REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPLICANT, VS. PEDRO ABACITE, ET AL., CLAIMANTS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT.

On December 16, 1958, the Development Bank of the Philippines (formerly
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation), filed with the Court of First Instance of
Davao, sitting as a cadastral court (in Cad. Case No. N-2, LRC Cad. Rec. No.
N-14), a petition for amendment of OCT No. O-117 issued by the Register of Deeds
in its name, pursuant to the decree of said court of February 18, 1958.

It was alleged that petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land situated in
barrio Malagos, Davao City, with an area of 15.6882 hectares and previously
covered by TCT No. T-4629; that when the State started cadastral proceedings,
which included the said parcel of land, petitioner filed its answer claiming
ownership over the same, which was referred to as Lot No. 1676, specifying the
area of said land to be 15.6882 hectares; that in support of such allegation,
TCT No. T-4629 was submitted in court and presented as exhibit, and that nobody
opposed the same. When the certificate of title was issued by the Register of
Deeds, petitioner found out that Lot No. 1676 merely contains 93,052 square
meters and not 15.6882 hectares as claimed by it in its answer and as embraced
in TCT No. T-4629 presented as evidence of such ownership. Petitioner,
therefore, prayed that OCT No. O-117 be amended to include the remaining portion
of 63,830 square meterg designated in the new cadastral plan as part of Lot No,
1674.

After hearing the petition, the court issued an order denying the same, on
the ground that since in its answer petitioner merely claimed ownership of Lot
No. 1676 and did not include a portion of Lot No. 1674, the cadastral court
could not have decreed more, nor could it now amend such decree. Its motion for
reconsideration of the order having been denied, petitioner interposed the
instant appeal.

The property originally covered by TCT No. T-4629 and admittedly belonging to
petitioner was described in said certificate as follows:

“A parcel of land situated in the District of Gianga, Davao City, more
particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at point marked 1 on
plan H-216582, N. 7-21′ W., 1,401.87 m. more or less from B.L.L.M. No. 28,
Gianga Cad. No. 174 (now within the City of Davao), thence S. 51-43′ W., 201.12
m. to point 2; N. 33-34′ W., 46.56 m. to point 3; N. 46-38′ W., 491.71 m. to
point 4; N. 82-30′ E., 490.43 m.to point 5; S. 48-47′ E., 300.69 m. to point 6;
S. 56-03′ W., 199.55 m. to point 1, point of beginning. * * * Containing an area
of 15.6882 hectares. * * * Bounded on the North, by property of Mariano
Balbuena; on the Northeast, by property of Heirs of Walan (Bagobo); on the
Southeast by properties of Molo (Ata) and Heirs of Lemondang (Bagobo); and on
the Southeast, by public land. * * *.”

It appears, however, that for purposes of the cadastral proceedings, the
aforementioned parcel of land was subdivided into two lots, one of 93,052 square
meters, designated as Lot No. 1676 and another of 63,830 square meters which was
included in Lot No. 1674. When required to file its answer, petitioner mentioned
only Lot No. 1676, although in specifying the boundaries and area thereof, it
stated:

“2. Area and boundaries.—That said lot is situated in the barrio of
District of Guianga, Davao City of said municipality, contains an area of
156,882 square meters, more or less, according to the cadastral plan, and
is bounded:

On the North by property of Mariano Balbuena;
On the Northeast by
property of Heirs of Walan (Bagobo);
On the Southeast by properties
of Molo (Ata) and Heirs of Lemondang (Bagobo), and
On the Southwest by
Public Land.”

Patently, this is exactly the same parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-4629.
These data notwithstanding, the cadastral court decreed in favor of petitioner
only Lot No. 1676, and declared the whole of Lot No. 1674, including the portion
of 63,830 square meters, as publie land.^[1]

Under Section 112 of Act 496, alteration, amendment or correction of a
certificate of title may be allowed where there has been, among others, error,
omission, or mistake in the issuance thereof, provided that the amendment,
alteration, or erasure would not amount to a reopening of the original decree of
registration and the “title or other interest of a purchaser holding a
certificate for value and in good faith” be not thereby impaired.

In the instant case, prior to the institution of the cadastral proceedings,
the whole of 15.6882 hectares was already covered by a Torrens certificate of
title. It is true that the original certificate of title was issued pursuant to
a homestead patent, but such a patent once registered under the Land
Registration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title^[2] especially in the absence of any private
third party claiming the land against the Government. As far as said lot is
concerned, therefore, the cadastral proceeding would no longer be J.or the
purpose of adjudicating ownership thereof to its claimant (herein appellant),
because that was already accomplished in a previous appropriate proceeding, but
merely to substitute the old certificate of title issued in said prior
proceeding with a new one. The cadastral court, certainly, would have no
jurisdiction to diminish nor enlarge the area of the property thus already
decreed. (Govt, of the Phils., vs. Arias, 36 Phil., 194).

True it is that petitioner-appellant erroneously referred to its property as
Lot No. 1676, yet it has sufficiently ¦ identified the same to be the lot
covered already by TCT No. T-4629. For this reason, even the State, through the
Solicitor General, acknowledged appellant’s right over a portion of Lot No. 1674
(the cadastral court decreed the whole of said lot to be public land), and
manifested its conformity to the amendment prayed for by petitioner-appellant.
(See Manifestation dated March 1, 1960.) Under the circumstances, the amendment
of OCT No. O-117, so as to include thereunder all the land covered by a prior
title (TCT No. T-4629), is in order.

In the first place, such correction sought by appellant will not amount to a
reopening of the original decree. On the contrary, the petition to include in
the new certificate of title that portion of Lot No. 1674 originally covered by
TCT No. T-4629, would even give effect to and make the later decree conform with
the original adjudication. As held by thia Court, a petition, as the one
presented in this case, for the correction of the area and description in the
new certificate, of the land lawfully belonging to petitioner and previously
registered in his name, does not involve a reopening of the original
decree.^[3]

Secondly, the amendment of the new certificate will cause no prejudice to any
third party. As stated above, the Government, in whose favor the entire Lot No.
1674 has been decreed, recognizes the right of appellant over the portion m
Question and agrees to the amendment prayed for by said appellant.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and another hereby
entered directing the Register of Deeds, of Davao to amend OCT No. O-117 of his
office, to include therein all the land embraced in TCT No. T-4629. Without
costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.

---

^[1] The entire area of 15.6882 was
originally acquired as homestead by Irineo Legaso who obtained title therefor
(OCT No. 242) on July 19, 1940. After a series of transactions, ownership over
the same was transferred to Manuel Nuque who was issued TCT No. T-4629. It was
from the latter that petitioner acquired the said property.

^[2] Director of Lands vs. De
Luna, 110 Phil., 28; citing Ramoso vs. Obligado, 70 Phil., 86, and Lucas
vs. Durian, L-7886, Sept. 23, 1957.

^[3] Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil.,
590.