alteration of land area.docx
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
1/6
[CA-G.R. CV No. 59411. November 12, 1999.]
PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF AREA ON OCT NO. RP-1669 (16085)
DESIGNATED AS LOT H-V 9579, BSD-051727-002774 (AR), REGISTERED INTHE NAME OF MILAGROS PASILABAN,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR,
represented by Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer-in-Charge, JOSE Z.
GRAGEDA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REGISTER OF DEEDS, CAMARINES SUR,
respondent, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
MARTIN, JR., Jp:
On appeal before Us is the Order dated November 5, 1997 of the Regional Trial
Court of Naga City, Branch 25, in Special Proceedings No. 96-1548 entitled "Petition for
Correction of Area on OCT No. RP-1669(16085) Designated as Lot H-V 9579, Bsd-
051727-002774(AR), Registered in the Name of Milagros Pasilaban, Department of
Agrarian Reform, Province of Camarines Sur, Represented by Provincial AgrarianReform Officer-in-Charge, Jose Z. Grageda, Petitioner, vs. Register of Deeds, Camarines
Sur, Respondent," the dispositive portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and the Motion by the Government
through Asst. Pros. Eusebio P. Balcueva, Jr. to dismiss the Petition is hereby Denied.
The Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur is hereby ordered to correct the area as
appearing in OCT RP-1669 (16085) designated as Lot H-V 9579, Psd-051727-002774
(AR) [sic] from Two Hundred Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two
(228,452) square meters to Two Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred
(237,900) square meters, after payment of the proper fees thereof.
"SO ORDERED."
(p. 3, Order; p. 83, Original Records)
The facts are as follows:
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
2/6
Milagros Pasilaban is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural landdescribed as Lot HV-9579, Bsd-051727-002774(AR) located at Barrio Calibayan,
Pasacao, Camarines Sur, with an area of 228,452 square meters, which she acquired by
virtue of Homestead Patent No. 97905, now covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
RP-1669(16085) issued on November 8, 1961 (Exh. "A", pp. 4-5, ibid.).
Pursuant to the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) Scheme of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government, Milagros Pasilaban offered to sell
her above-described property to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sometime in
the year 1996. During the processing of the papers for the transfer of the title in the name
of the DAR, it was discovered that there was a discrepancy in the area appearing on OCT
No. RP-1669(16085) from the actual survey of the land conducted and approved by the
Bureau of Lands in that the area reflected on the title was 228,452 square meters while
that in the actual survey showed an area of 237,900 square meters (Exhs. "B" and "C",
pp. 6-7, ibid.). On account thereof, the Registrar of Deeds of Camarines Sur refused to
transfer the title in the name of the DAR.
To effect the transfer of title in its name, the DAR, represented by the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer-in-Charge, Province of Camarines Sur, filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Naga City a petition for correction of area on OCT No. RP-1669(16085).
The case was treated as a special proceeding docketed as Special Proc. No. 96-1548 and
raffled to Branch 25 of the court.
In its petition, the DAR, after stating the material factual circumstances, averred
that the correction of the area will not affect any third person or any adjacent boundary
owner as the existing boundary will not be moved or altered and that the petitioner had
notified the adjacent owners of the property involved in the case.
On January 24, 1997, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in representation
of the Republic, entered its appearance deputizing the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines
Sur to appear and handle the case on its behalf (pp. 12-13, ibid.).
The proceedings ensued without any objection from the owners of the adjacent
lots. Petitioner-appellee presented its sole witness, Nena Samalia, Head, Technical Data
Gathering Unit, DAR-Camarines Sur (pp. 41-50, ibid.).
On November 5, 1997, the lower court granted the petition for correction of areaon OCT No. 1669(16085).
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the lower court, the OSG interposed the present
appeal on a lone submission of error, to wit:
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
3/6
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION DESPITE LACK
OF ANY LEGAL BASIS THEREOF."
There is no merit in this appeal.
It is the argument of the OSG that a correction of the area on the title cannot bedone through a mere petition. An application for land registration covering the excess
area in the original property must be filed because once a decree of registration attains
finality and a certificate of title is issued and entered in the Registration Books, the same
becomes incontrovertible and cannot be the subject of any change, modification or
amendment that would result in the enlargement of the area covered by the certificate of
title.
We do not totally agree.
Although as a general rule, a certificate of title to land, once issued, becomesincontrovertible, the same admits of an exception. This is provided in Section 108 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree
(previously Section 112 of Act No. 496, The Land Registration Act), stating that:
"Amendment and alteration of certificates. 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 Register of Deeds, except
by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or other person
having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds
with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition tothe court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether
vested, contingent, expectant, inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been
created; or that an omission or error 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 married, or, if
registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected, 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 may hear anddetermine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or
cancellation 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
or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper: Provided, however, That this section
shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of
registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
4/6
the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good
faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner's
duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the
preceding section.
"All petitions or motions filed under this section as well as under any other provisionof this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case
in which the decree or registration was entered."
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, it was held inDomingo vs. Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cia (55 Phil. 361, 373-
374), that Section 112 of Act No. 496 (now Section 108 of PD 1529) permits the
correction of errors in the technical description of lands covered with a certificate of title.
We believe that the present case falls within the above-quoted provision.
First, there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in
interest (Soto vs. Jareno, 144 SCRA 116, 119). Milagros Pasilaban is the sole owner of
the subject agricultural land while the owners of the adjoining lots had been notified of
the petition but did not manifest any objection thereto. The DAR's claim in petitioning for
the correction of the area on the OCT is, therefore, not adversarial.
Second, there obviously is a mere technical error in entering the certificate since
the approved survey of the land by the Lands Management Sector of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shows that the area of the subject agricultural land isactually 237,900 sq. m. and not 228,452 sq. m. as reflected in the certificate of title.
hird, the petition filed by the DAR is the more practicable and expedient solution
to correct the entry on the OCT rather than, as the OSG suggested, ask the landowner to
go through a land registration proceeding over the area in discrepancy (9,448 sq. m.)
which would actually only served to disrupt the technical description of the land in
controversy and the land registration process as a whole. A comparison of the technical
description of the subject land on the OCT (Exh. "A", ibid.) and the approved survey of
the Bureau of Lands (Exh. "C", ibid.) shows no difference that would have caused the
discrepancy in the measurement of the area. This is amplified in a letter dated October
21, 1996 by the DAR Security Section to Mr. Isaias A. Ramirez, the landowner'sattorney-in-fact, where it was stated that:
"In connection with the area discrepancy per title's 228,452 square meters against the
approved survey plan BSD-051727-002774(AR) 237,900 square meters, the survey
team computed the Technical Description of Title #RP-1669 (16085) designated as lot
H-V-9579. It was found out that the polygon was not closed and then they applied the
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
5/6
corrections. The DENR-Land Management Services, which is the approving agency
approved the survey plan. Engineer Jose F. Cayabyab, Chief, Regional Survey
Division of DENR-LMS also certified the correction cited as follows:
"I certify that the bearing and distances of the boundary lines of the land herein
subdivided as well as the aggregate area of the lots of this subdivision plan areidentical to those described in O.C.T. number RP-1669(16085) issued to Milagros
Pasilaban except for the distance along lines 8-9 and 9-10 which should be 311.27 m
and 209.35 m. instead of 311.87 meters and 209.25 meters and the area should be
237,900 square meters instead of 228,452 square meters.
"Legaspi City, November 23, 1995."
(p. 30, ibid.)
If We were to heed the OSG's solution that the 9,448 square meters in discrepancybe made the subject of a new application for land registration, the present technical
description of the land as shown on the OCT would be disrupted for where would this
area be taken but from the present boundaries of the land. There would then be an
overlapping of the metes and bounds of the land covered by OCT No. RP-1669(16085)
and that of the area in discrepancy. The OSG's suggestion therefore appears to be
impracticable and would only cause a confusion to the land registration process.
Moreover, contrary to the claim of the oppositor-appellant that what is being sought to be
accomplished is to title property which is not covered by an existing title, the error sought
to be rectified in the case at bar "is only with respect to the computation of the technical
description thus the adjoining lots as well as the boundary thereof would not be affectedor move(d)" (TSN, August 1, 1997, pp. 7-8). The correction is necessary according to
Mrs. Nena Samalia, head of the Technical Data Gathering Unit of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Provincial Office, Camarines Sur, when she testified as follows:
"Q What is the significance or propriety of having the area to be rectified?
"A For the purpose of payment of the Land Bank of the Philippines which
requires that the value of the land should be in consonance with the correct area
thereof."
(TSN, August 1, 1997, p. 8)
For the foregoing reasons, We rule to affirm the lower court's order allowing the
correction of the area on OCT No. RP-1669(16085) from 228,452 sq. m. to 237,900 sq.
m.
-
7/30/2019 alteration of land area.docx
6/6
We observe, however, that the lower court erred in the designation of the petitionfiled below as a special proceedings case. Considering that the case is a land registration
proceeding, it should have been filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree
was entered in accordance with Section 108 of the Property Registration Decree.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this appeal is hereby DENIED. TheOrder of the court a quo dated November 5, 1997 is AFFIRMED in toto. No
pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.