SPOUSES MARIANO AND ERLINDA LABURADA, represented by their attorney-in-fact, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., petitioners, vs.

LAND
REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, respondent.
FACTS:
Sps. Laburada were the applicants in the LRC Case No. N-11022 for the registration of Lot 3-A, subdivision plan of Psd-
1372 which is located in Mandaluyong, City. The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses, as they had a registerable title over the said
parcel of land. When the RTC decision became final, the same Court issued an order requiring the LRA to issue the decree of
registration, but the LRA refused, which prompted the Spouses to file this instant action for mandamus. LRA argued that after
plotting the plan that was sought to be registered in their Municipal Index Sheet, they found that it might be a portion of the parcels
of the land decreed in Court of Land Registration (CLR) Nos. 699, 875 and 817. With that, they sent a request letter to the Register
of Deeds in Pasig, for the certified true copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 335 that was issued in the name of
Compania Agricola de Ultramar. Later on, the LRA received the copy but after examining the same, it was found that the technical
description of the parcel of land described is not readable which became the reason for the LRA to request for a certified
typewritten copy of the OCT No. 335. This time, they did not receive a reply to their letter.
After the verification of the records in the Register of Deeds in Rizal, it was found that Lot 3-B of the same subdivision
plan is a portion of Lot No. 3, Block No. 159, Plan S.W.O.-7237 that is covered by the TCT No. 29337 issued in the name of Pura
Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor. On the other hand, the title issued for Lot 3-A of the same subdivision plan cannot be located because
the TCT No. 6595 are incomplete. The LRA concluded that if they would issue the decree of registration pursuant to the RTC
Decision, it would result in the duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, thus contravening the policy and purpose of the
Torrens registration system. The Solicitor General prays that the petition be dismissed for being premature. When Erlina Laburada
herself filed an urgent motion for an early resolution of the case, the Court requires the Solicitor General to report to the Court in
detail the steps that the LRA have taken to verify whether the subject lot in this case might be a portion of the parcels decreed in
the said CLR cases. Complying with such resolution, the solicitor general attached the letter of Cortez, Chief of LRA Ordinary and
Cadastral Decree Division, which only reiterated the statements given by the LRA.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Land Registration Authority (LRA) can be compelled to issue the decree in the LRC Case No. N-11022
of the RTC Pasig, Branch LXVIII.
RULING:
No, mandamus is not the proper remedy. First, the judgment that Sps. Laburada were seeking was not yet executory and
inconvertible under the Land Registration Law, because unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in cadastral or land
registration proceedings does not become final until after the expiration of 1 year after the entry of the final decree of registration.
Therefore, as long as the final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission and the said period has not
elapsed, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control of the
court rendering it.
Second, a void judgment is possible. LRA is mandated to refer to the RTC any doubt that it may have regarding the
preparation and issuance of a decree of registration, and that land registration is an in rem proceeding. In this instant case, Lot 3-
A which Sps. Laburada sought to be registered has TCT No. 6595 that was already issued, while Lot 3-B, it has TCT No. 29337 that
was issued in lieu of TCT No. 6595. Thus, the refusal of LRA to issue a decree of registration was justified as it was based on the
documents, which if verified, would make the judgment of RTC void. It is a well-settled rule that RTC has no jurisdiction to decree
again the registration of a land that was already decreed in an earlier land registration case, making the second decree for the
same land as null and void. It is because when once decreed by a court with a jurisdiction, the title to the land is already a res
judicata binding on the whole world, as the proceedings being in rem. In addition to that, the registration of the property in the
name of first registered owner in the Registration Book is a notice that the same property is already registered in his name; and to
declare the later title as valid would defeat the purpose of the Torrens system, that is to quiet title to the property.
Finally, the issuance itself of a decree of registration is a judicial function of courts as it involves the exercise of discretion
and not a ministerial act which may be compelled through mandamus. Moreover, the issuance of the final decree is hardly
considered as ministerial act because even if it was prepared by an administrative officer of the Land Registration Office, such
officer acts as an officer of the court so the issuance of a final decree is a judicial function and not an administrative one. Also, a
writ of mandamus can be awarded only when the petitioner’s legal right sought to be enforced is in substantial doubt or dispute,
which is absent in this case. A court may be compelled by mandamus to pass and act upon a question submitted to it for decision,
but it cannot be enjoined to decide for or against one of the parties because the court has to decide a question according to its
own judgment and understanding of the law. This case was remanded by the Supreme Court to the court of origin in Pasig City.