GR L 29613; (September, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29613 September 18, 1984
Apolinar S. Fojas, petitioner-appellee, vs. Saturnina R. de Grey, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
Saturnina R. de Grey, having a preferential right to purchase a friar land lot from the government, executed a notarized Deed of Assignment on July 24, 1956, assigning her rights over a 1.5-hectare portion of Lot No. 2845 to Apolinar S. Fojas. The condition was that Fojas would pay the Bureau of Lands the corresponding price. De Grey later exercised her right and fully paid for the entire lot, securing TCT No. T-2376 in her name in 1960.
Upon learning of the title issuance, Fojas ascertained his share’s cost at P277.05, offered payment to De Grey, and requested annotation of his rights on her title. De Grey refused. Fojas then filed a petition under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, acting as a land registration court, to compel De Grey to surrender her owner’s duplicate certificate for annotation and deposited the payment with the court. After an ex-parte hearing due to De Grey’s non-appearance, the trial court ordered her to surrender the title.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court, acting as a land registration court under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, had jurisdiction over the contentious petition for annotation.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The legal logic is anchored on the limited and summary nature of proceedings under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act. Jurisprudence consistently holds that relief under this provision is only appropriate when there is unanimity among parties or no adverse claim or serious objection. The case became contentious and adversarial when De Grey refused Fojas’s offer, raised objections to the annotation, and contested the validity of the Deed of Assignment itself, arguing it violated the Friar Lands Act’s prohibition on conveyance within five years.
Since a substantial controversy existed, the matter ceased to be a mere administrative annotation and transformed into a dispute requiring adjudication of rights, which falls outside the summary jurisdiction of a land registration court. Such a contentious case must be threshed out in an ordinary civil action. Consequently, the trial court, proceeding as a land registration court without proper jurisdiction over the subject matter, rendered a null and void order. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed order.