Dolfo v Register of Deeds case digest

Facts: The case is a petition for review on certiorari because of the decision denying the petitioner’s
motion for leave to intervene and/or admit complaint in intervention. Dolfo alleges that that she is
the registered owner of TCT No. T – 320601. However, Petitioner’s reliance on her title is infirm. She
may have produced several documents to show its authenticity, but one Benjamin Flestado, Chief of
the Inspection and Investigation Division of the Land Registration Authority (LRA), contravened it in
his report showing that the same TCT was without legal basis, as the documents needed to support
its issuance were not in the Primary Entry Book of the Registry of Deeds of Trece Martires City.
Therefore concluding petitioner’s T.C.T. No. T - 320601 spurious. It was also found that the NBI
Report showing that the signature of Antonia Cabuco on the Register of Deeds signatory certificate is
forged. With this, even Atty. Artemio Cana, the Acting Register of Deeds of Cavite, filed a complaint
for annulment of petitioner’s title in the Regional Trial Court.

Issues:

a.) Whether or not petitioner’s TCT No. T – 320601 is valid for entering into a Contract to Sell with
Yangtze.

b.) Whether or not that a land registration court has jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered
by a certificate of title.

Decision: No. The rule is that there is a presumption of validity of a title issued under the Torrens
System, and therefore is in itself the best proof of ownership of a piece of land. It cannot apply
when there is a finding of fault of the certificate’s purported origin. With the aforementioned facts
above, this only disallows petitioner to claim indefeasibility of her certificate of title. It is important
to note that the Torrens system is not in the business of creating or vesting title, it only confirms and
records one already existing and vested.

It may be true that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over lands that are already
covered by a certificate of title, but it is equally true that this rule applies only when there is no
existence of serious controversy as to the authenticity of the certificate.

The motion to Intervene in a land registration case cannot be allowed. If a party wishes to be
heard, he must lift the order of general default. When it is lifted, the next step is to file an
opposition to the application for registration. Proceedings in land registration are in rem and not in
personam, its sole object being its registration, not the determination of any right connected with
this registration.

And lastly, aside from the trial court stating that the petitioner’s title over the subject
property was of doubtful nature and therefore allowing her to intervene in the LRC cases would
unduly delay the proceedings, it was found to be premature for the petitioner to intervene in the
LRC cases because her Title—being the strongest proof for ownership—is questionable in the first
place.