Section 108.

 Amendment and alteration of

certificates. No erasure, alteration, or
amendment shall be made upon the
registration book after the entry of a certificate
of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same be Register of Deeds,
except by order of the proper Court of First
Instance. A registered owner of other person
having an interest in registered property, or, in
proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the
approval of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may apply by petition to the court
upon the ground that the registered interests of
any description, whether vested, contingent,
expectant or inchoate appearing on the
certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that
new interest not appearing upon the certificate
have arisen or been created; or that an
omission or error was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on
any duplicate certificate; or that the same or
any person on the certificate has been
changed; or that the registered owner has
married, or, if registered as married, that the
marriage has been terminated and no right or
interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected; or that a corporation which owned
registered land and has been dissolved has not
convened the same within three years after its
dissolution; or upon any other reasonable
ground; and the court may hear and determine
the petition after notice to all parties in interest,
and may order the entry or cancellation of a
new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a
memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any
other relief upon such terms and conditions,
requiring security or bond if necessary, as it
may consider proper; Provided, however, That
this section shall not be construed to give the
court authority to reopen the judgment or
decree of registration, and that nothing shall be
done or ordered by the court which shall impair
the title or other interest of a purchaser holding
a certificate for value and in good faith, or his
heirs and assigns, without his or their written
consent. Where the owner's duplicate
certificate is not presented, a similar petition
may be filed as provided in the preceding
section.

All petitions or motions filed under this Section

as well as under any other provision of this
Decree after original registration shall be filed
and entitled in the original case in which the
decree or registration was entered.
 Government of the Philippine Islands on April
28, 1933, be cancelled and the deed of sale
executed in favor of petitioners by the heirs of
the registered owner be approved and
registered in the office of the register of deeds
so that a new title may be issued in their favor.
EN BANC
It appears that original certificate of title No.
[G.R. No. L-5545. December 29, 1953.]
9758 was issued in the name of the owners,
pro-indiviso, as follows: "Alejandro Rebolledo,
In re Original Certificate of Title No. 9758 of
widower, 3/6 shares; Basilio Rebolledo,
the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija.
married to Dominga Taguiam, 1/6 shares;
ALEJANDRO TANGUNAN and PELAGIO
Claudia Rebolledo, single, 1/6 share; and
TANGUNAN, Petitioners-Appellants, v.
Bartola Rebolledo, the wife of Valeriano
REPUBLIC OF THE
Nague, 1/6 share, all of Rizal, Province of
PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.
Nueva Ecija, P. I."cralaw virtua1aw library
Mariano Sta. Romana for Appellants.
Alejandro Rebolledo acted as one of the
bondsmen in Criminal Cases Nos. 44528 and
First Assistant Solicitor General Ruperto
44642 of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Kapunan, Jr. and Solicitor Jaime de los
and having defaulted in his undertaking, the
Angeles for Appellee.
Government asked for the forfeiture of the
bond and the writ of execution was annotated
SYLLABUS on the back of Certificate of Title No. 9758 on
April 28, 1933. Since 1933, no further action
was taken on the execution by the
LAND REGISTRATION; TRANSFER Government, nor by the Sheriff, and the
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE; ERASURE, encumbrance continued annotated on said
ALTERATION, OR AMENDMENT OF certificate of title.
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; JURISDICTION IN
CONTROVERSIAL CASES. — While section Claudia Rebolledo died in 1939 and Bartola
112 of Act No. 496, among other things, Rebolledo in 1943, both without leaving any
authorizes a person in interest to ask the court heir or descendants. Alejandro Rebolledo died
for any erasure, alteration, or amendment of a in 1948 leaving as heirs his children Basillo,
certificate of title "upon the ground that Federico and Francisco. Francisco died in
registered interests of any description, whether 1940 leaving as heirs his children Lucena,
vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, Faustino and Luzviminda, and his widow
have terminated and ceased," such relief can Tranquilina Ragsac, so that by April, 1950, the
only be granted if there is unanimity among the land owned by Alejandro Rebolledo passed
parties, or there is no adverse claim or serious pro-indiviso to his heirs as follows: Basillo
objection on the part of any party in interest; Rebolledo, 8/18 share; Federico Rebolledo,
otherwise, the case becomes controversial and 5/18 share; and Lucena, Faustino and
should be threshed out in an ordinary case or Luzviminda, all surnamed Rebolledo, pro-
in the case where the incident property indiviso 5/18 share, each subject to the
belongs. (Jimenez v. Castro, 40 Off. Gaz., usufruct of the widow Tranquilina Ragsac.
supp. to No. 3, p. 80; Gov’t v. Jalandoni, 44
Off. Gaz., 1837.) On April 13, 1950, Basilio Rebolledo, Federico
Rebolledo and Tranquilina Ragsac, the latter in
her behalf and in that of her minor children
Lucena, Faustino and Luzviminda, entered into
DECISION a contract to sell the land to petitioners wherein
it was agreed that a partial payment of the
consideration would be made immediately and
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: the balance after the title of the land is cleared
of any encumbrance and is transferred in their
names by the Register of Deeds. In order to
This concerns a petition filed in the Court of comply with this part of the agreement,
First Instance of Nueva Ecija by Alejandro petitioners filed the present petition in
Tangunan and Pelagio Tangunan in Cadastral Cadastral Case No. 14 wherein they prayed
Case No. 14 praying that the writ of execution that the above encumbrance be cancelled on
annotated on the original certificate of Title No. the ground that the right of the Government to
9758 which was issued in favor of the enforce it has already prescribed.
 any description, whether vested, contingent,
The provincial fiscal opposed the petition on expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and
the ground that prescription does not run ceased", and apparently the petition comes
against the Government. He averred that, since under its scope, such relief can only be granted
the writ of execution levied on the land was if there is unanimity among the parties, or there
duly annotated on the back of its torrens title, is no adverse claim or serious objection on the
such annotation is in the nature of a part of any party in interest; otherwise the case
proceeding in rem which does not prescribe becomes controversial and should be threshed
until the debt is paid or the writ is discharged in out in an ordinary case or in the case where
the manner provided by law. the incident properly belongs. Thus, it was held
that "It is not proper to cancel an original
The court, after hearing the parties, ruled that certificate of Torrens title issued exclusively in
the first part of the petition cannot be the name of a deceased person, and to issue a
entertained because prescription does not run new certificate in the name of his heirs, under
against the Government and there is no the provisions of Section 112 of Act No. 496,
showing that the writ has either been carried when the surviving spouse claims right of
out or cancelled. And with regard to the second ownership over the land covered by said
part, it declared itself without jurisdiction, it certificate." (Jimenez v. De Castro, 40 Off.
being its opinion that the interested parties Gaz., [No. 3, 1st Sup. ] p. 80.) And, in another
should either institute an action for the case, where there was a serious controversy
settlement of the estate or effect an between the parties as to the right of ownership
extrajudicial settlement as authorized by over the properties involved, this court held,
section 1, Rule 74, of the Rules of Court. "that following the principle laid down in the
However, upon a motion for reconsideration, decision above cited, the issues herein should
the court modified its ruling, this time holding be ventilated in a regular action, as was done
that, with regard to the first relief, it has no in the case of Montilla v. Jalandoni (TA-R. G.
jurisdiction to entertain it because the incident No. 3133) above mentioned." (Government of
comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the the Philippines v. Jalandoni, 44 Off. Gaz.,
court that had issued the writ, and with regard 1837.) .
to the second, it held that it may grant it under
section 112 of Act No. 496 provided the With regard to the ruling of the lower court
petitioners put up a bond to protect the interest which sanctions the transfer of the land to
of the Government. From this order petitioners petitioners on condition that they put up a bond
interposed the present appeal. to safeguard the interest of the Government,
we believe that such requirement is not
As may be noted, the main issue raised by the necessary, provided that the encumbrance be
parties is not whether the lower court has annotated on the back of the new title to be
jurisdiction to entertain the petition concerning issued to the vendees. Since we said before
the cancellation of the alleged encumbrance that this encumbrance cannot now be
and the approval of the agreement relative to cancelled because its determination should be
the sale of the land to the herein petitioners but made elsewhere, we hold that, subject to the
whether said cancellation should be affected above requirement, the transfer of the land can
upon the ground that the right of the be given course under section 112 above
Government to enforce said encumbrance has adverted to because there is no dispute as to
already prescribed. And the lower court, while the interest involved and the transfer of the
at first ruled that it had jurisdiction to act on the land is not objected to.
petition, it later reconsidered its position and
held that it has no such jurisdiction because the Wherefore, the order appealed from should be
petition involves a matter which comes within modified in the sense that the agreement
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First submitted by petitioners may be given course
Instance of Manila. and, once the sale is executed, the Register of
Deeds may cancel the Original Certificate of
We are of the opinion that the lower court did Title No. 9758 and issue a new one in the
not err in finding that it lacks jurisdiction to name of the vendees on condition that he
entertain the present petition for the simple should annotate on the back thereof the
reason that it involves a controversial issue encumbrance existing in favor of the
which takes this case out of the scope of Government. No pronouncement as to costs.
Section 112 of Act No. 496. While this section,
among other things, authorizes a person in Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,
interest to ask the court for any erasure, Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.
alteration, or amendment of a certificate of title Sec. 108, PD 1529; correction of land titles;
"upon the ground that registered interests of proper procedure - G.R. No. 157367
G.R. No. 157367 Based on the provision, the proceeding for the
"x x x. amendment and alteration of a certificate of
title under Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 is
applicable in seven instances or situations,
Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 reads as follows: namely: (a) when registered interests of any
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of
description, whether vested, contingent,
certificates. – No erasure, alteration, or
amendment shall be made upon the expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and
registration book after the entry of a certificate ceased; (b) when new interests have arisen or
of title or of a memorandum thereon and the been created which do not appear upon the
attestation of the same by the Register of
Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of certificate; (c) when any error, omission or
First Instance. A registered owner or other mistake was made in entering a certificate or
person having interest in the registered any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate
property, or, in proper cases, the Register of
Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner certificate; (d) when the name of any person on
of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the certificate has been changed; (e) when the
the court upon the ground that the registered registered owner has been married, or,
interest of any description, whether vested,
registered as married, the marriage has been
contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on
the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or terminated and no right or interest of heirs or
that new interest not appearing upon the creditors will thereby be affected; (f) when a
certificate have arisen or been created; or that
corporation, which owned registered land and
an omission or an error was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on has been dissolved, has not conveyed the
any duplicate certificate: or that the same or same within three years after its dissolution;
any person in the certificate has been changed and (g) when there is reasonable ground for
or that the registered owner has married, or, if
registered as married, that the marriage has the amendment or alteration of title.[8]
been terminated and no right or interest of We agree with both the CA and the RTC
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that the petitioner was in reality seeking the
that a corporation which owned registered land
and has been dissolved has not yet convened reconveyance of the property covered by OCT
the same within three years after its No. 684, not the cancellation of a certificate of
dissolution; or upon any other reasonable title as contemplated by Section 108 of P.D.
ground; and the court may hear and determine
No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall under
the petition after notice to all parties in interest,
and may order the entry or cancellation of a any of the situations covered by Section 108,
new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a and was for that reason rightly dismissed.
memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any Moreover, the filing of the petition would
other relief upon such terms and conditions,
requiring security and bond if necessary, as it have the effect of reopening the decree of
may consider proper;Provided, however, That registration, and could thereby impair the rights
this section shall not be construed to give the of innocent purchasers in good faith and for
court authority to reopen the judgment or
decree of registration, and that nothing shall be value. To reopen the decree of registration was
done or ordered by the court which shall impair no longer permissible, considering that the
the title or other interest of a purchaser holding one-year period to do so had long ago lapsed,
a certificate for value and in good faith, or his
and the properties covered by OCT No. 684
heirs and assigns without his or their written
consent. Where the owner’s duplicate had already been subdivided into smaller lots
certificate is not presented, a similar petition whose ownership had passed to third persons.
may be filed as provided in the preceding
Thusly, the petition tended to violate
section.
All petitions or motions filed under this section the proviso in Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529, to
as well as any other provision of this decree wit:
after original registration shall be filed and xxx Provided, however, That this section shall
entitled in the original case in which the decree not be construed to give the court authority to
of registration was entered. reopen the judgment or decree of registration,
and that nothing shall be done or ordered by
the court which shall impair the title or other
interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for 112 of the Land Registration Law, and it
value in good faith, or his heirs and assigns appears that the ownership of the property
without his or their written consent. Where the covered by the title is controverted. Held: that
owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a under our law and jurisprudence it should be
similar petition may be filed as provided in the threshed out in an ordinary action, and as
preceding section. consequence the trial court has no jurisdiction
Nor is it subject to dispute that the to act threon.
petition was not a mere continuation of a
previous registration proceeding. Shorn of the
DECISION
thin disguise the petitioner gave to it, the
petition was exposed as a distinct and
independent action to seek the reconveyance BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
of realty and to recover damages. Accordingly,
he should perform jurisdictional acts, like On August 31, 1955, Domitila Angeles filed a
paying the correct amount of docket fees for verified petition in Cadastral Case No. 11,
Record No. 18 of the Court of First Instance of
the filing of an initiatory pleading, causing the
Pampanga, under the provisions of Section
service of summons on the adverse parties in 112 of the Land Registration Act, wherein she
order to vest personal jurisdiction over them in alleged that she be declared the only heir of
spouses Santiago Angeles and Anastacia
the trial court, and attaching a certification
Guevarra; that on June 20, 1929, said spouses
against forum shopping (as required for all bought Lot 848 of the Cadastral Survey of
initiatory pleadings). He ought to know that his Bacolor from Paulina Angeles, wife of Eulalio
taking such required acts for granted was Razon, in whose names said lot was registered
under Original Certificate of Title No. 8168; that
immediately fatal to his petition, warranting the the heirs of Eulalio Razon upon his death were
granting of the respondents’ motion to dismiss. Pedro, Felix, Bernardina, Maria, Paula,
x x x." Antonina, Lorenza, Gaundencio and Antonino,
all surnamed Razon, the first five being his
children by his first wife and the last four his
children by his second wife; that said heirs sold
their rights, shares and interests in said lot to
Ignacio Angeles who in turn ceded verbally all
his rights to his nephew Santiago Angeles,
EN BANC father of Domitila; that Domitila Angeles has
been in possession of said lot and the house
[G.R. No. L-13679. October 26, 1959.] erected thereon for the last thirty (30) years. In
said petition, Domitila Angeles prayed that
DOMITILA ANGELES, Petitioner-Appellant, Original Certificate of Title No. 8168 in the
v. PEDRO RAZON, ET AL., Oppositors- name of Eulalio Razon be cancelled and in lieu
Appellees. thereof a transfer certificate of title be issued in
her name.
Pacifico C. Garcia for Appellant.
On September 23, 1955, Pedro Razon,
Filemon Cajator for Appellees. Bernardina Razon, Marcela Ordoñez, Leonora
Ordoñez, Mercedes Ordoñez, Jose Ordoñez,
Maria Olalia, Francisca Maglalang, Pastor
SYLLABUS Maglalang, Crisanta Maglalang, and Anselma
Maglalang filed an opposition claiming that they
are the only children and direct descendants of
1. COURTS; CADASTRAL COURT;
Eulalio Razon; that the latter was the original
JURISDICTION; FILED FOR CANCELLATION
and exclusive owner of said lot No. 848; that
AND ISSUANCE OF NEW CERTIFICATE OF
they are the owners of 5/6 of said lot while the
TITLE; IF TORRENS TITLE IS
remaining 1/6 is the only share of petitioner
CONTROVERTED. — Where a petition is filed
Domitila Angeles; that Eulalio Razon is already
in the Court of First Instance in its capacity as
dead and is survived by six children, to wit:
cadastral court becauses its purpose is to ask
Felix, Bernardina, Maria, Justa, Pedro, and
for the cancellation of Original Certificate of title
Paula, all surnamed Razon; that Felix Razon is
and the issuance of a new one in the name of
also dead but is survived by his son Pedro
the petitioner under the provisions of section
Razon, one of the oppositors herein; that Maria
Razon is also dead but is survived by four section 112 of Act No. 496. While this section,
legitimate children, Marcela, Leonora, among other things, authorizes a person in
Mercedes, and Jose, all surnamed Ordoñez, interest to ask the court for erasure, alteration,
who are also oppositors herein; that Justa or amendment of a certificate of title ‘upon the
Razon is also dead but is survived by her only ground that registered interests of any
daughter Maria Olalia, also oppositor herein; description, whether vested, contingent,
that Pedro Razon is also dead but is survived expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and
by his five children whose names were not ceased’ and apparently the petition comes
stated in the opposition for the reason that under its scope, such relief can only be granted
Pedro Razon already sold his 1/6 share to if there is unanimity among the parties, or there
Ignacio Angeles; and that Paula Razon is now is no adverse claim or serious objections on
dead but is survived by her four children, the part of any party in interest; otherwise the
Francisca, Pastor, Crisanta and Anselma, all case becomes controversial and should be
surnamed Maglalang, also oppositors herein. threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case
The opposition was based on the claim that the where the incident properly belongs. Thus, it
deed of donation executed in favor of Pedro was held that ‘It is not proper to cancel an
Razon by his brothers and sisters and on which original certificate of Torrens title issued
petitioner bases her right of ownership over the exclusively in the name of a deceased person,
property in question is null and void because it and to issue a new certificate in the name of
was not contained in a public instrument, did his heirs, under the provisions of section 112 of
not contain the signature of the alleged donors, Act No. 496, when the surviving spouse claims
nor was it accepted by the donee as required right of ownership over the land covered by
by law. said certificate.’ Jimenez, v. Castro, 40 Off.
Gaz., [No. 3, 1st Sup. ], p. 80). And, in another
During the hearing, the parties presented case, where there was a serious controversy
documentary evidence and submitted the case between the parties as to the right of ownership
for decision. However, on October 21, 1955, over the properties involved, this court held
oppositors filed a motion to dismiss impugning ‘that following the principle laid down in the
the jurisdiction of the court over the subject- decision above cited, the issues herein should
matter for the reason that the ownership of the be ventilated in a regular action, as was done
lot of which petitioner claims to be the absolute in the case of Montilla v. Jalandoni (TA-R. G.
owner and for which she asks that a new title No. 3133) above mentioned.’ (Government of
be issued in her favor is seriously disputed the Philippines v. Jalandoni, 44 Off. Gaz.,
and, therefore, the same can only be threshed 1837.)" (Tangunan v. Republic of the
out in an ordinary action. The trial court Philippines 94 Phil., 171; 50 Off. Gaz., No. 1, p.
sustained the motion and dismissed the 115).
petition accordingly. After petitioner has taken
the case on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
latter certified the case to this Court on the affirmed, with costs against Appellant.
ground that only questions of law are involved.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,
There is no dispute that the petition in question Labrador, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez
was filed in the Court of First Instance of David, JJ., concur.
Pampanga in its capacity as cadastral court
because its purpose is to ask for the
cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No.
8168 issued in the name of Eulalio Razon and
the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title
in the name of petitioner under the provisions
of Section 112 of the Land Registration Law.
Such being the case, it is evident that the trial
court has no jurisdiction to act thereon it
appearing that the ownership of the property
covered by the Torrens title is controverted and
under our law and jurisprudence should be
threshed out in an ordinary action.

Thus, this Court has held that "the lower court

did not err in finding that it lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition for the simple
reason that it involves a controversial issue
which takes this case out of the scope of