Averia vs. Caguioa Digest
Averia vs. Caguioa Digest
Grey is
Averia vs. Caguioa correct, but it is not applicable to the instant case; the case arose in
GR No. L-65129 1982, after the Land Registration Act had been superseded by the
Written by: Delgado Property Registration Decree, which became effective on June 11,
1979.
FACTS: Sec. 2 of PD No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general
The oppositor, petitioner Tomas Averia Jr., refuses to participate in jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court and the limited
the hearing of the registration proceedings claiming CFI Lucena City jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely
acting as a cadastral court, has no competence to act upon the said as a cadastral court. It aimed to avoid multiplicity of suits, simplify
case under Section 112 of Act 496 or the "Land Registration Act registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional trial courts
because of the absence unanimity among the parties as required by the authority to act not only on applications for "original registration",
the cited law. but also "over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with
Petitioner cites Fojas v. Grey wherein the Court held that summary power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such
relief under Section 112 of Land Registration Act can only be granted applications or petitions."
if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim With reference to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (now
or serious objection on the part of any party in interest. Otherwise, Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529), the court is no longer fettered by its
the case becomes contentious and controversial which should be former limited jurisdiction which enabled it to grant relief only in
threshed out in an ordinary action, or in any case where the incident cases where there was "unanimity among the parties" or none of
properly belongs. them raised any "adverse claim or serious objection." Under the
amended law, the court is now authorized to hear and decide not
ISSUE/S: only such non-controversial cases but even this contentious and
Jurisdiction of CFI Lucena City. substantial issues.
It is to be noted that respondent court proceeded to hear the case
HELD: notwithstanding the manifestation of the petitioner of his intention to
The trial court has jurisdiction, but it is instructed to hold a new elevate to this Court the question of jurisdiction he had raised. The
cadastral proceeding wherein the petitioner and all the other parties trial court should have given him the opportunity to do so in the
will be given the opportunity to be heard. Registration results of the interest of due process, pending a categorical ruling on the issue. As
case shall be based on the upcoming proceedings. it happened, it arrived at its decision after considering only the
evidence of the private respondent and without regard to the
RATIO: evidence of the petitioner.