"x x x.
At the outset, it bears to reiterate that the CA ruled on the basis of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (PD 1529), otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. Specifically, the CA cited Sections 2 and 108 of the said law, which provide as follows:
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof. (emphasis supplied)
Section 108. Amendment, and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner of other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section. (emphasis supplied)
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
The Court notes that the petition was clearly one which was filed after original registration oi title, as provided under the abovequoted Section 2 of PD 1529. Moreover, respondent’s petition was filed with the RTC for the purpose of correcting supposed errors which were committed when entries were made in the subject TCTs, as contemplated under Section 108 of the same law.
However, under settled jurisprudence, the enumerated instances for amendment or alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of PD 1529 are non-controversial in nature.1 They are limited to issues so patently insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. The proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating insertions of mistakes which are only clerical, but certainly not controversial issues.
As early as the case of Tangunan v. Republic of the Philippines2 , which was later cited in Angeles v. Razon, et al.3 , this Court, sitting en banc, ruled that:
x x x the lower court did not err in finding that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present petition for the simple reason that it involves a controversial issue which takes this case out of the scope of Section 112 of Act No. 496 [now Section 108 of PD 1529]. While this section, among other things, authorized a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title “upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased”, and apparently the petition comes under its scope, such relief can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs. Thus, it was held that “It is not proper to cancel an original certificate of Torrens title issued exclusively in the name of a deceased person, and to issue a new certificate in the name of his heirs, under the provisions of Section 112 of Act No. 496, when the surviving spouse claims right of ownership over the land covered by said certificate.” And, in another case, where there was a serious controversy between the parties as to the right of ownership over the properties involved, this court held, “that following the principle laid down in the decision above cited, the issues herein should be ventilated in a regular action x x x.”4 (citations omitted)
In the present case, the Court notes that in a separate action for annulment of title and recovery of ownership filed by petitioner’s wife against respondent, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137, in its decision in Civil Case No. 91-2648, dated July 5, 1993, made a categorical finding that petitioner and his wife are the lawful owners of the subject properties and ordering respondent to surrender possession thereof to the said spouses.5 This RTC judgment was later affirmed by the CA in its Decision6 in CA-G.R. CV No. 49446, dated April 29, 1997. Respondent, on the other hand, claims that she together with petitioner and his wife subsequently executed an amicable settlement dated June 22, 2000, which was approved by the RTC, wherein petitioner’s wife waived her rights and interests over the said properties. She also alleged that petitioner executed an Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest, dated January 22, 2007, indicating that he has no right or interest over the subject properties. Petitioner, nonetheless, claims that he executed a subsequent Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest, dated January 14, 2008, claiming that he was deceived by respondent into signing the said Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest and that he was seriously ill at the time that he affixed his signature.
From the foregoing, there is no question that there is a serious objection and an adverse claim on the part of an interested party as shown by petitioner’s subsequent execution of his Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest. The absence of unanimity among the parties is also evidenced by petitioner’s petition seeking the annulment of the RTC Decision which granted respondent’s petition for correction of entries in the subject TCTs. These objections and claims necessarily entail litigious and controversial matters making it imperative to conduct an exhaustive examination of the factual and legal bases of the parties’ respective positions. Certainly, such objective cannot be accomplished by the court through the abbreviated action under Section 108 of PD 1529. A complete determination of the issues in the present case can only be achieved if petitioner and his wife are impleaded in an adversarial proceeding.
In addition, the Court finds apropos to the instant case the ruling in the similar case of Martinez v. Evangelista7 where the petitioner in the said case, being the registered owner of certain real properties, sought to strike out the words “married to x x x” appearing in the Transfer Certificates of Title covering the said properties on the ground that the same was so entered by reason of clerical error or oversight and in lieu thereof the word “single” be substituted, which according to the petitioner in the said case is his true and correct civil status. This Court held that:
x x x x changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status from legitimate to illegitimate or from married lo not married are substantial as well as controversial, which can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding as a remedy for the adjudication of real and justifiable controversies involving actual conflict of rights the final determination of which depends upon the resolution of issues of nationality, paternity, filiation or legitimacy of the marital status for which existing substantive and procedural laws as well as other rules of court amply provide.8
In the present case, it is now apparent that before the trial court can alter the description of the civil status of respondent in the transfer certificates of title in question, it will have to receive evidence of and determine respondent’s civil status. This requires a full dress trial rendering the summary proceedings envisaged in Section 108 of PD 1529 inadequate.
Finally, it is settled that a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice.9 However, as found by the CA, respondent failed to comply with the said requirements. In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly void.10 It is wrong for the CA to rule in its Amended Decision that publication is not a jurisdictional requirement for the RTC to take cognizance of respondent’s petition. The appellate court’s reliance on the case ofChan v. Court of Appeals11 is misplaced. In the said case, this Court considered the notice to the Register of Deeds as substantial compliance with the notice and publication requirements of the law simply because in the petition for correction filed by the petitioner therein, only the said petitioner and the Register of Deeds had an interest in the correction of titles sought for. This Court ruled that there is therefore no necessity to notify other parties who had no interest to protect in the said petition. This is not true, however, in the present case. As discussed above, on the bases of petitioner’s serious objection and adverse claim, it is apparent that he has an interest to protect. Thus, the ruling in Chan finds no application in the instant case.
x x x."
See:
THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 200180, June 06, 2016,BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. MARIE JOSEPHINE CORDERO SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ, RESPONDENT.
