G.R. No. L-21311, August 10, 1967.
Pelagia Puguid, petitioner-appellant, vs. Cirilo Reyes, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Pelagia Puguid filed a petition on June 7, 1962, under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act. She alleged that the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, acting as a Cadastral Court, had issued Order No. 7925 on September 30, 1939, directing the issuance of six Transfer Certificates of Title, one for six hectares in her name, and cancelling Original Certificate of Title No. 316 (Homestead Patent No. 8752) in the name of respondent-appellee Cirilo Reyes. She further alleged that on September 15, 1953, respondent obtained a court order in Administrative Case No. 544-A for the issuance of the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 316, which issuance she claimed was contrary to law. Her petition prayed for the surrender of the duplicate owner’s copy of OCT No. 316 and for the registration of the 1939 Cadastral Order and cancellation of all outstanding copies of the title. Respondent opposed the petition on July 31, 1962, seeking its dismissal on grounds of prescription, the nullity and lack of enforceability of the 1939 Order for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction, and the sale of portions of the land to innocent purchasers for value. The lower court dismissed the petition on October 19, 1962, on the ground that it involved a controversial issue, lacking unanimity among the parties, with an adverse claim from the registered owner.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the petition under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act on the ground that it involved a controversial issue, there being no unanimity among the parties and an adverse claim from the registered owner.

RULING

Yes, the lower court acted correctly. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal. The relief under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or no adverse claim or serious objection from any party in interest. Otherwise, the case becomes controversial and must be threshed out in an ordinary action. The Court cited the controlling doctrine from Tangunan v. Republic and its subsequent reaffirmations. In this case, the controversy was serious and undeniable, as evidenced by the petition itself acknowledging respondent’s possession of his duplicate owner’s copy and by respondent’s opposition raising multiple grounds against the petition. Therefore, the lower court lacked the power to act under Section 112. The appealed order was affirmed.