GR L 10288; (April, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10288; April 15, 1955
DIONISIA PATINGO, petitioner, vs. PANTALEON PELAYO, as Judge, Court of First Instance of Iloilo, CELEDONIA PATINGO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On April 14, 1934, in Cadastral Case No. 21, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. 13630 for Lot No. 1873 and issue four new certificates. The order specifically directed that one certificate, for Lot 1873-C, be issued with one-half in favor of Santiago Labrador and the other half in favor of the heirs of Bernabe Patingo in equal shares. However, the Register of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 13233 for Lot 1873-C in the names of Santiago Labrador, Tiburcia Patingo, Dionisia Patingo, and Celedonia Patingo, omitting the heirs of Bernabe Patingo. The heirs of Bernabe Patingo filed an action for partition (Civil Case No. 2865) against Dionisia Patingo, et al., which was dismissed on May 27, 1956, with the court suggesting the error was a mistake by the Register of Deeds that should be corrected under Section 112 of Act No. 496 . Following this suggestion, the heirs filed a petition in the original Cadastral Case No. 21 to correct the mistake. On July 9, 1955, the court granted the petition and ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. 13233 and issue a new title in accordance with the 1934 order. Dionisia Patingo was not notified of this petition. Upon learning of the order, she filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction to hear and grant the petition filed under Section 112 of Act No. 496 for the correction of a certificate of title without notice to all parties in interest, specifically the petitioner Dionisia Patingo.
RULING
No. The petition is granted. The orders of the lower court dated July 9, 1955 and January 23, 1956 are set aside. The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 112 of Act No. 496 , the court can only acquire jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition for correction of an error or mistake in a certificate of title “after notice to all parties in interest.” Notice is a jurisdictional requirement. Since it was undisputed that petitioner Dionisia Patingo, a co-owner of the affected lot, was not notified of the petition filed by the heirs of Bernabe Patingo, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in issuing its order. The Court cited its ruling in Lagula, et al. vs. Casimiro, et al., which held that for lack of the required notice, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over the petition.