JUANA GARCIA, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE HERMOGENES REYES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an extraordinary proceeding of certiorari instituted by Juana Garcia
against the Honorable Hermogenes Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga, and others, in which, for the facts therein alleged, she prays that
after the proper proceedings the order of the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga of October 19, 1927, granting the motion to amend the decree of
registration issued in registration proceeding No. 495 (G. L. R. O. No. 20966)
and the proper certificate of title No. 11585 be declared null and of no effect,
with the costs. In that proceeding the respondent Tomasa Galang appears as the
only registered owner of the two parcels of land described therein.

From the stipulation of facts submitted by both parties, the following facts
appear:

On February 29, 1922, Eutiquiano Garcia, as attorney for Tomasa Galang, filed
a petition in the latter’s name for the registration of two parcels of land
situated in the barrio of San Agustin, municipality of Santa Ana, Province of
Pampanga. After the proper proceedings the court rendered judgment on July
14,1922, adjudicating said two parcels of land, together with the improvements
thereon, to Tomasa Galang and decreeing the registration thereof in her name,
subject to an encumbrance consisting of a sale with pacto de retro in
the sum of P2,500, executed by the applicant on November 22, 1921, in favor of
Juana Garcia for the term of five years. On August 24, 1922, the proper order
for the issuance of the decree was entered and on October 28, 1922, the proper
decree of registration, as well as the original certificate of title No. 11585,
was issued. The following encumbrances appear on the back of the original
certificate of title: A mortgage on the registered lands for the sum of P4,600
dated July 3, 1923, executed by Tomasa Galang in favor of Juana Garcia; a lease
on the same lands dated July 3, 1923, in favor of Juana Garcia; a second
mortgage in favor of the said Juana Garcia executed on August 19, 1923, for the
sum of P600; another mortgage in favor of Juana Garcia dated November 23, 1925,
for the sum of P10,000; a notice of an execution sale dated March 7, 1927, in
favor of Maria Hizon; a motion of Valeriano Galang et al., dated October 3,
1927, praying that the decree of registration and the proper certificate of
title be amended, and a certificate of adjudication of a sale to Juana Garcia,
dated October 11, 1927, for the sum of P3,403.79.

In the motion of Valeriano Galang et al., noted on the certificate of title,
as has been said, they prayed for the amendment of the decree of registration as
well as of the proper original certificate of title No. 11585 issued to Tomasa
Galang.

On October 8, 1927, Juana Garcia, as mortgage creditor of Tomasa Galang,
filed an opposition to said motion.

On October 29, 1927, the respondent judge issued an order overruling Juana
Garcia’s opposition, granting the motion of Valeriano Galang et al., and
ordering that a day be set for the introduction of evidence.

The only registered owner, the respondent Tomasa Galang, was agreeable to the
amendment prayed for.

In view of the facts just mentioned the question raised is whether or not the
respondent judge had jurisdiction to order the amendment of the decree of
registration and the proper certificate of title five years after the issuance
thereof, the amendment consisting of the inclusion of coheirs as coowners of the
registered property and their existing mortgage liens, with the consent of the
original registered owner but against the opposition of the mortgage
creditor.

The respondent judge so understood it in granting the motion to amend and
ordering the petitioners to introduce evidence upon their alleged hereditary
rights under the provisions of section 112 of Act No. 496, which reads as
follows:

“SEC. 112. 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 by the clerk or any register of deeds,
except by order of the court. 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, whether 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; or that any error, omission,
or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on
any duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate has
been changed; or that the registered owner has been married; or, if registered
as married, that the marriage has been terminated; or that a corporation which
owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; 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, the entry
or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief
upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem
proper: Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to
give the court authority to open the original 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 or assigns, without his or their written consent.

“Any petition filed under this section and all petitions and motions filed
under the provisions of this Act after original registration shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was
entered.”

The amendment prayed for in the motion is none of those enumerated in said
section. It is not sought to state the extinguishment of any real right, or to
have the creation of new real rights not appearing in the certificate noted; nor
is it sought to correct any error or supply any omission made in entering the
certificate, a memorandum, or any respective copy thereof; it is not sought to
have the fact that the registered owner has contracted marriage noted, or that
the marriage has been dissolved, or that a corporation has not made a transfer
of its registered property within three years after its dissolution. The
amendment dealt with in the motion consists in the inclusion of other owners and
the proportional distribution of the registered property between them and the
original registered owner in the decree of registration and the proper
certificate of title; in other words, it is sought to review the decree of
registration and the proper certificate of title, which is precisely what is
strictly prohibited in the section quoted and in section 38 of the same Act,
after the expiration of one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration.

In granting the motion for amendment, the respondent judge took into
consideration the consent of the original registered owner and the allegation
that the mortgage liens are fraudulent. Even then, there being a legal
prohibition that a decree of registration be reviewed after the expiration of
one year from the issuance thereof for any reason whatsoever, neither the
consent of the originally registered owner, nor the fact that some of the
encumbrances were obtained by fraud, can authorize such revision. The procedure
to be followed, when a registered owner is agreeable to including other coowners
in his title, is to have the portion or portions assigned to the coowners
transferred in accordance with the provisions of the law and the transfer
registered in the registry of deeds and noted on the proper certificate of title
and a new title issued immediately, provided, of course, that there are no
encumbrances noted on the original certificate of title. If any encumbrance
exists, even if it was obtained fraudulently, such amendment cannot be made
without the consent of the mortgagee, for the annulment of the mortgage in so
far as it affects the rights of the coowners.

Moreover, the prohibition contained in section 112 of Act No. 496, above
cited, that nothing be done to injure the title or any other rights of the
purchaser or mortgagee who may hold a certificate by onerous title and in good
faith—the purchaser and mortgagee are synonymous according to section 38 of said
Act No. 496—does not necessarily imply that when the mortgage lien was
fraudulently obtained such amendment can be made; because it is contrary to the
prohibition contained in said sections 38 and 112 of Act No. 496, and deprives
the mortgagee of a part of his security without giving him an apportunity to be
heard in his own defense, thus violating his constitutional right of not being
deprived of any property right without due process of law.

The respondent judge, then, in granting the motion to amend the decree of
registration issued to Tomasa Galang in proceeding No. 495 (G. R. L. O. Record
No. 20966) and the proper certificate of title No. 11585, filed by the
respondents Valeriano Galang, Aurelio Galang, Ambrosio Medina y Galang and
Perpetua Galang y Garcia, as alleged coheirs of Tomasa Galang, five years after
the issuance of said decree of registration and certificate of title over the
objection of the petitioner Juana Garcia, as registered mortgage creditor of the
only registered owner Tomasa Galang, although with the consent of the latter,
exceeded his jurisdiction, violating the conclusive provisions of sections 38
and 112 of Act No. 496, which prohibit the revision of a decree of registration
after the period of one year from the time of its issuance.

There being no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law other than the
writ of certiorari for the correction of said error, the remedy prayed for must
be, as it is hereby, granted, declaring the order of the respondent judge of
October 19, 1927, null, void and of no effect, whereby he granted the
above-mentioned motion, with the costs against the respondents, with the
exception of the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, the Honorable
Hermogenes Reyes. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez,
JJ., concur.