GR L 7189; (October, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7189 October 30, 1954
Raymundo Cabangcala, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Severo Domingo, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Alejandra Darang, the registered owner of Lot No. 842 in Rosales, Pangasinan, died intestate in 1935, survived by her husband and five minor children. In 1937, Severo Domingo filed a petition in the cadastral case, alleging that the deceased had sold the lot to him for P500 but died before executing the necessary deed. He prayed for the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in his and his wife’s name. The court set the petition for hearing with notice by publication. No one appeared to contest it, so the court granted the order based on Domingo’s evidence, and the Register of Deeds implemented it. In 1949, the children of Alejandra Darang filed an action to annul that order and reinstate the original title, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the matter should have been an ordinary civil action. They also sought a declaration of ownership and damages. Domingo defended the validity of the sale and the proceedings and pleaded prescription.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction to issue the order for the transfer of title based on Domingo’s petition under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, given the absence of a proper deed of conveyance and the lack of notice to the minor heirs.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment, annulled the proceedings and orders, and directed the Register of Deeds to cancel the transfer certificate of title issued to Domingo and reinstate the original certificate in the name of Alejandra Darang. The Court held that the land registration court lacked jurisdiction. The proper remedy for Domingo, in the absence of a deed of conveyance executed by the deceased grantor as required by Sections 57 and 127 of the Land Registration Act, was an ordinary civil action to compel the heirs to fulfill the promise. Proceedings under Section 112 of the Act are not for adjudicating contentious issues like the existence or validity of a contract of sale. Furthermore, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the minor heirs, who were indispensable parties, as they were not named in the petition and no guardian ad litem was appointed for them. The order was therefore void ab initio and could be annulled at any time.