ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 143463. July 12, 2000]

EDMUNDO ISAAC vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12 2000.

G.R. No. 143463. (Edmundo Isaac, represented by his Attorney-in-fact, Eduardo Isaac vs. Republic of the Philippines.)

Petitioner seeks a review of the decision, dated December 21, 1999 of the Court of Appeals, reversing the decision rendered in his favor by the Regional Trial Court. Branch 35, Iriga City in a case for confirmation of title on the ground that petitioner failed to submit the tracing cloth plan and prove his title to the land. Petitioner claims that the tracing cloth plan is on file with the Land Registration Authority, where it is attached to the expediente of Land Registration Case No. 211, Record No. 64634, Iriga City (Annex I of petition). Hence, its presentation was not necessary.

The contention has no merit. In Director of Lands v. IAC (219 SCRA 339 (1993)), a similar argument was rejected, as it was held that the submission of the tracing cloth plan is mandatory for the purpose of fixing the exact identity of the land shown in the plan and technical descriptions. It is true, as petitioner contends, that in Director of Lands v. CA (158 SCRA 569 (1998)), the submission of the original tracing cloth plan was dispensed with. In that case, however, there was an original survey plan, only it was recorded on white paper instead of a tracing cloth. It was held that this fact did not detract from the probative value of the survey plan.

Moreover, the certification of the LRA that the tracing cloth plan is on file in that office was submitted only on April 8, 1999, after the trial court had rendered its decision on January 22, 1998. Thus, the submission of the certification did not cure the jurisdictional defect caused by petitioner's failure to submit the tracing cloth plan.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary to pass upon petitioner's other contention that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that he never exercised acts of dominion over the property he is seeking to register.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court�

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE