G.R. No. 28675 , January 26, 1928
JUANA GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE HERMOGENES REYES, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On February 29, 1922, a petition for registration of two parcels of land was filed in the name of Tomasa Galang. The court rendered judgment on July 14, 1922, adjudicating the lands to Tomasa Galang, subject to a sale with pacto de retro in favor of Juana Garcia. The decree of registration and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 11585 were issued on October 28, 1922. Subsequently, several mortgages in favor of Juana Garcia were annotated on the title.

Five years later, on October 3, 1927, Valeriano Galang and others (alleged co-heirs of Tomasa Galang) filed a motion to amend the decree and OCT to include them as co-owners and annotate their hereditary rights. Tomasa Galang consented to the amendment. However, Juana Garcia, a mortgage creditor, opposed the motion. The respondent judge granted the motion and set a date for the presentation of evidence. Juana Garcia filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the motion to amend the decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title five years after its issuance, over the opposition of a registered mortgage creditor, even with the consent of the registered owner.

RULING

YES. The petition for certiorari is granted. The order of the respondent judge dated October 19, 1927, is declared null and void.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The motion sought to amend the decree and title by including new co-owners and redistributing the property, which is tantamount to a review or reopening of the decree of registration. This is strictly prohibited under Sections 38 and 112 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) after the lapse of one year from the issuance of the decree.

The amendment prayed for did not fall under any of the grounds enumerated in Section 112 of Act No. 496 (e.g., termination of interests, correction of clerical errors, notation of marriage, etc.). It sought a substantive alteration of ownership, which is not permitted via a mere petition under said section.

The consent of the registered owner (Tomasa Galang) and the allegation of fraudulent mortgages do not authorize such a revision. The proper procedure, if the registered owner wishes to include co-owners, is to execute a deed of conveyance in their favor and have it registered, provided there are no encumbrances. If encumbrances exist, as in this case, the amendment cannot be made without the mortgagee’s consent or without first annulling the mortgages through the proper action.

Furthermore, the proviso in Section 112 protects the title or interest of a purchaser or mortgagee holding a certificate for value and in good faith. Granting the amendment would impair Juana Garcia’s mortgage lien without due process, violating her constitutional right.

Since there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law, the writ of certiorari was the proper remedy to annul the void order.