GR L 19096; (February, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19096. February 29, 1964. CARLOS B. SIY, petitioner-appellee, vs. TAN GUN GA, ELISA SY, SANTIAGO SIY, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Carlos B. Siy, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 60008, filed a petition in court. He sought an order directing the Register of Deeds to delete from the face of the title a specific annotation. The annotation stated that while Siy owned the land, the improvements thereon belonged to Tan Gun Ga and several other named individuals, all identified as Chinese citizens. Siy argued this annotation on the face was misleading and prayed that the ownership of the improvements be transferred to and annotated only on the back of the title as a memorandum.
The petition was set for hearing. Although Siy claimed to have furnished copies to all parties by registered mail, the named owners of the improvements (the oppositors-appellants) did not appear at the hearing. The court found the petition meritorious and granted the requested order. The oppositors subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging they received notice of the hearing only one day prior, depriving them of the required three-day notice for motions. They also contested the substantive merits of the petition. The court denied their motion, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the deletion of the names of the improvement owners from the face of the title and their annotation on the back instead.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and denied Siy’s petition. The legal logic proceeds from two key principles. First, on procedural grounds, the Court found the order was issued without proper notice. The sworn motion for reconsideration established that the oppositors received notice only one day before the hearing, violating the three-day notice rule for motions. This procedural defect alone warranted reversal.
Second, and more substantively, the Court held the petition lacked merit based on the nature of Torrens titles and property law. The back of a certificate of title is expressly designated for “Memorandum of Encumbrances.” An encumbrance refers to a charge or liability on the land, such as a mortgage, lien, or lease. Ownership of a building or improvement permanently attached to the land does not constitute an encumbrance. Under the Civil Code, such a building is considered immovable or real property by nature or incorporation, forming an integral part of the land itself. Therefore, indicating the separate ownership of these improvements is a matter of ownership interest in the real property covered by the title, not a mere encumbrance. The proper place to state such an ownership interest is on the face of the title, where all ownership particulars are recorded, not on the back reserved for liens and burdens. The trial court’s order was thus legally erroneous. Costs were imposed on petitioner-appellee.