CABAÑEZ V. SOLANO

 CABAÑEZ V. SOLANO

FACTS:

Subject of the present controversy are two (2) parcels of land located in Alabang Hills, Muntinlupa. Appearing on the face of the titles as the registered owner is herein respondent, "Maria Josephine S. Cabañez, of legal age, married to [herein petitioner] Benjamin H. Cabañez . . . ."

2007 - Respondent filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City a "Petition for Correction of the Name and Marital Status of the Registered Owner of the TCTs”. Respondent alleged:

●       Petitioner is the owner of two parcels of land situated in Alabang, Muntinlupa City covered by the TCTs issued by the Registry of Deed for Muntinlupa, though the same were issued under the name Ma. Josephine S. Cabanez, married to Benjamin H. Cabanez. . . .

●       Without knowing the legal implication, Petitioner erroneously made it appear that she is married to Mr. Benjamin when in truth and in fact they are not married but merely living a common-law relationship.

●       Mr. Benjamin H. Cabanez is actually married to a certain Leandra D. Cabanez who had previously filed a case against Petitioner, questioning the ownership of the said properties which case however was terminated by virtue of a compromise approved by the court in an Order dated November 23, 2000. . .

●       Mr. Benjamin H. Cabanez has also declared that he is not actually married to the Petitioner and that he has no interest or share whatsoever in the aforesaid properties as evidenced by the hereto attached copy of the Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest dated January 22, 2007 . . .

●       No interests or rights will be affected by the correction of the name and status of Petitioner as registered owner of the said properties.

RTC – granted the petition

●     fit has been satisfactorily established that the subject properties should indeed be in respondent's name and that her status should be "single".

Petitioner filed with the CA a Petition for Annulment of Judgment  assailing the above Decision of the RTC on the ground that the said trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case because respondent's petition was not published in a newspaper of general circulation and that petitioner and other persons who may have interest in the subject properties were not served summons.

CA – granted, annulled and set aside RTC decision

●     Respondent's petition for correction of her name and marital status as appearing in the subject TCTs should have been published in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and that respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to prove compliance with such requirement.

Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration contending, among others, that the provisions of PD 1529, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, should be applied in the present case; posting of the notice of hearing of respondent's petition is deemed constructive notice to the whole world, including petitioner; the petition filed by respondent is an action in rem where jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res.

CA – granted MR, reinstated RTC decision

Petitioner thus filed a petition for review on certiorari.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petition for the amendment of respondent’s marital status in the TCTs is not controversial in nature

2. Whether or not publication and service of notice of the petition can be dispensed with

 

RULING:

1. NO. The amendment of respondent’s marital status in the TCTs is controversial in nature which requires a full-blown trial.

Under settled jurisprudence, the enumerated instances for amendment of alteration of a certificate of title under Section 108 of PD 1529 are non-controversial in nature.  They are limited to issues so patently insubstantial as not to be genuine issues. The proceedings thereunder are summary in nature, contemplating insertions of mistakes which are only clerical, but certainly not controversial issues.

In the present case, the Court notes that in a separate action for annulment of title and recovery of ownership filed by petitioner's wife against respondent, the RTC of Makati City (1993), made a categorical finding that petitioner and his wife are the lawful owners of the subject properties and ordering respondent to surrender possession thereof to the said spouses. This RTC judgment was later affirmed by the CA in April 29, 1997.

RESPONDENT

PETITIONER

claims that she together with petitioner and his wife subsequently executed an amicable settlement dated June 22, 2000, which was approved by the RTC, wherein petitioner's wife waived her rights and interests over the said properties. She also alleged that petitioner executed an Affidavit of Declaration against Interest, dated January 22, 2007, indicating that he has no right or interest over the subject properties.

claims that he executed a subsequent Affidavit of NON-WAIVER of Interest, dated January 14, 2008, claiming that he was deceived by respondent into signing the said Affidavit of Declaration Against Interest and that he was seriously ill at the time that he affixed his signature.

From the foregoing, there is no question that there is a serious objection and an adverse claim on the part of an interested party as shown by petitioner's subsequent execution of his Affidavit of Non-Waiver of Interest. The absence of unanimity among the parties is also evidenced by petitioner's petition seeking the annulment of the RTC Decision which granted respondent's petition for correction of entries in the subject TCTs.

These objections and claims necessarily entail litigious and controversial matters making it imperative to conduct an exhaustive examination of the factual and legal bases of the parties' respective positions. Certainly, such objective cannot be accomplished by the court through the abbreviated action under Section 108 of PD 1529. A complete determination of the issues in the present case can only be achieved if petitioner and his wife are impleaded in an adversarial proceeding.

In addition, the Court finds apropos to the instant case the ruling in the similar case of Martinez v. Evangelista where the petitioner in the said case, being the registered owner of certain real properties, sought to strike out the words "married to . . ." appearing in the TCT covering the said properties 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 in the said case is his true and correct civil status. This Court held that:

●     changes in the citizenship of a person or in his status from legitimate to illegitimate or from married to not married are substantial as well as controversial, which can only be established in an appropriate adversary proceeding as a remedy for the adjudication of real and justifiable controversies involving actual conflict of rights the final determination of which depends upon the resolution of issues of nationality, paternity, litigation or legitimacy of the marital status for which existing substantive and procedural laws as well as other rules of court amply provide.

In the present case, it is now apparent that before the trial court can alter the description of the civil status of respondent in the TCTs in question, it will have to receive evidence of and determine respondent's civil status. This requires a full-dress trial rendering the summary proceedings envisaged in Section 108 of PD 1529 inadequate.

2. NO. Publication and service of notice of the petition cannot be dispensed with.

It is settled that a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land through publication and service of notice. However, as found by the CA, respondent failed to comply with the said requirements. In all cases where the authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly void.

It is wrong for the CA to rule in its Amended Decision that publication is not a jurisdictional requirement for the RTC to take cognizance of respondent's petition.