G.R. No. L-56874 November 6, 1981
FRUCTUOSO AGUILAR, CONSTANCIA AGUILAR, DELFIN AGUILAR, RUFINA AGUILAR, CEFERINO AGUILAR, CIPRIANO AGUILAR, LUCIA AGUILAR, and FILOMENA AGUILAR, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE LEUTERIO E. CHIU, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS ORIENTAL and MARIA G. GIMONY, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are the heirs of Tomas Aguilar, who inherited several lots, including Lot 5284, from his parents. The lot was originally part of a larger parcel adjudicated in a 1927 cadastral proceeding, with title issued in 1929. Private respondent Maria G. Gimony filed a “Motion to Amend Technical Description of Lot No. 5284” in the original cadastral case in 1974. She alleged that the technical description in the title incorrectly stated the area as 1,190 square meters, claiming the true area was 1,043 square meters based on an amended survey plan from 1933. She asserted ownership over the 147-square-meter difference, contending it was part of her adjacent property.
The proceedings in the lower court were contentious. Tomas Aguilar initially opposed the motion, arguing lack of proper notice. The court appointed a commissioner to conduct a relocation survey. The commissioner’s report, favoring Gimony’s claim, was approved by the court. Subsequent orders directed the amendment of the technical description on the title and the cancellation of the petitioners’ certificate of title, effectively reducing their lot’s area and awarding the disputed portion to Gimony.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in entertaining Gimony’s motion to amend the technical description and in issuing orders that effectively adjudicated ownership of a disputed portion of land.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the challenged orders. The respondent judge acted without jurisdiction. A cadastral court, acting as a land registration court, is a court of limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction, once a decree of registration becomes final, is limited to subsequent proceedings for amendment or alteration of the decree under specific, narrow grounds, such as clerical errors or the issuance of a new certificate pursuant to a legal right. Gimony’s motion was not a mere request for a clerical correction. It实质上 sought to reopen the decree of registration to resolve a substantive boundary and ownership dispute over a 147-square-meter portion. This raised a controversial issue of title that went beyond the court’s limited jurisdiction as a land registration court.
The proper remedy for Gimony was not a motion in the cadastral case but an ordinary civil action for reconveyance or to quiet title. In such an action, the court of general jurisdiction could receive evidence, determine the true ownership based on prescription or other rights, and adjudicate the conflicting claims. The respondent judge’s orders, which effectively decided ownership based on a commissioner’s report, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, all proceedings stemming from the improper motion were declared null and void.