Lozada v Bracewell Digest

Lozada v Bracewell Case law instructs that for “as long as a nal decree has not been entered by the (Land Registration Authority [LRA] and the !eriod of one (" year has not ela!sed fro# the date of entry of such su ch decree$ the title is not nally ad%udicated and the decision in the registration !roceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it &AC') Petitioner fled an application or registration and confrmation o title over a parcel o land which was granted by the RTC o Makati City acting as a land registration court. Consequently on !uly "# "$$% the &R' & R' issued a (ecree in the name o petitioner who wh o later obtained an )CT. )CT. )n *ebruary + "$$, within a year rom the issuance o the aorementioned decree  !ames -racewell !r. !r. -racewell/ fled a petition petition or review o a decree decree o registration under 0ection 12 o Presidential (ecree 3o. P(/ "42$ otherwise known as the 5Property 5Property Registration (ecree6 beore the RTC o &as Pi7as City claiming that a portion o such land was his as absolute owner and possessor and us raudulently included in the (ecree. 8e urther averred that petitioner deliberately concealed the act that he -racewell/ is one o the ad9oining owners and let him totally ignorant o the registration proceedings involving said lots. :nstead o impleading him h im petitioner listed -racewell;s grandmother Maria Cailles as an ad9oining owner although she had already died by that time. *inding that petitioner obtained (ecree and )CT in bad aith the &as Pi7as Cityes or the sub9ect lot? and that he -racewell/ was recogni@ed as the owner thereo in the records o the -ureau o &ands way back in "$+4 as well w ell as in the City 'ssessor;s )Ace. Petitioner argues that the &as Pi7as City
*+,) *+,) -hether or not the Las .i/as City0R'C has %urisdiction over the !etition for review of decree$ which was issued as a result of the %udg#ent rendered by the R'C of 1a2ati City3

4,L5)  Bnder the 5&and Registration 'ct6 which was the law in orce at the time o the commencement by both parties p arties o their respective registration proceedings   9urisdiction over all applications applications or registration o title was conerred conerred upon the Courts o *irst :nstance C*:s now RT RTCs/ Cs/ o the respective provinces in which the th e land sought to be registered is situated. 0ubsequently -atas Pambansa -ilang -P/ "2$D1$E otherwise known as 5The  !udiciary Reorgani@ation Reorgani@ation 'ct o "$,#6 was enacted and took eFect eFect on 'ugust "G "$," authori@ing the creation o RTCs RTCs in diFerent 9udicial regions including the RTC RTC o &as Pi7as City as part o the 3ational Capital !udicial Region. 's pointed out by the court the RTC RTC o &as Pi7as City was established 5in or about "$$G.6 Bnderstandably in *ebruary "$$, -racewell sought the review o the (ecree beore the &as Pi7as Citypiration o said period p eriod o one year the decree o registration and the certifcate o title issued shall become incontrovertible. 'ny person aggrieved aggr ieved by such decree o registration in any case may pursue his remedy by action or damages against the applicant or any other persons responsible or the raud. 's such case law instructs that or 5as long as a fnal decree has not been entered by the D&R'E and the period o one "/ year has not elapsed rom the date o entry o such decree the title is not fnally ad9udicated and the decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion o the court rendering it.