G.R. No. L-11834; July 26, 1960
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. GREGORIO ABIERA, ET AL., claimants. FRANCISCO MERECIDO, ET AL., movants-appellants, vs. FIDEL MERECIDO, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

On August 20, 1941, the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, acting as a cadastral court, rendered judgment in Cadastral Case No. 15, adjudicating Lot No. 3725 to Pilar Merecido. Pilar Merecido died intestate, single, and without issue on December 11, 1942. More than eleven years later, on July 24, 1954, after the judgment had become final but before the corresponding decree of registration was issued, Francisco Merecido (a surviving brother of Pilar) filed a motion in the cadastral case. He prayed for the amendment of the 1941 decision to adjudicate the lot in favor of himself and other heirs of Pilar. This motion was opposed by Julian, Fidel, and Gerardo Merecido (other brothers) and Rodriga de la Cruz (a niece), who alleged they did not authorize Francisco to file the motion and that, except for Fidel, they were no longer entitled to any portion of the lot. They claimed Fidel was the exclusive owner by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Pilar in his favor. Fidel Merecido also filed a separate petition asking that the 1941 decision be amended to make him the sole adjudicatee. Francisco Merecido opposed this petition, alleging Pilar never sold the property. After hearing, the trial court issued an “Amended Decision,” finding the sale to Fidel established by a preponderance of evidence and ordering the amendment of the 1941 decision accordingly. Francisco Merecido moved for reconsideration, arguing insufficiency of evidence and that the cadastral court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of the disputed contract of sale. The motion was denied, and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified it to the Supreme Court due to the substantial question of jurisdiction raised.

ISSUE

Whether the cadastral court (Court of First Instance acting as a land registration court) had jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputed issue of the validity of a contract of sale affecting a lot already adjudicated in a final judgment but before the issuance of the decree of registration.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court annulled the “Amended Decision” and reinstated the original decision of August 20, 1941. The Court held that while Section 29 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), as amended, allows a cadastral court, prior to the issuance of the decree of title, to order the land registered subject to an encumbrance or to order the decree issued in the name of a buyer upon presentation of the proper instrument, this authority is limited. The cadastral court may only do so when there is no serious controversy between the parties as to the validity of the instrument. The Court, acting as a cadastral or land registration court, has limited authority and cannot adjudicate issues that should be ventilated in an ordinary civil action, such as the question of whether a contract of sale was really entered into. Citing precedents (Government of the Philippines vs. Abad and Molino and Rehabilitation Finance Corporation vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc.), the Court ruled that land registration proceedings are summary in nature and inadequate for litigating issues properly pertaining to ordinary civil actions, including questions involving ownership, title, or the validity of conveyances. Since the motions for amendment were based on contested rights derived from the original adjudicatee, these rights should be determined in an ordinary civil action, leaving the original cadastral judgment untouched and allowing it to proceed to the issuance of the certificate of title. Costs were imposed against appellee Fidel Merecido.