G.R. No. L-32949 November 28, 1980
JOSE D. SANTOS, in his official capacity as REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioner, vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, in his official capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII, and JOSE R. BARICUA, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Jose R. Baricua filed a petition for clarification of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 209148 with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, presided by respondent Judge Benjamin H. Aquino. Baricua sought judicial authority to register instruments affecting the land covered by the title, which was potentially subject to LRC Circular No. 167. This circular, issued to curb land-grabbing, directed all Registers of Deeds to withhold registration of any instrument involving lands with expanded or increased areas until the issue was resolved by a competent court. Baricua’s petition was docketed in the original land registration proceedings.
The respondent judge issued an order directing the Register of Deeds of Rizal to register any deed of sale or encumbrance presented by Baricua. Consequently, a deed of sale was registered, and a new title was issued in Baricua’s name. The Register of Deeds, petitioner Jose D. Santos, elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Commission and moved for reconsideration, arguing he was denied due process, that administrative remedies were not exhausted, and that the petition was an improper remedy. The judge denied the motion and reiterated his directive, prompting the Register of Deeds to file the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for clarification filed by Baricua in the land registration court was the proper remedy to determine the effect of LRC Circular No. 167 on his certificate of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for clarification was not the proper remedy and annulled the orders of the respondent judge. The Court held that the land registration court, acting in its limited capacity under the original registration decree, lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. Its jurisdiction is confined to the original registration proceeding and subsequent incidents directly flowing from it, such as amendments or corrections of clerical errors. Baricua’s petition sought a judicial declaration of his rights under the title in light of an administrative circular, which is essentially an action for declaratory relief.
An action for declaratory relief, governed by Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court, is a special civil action that must be filed as a separate case, not as a mere incident in a land registration proceeding. Since Baricua’s objective was to terminate uncertainty regarding the application of LRC Circular No. 167 to his title before any breach occurred, the proper recourse was to institute a distinct action for declaratory relief in the proper court. Therefore, the land registration court acted without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court annulled the challenged orders, dismissed Baricua’s petition for clarification, and ordered the cancellation of the new title issued pursuant to the invalid directive.