Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

089 Phil 184:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2664. May 30, 1951.]

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, (Banilad Friar Lands Estate), appellant, v. GAN TAN, Petitioner-Appellant.

Bienvenido A. Ebarle for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


1. TORRENS REGISTRATION; RECONSTITUTION OF LOST CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 26; DUTY OF COURT MANDATORY. — Under Republic Act No. 26, if the court, after hearing, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property, and said certificate was in force at the time it was lost, the duty of the court is to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with.

2. ID.; COLLATERAL ATTACK AGAINST TITLE NOT PERMITTED; DOCTRINE OF IRREVOCABILITY AND INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE, REITERATED. — A torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The issue as to whether an alien is or is not qualified to acquire land covered by Torrens title under our Constitution can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590.) Moreover, it is a well known doctrine that a torrens title as a rule is irrevocable and indefeasible (Bachrach Motor Co. v. Kane, 61 Phil., 504), and our duty is to see to it that this is maintained and respected unless challenged in a direct proceeding.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu denying the petition for reconstitution of a certificate of title covering lots Nos. 2 and 3, block No. 36, subdivision plan FLS 1544-D, on the ground that petitioner is not qualified to acquire said lots under our Constitution in the light of the ruling in the Krivenko case.

Petitioner is a Chinese citizen. He bought the lots from the Cebu Heights Company, and obtained from the office of the register of deeds the corresponding certificate of title. The transfer took place on March 14, 1940. The title issued to the petitioner was lost during the last war. And so he filed this petition for reconstitution. The court denied the petition, hence this appeal.

This petition was filed under Republic Act No. 26, which authorizes the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title (section 3a). This Act provides that the petition may be filed either with the register of deeds (section 5), or with the court of first instance (section 10), and that it shall be accompanied with the necessary sources of reconstitution and with an affidavit of the registered owner stating, among other things, that no deed or other instrument affecting the property had been presented for registration, or, if there be any, the nature thereof, the date of its presentation, and the names of the parties, and whether the registration of such deed or instrument is still pending accomplishment (section 5). In the instant case, petitioner complied with all these requirements, and the petition was published in accordance with law.

Section 15, of Republic Act No. 26, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"If the court, after hearing, finds that the documents presented, as supported by parol evidence or otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or has interest therein that the said certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall be issued. The clerk of court shall forward to the register of deeds a certified copy of said order and all the documents which, pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis of the reconstitution. If the court finds that there is no sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the petition shall be dismissed, but such dismissal will not preclude the right of the party or parties entitled thereto to file an application for confirmation of his or their title under the provisions of the Land Registration Act." (Italics supplied.)

It therefore appears that if the court, after hearing, finds that the evidence presented is sufficient and proper to warrant the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property, and said certificate was in force at the time it was lost, the duty of the court is to issue the order of reconstitution. This duty is mandatory. The law does not give the court discretion to deny the reconstitution if all the basic requirements have been complied with.

But the lower court claims that petitioner, even if he complied with all the requirements of the law, is not entitled to have his title reconstituted for the reason that, being an alien, he is not qualified to acquire the land covered by said title under our Constitution. However, we find this claim untenable in the light of the theory that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The rule on this matter is that this issue can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose (Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil., 590). Moreover, it is a well known doctrine that a Torrens title, as a rule, is irrevocable and indefeasible (Bachrach Motor Co. v. Kane, 61 Phil., 504), and our duty is to see to it that this title is maintained and respected unless challenged in a direct proceeding.

To our mind, the only issue here is whether there is a title to be reconstituted. That is the only purpose of the law (Rep. Act No. 26). If there is, then it is the duty of the court to comply with its mandate. Whether the petitioner has the right to acquire the land or not, is beyond the province of this proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. The two proceedings are distinct and should not be confused.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside. Let the record be returned to the lower court for further proceedings.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Jugo, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


PABLO, M., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Gan Tan que es un chino, compro en 14 de marzo de 1940 dos lotes de la Cebu Heights Company y obtuvo el certificado de transferencia de titulo correspondiente. Acudio al Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cebu para pedir la reconstitucion del certificado que, segun el, lo perdio en la ultima guerra.

El articulo 4 del Codigo Civil dispone que son nulos los actos ejecutados contra lo dispuesto en la ley. La Constitucion no es una simple ley: es la ley fundamental del Estado. Bajo expresa disposicion constitucional, no hubo venta entre Cebu Heights Company, por una parte, y Gan Tan, por otra; quiero decir, no existe una venta legal. Gan Tan, por tanto, no obtuvo legalmente el terreno. Si despues de inscrita la venta, el Registrador de Titulos expidio el certificado de transferencia de titulo correspondiente, tales actuaciones son nulas porque provienen de un contrato nulo. De los contratos nulos no puede nacer derecho para obligar a los Tribunales para prestarle los servicios y privilegios a que tiene derecho un comprador legal. El infractor de la ley fundamental con mayor razon no se le debe conceder el mismo derecho que le asiste a uno que cumple la ley. El que acude a los tribunales debe tener las manos limpias.

Opino que Gan Tan no tiene derecho a pedir a los Tribunales de Filipinas la reconstitucion del certificado de transferencia de titulo que comprueba la obtencion ilegal de un terreno por el. Si se le concede este remedio que se concede a todos los que adquieren terrenos de acuerdo con la ley, entonces no se puede impedir en lo futuro la adquisicion de bienes inmuebles por extranjeros mediante maquinaciones mas o menos ingeniosas: ellos continuarian acaparando bienes inmuebles porque, despues de todo, obtienen proteccion de los tribunales.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252