This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Land Registration ordering the registration of the land described in  the application and overruling the objections  of  the respondents, with costs.

We are entirely satisfied  from a careful reading of the proofs and record in this cause that the court, upon the facts, was clearly right in  its decision;  and we would have no hesitation whatever in  affirming the judgment  appealed from if it were not for the considerations about to be expressed.

It appears from the record that the proceeding was originally commenced on the 22d day of August, 1908, in the name of Emiliano Soriano personally.  The regular notices were issued and published, the return day therein set being the 10th day of March, 1909.   On the 30th day of March an application was made by counsel for the applicant for leave to amend his application so that the  applicant should be Emiliano Soriano,  as administrator of the goods, chattels and credits of Maria Soriano, deceased,  instead of Emiliano Soriano personally.   That amendment  was permitted and from that time forward the proceedings  were conducted in the name of Emiliano Soriano, as such administrator. On the 10th day of June a decision was rendered in the case, after due trial, terminating with the following resolution: 

"The opposition of the respondents is overruled and, a general declaration in default having been made,  it is decreed that the  lands described in the application belong to the applicant, and that they be registered in favor of the applicant, Emiliano Soriano, as administrator of the property of Maria Soriano, deceased."

We find no authority anywhere in the law relative to the registration of lands,  or in the amendments thereto, permitting an application to be made by an administrator of the goods, chattels  and credits of a deceased person  for the registration of the lands of which said decedent died seized. In the absence of a statute expressly authorizing  the administrator of the deceased owner thereof to that end, we must hold that such  administrator has no such authority and that  the registration  of lands  in  his name  as such administrator is without warrant of law.

As we have before stated, it appears that the service and publication  of  the notices following  the application presented herein were completed before the amendment of the application changing the personality of  the applicant.  As a result no one  can, from that point of view, claim to have been in any way deceived if the proceedings and judgment below are amended so as to register the land in the name of the applicant  personally instead of as administrator. There are indications in the record also that the applicant is the only heir at law of the deceased Maria Soriano and that  he is, therefore, the only person  interested in said lands, conceding that Maria Soriano died owning the same. For these reasons we do not see the necessity of requiring the reservice and republication of said notices in case we order an amendment of the proceedings and decree in the case  registering the land in the  name of  the  applicant personally.  We are not. however, fully satisfied that the applicant is  the only heir at law of the  deceased Maria Soriano and, therefore, the sole owner of the lands in question.   Nor are we fully satisfied that there were not other appearances in the case besides that of the respondents now before  the court.  It is  possible  that there are persons, co-owners with the applicant, who may have appeared on the return day of the  notice and who subsequently may have withdrawn their appearances relying upon the amendment of the application making the applicant the administrator instead of Emiliano Soriano personally, believing that, as heirs, their interests would be fully protected if the lands were registered in the name of the administrator instead of the applicant personally.

In  view of  these doubts, we open the judgment and remand the  cause, with  instructions to the court below to take proofs as to the points upon which we have herein expressed doubt.  If the court find from such proofs that the applicant is the sole  owner of the lands in question, he shall, if the applicant consent thereto, register the  lands in the name of the applicant personally, amending all proceedings to conform thereto.  If  the applicant refuse to consent, an order shall be entered dismissing the application. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.