GR 45668; (September, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45668; September 27, 1937
EUGENIANO MONTECINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA and FORTUNATA ZORRILLA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eugeniano Montecines acquired a portion of land via a pacto de retro sale from Alberta Zorrilla. The land was part of a larger property later designated as Lot No. 1784 in a cadastral case. The original certificate of title was issued to Alberta Zorrilla and her sister, respondent Fortunata Zorrilla, as co-owners. After the redemption period expired, Montecines consolidated ownership and obtained a transfer certificate of title. Fortunata Zorrilla, who was unaware of the sale, filed a civil case for partition. In that case, a court-approved stipulation awarded Montecines specific portions (1784-C and 1784-D-3) totaling 10,476 square meters. Later, Montecines and another purchaser filed a joint petition in the cadastral case, resulting in an order granting Montecines a different, larger portion (1784-B, 24,163 sq m), without disclosing the prior partition agreement. Upon Fortunata’s motion, the cadastral court reconsidered and issued an order on June 11, 1937, cancelling Montecines’s title and directing the issuance of new titles conforming to the earlier partition agreement. Montecines filed this certiorari petition, arguing the cadastral court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Court of First Instance acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing its order of June 11, 1937, which reconsidered its earlier order and cancelled Montecines’s transfer certificate of title.
RULING
No. The petition is denied. The respondent court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction. The order of February 13, 1934, which granted Montecines a larger portion, was not a decree of registration under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act) that becomes incontrovertible after one year. It was merely an order directing the issuance of a new certificate after cancellation of a previous one, based on a petition that was neither an application for registration nor an adverse claim. The order of June 11, 1937 corrected this by enforcing the rights already established and settled by the final decision in the prior partition case (Civil Case No. 5853), to which Montecines was a party and had expressly agreed. The corrected order did not injure Montecines but merely gave him the land to which he was rightfully entitled under the prior agreement.
AI Generated by Armztrong.