CASE DIGEST: Paz vs. Republic
G.R. No. 157367
LUCIANO P. PAZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
On November 29, 2000, the petitioner brought a petition for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title. The petition, ostensibly made under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, impleaded the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI) as respondents.
The petition averred that the petitioner was the owner of two parcels of land under OCT No. 684 and TCT No. 185552 which were registered in the name of the Republic; that FDC and FAI developed Lot 392 into a subdivision based on their joint venture agreement with the Government; that pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Lot 392 was further subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT No. 185552, and the issuance of TCTs for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the Republic and FAI; and that the subdivision lots were then sold to third parties.
On January 19, 2001, FDC and FAI moved to dismiss the petition for cancellation on the grounds that the dispute spawned by the Petition for cancellation of title is litigable in an ordinary action outside the special and limited jurisdiction of land registration courts. Also, the Petition is thus removed from the ambit of Sec. 108 of the Property Registration Decree which requires, as an indispensable element for availment of the relief thereunder, either unanimity of the parties or absence of serious controversy or adverse claim. It authorizes only amendment and alteration of certificates of title, not cancellation thereof. Further, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the respondents who were not validly served with summons but only a copy of the Petition. Furthermore, docket fees for the Petition have not been paid and the petition does not contain the requisite certificate of non-forum shopping.
To counter this, the petitioner asserted that his petition for cancellation was not an initiatory pleading that must comply with the regular rules of civil procedure but a mere incident of a past registration proceeding; that unlike in an ordinary action, land registration was not commenced by complaint or petition, and did not require summons to bring the persons of the respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and that a service of the petition sufficed to bring the respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not Section 108 of P.D. 1529 is applicable to the present case thereby exempting the same from the requirements of paying docket fees, of service of summons, and of the certification against forum shopping due to its not being an initiatory pleading
HELD:
Based on the provision, the proceeding for the amendment and alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
Here, the petitioner was in reality seeking the reconveyance of the property covered by OCT No. 684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall under any of the situations covered by Section 108, and was for that reason rightly dismissed by the lower courts.
LUCIANO P. PAZ, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and FILINVEST ALABANG, INC., Respondents.
BERSAMIN, J.:
FACTS:
On November 29, 2000, the petitioner brought a petition for the cancellation of Original Certificate of Title. The petition, ostensibly made under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, impleaded the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), Filinvest Development Corporation (FDC), and Filinvest Alabang, Inc. (FAI) as respondents.
The petition averred that the petitioner was the owner of two parcels of land under OCT No. 684 and TCT No. 185552 which were registered in the name of the Republic; that FDC and FAI developed Lot 392 into a subdivision based on their joint venture agreement with the Government; that pursuant to the joint venture agreement, Lot 392 was further subdivided, causing the cancellation of TCT No. 185552, and the issuance of TCTs for the resulting individual subdivision lots in the names of the Republic and FAI; and that the subdivision lots were then sold to third parties.
On January 19, 2001, FDC and FAI moved to dismiss the petition for cancellation on the grounds that the dispute spawned by the Petition for cancellation of title is litigable in an ordinary action outside the special and limited jurisdiction of land registration courts. Also, the Petition is thus removed from the ambit of Sec. 108 of the Property Registration Decree which requires, as an indispensable element for availment of the relief thereunder, either unanimity of the parties or absence of serious controversy or adverse claim. It authorizes only amendment and alteration of certificates of title, not cancellation thereof. Further, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the respondents who were not validly served with summons but only a copy of the Petition. Furthermore, docket fees for the Petition have not been paid and the petition does not contain the requisite certificate of non-forum shopping.
To counter this, the petitioner asserted that his petition for cancellation was not an initiatory pleading that must comply with the regular rules of civil procedure but a mere incident of a past registration proceeding; that unlike in an ordinary action, land registration was not commenced by complaint or petition, and did not require summons to bring the persons of the respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and that a service of the petition sufficed to bring the respondents within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not Section 108 of P.D. 1529 is applicable to the present case thereby exempting the same from the requirements of paying docket fees, of service of summons, and of the certification against forum shopping due to its not being an initiatory pleading
HELD:
Based on the provision, the proceeding for the amendment and alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is applicable in seven instances or situations, namely: (a) when registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; (c) when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate; (d) when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; (e) when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and (g) when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
Here, the petitioner was in reality seeking the reconveyance of the property covered by OCT No. 684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall under any of the situations covered by Section 108, and was for that reason rightly dismissed by the lower courts.
