8/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 146
VOL. 146, DECEMBER 29, 1986 459
Averia, Jr. vs. Caguioa
*
No. L-65129. December 29, 1986.
TOMAS AVERIA, JR., petitioner, vs. 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, respondents.
Civil Law; Land Registration; Property Registration Decree;
Jurisdiction; Distinction between the general jurisdiction of the regional
trial court and the limited jurisdiction of said court conferred by the old law
when acting merely as a cadastral court, eliminated by Sec. 2 of the decree;
Regional trial courts now with authority to act not only on applications for
original registration but also over all petitions filed after the original
registration of title.—The above provision (Sec. 2 of P.D. 1529) has
eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the
regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the
former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by
conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on
applications for "original registration" but also "over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions
arising upon such applications or petitions."
Same; Same; Same; Same; Regional trial court, now authorized to
hear and decide not only non-controversial cases but also contentious and
substantial issues.—Consequently, and specifically with
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
460
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Averia, Jr. vs. Caguioa
reference to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (now Section 108 of
P.D. No. 1529), the court is no longer fettered by its former limited
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016c9a9feaa7c3a75bdf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
8/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 146
jurisdiction which enabled it to grant relief only in cases where there was
"unanimity among the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or
serious objection." Under the amended law, the court is now authorized to
hear and decide not only such noncontroversial cases but even the
contentious and substantial issues, such as the question at bar, which were
beyond its competence before.
Same; Same; Due process, denial of; Petitioner denied due process for
not being given the opportunity to elevate to the Supreme Court the question
of jurisdiction; Decision of Court of Appeals considered only the evidence
of private respondent without regard to petitioner's evidence.—It appears
that the respondent court proceeded to hear the case below notwithstanding
the manifestation by the petitioner of his intention to elevate to this Court
the question of jurisdiction he had raised. The trial court should have given
him the opportunity to do so in the interest of due process, pending a
categorical ruling on the issue. As it happened, it arrived at its decision after
considering only the evidence of the private respondent and without regard
to the evidence of the petitioner.
PETITION to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Lucena City.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
CRUZ, J.:
We gave due course to this petition
1
against a decision of the Court of
First Instance of Lucena City, which is questioned on a pure
questions of law, more specifically whether or not the court has
jurisdiction to order the registration of a deed of sale which is
opposed on the ground of an antecedent contract to sell.
The oppositor, petitioner herein, refused to participate in the
hearing of the registration proceedings below, claiming the
respondent court, acting as a cadastral court, had no competence to
act upon the said case under Section 112 of Act 496, otherwise
known as the "Land Registration Act." The respon-
________________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-9.
461
VOL. 146, DECEMBER 29, 1986 461
Averia, Jr. vs. Caguioa
dent court then held the hearing ex parte and later rendered a
decision ordering the registration prayed for on the 2
basis of the
evidence presented by the private respondent herein.
In his petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction, it is argued that the lower court had no competence to act
on the registration sought because of the absence of unanimity
among the parties as required under Section 112 of the Land
3 4
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016c9a9feaa7c3a75bdf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
8/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 146
3 4
Registration Act. The petitioner cites Fojas v. Grey, where this
Court, through Justice Serafin Cuevas, declared:
'The aforequoted provision of the Land Registration Act (Sec. 112) was
relied upon by appellant Apolinar Fojas in petitioning the court a quo for the
annotation of the Deed of Assignment. However, while he had the right to
have the said Deed annotated in the owner's duplicate of TCT No. T-2376,
the serious objection of Saturnina de Grey to the same raises a substantial
controversy between the parties.
"In a long line of decisions dealing with proceedings under Section 112
of the Land Registration Act, it has been held that summary relief under
Section 112 of Land Registration 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
5
action or in any case where the incident properly belongs. "
While this was a correct interpretation of the said provision, the
same is, however, not applicable to the instant case. The reason is
that this case arose in 1982, after the Land Registration Act had been
superseded by the Property Registration Decree, which became
effective on June 11, 1979.
In Section 2 of the said P.D. No. 1529, it is clearly provided that:
"SEC. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of
________________
2 Ibid, pp. 77-80.
3 Id, p. 8.
4 132 SCRA 76.
5 Rollo, pp. 157-158.
462
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Averia, Jr. vs. Caguioa
courts.—Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted
principles underlying the Torrens system.
"Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall
furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all
pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or
petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes,
within five days from the filing or issuance thereof."
The above provision has eliminated the distinction between the
general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016c9a9feaa7c3a75bdf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
8/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 146
jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely
as a cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the
change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon
the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on applications
for "original registration" but also "over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions."
Consequently, and specifically with reference to Section 112 of
the Land Registration Act (now Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529), the
court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which
enabled it to grant relief only in cases where there was "unanimity
among the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or
serious objection." Under the amended law, the court is now
authorized to hear and decide not only such non-controversial cases
but even the contentious and substantial issues, such as the question
at bar, which were beyond its competence before.
It appears that the respondent court proceeded to hear the case
below notwithstanding the manifestation by the petitioner of his
intention
6
to elevate to this Court the question of jurisdiction he had
raised. The trial court should have given
________________
6 Decision, pp. 2-8.
463
VOL. 146, DECEMBER 29, 1986 463
Averia, Jr. vs. Caguioa
him the opportunity to do so in the interest of due process, pending a
categorical ruling on the issue. As it happened, it arrived at its
decision after considering only the evidence of the private
respondent and without regard to the evidence of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court dated
September 23, 1983, is set aside. Let a new trial of Cadastral Case
No. 1, GLRO Cad. Record No. 202, Lot No. 2810-B, Lucena
Cadastre, M.C. No. 374-82, be held, at which the petitioner, as well
as other interested parties, shall be given the opportunity to be heard.
Our temporary restraining order of October 5, 1983, is hereby lifted
except as to the registration of the questioned deed of sale which
shall depend on the outcome of the said case.
SO ORDERED.
Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, and Feliciano,
JJ., concur.
Decision set aside.
Notes.—Cadastral court is without jurisdiction to indicate the
lands against in favor of another party they being already titled in
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016c9a9feaa7c3a75bdf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
8/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 146
the names of other persons. (Fiesta vs. Court of Appeals, 136 SCRA
421.)
Trial court is without jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 931 to
order registration of parcel of land located in townsite reservation in
a civil reservation case, which was not a cadastral proceeding.
(Director of Lands vs. Ciano, 127 SCRA 554.)
A land registration proceeding under Section 48 (b) "presupposes
that the land is public." (Republic vs. Iglesia ni Kristo, 128 SCRA
44.)
——o0o——
________________
7 Rollo, p. 151
464
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
[Link]/sfsreader/session/0000016c9a9feaa7c3a75bdf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5