G.R. No. 200180 , June 06, 2016
BENJAMIN H. CABAÑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. MARIE JOSEPHINE CORDERO SOLANO A.K.A. MA. JOSEPHINE S. CABAÑEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Marie Josephine Solano filed a Petition for Correction of the Name and Marital Status of the Registered Owner with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa. The petition sought to amend two Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) covering parcels of land in Alabang Hills. The titles listed the owner as “Ma. Josephine S. Cabañez, married to Benjamin H. Cabañez.” Respondent alleged this was erroneous, claiming she was single, not married to petitioner Benjamin Cabañez, and that they were merely in a common-law relationship. She attached an affidavit from petitioner disclaiming any interest in the properties. The RTC granted the petition ex parte, ordering the Register of Deeds to correct the entries to “Marie Josephine C. Solano, single.”
Petitioner Benjamin Cabañez subsequently filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA). He argued the RTC never acquired jurisdiction because respondent’s petition was not published in a newspaper of general circulation as required, and he was not served summons. The CA initially granted his petition, annulling the RTC decision for lack of jurisdiction due to non-compliance with publication and summons requirements under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed itself in an Amended Decision, ruling that Presidential Decree No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) governed, not Rule 108, and that publication was not a jurisdictional requirement under the decree. The CA reinstated the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its Amended Decision by ruling that the RTC validly acquired jurisdiction over the petition for correction despite non-compliance with publication and summons requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the CA’s Amended Decision, and REINSTATED the CA’s original decision annulling the RTC judgment. The Court held that the petition filed by respondent was not a mere correction of a clerical error but a substantial alteration seeking to change her civil status from “married” to “single” and to drop the name of her alleged husband from the title. Such a change affects ownership and marital rights, constituting a substantial or contentious alteration that falls under the scope of Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry), not the summary proceedings under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
The legal logic is clear: proceedings under Rule 108 are proceedings in rem. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired through publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation and by serving summons upon all interested parties, as expressly mandated by the rule. The Court found that respondent failed to present any proof of publication. Furthermore, petitioner, as the person whose name and conjugal partnership were being removed from the title, was an indispensable party with a clear adverse interest. His right to due process was violated by the failure to serve him summons. The Court distinguished this case from those involving purely clerical errors, emphasizing that the changes sought were adversarial in nature. Since the jurisdictional requirements of publication and summons under Rule 108 were not complied with, the RTC never validly acquired jurisdiction, rendering its decision void.