G.R. No.

L-65129 December 29, 1986

TOMAS AVERIA, JR., petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE MILAGROS V. CAGUIOA, in her capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region,
Branch LVII, Lucena City, and VERONICA PADILLO, respondents.

FACTS:

The complaint stemmed on the decision rendered by the respondent court regarding the hearing of registration
proceedings of a deed of sale.

The, petitioner herein, refused to participate in the said hearing , alleging that the respondent court, acting as a
cadastral court, had no competence to act upon the said case under Section 112 of Act 496, otherwise known as
the "Land Registration Act." Despite of the absence of the petitioner during the hearing, the respondent court still
rendered a decision ordering the registration prayed for on the basis of the evidence presented by the private
respondent in the case.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction against the
respondent court, based on the argument that the lower court had no competence to act on the registration sought
because of the absence of unanimity among the parties as required under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act.

ISSUE: whether or not the court has jurisdiction to order the registration of a deed of sale which is opposed on the
ground of an antecedent contract to sell.

HELD:

While this was a correct interpretation of the aforesaid provision, the same is, however, not applicable to the
instant case. The reason is that this case arose in 1982, after the Land Registration Act had been superseded by
the Property Registration Decree, which became effective on June 11, 1979.

The provision under Sec. 2 of PD. 1529 has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the
regional trial court and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a
cadastral court. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by
conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but
also over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising
upon such applications or petitions.

Since it appeared that the respondent court proceeded to hear the case and arrived at its decision after considering
only the evidence of the private respondent and without regard to the evidence of the petitioner, the SC held that
the decision of the respondent court is to be set aside and a new trial of Cadastral Case is to be held whereby the
petitioner, as well as other interested parties, shall be given the opportunity to be heard.

TOMAS AVERIA, JR., vs.THE HONORABLE MILAGROS V. CAGUIOA, in her capacity as Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Fourth Judicial Region, Branch LVII, Lucena City, and VERONICA PADILLO

Facts:
Petitioner refused to participate in the hearing of the registration proceedings, claiming the respondent court,
acting as a cadastral court, had no competence to act upon the said case under Section 112 of Act 496, otherwise
known as the "Land Registration Act."

Issue: WON RTC acting as a cadastral court has jurisdiction under 112 of act 496 otherwise known as the land
registration act.

Held:

While this was a correct interpretation of the said provision, the same is, however, not applicable to the instant
case. The reason is that this case arose in 1982, after the Land Registration Act had been superseded by the
Property Registration Decree, which became effective on June 11, 1979.

In Section 2 of the said P.D. No. 1529, it is clearly provided that:

SEC. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts.-Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the
Torrens system.

Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands,
including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with
power to hear and determine a questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of
court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and
decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes,
within five days from the filing or issuance thereof.

The above provision has eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction vested in the regional trial court
and the limited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the former law when acting merely as a cadastral court. Aimed at
avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the regional
trial courts the authority to act not only on applications for "original registration" but also "over all petitions filed
after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or
petitions."

Consequently, and specifically with reference to Section 112 of the Land Registration Act (now Section 108 of P.D.
No. 1529), the court is no longer fettered by its former limited jurisdiction which enabled it to grant relief only in
cases where there was "unanimity among the parties" or none of them raised any "adverse claim or serious
objection." Under the amended law, the court is now authorized to hear and decide not only such non-controversial
cases but even this contentious and substantial issues, such as the question at bar, which were beyond its
competence before.

It appears that the respondent court proceeded to hear the case below notwithstanding the manifestation by the
petitioner of his intention to elevate to this Court the question of jurisdiction he had raised. 6 The trial court should
have given him the opportunity to do so in the interest of due process, pending a categorical ruling on the issue. As
it happened, it arrived at its decision after considering only the evidence of the private respondent and without
regard to the evidence of the petitioner.

Prime Holdings v. Madayag

SM PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
ANGELA V. MADAYAG, respondent.
G.R. No. 164687; February 12, 2009

Facts:
In 2001, Madayag filed with the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan an application for registration of a parcel of
land with an area of 1,492-m2 located in Barangay Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Attached to the application
was a tracing cloth of Survey Plan Psu-01-008438, approved by the LMS-DENR, Region 1, San Fernando City. SM
opposed the application because allegedly, the lot encroached on the properties it recently purchased from several
lot owners. SM also filed with the DENR a petition for cancellation of the survey plan. Afterwhich, SM filed with the
RTC an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceeding in the land registration case alleging that the trial court should wait
for DENRs resolution of the petition.
After the trial, the RTC suspended the registration proceedings on the ground that the petition for
cancellation of the survey plan filed by SM with DENR is prejudicial to the determination of the land registration
case since a survey plan is one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings. When Madayag appealed to
CA, the latter ratiocinated that the survey plan, which was duly approved by the DENR, should be accorded the
presumption of regularity, and that the RTC has the power to hear and determine all questions arising from an
application for registration.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over land registration proceedings is affected if there is a petition
filed in DENR to cancel the survey plan, one of the mandatory requirements in such proceedings.

Ruling:
Yes.
The Court held that as an incident to its authority to settle all questions over the title of the subject
property, the land registration court may resolve the underlying issue of whether the subject property overlaps the
petitioners properties without necessarily having to declare the survey plan as void. Furthermore, It stated that a
land registration court has the duty to determine whether the issuance of a new certificate of title will alter a valid
and existing certificate of title. An application for registration of an already titled land constitutes a collateral attack
on the existing title, which is not allowed by law. However, the RTC need not wait for the decision of the DENR in
the petition to cancel the survey plan in order to determine whether the subject property is already titled or forms
part of already titled property. The court may now verify this allegation based on the respondents survey plan vis-
-vis the certificates of title of the petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. After all, a survey plan precisely
serves to establish the true identity of the land to ensure that it does not overlap a parcel of land or a portion
thereof already covered by a previous land registration, and to forestall the possibility that it will be overlapped by
a subsequent registration of any adjoining land.