MERCED v CA

FACTS:
1. Private Respondent Ezequiel Santos claimed ownership of Lot No.
395 by virtue of an adjudication of the cadastral court dated
December 26, 1923, in favor of his father filed a complaint for
recovery of ownership from Merced.
2. Merced in their answer, resisted Santos claim and asserted
ownership over said property as evidenced by OCT.
3. CFI decision:
o By virtue of a decision rendered by the cadastral court, the
said lot was adjudicated to Santos father and pursuant to
such decision, the cadastral court issued on December 17,
1925, an order for the issuance of a certificate of title.
(However, no title was issued to Santos father)
o December 8, 1926, a TCT was issued in the name of Santos
in lieu of an OCT which was canceled.
o The cadastral court declared such lot as public, wherein as
a consequence, Merced filed a homestead application to
which, an OCT was issued.
o CFI decided, that the cadastral court had not jurisdiction to
issue the order declaring the lot public land and therefore
the certificate of title issued was null and void.
4. Defendants filed a MFT, the promulgation of decision was
suspended and the case was reset.
5. The CFI Amended its decision:
o While the court held that the land having ceased to be part of
the public domain, the Director of Lands no longer had
authority to grant the homestead patent over the same to
Juan de la Merced, it declared nevertheless that, inasmuch as
no title was actually issued therefor, the said lot may be
acquired by adverse possession. And, as defendants had been
in possession of the property for over 20 years, they were
declared to have acquired the right over the same by
prescription. The complaint was consequently ordered
dismissed; OCT No. 3462 cancelled and a new one issued to
defendants in lieu thereof; and plaintiffs were directed to
vacate the one-third portion of Lot No. 395 occupied by them,
and to pay the costs.
6. Santos filed an appeal. CA granted the appeal.
o That upon the finality of the decree by the cadastral court,
adjudicating ownership of the land, the title thereto becomes
incontrovertible and may no longer be acquired by
prescription. And, as the land was no longer part of the public
domain when the homestead patent was obtained by Juan de
la Merced, the same can not prevail over the cadastral court's
 decree of registration of lot No. 395 in favor of appellant
Santos' predecessor.
7. MercHence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the decree granted to Santos was already final

HELD: YES.
1. Under voluntary registration with the LRA, it is apparent from the
foregoing provisions that a decree of registration and a
certificate of title, under Act 496, are two different things. And it
is the decree of registration, to be issued by the Land
Registration Commissioner, which shall be the basis of the
certificate of title to be issued subsequently by the
corresponding register of deeds that quiets title to and binds the
land.
2. In cadastral proceedings, the title of ownership on the land is
vested upon the owner upon the expiration of the period to
appeal from the decision or adjudication by the cadastral court,
without such an appeal having been perfected. The certificate of
title would then be necessary for purposes of effecting
registration of subsequent disposition of the land where court
proceedings would no longer be necessary.
3. In the case at bar, the decree issued by the cadastral court, in
favor of Santos father, ordering the issuance of the certificate of
title in his name, after the decision adjudicating ownership to him
of the said property had already become final, and there being
no imputation of irregularity in the said cadastral proceedings,
title of ownership on the said adjudicates was vested as the date
of the issuance of such judicial decree. The land, for all intents
and purposes, had become, from that time, registered property
which could not be acquired by adverse possession.