G.R. No. L-17889 December 29, 1962
EULALIA LLABAN ABELLA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ, Judge of the CFI of Cebu, NECITACION ESTRERA and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Necitacion Estrera filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, acting as a cadastral court, seeking the cancellation of the reconstituted Original Certificate of Title for Lot No. 6002 in the name of Fernando Cavan and the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title solely in her name. She alleged she purchased the lot from the heirs of Fernando Cavan. The court issued an order for hearing and publication. Petitioners, claiming to be heirs of other registered owners of the same lot, appeared and filed a written opposition, asserting that the deed of sale was unenforceable against their registered rights and interests, and questioned the summary nature of the proceedings.
After several postponements, a hearing was set for September 13, 1960. Petitioners’ counsel did not appear, claiming indisposition and a belief that a co-heir’s counsel would represent them, as he allegedly did not receive the notice. The respondent judge declared petitioners in default, considered their opposition withdrawn, and subsequently issued an order directing the Register of Deeds to cancel the old title and issue a new one in Estrera’s name. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration and to cancel the new title, which were denied. They then filed this petition for certiorari to annul those orders, primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge, acting as a cadastral court, had jurisdiction to grant Estrera’s petition for cancellation and issuance of title under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) given the adverse claims presented by the petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the challenged orders. The legal logic is anchored on the limited jurisdiction of a cadastral court under Section 112 of Act No. 496 . The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that relief under this provision is summary in nature and can only be granted if there is no adverse claim or serious objection from any party in interest. When such a controversy exists, the matter ceases to be a mere administrative or incidental issue and becomes controversial, requiring adjudication in an ordinary civil action where the court acts with general jurisdiction.
Here, a serious controversy was evident. Petitioners, as alleged heirs of other registered owners, actively opposed the petition, contesting the validity of the sale and Estrera’s authority to cancel their registered interests. This dispute over ownership transformed the petition from a non-contentious proceeding into a litigious one. The cadastral court, with its limited jurisdiction, was not the proper forum to resolve this substantive conflict. The Court also noted that an opposition under Section 112 need not be under oath, countering Estrera’s contention. Consequently, the cadastral court acted without jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to Estrera filing an appropriate action in a court of general jurisdiction.