ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
FERNANDO
MARTINEZ,
G. R. No. L-26399 January 31, 1981 -versus-FLORENCIA
EVANGELISTA,
This is an appeal certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals[1] since the only issue raised is whether or not a petition to change the civil status of the registered owner of land from "married to Florencia Evangelista" to "single" can be filed in a Land Registration Case in the Court of First Instance under Section 112 of Act No. 496; and whether said court has jurisdiction to decide the petition, which is purely a question of law. In a verified Petition filed on December 13, 1960 before the Court of First Instance of Manila in LRC Record No. 11546, Fernandez Martinez, being the registered owner of the land, sought to strike out the words "married to Florencia Evangelista" appearing in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 6949, 6950, and 6951 of the Registry of Deeds of the City of Manila on the ground that the same was so entered by reason of clerical error or oversight, and in lieu thereof the word "single" be substituted which, according to the petitioner, is his true and correct civil status, invoking Sec. 112 of Act 496. To this petition, an opposition was filed by Florencia Evangelista, alleging that the insertion of the phrase "married to Florencia Evangelista" was not the result of a mere clerical error or oversight but that there exists a serious and adverse claim which operates to throw the present petition outside the scope of Sec. 112 of Act 496. The oppositor-appellee submits that the lower court, sitting as a land registration court, had no jurisdiction to determine the civil status of the parties.[2] On the basis of the pleadings and annexes thereto, the lower Court denied the petition in the following order:
Manila Philippines, February 11, 1961.
Judge[3] From the above Order, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning the following as errors allegedly committed by the lower Court: The petition for the cancellation of the words "married to Florencia Evangelista" and in its stead, the word "single" be substituted was filed under Section 112 of Act 496 of the Land Registration Act. The method for amendment or alteration outlined in this section by petition is summary or administrative in nature. Under the broad provisions of Sec. 112 of Act 496, a certificate of title may be amended or altered by proper order of the Court. However, this power of correction is subject to a certain limitation: that there is "unanimity among the parties" or there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs.[5] The only issue to be resolved in the instant appeal is whether the opposition of Florencia Evangelista to the petition to strike out the phrase "married to Florencia Evangelista" in the transfer certificates of title in question and placing in lieu thereof the word "single" to describe the civil status of the petitioner is a serious or adverse claim which would bring the case outside the jurisdiction of the land registration court and thus, preclude an award of relief under Sec. 112 of Act 496.cralaw:red The answer is in the affirmative.cralaw:red The petitioner contends that the words "married to Florencia Evangelista" were inserted in the transfer certificates of title in question due to clerical error and oversight. It is submitted, however, by the oppositor that the said insertion was caused by no reason of clerical error or oversight but by the voluntary act of the petitioner.[6] Fernando Martinez
filed a Petition dated January
18, 1946 in the Court of First Instance of Manila in G.L.R.O. No. 4004,
praying that the three certificates of title in question be issued in
his
name. In that Petition, he stated under oath that he was "Fernando
Martinez,
of legal age, Filipino, married to Florencia Evangelista, and a
resident
of 422 Isabel, Sampaloc, Manila."[7]
Based on the said Petition, he was issued the three certificates of
title
in question wherein his civil status is described as "married to
Florencia
Evangelista." On November 28, 1952, he executed a mortgage on two
of
the properties covered by the transfer certificates of title in
question
in favor of the Philippine National Bank wherein he swore to the fact
that
he was married to Florencia Evangelista.[8]
Likewise,
in June 1955, the petitioner-appellant
and oppositor-appellee, as spouses, executed an additional mortgage in
favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation on the same properties.[9]
Finally, in the income tax returns filed by the petitioner-appellant in 1958 and 1959, it appears that he is married to Florencia Evangelista.[10] It is thus seen that from 1946 to 1959 or for a period of no less than twelve [12] years, the petitioner-appellant had consistently maintained under oath that the oppositor-appellee, Florencia Evangelista, is his wife. Moreover, there is a showing that the petitioner-appellant and oppositor-appellee have four children namely: Maria Fe Martinez, Fernando Martinez, Jr., Eduardo Martinez, and Victoriano Noel Martinez.[11] These overt and voluntary acts of the petitioner-appellant give rise to the conclusion that he and the oppositor-appellee are married. He had expressly alleged that he is married to the oppositor-appellee, Florencia Evangelista.[12] It is now apparent that before the Court of First Instance of Manila, sitting as a land registration court, can alter the description of the civil status of the petitioner-appellant in the transfer certificates of title in question, it will have to receive evidence of and determine the civil status of the petitioner-appellant. This requires a full dress trial rendering the summary proceeding envisaged in Sec. 112 of Act 496 inadequate.[13] As correctly pointed out by the Oppositor-Appellee in her brief:
Moreover, this Court has held:
All these lead to the inevitable conclusion that the question to be resolved in the instant petition is controversial in nature and that there exists an adverse claim or serious opposition on the part of a party-in-interest, the oppositor-appellee, Florencia Evangelista. It being so, the petition should be dismissed. The petitioner's recourse would be in an ordinary civil action.[16] WHEREFORE, the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit and the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.cralaw:red SO ORDERED.cralaw:red Teehankee, Makasiar, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.cralaw:red ___________________________________
[1]
Third Division, Concepcion Jr., J., ponente; and Enriquez J. and
Soriano,
E., JJ., concurring, Rollo, pp. 46-47.
|
|