G.R. No. L-5833 October 22, 1953
FLAVIANA ACUÑA and EUSEBIA DIAZ, plaintiffs and appellants, vs. FURUKAWA PLANTATION COMPANY, defendant and appellee.

FACTS

The Furukawa Plantation Company is the registered owner of a large tract of land in Davao, evidenced by a Torrens title issued over 30 years ago. After WWII, the land was administered by NAFCO and distributed to war veterans and civilians, with allocations of five hectares each. Plaintiffs Flaviana Acuña and Eusebia Diaz, homesteaders within the area covered by the defendant’s title, were among those favored but rejected their allocation, claiming entitlement to the entire 31.79 hectares they occupied. They filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Davao, alleging that Roman Diaz (Acuña’s deceased husband and Diaz’s father) was granted a provisional permit to occupy the land in 1914, and they have since cultivated and improved it. They claimed the defendant, through fraud and strategy, included the land in its certificate of title, though the title contained an annotation: “Except those herein expressly noted as belonging to other persons.” Plaintiffs sought: (1) to have their names inscribed on the title as owners of the improvements; (2) to compel the defendant to cede the land to them; and (3) damages and an injunction against dispossession and depredations. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, prescription, and lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs appealed, and the case was certified to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether plaintiffs can, in an action for declaratory relief, seek to have their names inscribed on the defendant’s Torrens certificate of title as owners of improvements.
2. Whether plaintiffs can, through an action for specific performance, compel the defendant to cede the land to them based on Article 361 of the old Civil Code (Article 448 of the new).
3. Whether plaintiffs’ complaint for damages and injunction is sufficient despite not identifying and delimiting the land in question.

RULING

1. No. The remedy of amending a Torrens certificate of title to inscribe names is governed by the Land Registration Act and is not within the scope of an action for declaratory relief under Rule 66. Such an amendment must be sought through a proper petition in the original registration case, with notice to affected parties. The incontestability of the defendant’s title does not bar this, as the title contains a reservation for improvements belonging to others.
2. No. An action for specific performance is untenable as there is no contract to enforce. Article 361 (Article 448) grants the landowner the option to either appropriate the improvements or sell the land; it does not give the owner of the improvements the right to compel the landowner to cede the land.
3. The complaint is defective for the third cause of action because it fails to identify and delimit the land on which the improvements stand, which is necessary for the remedy of injunction and damages.
The order of dismissal is affirmed regarding the first and second causes of action. Regarding the third cause of action, the dismissal is modified to allow plaintiffs to amend the complaint within ten days after the decision becomes final; otherwise, it shall be deemed definitively dismissed. No costs.