EN BANC

G.R. No. L-10751 March 29, 1916

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANS, applicant-appellee,
vs.
MARIA !A"ALLERO # APARI!I, objector-appellant.
Ruperto Montinola and Aurelio Montinola for appellant.
Attorney-General Avancea for appellee.
TRENT, J.$
This case is a proceeding for the compulsory registration of certain lands in the municipality of
loilo, begun under the provisions of section !" of Act No. #$! and carried for%ard in accordance
%ith the provisions of the Cadastral Act &No. $$'#(.
)aria Cabellero, one of the respondents, claimed that lot No. ' on the cadastral plan did not
include all the land covered by her Torrens title issued in record No. "*#+ on November !, "#"$.
The court thereupon ordered the surveyor of the Bureau of ,ands to investigate this claim and to
report the result. The pertinent part of the surveyor-s report reads.
E/pediente No. "*#+ calls for all of lot No. ' and in addition lot No. '-a as sho%n on
accompanying s0etch, %hich is made a part of this report.
1rom the final order of the court, directing that in the ne% certificate of title lot No. '-a be
e/cluded, )aria Caballero appealed.
All admit that the appellant-s Torrens title covers lot No. '-a, or in other %ords, lot No. '-a is a part
of lot No. '. The judgment of the ,and Court, as a result of %hich the appellant-s Torrens title
issued, has long since become final, so there can be no 2uestion about the validity or finality of
the appellant-s title. But it is urged that the order of the lo%er court e/cluding parcel No. '-a be
sustained because 3it is based on sound principles and is essential to the proper handing of
cadastral cases.3 4ith this proposition %e cannot agree. 4e see no reason %hy a part of the
appellant-s land, %hich is covered by a Torrens title, should be ta0en from her and given to
someone else. t may be true that in administering the Cadastral ,a% it %ill be necessary to issue
ne% certificates of title to these holding Torrens titles for lands %ithin the cadastral survey, but if
this is done, the ne% certificate must cover all of the land contained in the old one. The
appellant-s theory of this case is so clear that a further discussion of the 2uestion is unnecessary.
1or the foregoing reasons, the order appealed from is reversed, %ithout costs in this instance. 5o
ordered.
Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and Araullo, JJ., concur.