G.R. No. L-18339 - Navera vs. Quicho

On January 24, 1961, the municipality of Ligao filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Albay under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (as amended).
The petition sought the correction of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9304, which was issued in the name of Godofredo Navera and covers Lot No. 2793-A.
The correction was demanded on the ground that a portion of 123 square meters had been erroneously included in the title during the cadastral survey, such inclusion allegedly encroached upon the municipality’s Natera Street.

Navera filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that Section 112 of Act No. 496 only authorizes alterations that (a) do not impair rights recorded in the original decree of registration, (b) do not prejudice such rights, or (c) are consented to by all parties concerned.
He contended that the relief sought would effectively result in reopening the original decree of registration – issued in 1937 – by correcting the technical description of the land, which is impermissible under the law.
Navera maintained that the petition was not a mere correction of a clerical error but an attempt to reconvey part of the property (i.e., the 123 square meters) back to the municipality.

Despite Navera’s motion to dismiss, the court a quo denied the motion and ordered Navera to answer the municipality’s petition within the reglementary period.
After his motion for reconsideration was denied, Navera subsequently filed a petition for certiorari contesting the jurisdiction of the court a quo based on the controversial nature of the subject matter.

The municipality of Ligao alleged that during the construction or repair work on Navera Street, a duly licensed surveyor discovered that Lot No. 2793-A encroached upon the street by including an area amounting to 123 square meters.
Based on this discovery, the municipality prayed for the correction of the technical description in both the cadastral survey and the Certificate of Title to exclude the disputed area, thereby reaffirming its claim over the public highway.

Whether the relief sought—namely, the correction of an error that would amend the original decree of registration—falls within the ambit of Section 112, which ostensibly authorizes only non-prejudicial corrections or those agreed upon by all parties.

Whether the existence of a disputed fact—specifically, whether the 123 square meters form part of a public highway—prevents the application of Section 112 for correcting the title.
Whether the lack of unanimity among the parties regarding this factual contention renders the petition ineligible for correction without a full resolution in a separate, ordinary case.

Whether an erroneously included area (even if noted on the certificate of title) can be corrected without adversely affecting the registered rights or, in effect, reopening the original decree of registration.
Whether the corrective process under Section 112 can be used to exclude lands (such as portions constituting public highways) that cannot legally be registered.