1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; SECTION 112, ACT NO. 496; CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION; PURCHASERS IN GOOD FAITH. — Section 112 of Act No. 496 permits the correction of errors in the technical description of lands covered with a certificate of title (Domingo v. Santos, 65 Phil., 361, 373; Roxas v. Enriquez, 25 Phil., 31, 64), provided that the original decree of registration be not thereby reopened (Cuyugan v. Syquia, 24 Phil., 567) and the "title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith" be not thereby impaired. It appears that when appellants purchased lot 130 they already knew of the existence of appellees’ house in the portions of land by them claimed as well as the existence of the cement wall separating their lot from that of the appellees. The knowledge of such facts should have put them upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to ascertain the true boundary of the land they purchased. Failing in this, they are not truly purchasers in good faith; and, by the demands of equity, they cannot now be permitted to claim as theirs what they have, by their silence, impliedly recognized as belonging to others, and such implied recognition is supported by the true facts of the case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OF COURT. — The trial court, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, is without authority to order the correction, and the proper procedure is a petition in the original registration case. (Sec. 112, Act No. 496; Gustilo v. Maravilla, 48 Phil., 442; also, Legarda and Prieto V8. Saleeby, 31 Phil. . 690.)

Plaintiff spouses, Aaron Nadela and Felipa Jaca, and defendant spouses, Ricardo Cabras and Tranquilina Dacay, are owners of adjoining lots Nos. 1306 and 1303, respectively, of the cadastral survey of Cebu, Cebu, the first having purchased theirs in 1931, and the second, in 1918, for which transfer certificates of titles were respectively issued to them. The record discloses that at the time of their purchase, plaintiffs already knew of the existence of an old cement wall separating their lot from lot No. 1303 of the defendants, and of the house of the latter standing in said lot No. 1303. On February 14, 1933, plaintiffs filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu a complaint alleging that the defendants were encroaching upon, and illegally withholding from them, two portions included in their lot No. 1306, as shown by their sketch plan, Exhibit A. Defendants traversed with the defense that plaintiffs’ sketch plan was incorrect, and that the portions by them occupied form part of their lot No. 1303 ever since its purchase by them from the original owners. A relocation was ordered by the trial court whereby it was found that the recorder, instead of recording 103