1.

Fojas vs De Grey

GR. No. L-29613 ; September 18, 1984

Cuevas, J:

FACTS: This case involves a lot which now falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Trece,
Maritres City. The said lot, formerly a portion of the Friar Land Estates held by the
Government, had been occupied by appellant Saturnina De Grey who had the preferential right
to purchase from the Government. Before he exercise his right to purchase, he executed a Deed
of Assignment of her rights, interest and participation over one and one-half hectares of the said
Lot to Apolinar Fojas, with the condition that he will pay the Bureau of Lands corresponding
the price of the said portion together with expenses necessary to obtain Torrens Title.

Saturnina De Grey exercised his right and paid the full purchase price. Fojas then requested the
Bureau of Lands to compute the total amount paid and the amount to be paid by him. Fojas
then offered payment and requested that his right over the portion of the land be annotated in
De Grey’s duplicate of TCT No. T-2376. But said request was refused. By reason of the refusal,
Fojas caused the Deed of Assignment of right in his favor to be entered in the records of the
Register of Deeds of Cavite but the Registry of Deeds could not make the annotation because of
the refusal of the respondent’s refusal to surrender her owner’s duplicate.

Petitioner filed a petition with the Court of First Instance to compel respondent to surrender to
the Register of Deeds her owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT.

Respondent moved for reconsideration alleging that the lower court acting as a land registration
court, has a limited jurisdiction, that of registering title to the land. Since title has already been
issued, the Court has no more power to act on subsequent matters affecting the land, and that
the dispute shall be decided in an independent civil action and not under Sec. 112 of the Land
Registration Act.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner can avail summary relief under Section 112 of the Land
Registration Act.

HELD: No.

In a long line of decisions dealing with the proceedings under Section 112 of the Land
Registration Act, it has been held that summary relief under the said Act can only be granted if
there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the
part of any party in interest. Otherwise, the case becomes contentious and controversial which
should be threshed out in an ordinary action or in the case where the incident properly belongs.
Lack of unanimity among the parties in interest, manifestly demonstrated by respondent’s
express objection to the annotation, removes petitioner from the scope of Section 112.
Proceedings under the Land Registration are summary in nature and hence inadequate for the
resolution of issues which properly pertain to the case where the incident belongs.
2. Escueta vs Director of Lands

GR. No. 5720 ; August 20, 1910

Torres, J:

FACTS: On the 17th of August, 1908, Mariano Escueta filed an application in the Court of Land
Registration, soliciting the registration of a property or parcel of land of which he was alleged to
be the absolute owner. It stated that the land contains 798’34,16 square meteres, the description
and boundaries of which are given in the detailed plan inclosed therewith; that there is no
encumbrance of anu kind on the said land , nor any person who may consider that he has a
right to or a share in the same, according to his best knowledge and belief, and that he acquired
such land through purchase from Ildefenso Ramirez y Apostol. The applicant states that he is
the occupant of the land.

On the 23rd of the same month, the petitioner stated in writing to the court that, after the
hearing, he had learned that the true boundaries of his land on its southeastern side were the
properties of Susan Marquez, Marcia Villareal, Protasio Cabrera and of the deceased Gregorio
Pineda, these two latter instead of Donato Miguel Castro. Petitoner therefore asked the court to
admit the amendments aforestated.

The Attorney-General opposed the amendments solicited by the Petitioner, except upon a new
description of the land, other due notifications and previous publication.

After a red line had been drawn on the plan, by the surveyor of court, a decision was made by
the court granting the proposed amendment solicited, without new advertisement or
notifications, and disallowing the claim made by the Director of Lands.

The Attorney-General filed an appeal in representation of the Director of Lands.

The Judge of the Court of Land Registration decided that in the present case it was not
necessary to issue new notifications and to republish and that the amendment solicited was
proper without new advertisement or notices.

ISSUE: Whether or not new notification and publications are necessary in cases where, after
they once have been made and the registration of the realty has been declared, the applicant
requests an amendment of the description of the land and of its plan.

HELD: Yes.

If amendments or alternations were permitted in the description of land sought to be registered,

after the publication of the application in the newspapers and the issuance of the decree for the
registration of the property, on the petition of the interested party, without new noti︎fications
and advertisement whereby to make known to all persons the said alterations and amendments
concerning the situation, boundaries, and area of the land, the mandate of the law would be
violated relative to the publicity of the proceedings prescribed for the registration of real estate,
a publicity which permeates the whole system of special trial established for the registration of
landed properties. Moreover, third parties who have not had an opportunity to present their
claims, might be seriously affected in their rights by not being noti︎ed, it being natural and just
that they be not injured in consequence of the recti︎cation that is sought.

The alternation or amendment of the plan of the land in question and of its description may
affect other persons besides the adjacent property owners Protasio Cabrera and the heirs of
Gregorio Pineda: wherefore the agreement of these owners or of their representatives is not
su︎cient in order to comply with the Land Registration Act, for there might be other persons who
have a right in rem in the properties of the said adjacent owners who would be injured by the
diminution of the area of the property encumbered by such a right in rem. This possible injury
to them should be avoided by means of new noti︎cations and publication concerning the
recti︎cation or amendment desired.

Hence, the SC ordered the return to the Court of Land Registration to have due
notifications and new publications of the amendment or ratification of the description of
the land.
3. Consuelo Legarda vs Saleeby

GR. No. 8936 ; October 2, 1915

Johnson, J:

FACTS: Plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as owners, adjoining lots in the district of Ermita,
Manila. That there exists and has existed for a number of years a stone wall between the said
lots. Said wall is located at the land of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their lot.
After a consideration of such petition, the court decreed that the title of the plaintiff should be
registered and issued to them. Said registration included the wall.

Later, the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration
for the registration of the lot now occupied by him. The court then issued the registration of said
title and such also included the wall.

The plaintiffs discovered it and immediately presented a petition in the Court of Land
Registration for an adjustment and correction of the error committed.

The Lower Court, however, denied the petition alleging that they failed to make any objection
to the registration of said lot in the name of the defendant.

ISSUE: Whether or not defendant has a better right to the wall.

HELD: No.

The decision of the lower court is based upon the theory that the action for the registration of
the lot of the defendant was a judicial proceeding and that the judgment or decree was binding
upon all parties who did not appear and oppose it.

Granting that theory to be correct one , then the same theory should be applied to the defendant
himself. Applying that theory to him, he had already lost whatever right he had therein, by
permitting the plaintiffs to have the same registered in their name, more than six years before

We have decided, in case of double registration under the Land Registration Act, that the owner
of the earliest certificate is the owner of the land. May this rule be applied to successive vendees
of the owners of such certificates? Suppose that one or the other of the parties, before the error is
discovered, transfers his original certificate to an “innocent purchaser.” The general rule is that
the vendee of land has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor; that he acquires the
right which his vendor had, only. Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be
the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate.
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two persons have acquired equal rights in
the same thing, to hold that the one who acquired it first and who has complied with all the
requirements of the law should be protected.

In view of our conclusions, above stated, the judgment of the lower court should be and is
hereby revoked. The record is hereby returned to the court now having and exercising the
jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land court, with direction to make such orders and
decrees in the premises as may correct the error heretofore made in including the land in the
second original certificate issued in favor of the predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all
other duplicate certificates issued.
4. Antonio Noblejas vs Teehankee

GR. No. 28790 ; April 29, 1968

Reyes, J.B.L., Actg. C.J. :

FACTS: Petitioner Antonio Noblejas is the duly appointed, confirmed and qualified
Commissioner of Land Registration, a position created by Republic Act No. 1151. By the terms
of section 2 of said Act, the Commissioner is declared “entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.”

Respondent Secretary of Justice coursed to the Petitioner a letter requiring him to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against petitioner for “approving or
recommending approval of subdivision and consolidation plans covering areas greatly in excess
of the areas covered by the original titles.” Noblejas answered and said that as he enjoys the
same privileges, emoluments and compensation of a Judge of the Court of First Instance, he
could only be suspended and investigated in the same manner as a Judge of the Court of First
Instance, therefore, the papers relative to the case must be submitted to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the
Supreme Court.

HELD: No.

First to militate against the petitioner’s stand is the fact that section 67 of the Judiciary Act
providing for investigation, suspension or removal of Judges, specifically recites that “No
District Judge shall be separated from office by the President of the Philippines unless sufficient
cause shall exist in the judgement of the Supreme Court” and it is nowhere claimed, that the
Commissioner is a District Judge or in fact a member of the judiciary at all.

The court held that if the law really intended to include the grant of “rank and privileges
equivalent to a Judge”, then such grant or privileges would be unconstitutional as it would
violate the doctrine of separation of powers.