Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

109 Phil 342:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14601. August 31, 1960.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA and JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA, Oppositors-Appellees.

R. B. de los Reyes and B. V. Coruña for Appellant.

Rodolfo R. Reyes for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. REGISTRATION OF TITLE TO LAND; CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; RECONSTITUTION; JUDICIALLY RECONSTITUTED TITLE NOT SUBJECT TO ENCUMBRANCE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 7 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 26. — Unlike an extrajudicially reconstituted title where there is statutory reservation that the new title "shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed" (Sec. 7, Republic Act No. 26), a judicially reconstituted title, by express provision of the statute (Sec. 10, ibid.) , "shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in section 7" of the Act.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CADASTRAL COURT; PROCEEDING IN REM; LACK OF NOTICE NOT JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. — Failure to send notice by registered mail to the petitioner bank when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect (Aguilar v. Caoagdan, Et Al., G. R. L-12580, April 30, 1959; Sepagan v. Davillo, 53 Phil., 412), and the proceedings being in rem, the cadastral court acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s title upon compliance with the required posting notices and publication in the Official Gazette.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHRASE "CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, CONSIDERED LOST OR DESTROYED, BE FOUND OR RECOVERED" CANNOT REFER TO THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE. — The phrase "certificate of title, considered lost or destroyed, be found or recovered," cannot refer to the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (Santiago Syjuco Inc. v. Philippine National Bank, Et Al., 86 Phil., 320; 47 Off. Gaz. Supp. No. 12, p. 1).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROBATIVE VALUE OF A JUDICIALLY RECONSTITUTED TITLE. — A judicially reconstituted title has the same validity and legal effect as the original thereof, and is not subject to the reservation that it shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original at the time of loss or destruction but which entry or notation has not been made on the reconstituted title. The limitation that reconstitution of title should be limited to the certificate as it stood at the time of its loss or destruction has reference only to changes which alter or affect title of the registered owner and not to mere liens and other encumbrances.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


On June 6, 1958, the Philippine National Bank filed a petition in the Cadastral Case No. 34 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, alleging that Lots Nos. 3107, 3109 and 3121 of the Cadastral Survey of San Carlos, Negros Occidental, were originally registered in the names of the late Jose de la Viña and his wife, Maria Española, under Original Certificates of Title Nos. 23883, 23881 and 23876, respectively; that Carlos Esteban, as judicial administrator of the estate of the late Jose de la Viña (Special Proceedings No. 6812 of the same court of first instance) and as attorney-in fact of Maria Española, was, upon proper authority from the court, granted a loan of P300.00 by the petitioner, giving as security therefore, Lot 3109, which lien was duly registered with the office of the register of deeds and annotated at the back of Original Certificate of Title No. 23881 as entry No. 74616; that about two weeks later or on August 6, 1940. Maria Española, as co-owner of lots 3107 and 3121, and Carlos Esteban, acting in his same capacity as judicial administrator, jointly executed a real estate mortgage in favor of the petitioner for the amount of P1,200.00, which mortgage was approved by the probate court, registered with the office of the register of deeds, and annotated at the back of Original Certificates of Title Nos. 23883 and 23876; that as the original certificates of title covering the aforementioned lots kept in the files of the register of deeds were either lost or destroyed during the war, a petition for the reconstitution of the said titles was filed in court, as a consequence of which Original Certificates of Title Nos. 23883, 23881 and 23876 were canceled and, in lieu thereof, RO-2253, RO-2255 and RO-1431 were issued by the register of deeds without mentioning, however, the subsisting mortgage liens in favor of the petitioner; and that on August 11, 1953, upon previous authority from the probate court, Emiliano de la Viña and Maria executed a deed of sale of the lots subject matter of this petition in favor of Juan Uriarte Zamacona, by virtue of which sale, RO-2253 and RO-2255 were cancelled and instead Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3107 and 3109, respectively, were issued in the name of the buyer. Claiming that its duplicates of Original Certificates of Title Nos. 3107, 3109 and 3121 considered lost or destroyed have been found and discovered, and relying on Section 18 of Republic Act No. 26, petitioner Philippine National Bank now prays that "an order be issued directing the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental to enter in its records the liens in favor of the Philippine National Bank and to annotate the same on the new transfer certificates of title issued in the name of Juan Uriarte Zamacona or, in the alternative to cancel the reconstituted and transfer certificates of title Nos. 23883, 23881 and 23876."cralaw virtua1aw library

The oppositors, Juan Uriarte Zamacona and the administrator of the estate of the deceased Jose de la Viña, moved for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds, among others, that (1) the reconstitution of the questioned certificates of title was made judicially, after due hearing and publication in the Official Gazette, wherein petitioner failed to file an opposition thereto; that (2) the lots covered in the said certificates of title were purchased by Juan Uriarte Zamacona in good faith free from all liens and encumbrances, and the sale was ordered and approved by the probate court in Special Proceedings No. 6812 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental; and that (3) in view of the controversial nature of the matters brought out by the petitioner, the case should have instead been instituted in an ordinary civil action before a court of general jurisdiction rather than in a mere petition before the cadastral court.

Finding merit in the opposition, the lower court dismissed the petition of the Philippine National Bank in its order of July 7, 1958. Not content with the foregoing order, and another order of the court, dated August 14, 1958, sustaining its previous order of dismissal and overruling a motion for reconsideration, the Philippine National Bank has appealed on questions of law.

The petitioner’s case was properly filed with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, in its capacity as a cadastral court (not as a court of general jurisdiction), since, pursuant to Section 22 of Republic Act No. 26 1 such petitions should be "filed and entitled in the land registration or cadastral case in which the decree of registration was entered."

We find, however, that appellant’s petition for reconstitution was correctly denied by the court. It appears that prior to the institution of these proceedings with the court below, there had already been a judicial reconstitution of the original certificates of title upon petition of the registered owner. Unlike in the extrajudicial reconstitution of titles, wherein there is the statutory reservation that the new title "shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original, at the time it was lost or destroyed" (Sec. 7, Republic Act No. 26), a judicially reconstituted title, by express provision of the statute (Sec. 10, ibid), "shall not be subject to the encumbrance referred to in section 7" of the Act. Evidently, the statute would not ordinarily allow the reconstitution of liens and other encumbrances not noted in the judicially reconstituted owner’s certificate of title.

While it may be true that no notice was sent by registered mail to the petitioner bank when the judicial reconstitution of title was sought, such failure, however, did not amount to a jurisdictional defect. 1 The proceedings therein being in rem, 2 the cadastral court acquired jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s title upon compliance with the required posting of notices and publication in the Official Gazette. Of course, under the provision of Article 1146 of the Civil Code 3 petitioner could have sought the avoidance of the order of the court for reconstitution of title on the ground of fraud had it filed the appropriate proceedings for the annulment thereof, within four years from the entry of the order for reconstitution, since the latter is, under section 51 of Act 496, a constructive notice to the whole world (cf. Anacleto Mauricio v. Maura Villanueva, et. al., G.R. No. L-11072, September 24, 1959). Here, it may be noted, the court order for the reconstitution of the original certificate of title is dated March 31, 1949.

Upon the other hand, Section 18 of Republic Act No. 26, providing that in case "a certificate of title considered lost or destroyed be found or recovered, the same shall prevail over the reconstituted certificate of title", could not, as correctly maintained by the appellees, refer to the mere mortgagee’s duplicate certificate of title. In Santiago Syjuco, Inc. v. Philippine National Bank, Et Al., 86 Phil., 320; 47 Off. Gaz. Supp. No. 12, pp. 1, 8, this Court made the observation that —

"The phrase certificate of title, considered lost or destroyed, be found or recovered’ cannot refer to transfer certificates of title Nos. 17175 and 17176, for the reason that these two certificates had never been recovered. Neither ran the phrase refer to the owner’s duplicate transfer certificate of title Nos. 391 (P.R.) and 399 (P.R.) in the custody of Santiago Syjuco, Inc., for the reason that, although these were recovered, they were the mere owner s duplicate certificates of title and not the original certificates of title which were lost or destroyed in the office of the register of deeds and contemplated by section 18,. . ." (Italics supplied.)

Appellant urges that the reconstituted title should be an exact replica of the one lost or destroyed; otherwise, it does not have any binding effect. We do not agree. Section 7 of Republic Act 26 provides that the "reconstituted certificates of title shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals thereof" ; and under Section 10 of the same Act, a judicially reconstituted title shall not be subject to the reservation prescribed by law for titles reconstituted extra-judicially, to the effect that the same "shall be without prejudice to any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original at the time it was lost or destroyed but entry or notation of which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title." It is true that in a number of cases, 1 we have held that the reconstitution of title should be limited to the reconstitution of the certificate as it stood at the time of its loss or destruction, but the limitation has particular reference only to changes which alter or affect the title of the registered owner; i.e., re-registration and issuance of title in another’s name. As to mere liens and other encumbrances, however, the uncertainty which the law seeks to avoid as to them is sufficient reason to consider them as foreclosed if they do not appear in the reconstituted title issued after and upon proper reconstitution proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library

The foregoing results, naturally, do not materially prejudice the petitioner bank’s right over the mortgage debt, if the same be not yet barred otherwise, since the prescriptive period thereof is entirely distinct from the period of limitation for purposes of annulling the judicial reconstitution of title previously obtained.

Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. An Act Providing a special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or Destroyed."

1. See Aguilar v. Caoagdan, Et Al., 105 Phil., 661; 56 Off. Gaz. (28) 4546; Sepagan v. Davillo, 63 Phil., 412.

2. See comments on the Rules of Court, Moran, 1957, ed., Vol. I, pp. 9-10.

3. ART 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:" (2) Upon a quasi-delict." (Civil Code of the Philippines.) .

1. See Bachoco v. Esparancilla, 105 Phil., 404; 56 Off. Gaz. (35) 5440; Zafra Vda. de Anciano v. Caballes, 93 Phil., 875; 49 Off. Gaz. No. 10, 4317.




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






August-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390