356 Phil. 1037
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"On October 7, 1993, the petitioners herein filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City alleging, inter alia, the following:
‘-- On May 2, 1967, during his lifetime. Louis P. Dawson offered to buy on installment from the SISKA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, per contract to sell, a parcel of land in Quezon City, consisting of 638 square meters for P27,632.00, now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-58706 (248057);
-- On June 3, 1971, Louis P. Dawson died intestate;
-- Upon his death, the petitioners assumed the rights and obligations of deceased Louis P. Dawson in the aforementioned contract to sell, paying in full the selling price of the lot from their own funds, which payment was completed in 1978;
-- With said full payment, vendor SISKA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION executed on March 16, 1978 a deed of absolute sale in favor of deceased Louis P. Dawson who had died seven (7) years earlier, instead of in favor of the petitioners who assumed and to whom [were] transferred the rights and obligations of deceased Louis P. Dawson upon the latter’s death;
-- Because of the obvious error, Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-58706 (248057) was issued in the name of deceased Louis P. Dawson instead of those of petitioners -- hence, the petition for the cancellation and correction of TCT No. RT - 58706 (248057) in the name of Louis P. Dawson and the issuance of a new title in the names of herein petitioners, to wit: Dr. Ernesto C. Dawson (1/5), Louis P. Dawson, Jr. (1/5), Benjamin C. Dawson (1/5), Josephine Dawson Soliven (1/5), Ralph D. Cudilla (1/15), Eliza C. Isip (1/15) and Larry D. Cudilla (1/15);
-- this petition is filed pursuant to Section 108 of P.D. 1529 (formerly Section 112 of Act No. 496);
-- the herein petition is not without legal precedent;
-- the petition is not controversial, considering the unanimity among all the interested parties, who are all petitioners herein, being the only surviving heirs of deceased Louis P. Dawson.’ (pages 1-6 of the Record).
"On December 1, 1993, the respondent court issued an Order allowing the petitioners to present ex-parte their evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court. (page 16 of the Record).
"On December 20, 1993, the respondent court rendered its first assailed Resolution (pages 36-38 thereof), the dispositive portion of which was earlier quoted.
"On February 2, 1993, the petitioner herein filed a motion for reconsideration (pages 39-48 of the Record) from the afore-quoted Resolution of the respondent court.
"Said motion was denied by the respondent court in its second assailed Order (dated March 21, 1994) which was earlier quoted."
Hence, this petition for review.[5]
"Petitioners’ contention that the respondent court erred in holding that Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 ‘does not apply’ was torpedoed by the following:
--Wrong Action. Petitioners’ evidence showed that their father, Louis P. Dawson, died on June 3, 1971 (Exhibit ‘D’), while the deed of absolute sale for the subject parcel was executed on March 16, 1978 by the Siska Development Corporation in favor of Louis P. Dawson (Exhibit ‘E’). It was on this basis that a certificate of title (TCT No. RT-58706) was issued in the name of Louis P. Dawson, which title was entered at the Office of the Register of Deeds in Quezon City on August 17, 1978. As per the tax declaration and real property tax bill, the subject parcel is still in the name of Louis P. Dawson (pages 23-24, tsn of December 8, 1993), although his wife (Soledad Dawson) died in 1988 (Exhibit ‘I’). We are intrigued why the petitioners only took action by filing the petition for cancellation of the certificate of title in their father’s name only on October 7, 1993. Was it designed to evade the payment of the necessary taxes to the government?
--Legal shortcut. As aptly observed by the respondent court in its assailed resolution, ‘the case at bar pertains more to the partition of the estate which will in effect transfer ownership of title of the property to the petitioners as compulsory heirs of the decedent.’ Hence, Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (which calls for summary proceedings) does not apply. Certainly, to allow petitioners’ move will open the floodgate [of] tax evasion[s]. Petitioners’ posture can be likened to a petition seeking to change/alter one’s paternity or citizenship by merely seeking the correction/revision of birth certificate. Such is not allowable -- there must be a petition for naturalization. In the case at bench, [w]e further took note of the fact that the wife of the property owner (Soledad Dawson) died in 1988, almost ten years after a certificate of title was issued by the respondent Register of Deeds in the name of Louis P. Dawson.
"With the foregoing, [w]e find no error committed by the respondent court in handing down its assailed resolution (dated December 20, 1993) and Order (dated March 21, 1994). The law abhors shortcuts."[6]
"The Court of Appeals erred in affirming that Section 108 of P.D. 1529 does not apply herein."
Petitioners contend that, as the sole heirs of Louis P. Dawson, they assumed upon his death in 1971 the obligations under the contract to sell that he had entered into in 1967. Thus, when the contract price was fully paid by them in 1978, ownership over the property in question should have been transferred to them, and not to the deceased, Louis P. Dawson. Since the issuance of the aforesaid TCT in the name of the deceased was manifestly an error, petitioners posit that they can avail of the remedy provided under the aforecited statutory provision.Sole Issue: Applicability of Section 108, PD 1529
Section 108 of PD 1529 reads:
"SEC. 108. 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 to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that [a] 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 and determine 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 the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value 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 provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered."[7]
"In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. Otherwise stated, in a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; whereas in a contract to sell, title is retained by the vendor until full payment of the price. In the latter contract, payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective."It is undisputed that Louis P. Dawson died in June 1971, without having completed the installments on the property. His heirs, herein petitioners, then took over the contract to sell, assumed his obligations by paying the selling price of the lot from their own funds, and completed the payment in 1978. Accordingly, the ownership of the lot had not been vested in Louis P. Dawson during his lifetime.
"Simeon de la Cruz purchased a parcel of land on a ten-year installment basis. He died in 1939 and his wife died in 1942, leaving three children. The vendor of the land executed the corresponding deed of sale over the land in 1950 upon completion of the payment. The transfer certificate of title was then issued in the name of the deceased buyer, Simeon de la Cruz. Petitioner filed this petition under the original land registration case praying that the court order the Register of Deeds to substitute the name of Regino de la Cruz, petitioner herein, for that of Simeon de la Cruz in the transfer certificate of title. Petitioner claimed that Simeon during his lifetime transferred all rights over the land to him. The petition carried the conformity of the heirs of the deceased Simeon de la Cruz. Respondent court denied the petition on the ground that the substitution of owners cannot be ordered by the court acting on its jurisdiction granted by the Land Registration Law, because Simeon de la Cruz and Regino de la Cruz are two different persons. The court also said that the petition should be brought before an ordinary court for the protection of the interested parties.Accordingly, petitioners may avail of the remedy provided under Section 108 of PD 1529. This, however, does not necessarily mean that they are automatically entitled to the relief prayed for -- the cancellation of the title issued in the name of Louis P. Dawson and the issuance of new titles. It is incumbent upon them to satisfy the requirements and conditions prescribed under the statutory provision.
Held: The danger that respondent judge feared that other interested parties might be prejudiced of their rights is remote, considering that the heirs of Simeon de la Cruz signified their conformity to the petition. Intestate proceedings are not necessary when the heirs have amicably settled the estate among themselves and when the deceased left no debts. Section 112 of the Land Registration Law (now Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529) authorizes the court upon proper petition and notification to order the cancellation of a certificate of title and substitute the name of the person who appears to be entitled to the property. The order of respondent judge is revoked and the Register of Deeds is ordered to make the necessary substitution."