G.R. No. L-33406 May 30, 1973
FORTUNATA MELGAR, married to Gregorio Parra, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES LILIA MELGAR and LORENZO DEMA-ALA, and HON. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO As Judge Court of First Instance of Iloilo, respondents.

FACTS

The land in question, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-763 in the name of Silvestra G. de Melgar, is claimed by both her daughters. Petitioner Fortunata Melgar asserts ownership over one-half of the land by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed by Silvestra in her favor on July 17, 1970, and she caused a notice of adverse claim to be inscribed on the title. Meanwhile, the land had been previously sold at a public auction due to a judgment against Silvestra. Respondents-spouses Lilia Melgar and Lorenzo Dema-ala claim to have redeemed the entire property from the auction sale, presenting a redemption certificate. They filed an ex-parte summary petition in the cadastral case, and the respondent court, acting as a land registration court, issued an order dated September 12, 1970, directing the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in their favor.
Petitioner Fortunata Melgar filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court, sitting as a land registration court, lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because a genuine controversy existed between the parties regarding ownership. She contended that the matter should be litigated in an ordinary civil action. The respondent court denied her motion. Hence, petitioner elevated the case via certiorari, challenging the court’s jurisdiction to grant summary relief in the face of a disputed claim.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction to issue the summary order for the cancellation of the original certificate of title and issuance of a new title in favor of respondents-spouses, given the existence of a genuine controversy over ownership between the parties.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the questioned orders. The Court held that the respondent court, acting in its limited capacity as a land registration court under the Land Registration Act, lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. The legal logic is firmly established: summary proceedings under the Act, such as those invoked under Section 112 for cancellation and issuance of titles, are permissible only when there is no disagreement on the facts and no genuine controversion of issues between the parties. The proceedings are in rem and cannot be used to resolve contentious personal actions over ownership.
A cursory examination of the pleadings revealed a clear and substantial dispute. Petitioner Fortunata Melgar claimed ownership of one-half of the land based on a deed of sale and an adverse claim, directly conflicting with respondents’ claim of full ownership derived from a redemption certificate. This factual controversy transformed the case into a personal action that must be threshed out in an ordinary civil action before a court of first instance exercising its general jurisdiction, where evidence can be fully presented and the issues properly adjudicated. The Court emphasized that to insist on summary procedures in the face of a genuine controversy is improper and counterproductive. Consequently, the orders issued by the respondent land registration court were void for having been issued without jurisdiction.