THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BAGUIO-BENGUET, BRANCH III, HONORABLE FRANCISCO MA. CHANCO, PRESIDING JUDGE, AND MARIA LORETO DIA…

On December 9, 1969, respondent Maria Loreto Diaz, as the
surviving legitimate child of the late Chaoli, filed
with respondent court a petition for the insertion in the Original Certificate
of Title No. 1324, after the registered owner’s name “CHAOLI”; the
following phrase and words “Filipino citizen, of legal age, widow and a
resident of Gumatdang, Itogon,
Benguet Province,” which phrase and words do not
appear and/or are not contained in the aforementioned Original Certificate of
Title No. 1324.

Petitioner Republic, represented by the Office of the Provincial
Fiscal of Benguet Province, entered its oral
opposition to the petition.  After the
hearing on March 2, 1970, respondent court issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Register of Deeds of the Province of Benguet is hereby ordered to amend the Original Certificate
of Title No. 1324, in such a manner that after the word and name ‘CHAOLI’ the
following phrase ‘Filipino Citizen, of legal age, widow and a resident of Gumatdang, Itogon, Benguet Province,’ be inserted in the said certificate of
title upon payment by the Petitioner (herein private respondent) of the
necessary fees in accordance with law. 
This Court, before the finalization of this Order, welcomes as stated
previously any authorities which the Fiscal may submit and which may aid this
Court to reverse this Order.  Let the
Original Certificate of Title be returned to the Petitioner and/or her counsel
for the above-stated purpose.”

Petitioner Republic filed with respondent court a motion for
reconsideration of the latter’s order, dated March 2, 1970, on the ground that
“there is no action or proceeding provided for by law for the judicial
declaration of the citizenship or status of a person, and that the petition
states no cause of action.”

Respondent court, for
lack of merit, denied the motion for reconsideration.  Hence, this petition for review on certiorari
with prayer that the orders, dated March 2, 1970 and March 24, 1970, in Administrative
Case No. 1426, B. L. No. F-49844, Patent No. 16499, of respondent Court
of First Instance of Baguio-Benguet, be set aside and
that the petition of respondent Maria Loreto Diaz in said case, be dismissed.

Petitioner claims that
the lower court erred (1) in exercising jurisdiction over the petition
filed before it and in finding that petitioner herein had a cause of action;
and, (2) in ordering the amendment of Original Certificate of Title No. 1324
which, in effect declared private respondent’s mother a Filipino, when there is
no proceeding available for the purpose of obtaining such a declaration of
citizenship.

It is the position of the
petitioner Republic that the petition in the lower court partakes of the nature
of a summary proceeding where the parties affected were not notified and
afforded protection on whatever interest they have; and that the insertions
sought in the Certificate of Title are controversial, and such being the case,
respondent court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition in said summary
proceeding.

On the other hand, the
respondents contend that pursuant to Section 112 of Act No. 496, otherwise
known as the Land Registration Act, respondent court is legally vested with
power to act as a land registration court; that pursuant also to said Section
112 of the Land Registration Act, private respondent Maria Loreto Diaz, as the
only surviving legitimate child of Chaoli, filed with
respondent court a petition to insert the civil status and other
personal circumstances of Chaoli in OCT No. 1324
(Free Patent); and that the citizenship, civil status and other personal
circumstances of the late Chaoli are not in issue in
the case, inasmuch as the same had already been considered in the administrative
proceedings which resulted in the issuance of said certificate of title in the
name of the late Chaoli.

We find merit in the petition. 
In the case of Sangalang vs. Caingat, 25 SCRA 180, this Court, speak­ing through then
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, held that “the
proceedings under Section 112 of Act No. 496 are summary in nature and are
allowed only when a scrutiny of the allegations discloses that the issues
presented by the pleadings need not be tried because they are so patently
insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. 
The relief provided in said section can only be granted if there is
unanimity among the parties or there is no adverse claim or serious objection
on the part of any party in interest, for otherwise the case becomes
controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case
where the incident properly belongs and because controversies arising after the
entry of the original decree of registration are beyond the limited authority
of a land registration court to pass upon.”

In the case at bar, there is no question about the controversial
nature of the petition before the respondent court.  The civil status and more importantly, the
citi­zenship of Chaoli should be threshed out in a
proper proceeding where all the persons who may be affected therein are
notified and represented.  Section 112 of
Act No. 496 is similar to the proceeding under Article 412 of the New Civil
Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court which calls for
correction of mere clerical, innocuous or harmless error in a person’s
certificate of birth.  The proceedings
therein are summary in nature and contemplate corrections or insertions of
mistakes which are only clerical in nature, but certainly not controversial
issues, such as citizenship.  Corrections
of substantial errors such as those that affect civil status or citizenship
cannot be granted except only in an adversary suit.

Administrative Case No. 1426, re-petition to insert civil status
and other personal circumstances in the Original Certificate of Title No. 1324
of the Benguet Registry of Deeds is not an adversary
suit.  It is not a proper action in which
an alleged omission regarding civil status and citizenship may be
inserted.  There was no issue, dispute or
controversy between contending parties which the lower court was called upon to
decide.  The mere naming of the Benguet Registry of Deeds and the Solicitor General, as
respondents, did not ipso facto convert the same into an
adversary suit.

WHEREFORE, the Orders, dated March 2, 1970 and March 24,
1970, in Administrative Case No. 1426 of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet are SET ASIDE
and the petition of private respondent Maria Loreto Diaz to insert the civil
status and other personal circumstances of her mother Chaoli
in the Original Certificate of Title No. 1324 of the Benguet
Registry of Deeds is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Plana, Vasquez, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

Teehankee, (Chairman), reserves his vote.

Melencio-Herrera, J., in the result.