G.R. No. L-15415; April 26, 1961
Republic of the Philippines, applicant, vs. Pedro Abacite, et al., claimants. Development Bank of the Philippines, petitioner-appellant.

FACTS

The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) owned a parcel of land in Davao City, originally containing 15.6882 hectares and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4629. When the land was included in cadastral proceedings, DBP filed an answer claiming ownership. The cadastral survey, however, subdivided the original parcel into two lots: Lot No. 1676 (92,052 sq. m.) and a portion of 63,830 sq. m. included within the boundaries of the adjacent Lot No. 1674. In its answer, DBP specifically identified its claim as Lot No. 1676 but described its boundaries and total area as identical to those in its pre-existing TCT No. T-4629, encompassing the full 15.6882 hectares.
The cadastral court subsequently issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. O-117 in the name of DBP, but it covered only Lot No. 1676, thereby excluding the 63,830 sq. m. portion. The court decreed the entirety of Lot No. 1674, including DBP’s excluded portion, as public land. DBP filed a petition to amend OCT No. O-117 to include the missing area, arguing it was a mere error or omission. The lower court denied the petition, ruling that since DBP’s answer only mentioned Lot No. 1676, the decree could not be amended to include part of Lot No. 1674.

ISSUE

Whether the cadastral court may amend the certificate of title it issued to correct an error or omission by including land previously registered under the Torrens system and owned by the petitioner, which was inadvertently excluded due to the new cadastral subdivision.

RULING

Yes, the amendment is proper. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order. The legal logic rests on two key principles. First, the land was already registered under the Torrens system via TCT No. T-4629 prior to the cadastral proceedings. A cadastral proceeding over already-registered land does not reopen the question of ownership but merely aims to issue a new title conforming to the updated survey. The cadastral court had no jurisdiction to diminish the area of a property already perfected under a prior indefeasible title. Although DBP erroneously referred to its property as “Lot No. 1676” in its answer, it sufficiently identified the land by describing the exact boundaries and total area from its pre-existing title.
Second, the correction is expressly allowed under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), which permits amendment for errors or mistakes, provided it does not reopen the original decree or impair the title of an innocent purchaser for value. Here, the amendment would not reopen the original registration decree of DBP’s land; instead, it would align the new cadastral title with that prior valid decree. Furthermore, no third-party rights are prejudiced. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, recognized DBP’s right to the excluded portion and expressly consented to the amendment. Therefore, the Court ordered the Register of Deeds to amend OCT No. O-117 to include all land originally covered by TCT No. T-4629.