Case Digest (G.R. No. 5987)
Facts:
City of Manila v. George M. Lack, Joseph L. Davis, Oscar Sutro, and Henry T. Allen, G.R. No. 5987, April 07, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court.In 1903 the defendants negotiated to buy a large tract on Calle Nozaleda from Doña Isabel Morello. The parties executed a contract subject to curing certain defects; on April 29, 1904, after the record had been corrected, Doña Isabel conveyed the property to the defendants (the deed being executed in the name of A. P. Bullen as manager of the International Banking Corporation), and the purchase price, based on the area of the land, was paid with borrowed funds. At the time the vendor appeared to be the absolute owner; the registry showed no adverse claims.
For years prior to 1903 the City of Manila had maintained a buried water main crossing a narrow strip (4 meters wide by approximately 202.4 meters long) of the parcel; this fact was not apparent from the surface and was unknown to the purchasers when they bought and took possession. After acquisition, Bullen (as applicant) sought registration under Act No. 496; on August 15, 1904, the Court of Land Registration entered a decree adjudicating the entire tract to Bullen. The City then applied to open that decree and exclude the strip containing the water main; on September 29, 1905, the Court of Land Registration issued an order excluding the described 4‑meter strip and directing amendment of the decree and registry description.
Bullen died; his administrator, N. S. Marshall, filed the amended description eliminating the strip and subdividing the tract into two parcels on either side of the strip. On November 22, 1905, the Court of Land Registration entered a decree ordering issuance of certificates of title for the parcels described in the amended application. Certificates issued and portions were subsequently sold, some to the City, with deeds referring to the strip as a boundary and as property of the City. The defendants remained continuously in possession of the purchased land, including the strip, from 1903 until this suit.
The City sued in ejectment claiming title to the strip based on the Court of Land Registration’s order (Judge Del Rosario’s opinion of September 29, 1905 and subsequent proceedings). The City argued that the Land Court’s order was res judicata and estopped the defendants from denying City title. The evidence upon which the L...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Court of Land Registration’s order excluding a parcel from a decree of registration constitute a final adjudication of ownership and operate as res judicata or estoppel against subsequent possessors in an action of ejectment?
- Does the Court of Land Registration, under Act No. 496, have authority to adjudicate rights in land that are not included in a final decree of registration, or are such ri...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)