G.R. No. L-30847 November 26, 1973
GORGONIA LAMERA and DIOSDADO LAMERA, petitioners-appellants, vs. MAXIMO CALLANGA, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioners Gorgonia and Diosdado Lamera filed a petition in the Iloilo Court of First Instance, acting as a cadastral court, under Section 112 of Act 496 (the Land Registration Act). They sought the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-46688 issued in the name of oppositor Maximo Callanga, covering a specific lot. The petitioners alleged they were the compulsory heirs of their late sister, Salvacion Lamera, the original registered owner under an Original Certificate of Title. They claimed that Callanga obtained his title through fraud by falsely alleging a 1932 purchase from Salvacion without notice to them, and they asserted that no such sale ever occurred. Their prayer was for the cancellation of Callanga’s title and the reinstatement of the original title.
Oppositor Maximo Callanga filed a motion to dismiss the petition. He argued that the summary proceeding was improper because the petition raised a serious allegation of fraud, which took the matter beyond the limited jurisdiction of the cadastral court. He contended that the petitioners’ proper remedy was to institute a separate civil action for reconveyance. The lower court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that an appropriate civil action should be filed instead of a summary petition under Section 112 of Act 496. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting their appeal to the Supreme Court on a pure question of law.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petitioners’ summary petition under Section 112 of Act 496 for cancellation of a Torrens title on the ground of fraud.

RULING

Yes, the lower court correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reiterating the well-established doctrine that summary relief under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act is only available when there is unanimity among the parties or when no adverse claim or serious objection exists from any party in interest. The Court emphasized that the proceedings under Act 496 are summary in nature and are inadequate for adjudicating contentious issues, which must instead be litigated in an ordinary civil action before a court exercising its general jurisdiction.
In this case, the petitioners’ core allegation was that the oppositor’s title was procured through fraud. This assertion directly challenged the validity of Callanga’s ownership and constituted a serious and adversarial claim. The oppositor’s explicit objection rendered the matter genuinely controversial. Consequently, the summary proceeding under Section 112 was an improper remedy. The Court cited its consistent jurisprudence, including Vicente vs. de los Santos and Santos vs. Cruz, which hold that when a registered owner seriously opposes a petition for cancellation, the case becomes controversial and falls outside the limited authority of the land registration court. The proper recourse for the petitioners is to file a separate civil action, such as for reconveyance, where the issue of fraud can be fully ventilated with the presentation of evidence in a regular trial. Therefore, no error was committed by the lower court in directing the petitioners to pursue an ordinary civil action. The appealed orders of dismissal were affirmed.