Avila v.

Tapucar August 27, 1991

Facts:
In 1918, spouses Pedro Bahan and Dominga Exsaure acquired a 1.8340 hectares parc
el of coconut land. Said property was inherited in 1965 by private respondents,
as successors-in-interest.In 1960, petitioner Avila bought a 4,371 square meter
parcel of land which is part of the subjectproperty inherited by the Bahans from
their predecessor, under a Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land. On Novem
ber 3, 1971, the heirs of Pedro Bahan filed Free Patent Application for alot whi
ch has a total area of 6.9027 hectares in its entirety. Sometime later, private
respondent JulitoBahan and company gathered coconuts from the land purchased by
petitioner Magdalena Avila. Theyfiled an action for quieting of title and damage
s against the Avilas. In their answer, the petitionersAvilas raised the defense
of having purchased the land from a certain Luis Cabalan and from then onhas bee
n in open, continuous, public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the same
. The Avilasfiled a motion for a preliminary writ of injunction praying that the
Bahans be enjoined and ordered torefrain and desist from gathering or continue
harvesting the fruits on the land in controversy until thetermination of the cas
e. In the meantime, the Bahans' application for free patent was approved andthe
free patent was issued , and on the same date an Original certificate of title w
as issued in thename of the Heirs of Pedro Bahan, represented by Julito Bahan.
Issue:
W/N the subsequent

approval of the application for free patent for 6.9027 hectares in favor of the
Bahans (the land which rightfully pertains to the Avilas being embraced and incl
udedtherein), the issuance of free patent and original certificate of title in f
avor of the Bahansduring the pendency of the case for quieting of title is prope
r
Ruling: No.
The free patent that was issued to the Bahans is erroneous as it embraced and co
mprised inportions thereof lands which belong to the Avilas. The subsequent regi
stration of the portion of landbelonging to the Avilas by the Bahans could not m
ake the latter owners thereof. A cadastral courthas no authority to award a prop
erty in favor of persons who have not put in any claims to it and havenever asse
rted any right of ownership thereon, and the certificate of title issued under t
hecircumstances to such persons would be declared null and void subject to the r
ight of innocentpurchasers for value.While land registration is a proceeding
in rem
and binds the whole world, the simplepossession of a certificate of title under
the Torrens Systems does not necessarily make the holder atrue owner of all the
property described therein. If a person obtains a title under the Torrens system
,which includes by mistake or oversight land which can no longer be registered u
nder the system, hedoes not, by virtue of the said certificate alone, become the
owner of the lands illegally included.Registration does not vest title. It is n
ot a mode of acquiring ownership but is merely evidenceof such title over a part
icular property. It does not give the holder any better right than what heactual
ly has, especially if the registration was done in bad faith. The effect is that
it is as if noregistration was made at all.