G.R. No. L-6097 July 13, 1953
GERONIMO MIRAFLOR, petitioner, vs. HON. ELADIO R. LEAÑO, ETC., AURELIA MIRAFLOR, and HERMENEGILDA TAN, respondents.

FACTS

Vicente Miraflor died intestate in 1927. He was survived by his second wife, Hermenegilda Tan, and an only child with her, Aurelia Miraflor, and an only child (Antero Miraflor) with his deceased first wife. Before his death, Vicente had initiated a land registration case for a parcel of land acquired during his first marriage. Upon termination of the case after his death, registration was decreed in favor of his two children, Antero and Aurelia, and Original Certificate of Title No. 2889 was issued in their names. Antero Miraflor died without issue in 1941. On May 15, 1951, Aurelia Miraflor and her mother Hermenegilda Tan filed a petition in the same registration case, invoking Section 112 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act). They alleged Antero left no heir except Aurelia, no known claims against his estate existed, and Aurelia was willing to have his property adjudicated to her. They prayed for the cancellation of OCT No. 2889 and the issuance of a new certificate in Aurelia’s name. The court, after a hearing, granted the petition in an order dated August 10, 1951, ordering the cancellation and reissuance of the title in Aurelia’s name, subject to certain claims and Hermenegilda Tan’s usufructuary right. On September 10, 1951, Geronimo Miraflor filed a motion, alleging that Antero was survived by his grandmother, Catalina del Fierro, as his sole heir, to the exclusion of his half-sister Aurelia. He further claimed that Catalina del Fierro had sold her share in the land to him via a deed dated July 3, 1946, and that neither he nor Catalina was notified of Aurelia’s petition. He learned of the order only in early September 1951. He prayed for reconsideration of the order, its setting aside, and the registration of the deed of sale in his favor. The court denied his motion in an order dated September 21, 1951, holding that the question raised could not be determined in the registration case and that Geronimo should file a proper action in court. Geronimo then filed a petition for certiorari, alleging the order of August 10, 1951, was issued without jurisdiction due to the absence of notices to all parties in interest and the required publication.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration court under Section 112 of Act No. 496 , had jurisdiction to hear and grant the petition for the cancellation and transfer of title filed by Aurelia Miraflor and Hermenegilda Tan, considering the lack of notice to all interested parties and the existence of a substantial controversy regarding the inheritance of Antero Miraflor’s share.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the orders complained of. The Court held that the lower court should have set aside its order authorizing the transfer of title once it was shown that not all interested parties had been notified and that Aurelia Miraflor’s claim to the inheritance of her deceased half-brother was not free from controversy. The remedy under Section 112 of Act No. 496 is summary in nature and is not adequate for the litigation of issues pertaining to an ordinary civil action. The case cited by respondents, Government of the P.I. vs. Serafica, was distinguished because it involved no controversy among the heirs, whereas in the present case, a substantial controversy arose due to the claim of ownership asserted by Geronimo Miraflor as the grantee of Catalina del Fierro, the alleged sole heir of Antero Miraflor. Such a controversy pertains to an ordinary civil action and cannot be summarily disposed of by the land registration court under its special and limited jurisdiction. The Court noted that even in the Serafica case, the order was set aside due to lack of publication. The annulment was without prejudice to the right of the parties to institute the proper action or proceeding for the enforcement of their respective rights.