Navera v. Quicho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Municipality of Ligao filed a petition under Section 112 of Act No. 496, as amended, seeking the correction of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9304 issued to Godofredo Navera. The municipality alleged that a portion of 123 sq. m. of Lot No. 2793-A, covered by Navera's title, was erroneously included during the cadastral survey and actually forms part of Natera street. Procedural History: Navera filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the relief sought would require reopening the original decree of registration, which is not permissible under Section 112. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and ordered Navera to answer. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, Navera filed a petition for certiorari. The Petition: The municipality prayed for the correction of the technical description in Navera's title to exclude the 123 sq. m. portion allegedly belonging to Natera street.
Issue(s)
Whether a Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for correction of a Transfer Certificate of Title under Section 112 of Act No. 496 when there is a controversial issue of fact and it would involve the reopening of the original decree of registration.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the respondent court dated March 8, 1961, and March 25, 1961, are set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed under Section 112 of Act No. 496 because it involved a controversial issue of fact. While Section 112 allows for alterations or amendments to a certificate of title, such relief is only available if there is unanimity among the parties, or if there is no adverse claim or serious objection from any party in interest. In the present case, petitioner Navera did not agree with the municipality's claim that a portion of Natera street was erroneously included in his title, thereby transforming the matter into a contested factual dispute. The Court reiterated that if such an important question of fact is disputed, the petition cannot be granted under Section 112, as this section is intended for non-controversial matters. Therefore, the case becomes controversial and must be threshed out in an ordinary case or through other appropriate legal proceedings. The principle that public highways are legal liens and their erroneous inclusion in a title does not grant ownership to the title holder only holds true if there is no dispute that the portion to be excluded is actually a public highway and there is unanimity on the issue of fact involved.
Main Doctrine
A petition for the correction of a certificate of title under Section 112 of Act No. 496 cannot be granted if it involves a controversial issue of fact, as such a case requires an ordinary action to thresh out the dispute.