G.R. No. 45324 - Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abadinas

The court retains jurisdiction over incidental questions affecting registered titles even after the issuance of a final decree in a cadastral case.
This is supported by Section 6 of Act No. 2259 (Cadastral Act) and Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, which allow for subdivisions and the declaration of new real rights post-registration.
The court's jurisdiction is designed to prevent the splitting of authority over the same subject matter.

Under Section 44 of Act No. 496, a registered landowner can subdivide their property by petitioning the court for new certificates for the subdivided lots.
The process for subdivision does not require a separate action for partition; it can be addressed within the existing cadastral or registration proceedings.
The co-ownership of the property does not preclude the application for subdivision under the provisions of the Land Registration Act.

Jorge Gabutan and Balbino Gabutan co-owned a registered lot and Jorge sought to subdivide it, which Balbino opposed, claiming the need for a partition action.
The court initially sided with Balbino, asserting it lacked jurisdiction to hear the subdivision request.
Jorge's appeal challenged this ruling, arguing that the court had the authority to grant the subdivision within the cadastral case.

The majority opinion references Section 84 of Act No. 496, which pertains to partition proceedings but does not preclude subdivision applications.
The provisions of Section 6 of the Cadastral Act and Section 44 of the Land Registration Act indicate that subdivisions can occur without necessitating a partition action.
The court's ability to address improvements and rights acquired by co-owners is also supported by Section 112 of the Land Registration Act.

The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, affirming that the subdivision request could be processed within the existing cadastral case.
The court directed the lower court to proceed with the partition of the lot, ensuring compliance with legal procedures and notice to all parties involved.

Justice Moran dissented, arguing that the majority's interpretation of the law was unsupported by legal provisions.
He contended that the cited sections do not authorize partition actions in the context of a cadast...continue reading