G.R. No. L-8317. May 23, 1958

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan.

It appears that on December 18, 1933, decision was rendered in cadastral case
No. 25 of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, G.L.R.O. Record No. 3189,
adjudicating a specific portion of Lot No. 382 thereof to Perfecto Molino,
another specific portion to Maximiano Molino, and a third portion, likewise,
specified, to Anselmo Molino. On January 11, 1938, after said decision had
become final, but before the issuance of the corresponding decree, Anselmo
Molino and Calixto C. Aquino executed the instrument Exhibit F, purporting to be
a deed of sale, transfer and conveyance to Calixto C. Aquino of the portion of
Lot No. 382 adjudicated to Anselmo Molino as above stated. The consideration,
according to Exhibit F, was P1,400, of which f 800 was paid in cash, the balance
of P600 to be paid in installments, at the rate of P10 a month, beginning from
March 1, 1938. On August 21, 1941, said Lot 382 was subdivided into Lot 382-A,
which is the portion adjudicated to Perfecto Molino, Lot 382-B, which is the
portion of Maximiano Molino, and Lot 382-C, which is the portion of Anselmo
Molino. Owing, evidently, to the outbreak of war in the Pacific and the
occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces, the corresponding
subdivision plan, PSD-19421, was not approved by the Director of Lands until
December 29, 1948. On August 17, 1951, Calixto C. Aquino filed, in said
cadastral case, a petition setting forth the foregoing facts and alleging that
he had already paid in full the price of Lot No. 382-C and praying that the
decree, as regards this subdivision lot, be issued in his favor.

This petition was objected to by Miguel, Fenicula and Rosanelia
Molino-hereafter referred to as appellants-the children and heirs of Anselmo
Molino, who died on December 24, 1939. The opposition was contained in a
pleading entitled “Answer, with special defense and counterclaim.” It was
alleged therein that the true agreement between the parties to said Exhibit F
was one of mortgage to guarantee the payment of a debt of Anselmo Molino in
favor of Calixto C. Aquino; that said debt had already been fully paid with the
rentals collected by Aquino from Yutivo Sons Hardware Co., which held said Lot
382-C under a contract of lease with Anselmo; that Aquino had constructed a
house of mixed materials on said lot; and that, for the use and occupation
thereof, he should pay F50 a month, beginning from April, 1947. Appellants
prayed, therefore, that “judgment” be rendered dismissing Aquino’s petition and
declaring that appellants are the lawful owners of Lot No. 382-C, that the
contract between Anselmo Molino and the appellee was one of mortgage and that
the obligation guaranteed by the same had been fully paid as of March, 1947, and
sentencing Aquino to pay P2,600, as rentals from April, 1947 to July, 1951, and,
thereafter, the sum of P50 a month, until the final termination of the
case.

After due hearing, the Court of First Instance of Cagayan issued an order,
dated November 28,1952, holding that, in the exercise of its jurisdiction as
court of land registration, it had no authority to pass upon the issues raised
by appellants and that such issues are proper for determination in an ordinary
civil action, and accordingly, overruling their opposition and dismissing their
counterclaim. The dispositive part of said order is as follows:

“It appearing that the decision of this Court (App. A) has already-become
long final; that the subdivision thereby ordered has already been made, as
evidence by the plan Psd-19421 (App. B), and that Anselmo Molino sold Lot 382-C
to the herein petitioner, Calixto C. Aquino, under and by virtue of the deed of
sale (App. F), the Chief, General Land Registration Office, is hereby ordered to
issue the corresponding decree of registration as follows: To Perfccto Molino,
Lot 382-A; To Maximiano Molino, Lot 382-B; and to Calixto C. Aquino, Lot
382-C.”

In due time, Miguel, Fenicula and Rosanelia Molino appealed from this order
to the Court of Appeals, which, thereafter, certified the record to this Court,
it appearing that appellants merely raise questions of law. They maintain
that:

“1. The lower court erred in overruling the opposition of the
claimants-oppositors-appellants, and in dismissing the answer, special defense
and counter-claim of the said claimants-opposltors-appellants.

“2. The lower court erred in finding that Anselmo Molino sold Lot 382-C to
the petitioner-appellee, Calixto C. Aquino and ordering the issuance of a decree
in favor of the petitioner and appellee.”

In support of the first assignment of error, it is urged that the cases of
Castillo vs. Ramos,^*45 Off. Gaz., 183 and Nicolas Lizares & Co. vs. Tan,
relied upon by the lower court, are not in point, because: (1) no decree has
been issued, as yet; (2) appellee’s alleged right is not as yet indefeasible;
(3) his petition, in effect, seeks to set aside the decision of the Cadastral
Court dated December 18, 1933; and (4) appellee’s claim is assailed by the
appellants upon the ground of fraud.

Appellants’ pretense is devoid of merit. To begin with, appellee does not
seek a modification of said final decision. On the contrary, he invokes it in
his favor. Precisely, because said decision declared that a definite portion of
Lot 382 belongs to Anselmo Molino, appellee prays that such portion be decreed
in his favor, Anselmo having conveyed it to him by virtue of Exhibit F. This
relief is explicitly authorized by section 29 of Act No. 496 as amended by Act
No. 3901, reading:

“After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of
title by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land therein
described may be dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded
in the office of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree
of title, in the same manner as if no application had been made. The interested
party may, however, present such instrument to the Court of First Instance
instead of presenting them to the office of the register of deeds, together with
a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application, and the
court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to
the encumbrance created by said instrument, or order the decree of registration
issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been
conveyed by said instrument. ” * *.” (Underscoring ours.)

Secondly, in the exercise of its jurisdiction over this cadastral case, the
lower court, as a cadastral court or a court of land registration, has limited
authority. It cannot determine whether Exhibit F reflects or not the true
agreement between the parties thereto or whether the execution thereof is
tainted with fraud. Much less may it render judgment for the payment of a sum of
money, for the use and occupation of the land in question. Obviously, these
matters should be the subject of an ordinary action and are beyond the province
of a cadastral case.

Referring to the second assignment of error, appellants maintain that
inasmuch as payments on account of the balance of P600 due from Aquino, pursuant
to Exhibit F began in March, 1938, he could not have paid more than P220, before
Anselmo Molino died in December, 1939, and that the lower court erred,
therefore, in finding that Anselmo had sold the lot in dispute to Aquino by
virtue of Exhibit F. Commenting thereon, the lower court correctly said:

“Considering that Appendix F is a deed of sale of the land in question, the
title to said land, with respect to the parties thereto, passed to the purchaser
the moment it was executed, no matter whether or not portions of the purchase
price payable in instalments have been paid or not.”

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellants.

It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angela, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.

---

^*78 Phil., 809