G.R. No. L-65129
G.R. No. L-65129
CRUZ, J.:
We gave due course to this petition 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
1
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
respondent court then held the hearing ex parte and later rendered a decision ordering the
registration prayed for on the basis of the evidence presented by the private respondent herein. 2
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 Registration Act. The petitioner cites Fojas
3
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 action or in any
case where the incident properly belongs. 5
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been superseded by the Property Registration Decree, which became effective on June 11, 1979.
The above provision 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."
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 this 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 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
6
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.
7
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,
MC 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.