Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18834 March 29, 1963
CASIANO CANO, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
JULIA MIRASOL, ET AL., respondents-appellants.
Estefano T. Gaspe for petitioner-appellee.
Patricio M. Miguel and Lorenzo M. Carino for respondents-appellants.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
Lot No. 1152 of the cadastral survey of Cabanatuan, Iloilo, was originally owned by Francisca Cabanas as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 6618. It was later inherited by her nephew Jose Jiloca who on April 16, 1929 sold it to one Jacinto Yniego. Although the deed of sale was not registered in the office of the register of deeds, the title to the property was however given to the vendee which he kept until he died on December 23, 1937.
Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët
On January 31, 1937, Yniego sold a portion of the land having an area of 600 square meters to one Casiano Cano who took possession thereof immediately after the sale, but the heirs of Jacinto Yniego continued keeping in their possession OCT No. 6618 and it was only on May 23, 1958 when they registered the sale executed in favor of their ancestor in the office of the register of deeds as a result of which Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25564 was issued in his name..
Having learned of the registration of the sale of Lot No. 1152 in favor of Jacinto Yniego and the issuance in his name of TCT No. T-25564, Casiano Cano demanded from his heirs that they surrender said title to the register of deeds in order that the sale made in his favor may be annotated on the back thereof, and when they refused to do so, on June 2, 1958 Cano filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo in Cadastral Case No. 72 praying that the aforesaid heirs be ordered to surrender to the register of deeds the title already adverted to within 5 days from receipt of the order in order that the purpose abovementioned may be complied with. The heirs opposed the petition disputing the genuineness and due execution of the sale of the land made by their ancestor in favor of petitioner with the alternative argument that, even if the sale be valid, petitioner's right to ask for relief has already long prescribed so that they should be allowed to hold their owner's certificate of title free from any incumbrance or annotation..
On June 24, 1958, after hearing parties, the court granted the relief prayed for. Respondents' motion for reconsideration having been denied, they appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the case was certified to us on the ground that the only issue involved is one of law..
It is claimed that some time in 1937, Jacinto Yniego, predecessor-in-interest of respondents, sold to petitioner a portion of Lot No. 1152 covering an area of 600 square meters and that notwithstanding his repeated requests that they allow, the registration of his sale on the back of its title which was then in their possession by surrendering it to the register of deeds, respondents refused, and so he filed the instant petition before the cadastral court of Iloilo in order that the relief he desires may be granted. Respondents registered their opposition to the petition and in support thereof they not only disputed the genuineness and due execution of the sale allegedly made in favor of petitioner by their predecessor-in-interest but set up the defense that, even if the sale be valid, the right of petitioner to ask for the relief prayed for has already prescribed under the provisions of Articles 1144 and 2258 of the new Civil Code. This defense was brushed aside by the court a quo, and instead issued an order granting the relief prayed for..
Since the issue raised before the court a quo refers to the genuineness and due execution of the sale of a portion of Lot No. 1152 allegedly made in favor of petitioner by the late Jacinto Yniego, predecessor-in-interest of respondents, and to the prescription of the supposed right of petitioner to have his sale registered on the back of the transfer certificate of title issued in the name of the vendor, we believe it unnecessary to dwell on the merits of the controversy for the reason that the court a quo lacks jurisdiction to act thereon in its capacity as cadastral or registration court. As this Court has aptly said: "If any party claims that a person registering a deed of sale can no longer do so, because the deed was executed more than 10 years before, such objection must be raised in an ordinary civil action, for a cadastral court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the right to register or annotate a deed of sale has already lapsed. ... For the same reasons stated above, the claim made by the oppositors against the sale, i.e., that it was tainted with fraud and duress, can also be ventilated only in an ordinary civil action in an ordinary court and not before a a cadastral court.1 (emphasis supplied) We may add, considering that the instant petition was filed apparently under the authority of Section 111 of Act 496, the court a quo also lacks jurisdiction to act thereon in view of the controversial issues raised by respondents.2 Its duty is to dismiss the petition in order that said issues may be threshed out in an ordinary case before a regular court. (Tangunan v. Republic of the Philippines, 50 O.G., 115; Jimenez v. De Castro, 40 O.G., 3, 1st. Supp. p. 80; Government of the Philippines v. Jalandoni, 44 O.G. 1837; Garcia v. Belzunce, L-2413, October 27, 1949; Miraflor v. Leano, L-6097, July 13, 1953; Laguia v. Casimiro, L-7852, December 17, 1953; Enriquez v. Atienza, L-9986, March 29, 1957; Angeles v. Razon, L-13679, October 26, 1959; Rehabilitation Finance Corporation v. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., L-14303, March 24, 1960; Government of the Republic of the Philippines v. Laperal, L-14228, June 30, 1960; Floriza v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al., L-15043, February 27, 1961).
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside. No costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ. concur.
Footnotes
1Mendoza v. Abrera, et al., L-105l9, April 30, 1959.
2This section stands on the same footing as Section 112 of the same Act.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
