal defects in Landicho's TCT No. 167681 and/or its derivative TCTs, including PCCAI's TCT No. 482970; the legal effects of Landicho's sale of the subject property to BCPI in 1971 and also to Rodriguez in 1996; and the good faith or bad faith of PCCAI, as well as Rodriguez, in purchasing the subject property. The resolution of these issues will ultimately be determinative of who between Rodriguez and PCCAI is the rightful owner. Complicating the matter further is the pendency of Civil Case No. 12044 in the RTC, Branch 167, Pasig City, where PCCAI is not only questioning Rodriguez's right to the issuance of an OCT but also defending the validity of TCT No. 482970 against Araneta, who holds TCT No. 70589 derived from Meerkamp Co.'s OCT No. 301. Issuing an OCT covering the subject property to Rodriguez would give rise to a third certificate of title over the same property, causing more confusion and complication rather than the preservation of the Torrens system.

• Entitlement to Certiorari: The instant Petition has no merit. The Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for according weight and credence to the LRA's Manifestation dated February 4, 2008, and the particular circumstances of the case justified the relaxation of the rules of procedure on intervention. No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction attended the appellate court's reversal of the RTC Orders.

• Torrens System — Purpose and Protection of Registered Owners — The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the "mirador su casa," to avoid the possibility of losing his land. A Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein, and a strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid. In this case, because PCCAI held an extant certificate of title over the subject property, it was better entitled to the protection of the Torrens system as against Rodriguez, whose only claim rested on a deed of sale from the original applicant.

• Prohibition Against Collateral Attack on a Certificate of Title — Under Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. A collateral attack is made when, in another action to obtain a different relief, the certificate of title is assailed as an incident in said action. The validity of a Torrens title may be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Here, Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion in the land registration case, which sought the issuance of a decree of registration and an original certificate of title over property already covered by PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 without praying for the annulment or cancellation of that certificate, constituted a prohibited collateral attack.

• Ministerial Duty of the Land Registration Authority and the Duty to Seek Clarification — The duty of LRA officials to issue decrees of registration is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court, and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record; they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, these officials ought to seek clarification from the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court. The LRA is specifically called upon to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. Its hesitation to issue a decree where the land is already registered is not a sign of negligence or nonfeasance but is reasonable, even imperative, considering that the issuance may contravene the policy and purpose, and thereby destroy the integrity, of the Torrens system.

• Relaxation of the Period for Intervention — Under Rule 19, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court, a person with a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or who is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof, may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene; the motion may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. This rule is not inflexible. Interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period when demanded by the higher interest of justice, to afford indispensable parties who have not been impleaded the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the petition for review of the judgment has already been submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. The allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances, Rule 19 being a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice.

• Jurisdiction of a Land Registration Court Over Ownership Disputes — A land registration court cannot resolve conflicting claims of ownership over registered property in a mere incident of a land registration proceeding; such claims must be ventilated in an appropriate action, such as a petition for annulment and/or cancellation of title or a petition for quieting of title, before a court of proper jurisdiction. The resolution of issues on the alleged defects in a certificate of title, the legal effects of successive sales, and the good faith or bad faith of purchasers is determinative of rightful ownership and lies outside the competence of a land registration court acting on a motion for execution.

• "The real purpose of the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on the 'mirador su casa,' to avoid the possibility of losing his land. A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly issued and that they are valid." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for denying relief to Rodriguez: because PCCAI held an extant Torrens title, it was entitled to the presumption of regularity and to protection until its certificate was annulled in a direct proceeding.

• "Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, explicitly provides that 'a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.'" — This is the controlling statutory basis for the holding that Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion, which assailed PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 only incidentally, was a prohibited collateral attack.

• "The duty of LRA officials to issue decrees of registration is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the record. They have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, these officials ought to seek clarification from the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court." — This passage defines the scope of the LRA's ministerial duty and explains why the LRA's Manifestation reporting the double titling was proper rather than an abdication of duty.

• "In fine, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. We stress again that Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice." — This is the canonical formulation of the standard governing intervention, cited to justify the relaxation of the period for filing a motion to intervene even at the execution stage.

• Decaleng vs. Bishop of the Missionary District of the Philippine Islands of Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, G.R. No. 171209, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 145, 168 — Cited as the controlling precedent for the rule that a Torrens title cannot be attacked collaterally and that the issue of its validity can be raised only in an action expressly instituted for that purpose; it supplied the definition of a collateral attack applied to Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion.
• Ramos vs. Rodriguez, 314 Phil. 326 (1995) — Cited to show that a land registration court does not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing itself when it merely follows the recommendation of the LRA, which acts as an agent of the court; used to justify the weight accorded to the LRA's Manifestation.
• Spouses Laburada vs. Land Registration Authority, 350 Phil. 779 (1998) — Cited for the ruling that mandamus will not lie to compel the LRA to issue a decree of registration where the land is already registered, since the LRA's hesitation is reasonable and imperative to preserve the integrity of the Torrens system.
• Atty. Gomez vs. Court of Appeals, 250 Phil. 504, 511 (1988) — Cited for the principle that LRA officials act as officials of the court, not as administrative officials, and that their act is the act of the court.
• Ching vs. Court of Appeals, 260 Phil. 14, 23 (1990) — Cited in support of the conclusive character of a Torrens title and the strong presumption that Torrens titles are regularly issued and valid.
• Quinto vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010, 613 SCRA 385, 401-402 — Cited for the doctrine that interventions may be allowed beyond the period prescribed by Rule 19 when demanded by the higher interest of justice, including where the assailed order has already become final and executory.
• A. Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 241 Phil. 28 (1988) — Cited as the ruling that enabled ADRDI to annotate its notice of adverse claim on the certificates of title of BCPI and WPFI, forming part of the chain of title adverse to Landicho's.
• Information Technology of the Philippines vs. Comelec, G.R. 159139, August 22, 2006 — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the doctrinal rule that final judgments may no longer be modified except to correct clerical errors, when the judgment is void, or when supervening events render execution unjust and inequitable, and for the rule on who may intervene.
• Lim vs. Pacquing — Cited within the Quinto excerpt as an instance where the Republic's motion for intervention was allowed to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties.
• Sta. Ana vs. Menla, 1 SCRA 1294; Heirs of Cristobal Marcos vs. de Banuvar, 25 SCRA 316; vda. De Barroga vs. Albano, 157 SCRA 131; Cacho vs. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 159 — Cited by the RTC for the proposition that a final and executory judgment in a land registration case, being merely declaratory in nature, does not prescribe.

• Section 48, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. Applied to hold that Rodriguez's Omnibus Motion, which assailed PCCAI's TCT No. 482970 only as an incident of his prayer for execution, was a prohibited collateral attack.
• Rule 19, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court — Section 1 defines who may intervene, requiring a legal interest in the matter in litigation or in the success of either party, or an interest against both, or a situation of adverse effect from a distribution or disposition of property in the custody of the court; Section 2 fixes the time to intervene at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. Applied to uphold PCCAI's intervention as registered owner whose title would be clouded by the issuance of another certificate, with the period relaxed under the exceptional circumstances of the case.
• Section 21, Act No. 2347 — Requires the clerk, immediately after final decision directing registration, to send a certified copy of the decision to the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, who prepares the decree and forwards a certified copy to the register of deeds. Cited as the basis of the CFI's December 22, 1965 Order directing compliance.
• Sections 40 and 41, Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) — Describe the steps in the issuance of a decree of registration and an original certificate of title, including transcription of the decree in the registration book and delivery of the owner's duplicate. Cited in relation to Section 21 of Act No. 2347.
• Sections 30, 39, and 40, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Section 30 fixes the finality of land registration judgments and the court's duty to issue an order for the issuance of the decree and certificate of title; Section 39 governs the preparation of the decree and certificate of title; Section 40 governs the entry of the original certificate of title. Cited as the provisions in force when Rodriguez filed his Omnibus Motion on May 18, 2005.
• Section 1, Executive Order No. 649, in relation to Book IV, Title III, Chapter 9, Section 28, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Enumerates the LRA's functions: to issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts and cause the issuance of the corresponding certificates of title; to be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled under the Torrens system; and to extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings. Applied to characterize the LRA's Manifestation as a faithful performance of its mandate.
• Section 44, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 — Cited by the RTC as the basis for its jurisdiction over cases involving properties within its territorial jurisdiction, specifically San Mateo, Rizal, following the creation of the RTC under the Judiciary Reorganization Law.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Cited in the certification accompanying the Decision, attesting that the conclusions were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

• Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson)
• Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
• Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
• Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes