GR 48390; (May, 1942) (Digest)
G.R. No. 48390 ; May 14, 1942
CARLOS N. FRANCISCO and CEFERINO FRANCISCO, movants-appellants, vs. JOSE BORJA, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Carlos N. Francisco and Ceferino Francisco filed a petition in G.L.R.O. Record No. 917 seeking approval of a new plan for certain parcels of land and the issuance of new certificates of title. The titles to these lands had been decreed by the court previously. Jose Borja opposed the petition, claiming some lots were part of his land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12377, but the lower court found this claim unfounded as the lots were outside his title’s limits. The lower court denied the petition on two grounds: (1) it lacked jurisdiction because the title had been decreed long ago, and (2) Exhibit A, a deed of transfer from the former owner to the petitioners, was not competent evidence of title. The old title was based on an unapproved plan from an outdated survey system. The new plan, subdividing the land, showed a total area that did not match the old one, though the boundaries remained the same. Lots Nos. 4-A and 6 in the new plan were within the old title’s boundaries but had been omitted or erroneously excluded from the subdivision. The petition sought to correct this omission.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in denying the petition for approval of a new plan and issuance of new certificates of title, based on lack of jurisdiction and the incompetence of the deed of transfer as evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. It held that the court has jurisdiction to approve the new plan and issue new certificates under section 112 of Act No. 496 . Corrections to errors in old plans are permissible when surveys under the old system are incorrect, provided the boundaries indicating the land’s limits are not changed. This procedure does not reopen or modify the decree but makes the new plan conform to it, which is necessary given the many defective old surveys. No third-party rights were affected, and the land’s identity remained unchanged. Regarding Exhibit A, the deed is a public document confirming the conveyance of lot No. 6 by the former owner’s legal representatives, and since the oppositor showed no right or interest in the lots, its admission as evidence should be allowed. The remedy prayed for in the petition was granted.