REYES vs. SY G.R. No.

185620
 

Facts: The controversy arose from a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and Damages with Prayer
for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order filed by MFR Farms, Inc. (MFR) against respondents
docketed as Civil Case No. 1245-M. MFR complained of respondents commercial and industrial use of
their property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-198753, and sought the enforcement
of the encumbrance contained in their title. MFR likewise asked for the payment of damages suffered by
its pig farm resulting from respondents illegal use of their property.

July 19, 1999, at the public auction of the subject property covered by TCT No. T-198753, MFR was
declared as the highest bidder. On even date, Sheriff Legaspi issued a Certificate of Sale [16]which was
registered with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan Province.

After more than five (5) years, on September 17, 2004, with respondents failing to exercise their right of
redemption, MFR filed a Motion[17]asking the RTC to issue an order directing the Register of Deeds of
Bulacan Province to cancel TCT No. T-198753 in the name of respondents, and issue a new certificate of
title in the name of MFR.

On September 28, 2004, the RTC denied the Motion holding that a mere motion is not sufficient for the
cancellation of a certificate of title. The RTC ruled that under Section 107 [18] of Presidential Decree No.
1529, the Property Registration Decree, a petition and a hearing are required for the issuance of a new
certificate of title.

On December 1, 2004, MFR filed a Petition [19] in the same case, under the same docket number, Civil
Case No. 1245-M, before the same execution court. In this new petition, MFR impleaded the Register of
Deeds as additional defendant and prayed for the same reliefs as those prayed for in their previous
motion with an additional prayer for the issuance of an order directing respondents to immediately
surrender the Owners Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-198753.

Issue: Proceeding from the validity of the execution sale and the consolidation of Reyes ownership over
the subject property, whether Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 contemplates the filing of a
separate cadastral case before the RTC acting as a land registration court.
 

Held: Yes. Reyes must institute a separate cadastral action initiated via petition.

Notwithstanding the validity of the execution sale and Reyes consolidation of ownership over
the subject property upon the lapse of the redemption period, we hold that Section 107 of Presidential
Decree No. 1529 contemplates the filing of a separate and original action before the RTC, acting as a
land registration court.

Reyes argues that to require him to file his petition in another court would unduly divest the RTC
of its jurisdiction to enforce its final and executory decision. Reyes invokes our ruling in Natalia Realty,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals[44]  where we declared that jurisdiction of the court to execute its judgment
continues even after the judgment has become final for the purpose of enforcement of judgment. [45]

Reyes reasoning is off tangent. Natalia is inapplicable because the execution proceedings in this
case have been completed and was terminated upon the execution sale of the subject property. Reyes
already consolidated ownership over the subject property; as owner, he has a right to have the same
registered in his name. This transfer of title to the subject property in Reyes name is no longer part of
the execution proceedings: the fact of levy and sale constitutes execution, not so is the action for the
issuance of a new title

It is clear that PD 1529 provides the solution to respondents quandary.  The reasons behind the
law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a registered landowner (in this case the petitioner)
and prevents the fraudulent or mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the
judgment obligation. x x
While we certainly will not condone any attempt by petitioner to frustrate the
ends of justice − the only way to describe his refusal to surrender his owners duplicates
of the certificates of title despite the final and executory judgment against him
− respondent, on the other hand, cannot simply disregard proper procedure for the
issuance to it of new certificates of title. There was a law on the matter and
respondent should have followed it.

In any event, respondent can still file the proper petition with the cadastral
court for the issuance of new titles in its name.[48] (Emphasis supplied).

 Plainly, Reyes must institute a separate cadastral action initiated via petition.
Padilla jr. vs. Philippine Producers Cooperative Marketing Association
G.R. No. 141256

Facts; Petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of the following real

properties: Lot Nos. 2904-A (covered by TCT No. T-36090), 2312-C-5 (covered by TCT

No. T-3849), and 2654 (covered by TCT No. T-8053), all situated in Bago City.
 Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim against
petitioner.

On April 24, 1987, respondent filed a civil case against petitioner for collection

of a sum of money in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City. On July 4, 1990, sheriff

Renato T. Arimas auctioned off the lots to satisfy the judgment, with respondent as the

only bidder. On July 10, 1990, ex-officio provincial sheriff and clerk of court Antonio

Arbis executed a certificate of sale in favor of respondent. On August 13, 1990, the

certificate of sale was recorded in the Register of DeedOn May 17, 1995, respondent

filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles over the properties in

its name, alleging that the Register of Deeds (RD) of Bago City would not issue new

titles (in respondents name) unless the owners copies were first surrendered to him.

Respondent countered that such surrender was impossible because this was an

involuntary sale and the owners copies were with petitioner. [

Petitioner also argues that respondent failed to follow the correct procedure for the
cancellation of a certificate of title and the issuance of a new one, which is contained
in Section 107 of PD 1529.

Issue: Whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling

petitioners certificates of title and new ones issued in its name.

Held: No. The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely
move, for the issuance of new titles.
The issue of whether to acquire new titles by mere motion or through a separate

petition is an entirely different matter.

 

Petitioner is correct in assailing as improper respondents filing of a mere motion

for the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a result of

petitioners refusal to surrender his owners duplicate TCTs.

 

Indeed, this called for a separate cadastral action initiated via petition.

Section 107 of PD 1529,[22] formerly Section 111 of Act 496,[23] provides:

Sec. 107. Surrender of withheld duplicate certificates.Where it is necessary to
issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which
divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder
to surrender the owners duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file
a petition in court to compel the surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds.
The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry
of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person
withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court,
or if for any reason the outstanding owners duplicate certificate cannot be
delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the
issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the
outstanding duplicate.
 
 Respondent alleges that it resorted to filing the contested motion because it could not
obtain new certificates of title, considering that petitioner refused to surrender his
owners duplicate TCTs. This contention is incorrect. The proper course of action was
to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for the issuance of new titles.

It is clear that PD 1529 provides the solution to respondents quandary. The

reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a registered

landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent or mistaken
conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment obligation. Petitioner

contends that only his interest in the subject lots, and not that of his wife who was not

a party to the suit, should have been subjected to execution, and he should have had

the opportunity to prove as much.

 

While we certainly will not condone any attempt by petitioner to frustrate the

ends of justice ― the only way to describe his refusal to surrender his owners

duplicates of the certificates of title despite the final and executory judgment against

him ― respondent, on the other hand, cannot simply disregard proper procedure for

the issuance to it of new certificates of title. There was a law on the matter and

respondent should have followed it.

 In any event, respondent can still file the proper petition with the cadastral
court for the issuance of new titles in its name.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53085 is hereby REVERSED. The order of the

Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City ordering the Register of Deeds of Bago City to

issue new certificates of title in favor of respondent is ANULLED.

SPOUSES ERNESTO IBIAS, SR. and GONIGONDA IBIAS, Petitioners 
vs.
BENITA PEREZ MACABEO, Respondent

G.R. No. 205004

Facts: Benita] filed a complaint for annulment of title against [Spouses Ibias] on 12 November 2001. She
averred, among others, that she is one of the heirs of Albina Natividad Y. Perez and Marcelo Ibias, both
deceased and registered owners of the parcel of land covered by [TCT] No. 24605 of the Register of
Deeds of Manila. On 13 August 1999, [Ernesto] executed an Affidavit of Loss alleging that the Owner’s
Duplicate of TCT No. 24605 was missing among his files. In support of his petition for reconstitution, he
testified that said owner’s duplicate [of] title was lost while in his parents’ possession. Such petition was
granted and the title was reconstituted, now TCT No. 245124 under the names of [Spouses Ibias]. For
this reason, [Benita] filed a perjury case against defendantappellant Ernesto docketed as Criminal Case
No. 348152 pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila.

[Benita] averred that defendant-appellant Ernesto made it appear that the title was lost or misplaced
while in the possession of the registered owners when in truth and in fact, he knew fully well that said
title was in the possession of [Benita]. Proof of such knowledge was shown by his letter dated 23 July
1999 where he asked [Benita] for TCT No. 24605, which was in the latter’s possession. At the time
defendant-appellant Ernesto executed the Affidavit of Loss and filed his petition for reconstitution, he
knew that the title was intact and in the possession of [Benita]. The issuance of the reconstituted title in
favor of [the Spouses Ibias] thus deprived [Benita] and her other siblings of their right over the subject
property.

Issue: Whether or not the proper remedy in this case is section 109 or section 107?

Held: Sec 107 Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates is the proper remedy and not section 109
Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate.

There is really no lost title in this case.

In the present case, the allegedly lost owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 24605 was in the possession of
Benita.1âwphi1 The lost TCT was offered in evidence during the trial. 22 The Spouses Ibias did not contest
the genuineness and authenticity of said TCT. The Spouses Ibias only questioned the submission of a
photocopy of the TCT, but the trial court, after hearing the arguments of both parties, admitted the
photocopy as part of the evidence presented by Benita. There is no reason to justify the issuance of a
reconstituted title in the name of Spouses Ibias; hence, there is no error in the cancellation of the same
reconstituted title.
Ernesto claimed loss of TCT No. 24605, and instituted reconstitution proceedings. Presidential Decree
No. 1529 (PD 1529) provides for the procedure in case of loss of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title:

Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. – In case of loss or theft of an owner’s
duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his
behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is
discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for
the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the
fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and
registered.

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and
due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of
the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of
this decree.

Ernesto claimed that he believed that the original owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 24605 was lost
after he asked Benita for it then she failed to show it to him. Ernesto chose to omit facts and to avail of
Section 109 as remedy instead of Section 107. Section 107 of PD 1529 reads:

Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. - Where it is necessary to issue a new
certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner
against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or
failure of the holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a
petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may
order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same,
and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person
withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the
outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the
same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all
duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rulings of the trial and appellate courts which cancelled TCT
No. 245124 and reinstated TCT No. 24605.