G.R. No. L-71, February 26, 1946
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner, vs. ALEJO ABISIA, ET AL., claimants. FILOMENA LLANDA and LUCIA LLANDA, petitioners-appellants.

FACTS

On September 15, 1921, Original Certificate of Title No. 8809 was issued covering Cadastral Lot No. 7482 of Cebu City in the names of Antonia Brigaudit (owner of 4/8) and her siblings Remedios, Antolina, Jose, and Juan Brigaudit (each owning 1/8 undivided interest). They inherited the land from their deceased parents. All registered owners subsequently died intestate, without descendants or ascendants, except Antonia Brigaudit, who was survived by her two legitimate daughters, appellants Filomena Llanda and Lucia Llanda. On June 20, 1945, Filomena Llanda filed a verified petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, praying for the cancellation of OCT No. 8809 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in favor of herself and her sister, share and share alike. After proper notice by publication and a hearing where no opposition was presented, the court granted the petition but subject to the condition that the order would be subject to the claim of any heir, creditor, legatee, or interested person within two years from the date of the decision. Petitioners moved for reconsideration to eliminate this condition, which was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in subjecting its order for the issuance of a new certificate of title to the condition that it would be subject to claims by any heir, creditor, legatee, or interested person within a two-year period.

RULING

No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed judgment. The authority for imposing such a condition is found in Section 112 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act), which grants the court jurisdiction to hear petitions for updating certificates of title and to “grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem proper.” Furthermore, the Court cited the precedent in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Serafica (61 Phil. 93), which, in a similar situation, required safeguards like publication and the appointment of a guardian ad litem to protect potential interested parties. The petitioners, instead of using the summary settlement of estates procedure under the Rules of Court (which itself imposes conditions for the protection of creditors and heirs), chose to file their petition directly under Section 112 of Act No. 496 . The lower court rightly required analogous safeguards to protect any possible creditors, heirs, or other parties in interest. The condition imposed was therefore proper and legally justified.