THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. ALEJO ABISIA ET AL., CLAIIMANTS, FILOMENA LLANDA AND LUCIA LLANDA, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS.

On September 15, 1921, Original Certificate of title No. 8809 of the Property
Registry of the province of Cebu was issued, covering Cadastral Lot No. 7482 of
the City of Cebu, in favor and in the names of Antonia, Remedios Antolina, Jose,
and Juan, all surnamed Brigaudit, the first as the owner of 4/8 and the last
four as the owners each of 1/8 undivided interest in the land together with the
improvements existing thereon. These registered owners were brothers and sisters
who had inherited the said parcel of land and its improvements from their
deceased parents. In the course of time they also successively died, leaving no
will, nor descendants, nor ascendants, with the exception of Antonia Brigaudit
who left two legitimate daughters, the presait appellants jfilomena Llanda and
Lucia Llanda

On June 20, 1945, Filomena Llanda, by counsel, filed with the Court of xiirst
instance of Cebu a verif led petition, praying, upon the grounds therein
alleged., that after the proper proceedings the said Original Certificate of
title No. 8809 be ordered cancelled and in its stead a new one issued by the
register of needs in favor and in the names of the said jfilomena llanda and her
sister Lucia Llanda, share and. share alike, ins Court of First Instance of Cebu
ordered the publication of the proper notice in the newspaper Morning
Times of Cebu, advising the whole world, particularly any interested
persons, of the filing of said petition, and setting the hearing thereof for the
23d of July, 1945. The notice was published in the said newspaper once a week
for three consecutive weeks prior to the date of the hearing; and. on the 23d of
July, 1945, at the hour fixed in the notice, the Hearing was held, no opposition
to the petition having been presented,

The said Court after receiving the evidence of the petitioners, granted their
petition, and ordered the Register of Deeds of the Province of Gebu to cancel
the said Original Certificate of title no. 8809 covering said Lot No. 7482 and,
in its stead, to issue a new one in the names of Filomena Llanda, of legal age,
married to Guillermo Villostubo, Filipina, and. resident in the City of Cebu,
and Lucia Llanda, of legal age, married to Faustino Velez, Filipina, and
Resident in the City of Cebu, share and share alike, subject to the following
condition:

” Este pronunciamiento estará sujeto a la reclamacion de cualquier heredero,
acreedor, legatario o de cualquiera persona interesada, dentro del glazo de dog
años desde la fecha de esta decisión. “

Counsel for Filomena Llanda and Lucia Llanda, in their behalf, riled on July
27, 1945, a motion for reconsideration, praying that the foregoing condition
upon which the said court had granted their petition of June 20, 1945, be
eliminated from the court’s decision. That motion for reconsideration having
been denied, this appeal has been interposed in forma pauperis by the
said petitioners, which appeal raises the single, question of whether or not the
lower court erred in subjecting its order to the aforesaid condition.

Section 112 of Act No. 496 contains the following provisions pertinent to the
question thus presented:

“* * * Any registered owner or other person in interest may at any time apply
by petition to the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any
description, Aether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate, have terminated
and ceased; or that new interests have arisen or been created which do not
appear upon the certificate; * * * and the court shall have jurisdiction to hear
and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest and may order
the entry of a new certificate, * * * or grant any other relief upon such
terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem
proper; * * *” (Italic supplied.)

In the case of Government of the Philippine Island vs Serafica, (61 Phil. 93,
102), which in all essential respects is similar to the one at bar, this Court
laid down the following procedure, which the lower Court in the case at bar has
followed:

“However, the Justices who concur in this decision are of the opinion that,
in order to better safeguard the rights of those who may have an interest in the
land, the trial court should proceed to the publication of the petition in the
manner provided in section 597 of the Code of Civil Procedure and tnat a
guardian ad litem. should first be appointed to legally represent the minor
Veronica Abalos. if after the said publications and the subsequent hearing, the
material and essential allegations of the petition appear to have been proven,
then the said court shall grant the said petition, approve tne subdivision plan,
cancel original certificate of title No. 7154. and require the register of deeds
to issue new certificates of title to the new lots in favor of the respective
actual owners thereof.”

If the petitioners herein uad resorted to the procedure laid down in the
Rules of Court for the summary settlement of estates of small value, any
adjudication in their favor would have Deen subjected to the conditions and
limitations provided in Rule 74, sections 3, 4 and 5. instead of doing so, they
directly filed their petition in the cadastral case under section 112 of Act No.
496, and the lower Court rightly required the adoption of the same, safeguards
for the protection of any creditors, heirs or other parties in interest, if any
there should be, as in the case of such summary settlement and adjudication
under the Rules of Court. Besides, the very law under which their petition was
presented, section 112 of Act No. 496, supplies ample authority for the
requirement imposed by the lower court

The appealed judgment is affirmed without costs.

Ozaete, De Joya,
Perfecto, and Bengzon, JJ., concur.