Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56874)
Facts:
Fructuoso Aguilar, Constancia Aguilar, Delfin Aguilar, Rufina Aguilar, Ceferino Aguilar, Cipriano Aguilar, Lucia Aguilar, and Filomena Aguilar v. Honorable Eleuterio E. Chiu, the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental, the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental and Maria G. Gimony, G.R. No. 56874, November 06, 1981, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the children and successors-in-interest of the late Tomas Aguilar, who had become owner of Lots 5281, 5283 and 5284 pursuant to cadastral proceedings (originally Lot No. 2345 divided into 2345-A to -D) and whose title to Lot 5284 was reflected in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 968 (OCT No. 8922 issued May 21, 1929; TCT No. 968 issued December 9, 1932). The private respondent Maria G. Gimony held TCT No. T-15107 covering adjacent Lot No. 2360-A.
On May 3 (filed May 6), 1974, Maria G. Gimony filed in the original cadastral proceedings (Cadastral Case No. 12, LRC Rec. No. 311) a “Motion to Amend Technical Description of Lot No. 5284,” asserting that an amendment survey approved January 27, 1933 (Psd-1595-Amd.) showed Lot 5284’s true area as 1,043 square meters whereas the registered technical description reflected 1,190 square meters — a 147-square-meter difference she claimed as part of her adjoining lot. The motion sought cancellation/amendment of the technical description in TCT No. 968 to the smaller area.
The motion was noticed for hearing May 8, 1974; Tomas Aguilar did not receive notice and did not appear, and the movant presented evidence ex parte. Tomas filed a manifestation May 9 asking ten days to oppose; the court granted this request but did not set aside the ex parte evidence. Oppositions, reschedulings and supplemental motions followed through 1974–1976. On March 12, 1975 the court — despite lack of notice to Tomas — appointed Geodetic Engineer Bonifacio Catarata as Commissioner to conduct a relocation survey; petitioners allege the commissioner had prior contractual relations with private respondent.
Following execution of the commissioner’s assignment (survey and report dated December 16, 1976) and a series of oppositions, motions for reconsideration and orders, the court issued an order dated May 25, 1977 approving the Commissioner’s Report and later (December 22, 1980) granted a writ of execution thereon. On March 17, 1981 the court directed the Register of Deeds to cancel OCT/TCT No. 8922/T-968 and issue a new title for Lot 5284 reflecting the amended technical description. The petitioners — successors of Tomas — allege they were not furnished a copy of the March 11, 1981 motion that prompted the March 17, 1981 order.
The petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court to annul the orders of the court a qu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance acting as a land registration (cadastral) court have jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend the technical description of Lot No. 5284 after entry of the certificate of title?
- May the technical description (and thus the area) of a parcel already registered be amended by a motion in the original cadastral proceedings so as to r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)