Case Digest (G.R. No. L-65129)
Facts:
The case involves Tomas Averia, Jr. as the petitioner against the Honorable Milagros V. Caguioa, in her capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch LVII, Lucena City, and Veronica Padillo as the respondents. The events leading to this case began with a petition for the registration of a deed of sale, which was contested by Averia on the grounds of an antecedent contract to sell. The proceedings took place in Lucena City, where the Regional Trial Court acted as a cadastral court. Averia refused to participate in the registration hearing, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction under Section 112 of Act 496, known as the "Land Registration Act." The court proceeded with an ex parte hearing and subsequently ordered the registration of the deed based solely on the evidence presented by Padillo. In response, Averia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a preliminary injunction, arguing that the lower court's decisi...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-65129)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Tomas Averia, Jr.
- Respondents: Honorable Milagros V. Caguioa (Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch LVII, Lucena City) and Veronica Padillo.
Nature of the Case:
The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent court to order the registration of a deed of sale despite an antecedent contract to sell being contested.Procedural Background:
- The petitioner refused to participate in the registration proceedings, arguing that the respondent court, acting as a cadastral court, lacked jurisdiction under Section 112 of Act 496 (Land Registration Act).
- The respondent court proceeded ex parte and ordered the registration of the deed of sale based on the evidence presented by the private respondent (Veronica Padillo).
- The petitioner challenged this decision, citing the absence of unanimity among the parties as required under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act.
Legal Context:
- The case arose in 1982, after the Land Registration Act had been superseded by the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529), which took effect on June 11, 1979.
- The petitioner relied on the case of Fojas v. Grey, which held that summary relief under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act could only be granted if there was unanimity among the parties or no adverse claim or serious objection.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Jurisdiction Under the Property Registration Decree:
The Court held that the Property Registration Decree (P.D. No. 1529) superseded the Land Registration Act. Section 2 of P.D. No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction of the regional trial court and its limited jurisdiction as a cadastral court. The court now has authority to hear and decide both non-controversial and contentious issues arising from petitions filed after original registration of title.Due Process Violation:
The respondent court violated due process by proceeding ex parte and rendering a decision without considering the petitioner's evidence. The petitioner should have been given the opportunity to elevate the jurisdictional issue to the Supreme Court before the trial court proceeded with the case.Applicability of Fojas v. Grey:
The Court clarified that the ruling in Fojas v. Grey was based on the Land Registration Act, which was no longer applicable. Under the Property Registration Decree, the court is no longer limited to granting relief only in cases of unanimity or absence of adverse claims. It can now resolve contentious issues, such as the one in this case.Remedy Ordered:
The Supreme Court ordered a new trial to ensure that the petitioner and other interested parties could present their evidence and be heard, in line with the principles of due process and fair hearing.