Bunagan v. Court of First Instance of Cebu
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and reconstitution of a certificate of title for Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre. The private respondents, Dionisia Icong and her children, sought to reconstitute the title in the name of "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong." However, the petitioners, Espiritu Bunagan, Perpetua Inso, and Guadalupe Lumongsod, opposed this, asserting that Bunagan is the rightful owner, having purchased the lot from the heirs of the late Antonio Ompad, and that Dionisia Icong was merely a trustee. 2. Procedural History: The private respondents filed a petition for reconstitution of the original certificate of title with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The petitioners opposed this petition, arguing that the lot was theirs and that Dionisia Icong was a trustee. The respondent court initially ruled that it could not entertain the opposition in a cadastral proceeding and gave due course to the petition. An order dated June 17, 1967, directed the reconstitution of the title in the name of "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong." Subsequently, the petitioners filed a motion to correct this order and the issued title, seeking to change the registered owners to "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong." This motion was denied by the respondent court on January 4, 1968, citing the same reason that such claims should be ventilated in a separate civil action. 3. The Petition: The petitioners have filed this petition for certiorari, seeking to annul and set aside the orders of June 17, 1967, and January 4, 1968, alleging that they were issued in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. They argue that the reconstitution of a certificate of title should restore the original form and condition of the lost or destroyed instrument. They contend that the change in ownership from "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" to "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" constitutes a material alteration that cannot be authorized under the summary proceedings for reconstitution, especially when opposed. They further argue that the claim of Dionisia Icong that the change is authorized under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act is without merit because that section applies only when there is unanimity among parties or no adverse claim.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Court committed an error in re-registering Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre in the name of "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong", where the original adjudication was in the form of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong". Whether the respondent Court committed an error in denying the motion to correct the order of June 17, 1967, and the original certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, specifically regarding aligning the title with the original adjudication.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders dated June 17, 1967, and January 4, 1968, are modified. The petition for reconstitution is granted only insofar as it orders the reconstitution of the original certificate of title covering Lot 1660 of the Opon Cadastre in the name of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong." The Register of Deeds of Lapu-lapu City is ordered to correct the name of the registered owners in Original Certificate of Title No. RO-0675 accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of re-registering Lot 1660 in the name of "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong": The Supreme Court held that the reconstitution of a certificate of title means restoring it to its original form. If the original decree was in the form of "Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong", the reconstituted title should reflect that. Alterations in ownership require a separate suit. The petition sought a material change, which, due to opposition, cannot be authorized under summary reconstitution proceedings but necessitates an ordinary civil action. The Court cited Vda. de Anciano vs. Caballes and Bachoco vs. Esperancialla. On the issue of denying the motion to correct the order and title: The Court found that while the respondent Court correctly ruled that it could not entertain the oppositor's claim in a summary proceeding, it erred in denying the motion to correct the title. The correction sought was to align the title with the original adjudication, which should have been permissible. Section 112 of the Land Registration Act is inapplicable when there is opposition. The respondent Court erred in re-registering the lot in the name of "spouses Antonio Ompad and Dionisia Icong" and denying the motion to correct this error, as the correction sought was to revert to the original adjudication. The Court cited Enriquez vs. Atienza and other cases.
Main Doctrine
A cadastral court, in a petition for reconstitution of title, cannot entertain claims that involve a material change in the certificate of title, especially when there is an opposition or adverse claim; such matters must be ventilated in a separate ordinary civil action. Proceedings under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act are not applicable when there is an opposition or adverse claim.