Republic of the Philippines vs. Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille

A subdivision plan approval under Section 44 of Act 496 cannot be used to include in a registered title an area not previously brought under the Torrens system, especially where the increase is a former river bed and no notice to interested parties was given; original registration proceedings under Act 496 are required.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of Lands, sued the Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille, the Land Registration Commissioner, and the Register of Deeds of Davao City over certificates of title derived from Luisa Villa Abrille’s registered land. The land traced its origin to Original Certificate of Title No. 5609 issued on June 28, 1916 to Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna and later transferred to Luisa Villa Abrille under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439. The dispute concerned an 82,127-square-meter increase, alleged to be a dried-up portion of the Davao River, and the requirements of Act 496 for bringing unregistered land under the Torrens system. Section 44 of Act 496 governed subdivision of registered land, while original registration required notice, publication, and hearing.

Lot No. 379-B-2-B was originally registered on June 28, 1916 in the Registry Book of the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga as Vol. A27, Page 40 under Original Certificate of Title No. 5609, Case No. 1, G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 317, in the name of Francisco Villa Abrille Lim Juna, father of Luisa Villa Abrille. Upon the death of the original owner, the property was inherited by Luisa Villa Abrille, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439 was issued in her name. The parcel, located in Davao City, contained 525,652 square meters, more or less. During her lifetime, Luisa caused the subdivision of the land into Lots Nos. 379-B-2-B-1 and 379-B-2-B-2 under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322, which the Land Registration Commissioner approved on March 17, 1967. Under that plan, Lot No. 379-B-2-B-1 contained 30,100 square meters, while Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2 contained 577,679 square meters, for a total of 607,779 square meters—82,127 square meters more than the area covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439.

Ten days after the approval, on March 27, 1967, Luisa secured an order from the Court of First Instance of Davao in LRC (GLRO) Doc. No. 9969 directing the Register of Deeds of Davao to correct the area of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1439, cancel it, and issue Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-18886 and T-18887 in lieu thereof. On March 30, 1967, the Register of Deeds registered Lot No. 379-B-2-B-1 and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18886 in Luisa’s name, and on the same date registered Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2 and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18887, also in her name. The registration of Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2 included the 82,127-square-meter excess. The parties admitted that the increase was formerly a portion of the Davao River that dried up because of a change in the river’s course; that the portion adjoined Lot No. 379-B-2-B and abutted the Davao River; and that it was fully planted with coconuts, bananas, and other seasonal crops by the defendants through their predecessor-in-interest, with the coconuts having long been fruit-bearing.

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18886 was subsequently cancelled by virtue of a deed of sale, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-19077 was issued in the name of Gaudencio Consunji, a purchaser in good faith and for value. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18887 was later cancelled by an order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch 1, in Special Proceedings No. 1357, entitled “In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Luisa Villa Abrille,” approving a project of partition. In lieu thereof, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20690, T-20692, T-20701, T-20702, T-20703, T-20732, T-20733, T-20713, T-23015, T-20725, and T-20726 were issued to Huang Siu Sin, Josefino Huang, Miguel Huang, Milagros Huang, and others, based on Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-71236 duly approved by the Land Registration Commissioner. Of these certificates, only Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713, and T-20690 contained the increase in area; the others did not. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18886 did not contain any portion of the increase.

The parties stipulated that the increase in area was made with the knowledge of the Land Registration Commissioner and the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV; that no registered owner had been affected or prejudiced by the increase, as only Luisa Villa Abrille, as registered owner, held property adjacent to the parcel in question; and that the issuance of the Order Annex “B” was without notice to the Director of Lands. Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322 had also been approved by the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV, through an Order dated March 27, 1967, on the strength of the Report of the Land Registration Commissioner. The parties admitted that there was no notice to persons interested, including the Director of Lands, before the petition was heard.

On May 9, 1969, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, filed a complaint for annulment of certificate of title with the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch 1, alleging that the registration of Lot No. 379-B-2-B-2 with the 82,127-square-meter excess was not in accordance with law for lack of the required notice and publication under Act 496, that the excess was formerly a portion of the Davao River and therefore public domain, and that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18887 was null and void ab initio. The trial court found that the increase from 525,652 square meters to 607,779 square meters, or 82,127 square meters, had been included in Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713, and T-20690, and that no notice had been given to interested persons, including the Director of Lands, before the petition for approval of the subdivision plan was heard.

• Lack of Notice: The Heirs of Luisa Villa Abrille, as defendant-appellant, maintained that the lower court erred in holding the approval of Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-69322 of no legal effect merely on the ground of lack of notice to interested persons, and in ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713, and T-20690.
• Government Acquiescence: The Heirs contended that since the government agencies having to do with lands knew all the time of the increase in area in Subdivision Plan Psd-69322, and the government agencies concerned tolerated if not abetted the ultimate inclusion of the increase, they should not be made to suffer the effect of the allegedly wrong procedure or step taken in the approval of the subdivision plan.
• Good Faith and Reliance on Section 44: The Heirs claimed that it was their honest belief that the legal remedy taken in seeking approval of their subdivision plan was well within the law, particularly Section 44 of Act 496, as amended.

• Approval Does Not Validate: The Republic, as plaintiff-appellee, maintained that the approval of the subdivision plan with the increase in area by the Land Registration Commission does not lend validity to the said subdivision plan.
• Invalid Issuance Due to Lack of Notice: The Republic argued that the issuance of the four transfer certificates of title over the increased area was improper and invalid notwithstanding the conformity of the Land Registration Commissioner and the subsequent order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV, approving the subdivision plan, because the required giving of notice to all parties interested in the petition for approval was not followed.

• Cancellation of TCTs: Whether the lower court erred in ordering the cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-20725, T-20701, T-20713, and T-20690 covering the 82,127-square-meter increase.
• Inclusion of Unregistered Area Through Subdivision Plan: Whether the increased area, which was formerly a river bed and not previously brought under the Torrens system, could be included in registered titles through the approval of Subdivision Plans (LRC) Psd-69322 and Psd-71236 under Section 44 of Act 496.
• Notice to Interested Parties: Whether the approval of the subdivision plans and the issuance of the titles were invalid for lack of notice to interested parties, particularly the Director of Lands.

• Cancellation of TCTs: Yes. The lower court correctly cancelled the four certificates because they admittedly covered the 82,127-square-meter increase that had not been brought under the Torrens system.
• Inclusion of Unregistered Area Through Subdivision Plan: No. Section 44 of Act 496 is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands; it does not authorize inclusion of land or area not embraced in the title or in excess of what is stated in the title.
• Notice to Interested Parties: Yes. The approval was without notice to all parties in interest, particularly the Director of Lands, and the requisites for original registration under Act 496 were not satisfied.

• Cancellation of TCTs: The lower court acted correctly. The step taken by defendant-appellant in petitioning for approval of Subdivision Plan Psd-69322 and then Psd-71236 to include the questioned increased area of 82,127 square meters was unwarranted and irregular. The increased area was not registered land but formerly a river bed, and it was too large to be a mere mistake in the original registration. To bring it under Act 496, proceedings in registration of land title should have been filed instead of an ordinary approval of subdivision plan. Since the four transfer certificates of title admittedly covered the increase, cancellation was proper.
• Inclusion of Unregistered Area Through Subdivision Plan: Recourse under Section 44 of Act 496 is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands. In this case, the 82,127 square meters had not yet been brought under the Torrens system. A subdivision of registered land under Section 44 does not authorize inclusion of land or area not embraced in the title or in excess of what is stated in the title. The approval by the court of such subdivision plan does not lend validity to it; the subdivision must be limited to the area stated in the title. Neither amendment of the title under Section 112 of Act 496 would be a valid remedy. Even assuming the land was an accretion, the fact that the riparian estate is registered does not ipso facto bring its accretion under the operation of the Land Registration Act. No decree of registration based upon final judgment after due publication, notice, and hearing had been issued. Original registration proceedings were required.
• Notice to Interested Parties: Even under Section 44 of Act 496, notice before the hearing is required. The parties admitted that there was no notice to persons interested, including the Director of Lands, before the petition was heard. The approval of Subdivision Plans Psd-69322 and Psd-71236 was without notice to all parties in interest, more particularly the Director of Lands. For an applicant to have an imperfect or incomplete title or claim to land originally registered under Act 496, all the requisites for original registration must be satisfied. The Court enumerated thirteen requisites: (1) survey of land by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor; (2) filing of application for registration; (3) setting of the date for the initial hearing by the court; (4) transmittal of the application and date of initial hearing, together with documents and evidence, by the Clerk of Court to the Land Registration Commission; (5) publication of notice of filing and date and place of hearing in the Official Gazette; (6) service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants, and those known to have interests by the sheriff; (7) filing of answer by any person; (8) hearing of the case by the court; (9) promulgation of judgment; (10) issuance of the decree by the court declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration; (11) entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Commission; (12) sending of a copy of the decree to the corresponding Register of Deeds; and (13) transcription of the decree in the registration book and issuance of the owner’s duplicate original certificate of title upon payment of fees. Because these requisites were not complied with, the lower court committed no error.

• Section 44 of Act 496 is limited to previously registered lands — A subdivision of registered land under Section 44 does not authorize inclusion of land or area not embraced in the title or in excess of what is stated in the title; approval of a subdivision plan by the court does not lend validity to such inclusion. In this case, the 82,127-square-meter increase was formerly a river bed and not previously under the Torrens system, so it could not be included through mere subdivision plan approval.
• Original registration proceedings are required for unregistered land — To bring unregistered land under the Land Registration Act, an applicant must comply with the requisites for original registration. The Court enumerated thirteen requisites: (1) survey by the Bureau of Lands or a duly licensed private surveyor; (2) filing of application; (3) setting the date for initial hearing; (4) transmittal of the application and date to the Land Registration Commission; (5) publication in the Official Gazette; (6) service of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants, and known interested parties; (7) filing of answer; (8) hearing; (9) promulgation of judgment; (10) issuance of the decree declaring the decision final and instructing the Land Registration Commission to issue a decree of confirmation and registration; (11) entry of the decree in the Land Registration Commission; (12) sending a copy to the Register of Deeds; and (13) transcription in the registration book and issuance of the owner’s duplicate original certificate of title. None were complied with.
• Notice and hearing in land registration — Even under Section 44 of Act 496, notice before hearing is required. The parties admitted no notice to interested persons, including the Director of Lands. The lack of notice rendered the approval and titles invalid.
• Accretion does not automatically come under the Torrens system — Even assuming the increase was an accretion, the fact that the riparian estate is registered does not ipso facto bring the accretion under the operation of the Land Registration Act; a decree of registration based on final judgment after due publication, notice, and hearing is required.

• “It should be remembered that recourse under Section 44 of Act 496, which the predecessor-in-interest (Luisa Villa Abrille) of the herein defendant-appellant took, is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands.” — This states the controlling rule that Section 44 cannot be used to bring unregistered land under the Torrens system.
• “In order to bring this increase in area, which the parties admitted to have been a former river bed of the Davao River, under the operation and coverage of the Land Registration Law, Act 496, proceedings in registrations of land title should have been filed Instead of an ordinary approval of subdivision plan.” — This explains why the subdivision plan approval was improper for the 82,127-square-meter increase.
• “Worse still, the approval of Subdivision Plans (LRC) Psd-69322 and Psd-71236 was without notice to all parties in interest, more particularly the Director of Lands.” — This identifies the lack of notice as an independent ground invalidating the approvals.
• “Hence, with the foregoing requisites not having been complied with, the lower court committed no error in its appealed decision dated January 27, 1970.” — This is the conclusion affirming the trial court after finding that the requisites for original registration were not satisfied.

• Section 44, Act 496 (Land Registration Law) — This provision was invoked by Luisa Villa Abrille and her heirs as the remedy for approval of the subdivision plan and issuance of new titles. The Court held that recourse under Section 44 is good only insofar as it covers previously registered lands; it does not authorize inclusion of land or area not embraced in the title or in excess of what is stated in the title.
• Section 112, Act 496 — The trial court cited this provision as an invalid remedy for amending the title to include the increased area. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
• Act 496, as amended — The Land Registration Law required original registration proceedings, including survey, application, notice, publication, hearing, judgment, decree, and transcription, before unregistered land could be brought under the Torrens system. The Court found that these requisites were not satisfied for the 82,127-square-meter increase.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Martin, JJ., concur.