WIDOWS AND ORPHANS ASSOCIATION INC., (WIDORA) VS. CA, ORTIGAS & CO., 201 SCRA 16 5 (1991) Facts: Widora filed an application application for registration registration of a land they acquired fro m the heirs of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. Molina and Ortigas Ortigas & Co. separa separa tely opposed claiming ownership. ownership. Ortigas filed a motion to dismiss alleging tha t the court had no jurisdiction, the land being applied for having been already registered under the Torrens System System (TS). MTD denied and the case was set for hearing. TC believes Ortigas Ortigas TCTs were derived form OCT 337, 19, 336, 334 (as it appears on its face) pursuant to Decree 1425, NOT OCT 351 as claimed by Ortigas . If it were really derived from OCT 351 then why didn t Ortigas have the same co rrected? And besides, Decree 1425 covers land which is 4 kms. away from the land being applied for. So if there was no valid decree of registration, Ortigas TCTs cannot be valid. Ortigas brought the case to the CA on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and t he CA reversed reversed the TC decision decision and dismissed dismissed the case. The CA believed Ortigas T CTs are actually derived from OCT 351, the latter being issued pursuant to Decre e 1425 and that since OCT 351 is a copy of Decree 1425, even though a copy of De cree 1425 cannot cannot be presented in court does not mean Decree 1425 was not issued and OCT 351 would suffice to show that a decree of registration was made. So ac cording to the CA, as far as Lots 7 and 8 are concerned Ortigas TCTs refer to OCT 351 and the CA ordered that the mistake in the TCTs be corrected. Issue: WON Ortigas Ortigas TCTs are valid despite the absence of a supporting decree of registration. Held:
No.
CA judgment set aside.
Ratio: Ratio: The eviden evidence ce presente presented d by Ortiga Ortigas s to prove prove the the existenc existence e of a decree decree of registration is merely secondary (i.e. the plan, testimony of surveyor and OCT 3 51). Ortigas must satisfy requisites to justify admission of secondary eviden ce (1. Execution 2. Lost or destroyed or possession of adverse party). Ortigas e vidence should not have been admitted in the first place. A ground for dismissal based on disputed facts (WON the TCT s of Ortigas w as supported by a decree of registration specifically by Decree 1425) is not a g round for dismissal. The resolution of this controversy calls calls for a full-blown trial to afford the parties a day in court. An order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory thus not pr oper for the extraordinary writ of prohibition. Interlocutory orders cannot be reviewed by the CA until the LC shall have decided the merit of the case. The mistakes that appear in Ortigas TCTs cannot be corrected except by or der of the court in a petition filed for the purpose and entitled in the origina l case in which the decree of registration was entered. The court is not author ized to alter or correct a certificate of title if it would mean the reopening o f the decree of registration beyond the period allowed by law. Respondent court committed a procedural lapse. The rule that a land registration court has no jurisdiction over parcels of land already covered by certificate of Title applies only where there exists no serious controversy as to the certificate s authenticity vis-a-vis the land co vered therein.
