Today is Sunday, October 25, 2020

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources

AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-39248 May 7, 1976

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Octavio R. Ramirez and Atty. Baltazar Llamas
plaintiff-appellee.

Jose R. Madrazo, Jr. for defendant-appellant.

Gregorio Bilog, Jr. for defendant Land Registration Commissioner.

ESGUERRA, J.:

This case was originally appealed to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 47438-R. The
Court of Appeals certified it to this Court for final consideration and resolution of the pure question of law involved.

The factual background of the case is as follows:

On May 9, 1969, a Complaint for Annulment of Certificate of Title was filed by the Republic of the Philippines
(represented by the Director of Lands), with the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch 1, alleging, among
others, the following:

3. That defendant Commissioner of Land Registration and defendant Register of Deeds of Davao
City whose Offices are at España Extension, Quezon City and Davao City, respectively. "(are included
in this complaint, the first being the public Official charged under the law with the approval )."
subdivision surveys of private lands while the second is the Official vested with the authority to issue
certificates of titles, pursuant to the provisions of Act 496, as amended, otherwise known as the Land
Registration Law;

4. That defendant Estate of Luisa Villa Abrille (now Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille) is the owner of a parcel
of land in the City of Davao containing an area of FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED FIFTY TWO SQUARE METERS (525.652), more or less, under Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-1439 of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City, issued in her name;

5. That deceased Luisa Villa Abrille during her lifetime caused the subdivision of the aforesaid parcel
of land into two lots designated as Lots Nos. 379-B-2-B-1 and 379-B-2-B-2 under subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-69322 which was approved by the Land Registration Commissioner on March 17,1967;

6. That under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322, Lot No. 379- B-2-B-1 contains an area of 30,100
Square Meters while Lot No. 379-B-2B-2 contains an area of 577,679 Square Meters or a total area
of 607,779 Square Meters, which is 82,127 Square Meters more than the original area covered in
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439 in the name of said defendant Luisa Villa Abrille;

7. That on March 27, 1967 or ten days after the approval by the Land Registration Commissioner,
said Luisa Villa Abrille was able to secure an order from the Court of First Instance of Davao in LRC
(GLRO) Doc. No. 9969, directing the Register of Deeds for the City of Davao and Province of Davao,
 to correct the area of Certificate of Title No. T-1439 and thereafter to cancel the same and issue in
lieu thereof TCT Nos. T-18886 and T-18887;

8. That on March 30, 1967, the Register of Deeds concerned registered Lot 379-B-2-B-1 and issued
TCT No. 18886 therefor, in the name of Luisa Villa Abrille and on the same date registered Lot No.
379-B-2-B-2 and issued TCT No. 18887 in the name of Luisa Villa Abrille;

9. That the registration of Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2, which includes the aforementioned excess area of
82,127 Square Meters, was not in accordance with law for lack of the required notice and publication
as prescribed in Act 496, as amended, otherwise known as the Land Registration Law;

10. That the excess or enlarged area of 82,127 Square Meters as a result of the approval of the
subdivision survey (LRC) Psd-69322 was formerly a portion of the Davao River which dried up by
reason of the change of course of the said Davao River; hence a land belonging to the public
domain; and

11. That as a consequence thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18887 which covers Lot No. 379-
B-2-B-2 of Subdivision Survey (LRC) Psd-69322, wherein the excess area of land belong to the public
domain (not private land) is null and void ab initio.

On June 10, 1969, defendant Register of Deeds of Davao- City filed her answer averring that she, "in the
performance of her ministerial duty, honestly and in good faith effected the registration of Subdivision Lot No. 379-
B-2-B-1 and Lot No. 379B-2-B-2 and the issuance of corresponding TCT No. 18886 and TCT No. 18887 therefor,
respectively, in view of the approval of the Land Registration Commissioner of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322,
and in view of the Order of the Court of First Instance of Davao to correct the area in Certificate of Title No. T-
1439, to cancel the same and to issue in lieu thereof TCT Nos. T-18886 and T-18887".

On July 2, 1969, herein defendant-appellants filed their answer admitting the allegations contained in paragraphs
1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the complaint; that they admit the increase in area of the land of their predecessor but that the
increase in area of the land was acceded to and concurred in by the defendant, Land Registration Commissioner,
and the same was duly noted and approved by the Court of First Instance of Davao; that they admit the issuance
of TCT Nos. T-18886 and T-18887 out of Certificate of Title No. T- 1439 in the name of their predecessor-in-
interest Luisa Villa Abrille but that TCT No. T-18886 had been cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-19077 was
issued in favor of Gaudencio Consunji, and, TCT No. T-18887 had likewise been cancelled and several Transfer
Certificates of Title were issued thereunder; that the subject increase of area was made in accordance with law
and existing jurisprudence; and that Luisa Villa Abrille, predecessor-in-interest of herein defendant-appellant, as
riparian owner was entitled under the law to claim, as she did, the increase or excess in area of her original land
as her own.

On August 12, 1969, defendant Commissioner of Land Registration prays for a judgment on the pleadings and
avers in his answer that he has no knowledge of the subject matter of the complaint since the subdivision plan
involved therein was approved by the then Commissioner of Land Registration, Antonio Noblejas; and that on
February 19, 1968, the then Commissioner of Land Registration, Antonio Noblejas, issued LRC Circular No. 167
directing the Register of Deeds throughout the Philippines to, among others, deny the registration of subdivision
plans with increased or expanded areas and to withhold the issuance of the corresponding titles, or if the plans
have already been registered and the titles issued, to recall the titles and to take appropriate steps for their
cancellation.

Some private persons, as actual possessors and occupants, tried to intervene in the case as movant-intervenors
but they were denied standing in court by the trial court in its order of August 16,1969.

On January 6, 1970, the parties litigants submitted in court their "Agreed Stipulation of Facts" and pray that
judgment be rendered by the trial court on their case based on their stipulation of facts. The "Agreed Stipulation of
Facts" of the parties reads as follows:

COME NOW the parties assisted by their respective attorneys, and unto the Honorable Court, most
respectfully submit the following stipulation of facts and allege:

1. That Lot 379-B-2-B was originally registered on June 28, 1916 in the Registry Book of the Register
of Deeds of Zamboanga as Vol. A27, Page 40 under Original Certificate of Title No. 5609, Case No. 1,
G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 317, in the name of Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna, father of Luisa Villa Abrille;

2. That upon the death of the original owner, the said property was inherited by Luisa Villa Abrille and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439 was issued in the name of said Luisa Villa Abrille;

3. That subsequently, by virtue of an approved subdivision plan Psd-69322 by the defendant, Land
Registration Commissioner, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-18886 and 18887 were issued by the
defendant, Register of Deeds of Davao, copy of which subdivision plan is hereto attached as Annex
"A", and made integral part hereof;

4. That Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18886 was subsequently cancelled by virtue of deed of sale,
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19077 was issued in the name of Gaudencio Consunji a
purchaser in good faith and for value;

5. That the said subdivision plan Annex "A" was also approved by the Court of First Instance of
Davao, Branch IV, through an Order dated March 27, 1967, copy of which order is hereto attached as
Annex "B" and made part hereof;

6. That the said Order Annex "B" was issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV, on
the strength of the Report of the defendant, Land Registration Commissioner, copy of which report is
hereto attached as Annex "C" and made integral part hereof;

7. That much later on, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18887 was by virtue of an Order of the Court
of First Instance, Branch 1, in Special Proceedings No. 1357, entitled: In the Matter of the Testate
Estate of Luisa Villa Abrille, approving a project of partition cancelled, and in lieu thereof, the following
Transfer Certificates of Title were issued to the following named persons, to wit:

(a) T-20690 - Huang Siu Sin;

(b) T-20692 - Huang Siu Sin;

(c) T-20701 - Josefino Huang;

(d) T-20702 - Josefino Huang;

(e) T-20703 - Josefino Huang;

(f) T-20732 Huang Siu Sin, et al.;

(g) T-20733 - Huang Siu Sin, et al.;

(h) T-20713 - Miguel Huang;

(i) T-23015 - Miguel Huang;

(j) T-20725 - Milagros Huang;

(k) T-20726 - Milagros Huang;

which certificates of title were issued on the basis of a subdivision plan LRC Psd-71236 duly
approved by the defendant, Land Registration Commissioner, copy of which subdivision plan (LRC)
Psd-71236 is hereto attached as Annex "D" and made integral part hereof;

8. That the parties admit that there was an increase in the area of Lot 379-B-2-B, but the same was
with the knowledge of the defendant, Land Registration Commissioner and the court of First Instance
of Davao, Branch IV;

9. That the parties admit that no registered owner has been affected or prejudiced in the increase in
area as only Luisa Villa Abrille as the registered owner holds property adjacent to the parcel of land in
question;

10. That the portion of land subject of the increase adjoins Lot 379-B-2-B and abuts the Davao River;

11. That the parcel of land subject of the increase is fully planted with coconuts, bananas and other
seasonal crops by the defendants, through their predecessor-in-interest;

12. That the increase in area could have taken place very long time ago as the coconuts planted
thereon had long been fruit bearing;

13. That Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18886 does not contain any portion of the increase in area;

14. That of the certificates of title issued based under subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-71236, only
Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T- 20725; T-20701; T-20713; and T-20690 contain the increase in
area; while all the other certificates of title issued under subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-71236 do not
contain any increase in area;
 15. That the parties agree that the issuance of the Order Annex "B" was without notice to the Director
of Lands.

The trial court thereafter rendered its decision dated January 27, 1970, which reads as follows:

This is an ordinary civil action for annulment of certificate of title instituted by the Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, against the Estate of Luisa Abrille, represented by
Huang Siu Sin, Administrator, the Land Registration Commissioner and the Register of Deeds of the
City of Davao. Because the residue of the intestate estate of Luisa Villa Abrille had been divided
among Huang Siu Sin, Josefino Huang, Milagros Huang, Miguel Huang and lap Tong Ha, heirs, they
were directed to appear and to substitute for the intestate estate and they did.

The parties submitted the following stipulation of facts:

xxx xxx xxx

The increase in area of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 5609 of the Register of
Deeds of Davao in the name of Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna and subsequently by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T. 1439 in the name of Luisa Villa Abrille and finally, based on subdivision plan
(LRC) Psd-71236, by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725 in the name of Milagros Huang,
T20701 in the name of Josefino Huang, T-20713 in the name of Miguel Huang and T-20690 in the
name of Huang Siu Sin, is from 525,652 square meters to 607,779 square meters, or 82,127 square
meters.

The remedy sought by defendant heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille in order to include the increase in area
was a petition for approval of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-79322 recommended by the Commissioner
of Land Registration in his Report, and for issuance of new title under Section 44, Act 496, as
amended, filed with this court, which was assigned to Branch IV.

Even pursuant to Section 44 of Act 496 under which the aforesaid remedy was sought, notice before
the hearing is required. The parties admit that there was no notice to the persons interested,
including the Director of Lands, before the petition was heard.

Worse, the increase in area could not have been included in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-
20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690 even assuming arguendo that the same belonged to the
owner of the land to which it is adjacent by the simple expediency of a petition for approval of
subdivision plan and issuance of new titles, because a subdivision of a registered land under Section
44 of Act 496 does not authorize the inclusion of land or area not embraced in the titled or in excess
of what is stated in the title. And the approval by the Court of such subdivision plan does not lend
validity to it. The subdivision must be limited to the area stated in the title. Neither amendment of the
title under Section 112 of Act 496 would be a valid remedy 1.

The heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille.. owners of the adjacent estate, might have acquired a registrable title
to the land in question but to bring it under the operation of the Land Registration Act, a petition for
registration under Act 496 should have been filed. More so when the title acquired is by continuous
possession for at least 30 years under a claim of ownership And even assuming that the land is an
accretion, the fact that the riparian estate is registered does not bring ipso facto effect its accretion
thereto under the operation of the Land Registration Act. No decree of registration of the land based
upon final judgment promulgated by a court of competent jurisdiction after due publication, notice and
hearing, has been issued by the Commissioner of Land Registration and transcribed by the Register
of Deeds of Davao in the registry, for the reason that no initial or original registration proceedings
have been instituted by the owner. And the only way by which a title to the land in question can be
issued for the first time is for the Land Registration Commissioner to issue a decree of registration
based upon final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction after trial.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered cancelling Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-
20701, T-20713 and T-20690 and directing the Register of Deeds of Davao to issue new certificates
of title in lieu thereof after the portions consisting of 82,127 square meters, the land involved, shall
have been segregated therefrom in accordance with law.

Not satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, defendant Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille brought the case on appeal
to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however, in its Resolution dated July 22, 1974, certified the case
(CA-G.R. No. 47438-R) to this Court for consideration and final disposition.

Defendant-appellant maintains that the lower court erred in holding the approval of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-
69322 of no legal effect merely on ground of lack of notice to interested persons, and in ordering the cancellation
of Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690. It is the contention of the defendant-
appellant that since the government agencies having to do with lands know all the time the increase in area in
subdivision plan Psd-69322, and the government agencies concerned tolerated if not abetted the ultimate
inclusion of the involved increase in area, defendant-appellant should not be made to suffer the effect of the
allegedly wrong procedure or step taken in the approval of the aforementioned subdivision plan. Besides,
defendant-appellant claims that it is their honest belief that the legal remedy taken by them in seeking the
approval of their subdivision plan concerned was well within the law, particularly the provision of Section 44 of Act
496, as amended.

Plaintiff-appellee, on the other hand, maintains that the approval of the subdivision plan, with the increase in area,
by the defendant-appellant Land Registration Commission does not lend validity to the said subdivision plan; and
that the issuance of the four transfer certificates of title (Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690) over the
increased area in question is improper and invalid notwithstanding the conformity of the Land Registration
Commissioner and the subsequent order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV, approving the
subdivision plan concerned, as the required giving of notice to all parties interested in defendant-appellant's
petition for approval of subdivision plan was not at all followed,

Before Us, therefore, for consideration and final resolution, in order to arrive at a judicious disposition of the case
at bar, is whether or not the lower court erred in ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-
20725, T-20701, T-20713 and T-20690 which cover the increased area in question totalling 82,127 square
meters.

After a careful and thorough deliberation of the matter in controversy, We are of the opinion and so hold that the
lower court acted correctly in ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-
20713 and T-20690 which admittedly covered the increased area of 82,127 square meters under Subdivision Plan
(LRC) Psd-71236 (and formerly under Psd-69322) for the City of Davao.

Certainly, the step taken by defendant-appellant in petitioning the court for the approval of their Subdivision Plan
(LRC) Psd-69322 and then Psd-71236 to include the questioned increased area of 82,127 square meters is, to
say the least, unwarranted and irregular. This is so, for the increased area in question, which is not a registered
land but formerly a river bed, is so big as to give allowance for a mere mistake in area of the original registration of
the tracts of land of the defendant-appellant formerly belonging to and registered in the name of their grandfather,
Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna. In order to bring this increase in area, which the parties admitted to have been a
former river bed of the Davao River, under the operation and coverage of the Land Registration Law, Act 496,
proceedings in registrations of land title should have been filed Instead of an ordinary approval of subdivision
plan.

It should be remembered that recourse under Section 44 of Act 496, which the predecessor-in-interest (Luisa Villa
Abrille) of the herein defendant-appellant took, is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands. In the
instant case, part of the tracts of land, particularly the area of 82,127 square meters, has not yet been brought
under the operation of the Torrens System. Worse still, the approval of Subdivision Plans (LRC) Psd-69322 and
Psd-71236 was without notice to all parties in interest, more particularly the Director of Lands. For an applicant to
have his imperfect or incomplete title or claim to a land to be originally registered under Act 496, the following
requisites should all be satisfied:

1. Survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor;

2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;

3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the Court;

4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all the documents or other
evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Commission;

5. Publication of a notice of the filing of the application and date and place of the hearing in the
Official Gazette;

6. Service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those known to have interests in the
property by the sheriff;

7. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice or not;

8. Hearing of the case by the Court;

9. Promulgation of judgment by the Court;

10. Issuance of the decree by the Court declaring the decision final and instructing the Land
Registration Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration;
 11. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission;

12. Sending of copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register of Deeds, and

13. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the issuance of the owner's
duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by the Register of Deeds, upon payment of the
prescribed fees.

Hence, with the foregoing requisites not having been complied with, the lower court committed no error in its
appealed decision dated January 27, 1970.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto.

No special pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Martin, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation