[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 IN THE 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.

DECISION

MARTIN, JR., J :
p

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, Bsd051727-002774(AR), Registered in the Name of Milagros Pasilaban, Department of Agrarian Reform, Province of Camarines Sur, Represented by Provincial Agrarian Reform 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:

Milagros Pasilaban is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land described 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 area on 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:

"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 be done 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, becomes incontrovertible, 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 to the 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 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 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 provision of 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 in Domingo vs. Santos, Ongsiako, Lim y Cia (55 Phil. 361, 373374), 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 is actually 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's attorney-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

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 are identical 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 discrepancy be 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 affected or 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.

We observe, however, that the lower court erred in the designation of the petition filed 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. The Order of the court a quo dated November 5, 1997 is AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.