BASILISA ZAFRA VDA. DE ANCIANO, MOVANT AND APPELLANT, VS. FAUSTINA CABALLES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This
appeal is from an order of Honorable Florentino Saguin, Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, dismissing appellant’s motion for
reconsideration of a certificate of title filed in a cadastral
proceeding. Brief but containing the relevant allegations as well as
the court’s opinion, the order is here copied in full.

“Se
trata de una mocion para la reconstitucion del certificado original de
titulo No. 1728 del lote No. 6100 de la medicion catastral de Cebu.

“En la solicitud se alega que el referido lote No. 6100 fue registrado
a nombre de los esposos Macario Salaver y Faustina Caballes; que tanto
el original asi como el duplicado del certificado de titulo de dicho
lote se habian extraviado durante le guerra; y que el 6 de noviembre,
1935, dichos esposos vendieron el citado lote a favor del finado
Narciso Anciano, esposo de la solicitante. Como remedio se pide que se
ordene la reconstitucion del certificado de titulo en cuestion a nombre
de la solicitante Basilisa Zafra y de su esposo Narciso Anciano.

“Faustina
Caballes, viuda del finado Macario Salaver, presento una oposicion a la
solicitud alegado, entre otras cosas, que tanto ella como su difunto
esposo nunca vendieron o enajenaron el lote en cuestion a favor de los
esposos Narciso Anciano y Basilisa Zafra ni a favor de cualquiera otra
persona; que ella y su finado esposo han estado siempre en posesion del
mencionado lote hasta el fallecimiento de este ultimo, y despues de
dicho fallecimiento ella continuo en dicha posesion hasta la presente;
que hasta hoy ella sigue pagando las contribuciones territorialesw del
mismo; y que a supuesta venta alegada en la solicitud es fraudulenta.

“El
Juzgado es de opinion que resulta innecesaria la vista de la mocion en
su fondo. En primer lugar, porque no se puede reconstituir un
certificado de titulo de un terreno a favor de una persona distinta del
dueño registrado; y, en segundo lugar, habiendo una controversia debe
plantearse y resolverse en una accion ordinaria sobre propiedad y no
por medio de una mera mocion presentada en un expediente cadastral.

“POR TANTO, sin perjucio del derecho de las partes de poder entablar la accion que crean conveniente;

“Se deniega la mocion de autos.”

Judge
Saguin was right. Reconstitution or reconstruction of a certificate of
title literally and within the meaning of Republic Act No. 26 denotes
restoration of the instrument which is supposed to have been lost or
destroyed in its original form and condition. Appellant’s motion was
not to restore a lost registered certificate of title but to
re-register and issue a new certificate in the names of herself and her
deceased husband in lieu of one originally registered in the names of
Macario Salaver and Faustina Caballes.

Indeed, there are at
least indications that the supposed lost certificates of title were
extant. Movant’s Exhibit A, which is her and her husbands’ deed of sale
and which was presented only on January 29, 1947, in the office of the
register of deeds, carries at the bottom thereof over the register of
deeds’ signature, the annotation “that this instrument has been duly
registered, proper memorandum thereof made on original certificate of title No. 1798 and on its owner’s duplicate,”
which seems to contradict the allegation that these documents had
perished. It was the number of the registration book that was left in
blank in the registrar’s note or memorandum, indicating that it was
that book only which was probably missing.

Under section 195
of the Revised Administrative Code and section 8, paragraph 3, of the
“Regulations for the Uniformity of Register of Deeds,” it is the duty
of the register of deeds “to enter and issue new certificates and
duplicate certificates of title” to the transferees upon the
presentation and entry of deeds of conveyance. Why the movant had to
come to court for the issuance of a new certificate of title has not
been explained.

However the case may be, the court below
properly declined to proceed with the hearing of the motion under
consideration if for no other reason than that this motion and the
opposition thereto directly involved complicated questions of land
ownership which can only be litigated and adjudicated in an ordinary
action.

The order is affirmed with costs against the appellant.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.