PEDRO RALLA, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. PABLO RALLA, CARMEN MUÑOZ AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ALBAY, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

 The jurisdictional issue
is this:  May a first instance court sitting
in cadastral proceedings annul certificates of title issued upon a deed of sale
in favor of the vendees who obtained their vendor’s titles to the lands sold –
from the court who had custody thereof in a partition case – for safe-keeping
and upon the condition that said vendor’s titles “are made available at
any time to the Court,” and who, in violation of such trust presented said
vendor’s titles to the Register of Deeds, to procure registration of their said
deed and obtain the Torrens titles in their names?  That court itself resolved the question in
the negative.

Hence, this appeal.

Petitioner invokes Section 112 of Act 476.  The eight petitions themselves, all filed on May 10, 1965, are separately entitled
and docketed to correspond to the original cadastral cases^[1]
in compliance with the last paragraph of Section 112.  Said petitions, except for the designated
cadastral lot numbers and their corresponding Torrens
titles, contain identical averments. 
Since the eight petitions were dismissed below upon respondents’ motion
to dismiss, perforce, we must look into the petitions’ factual averments.  And these are that:

Original owners of the 113 lots each covered by original certi­ficates
of title issued in eight different cadastral cases were the spouses Rosendo Ralla and Paz Escarella.^[2]
Petitioner Pedro Ralla and respondent Pablo Ralla are heirs of said deceased spouses.  The estate of Rosendo
Ralla is under settlement in Special Proceedings 564,
Court of First Instance of Albay, entitled “In
the Matter of the Testate Estate of the Deceased Rosendo
Ralla“; the estate of Paz Escarella,
upon the other hand, is the subject of partition proceedings in Civil Case 2023
of the same court, labeled “Partition of Estate”.  The estate of Rosendo
Ralla is under judicial administration; that of Paz Escarella is under receivership.

In the course of the proceedings in both testate estate and
partition cases, respondent Pablo Ralla came to know
that the purported deed of sale executed in his favor by his deceased father Rosendo Ralla covering, inter
alia, the 113 parcels of land, alleged by
petitioner Pedro Ralla to form part of the two
estates, would not bind the property unless his document is registered.

In those two proceedings, the owners’ duplicates of the original
certificates of title were presented and offered in evidence in court.  But the originals of said certificates
of title were lost.  So
the receiver in Case 2023 was ordered to reconstitute the same and for the
purpose was authorized to use the owners’ duplicates hereof.

Came respondent Pablo Ralla with a
petition dated August 28, 1963
in the partition case (Case 2023) that he be authorized to withdraw the owners’
duplicates of the titles, purportedly for safekeeping with the promise “to
produce them when demanded by the Court.” Pablo’s reason was that they
might be lost, destroyed or misplaced while in the court’s custody.  This drew an opposition from petitioner Pedro
Ralla who entertained the fear that respondent Pablo Ralla while in custody thereof might tamper with or make
use of the same to register the deed of sale in his (Pablo’s) favor.  Petitioner’s opposition was – on September 3, 1963 – overruled; Pablo’s
motion was granted.  Reconsideration was
denied.  In consequence, the owner’s
duplicates of the titles to the 113 lots were turned over to Pablo Ralla.

Petitioner made it abundantly clear before the cadastral court in
the petitions therein that in both Special Proceedings 564 and Civil Case 2023
aforesaid, he has impugned the validity of the alleged deed of sale executed by
his father, Rosendo Ralla,
in favor of his brother, respondent Pablo Ralla.  Because, that deed was
“fraudulent, simulated, fictitious and without consideration, it having
been made to deprive him (Pedro Ralla) of his successional rights, interest and participation over the
said property.”

Instead of merely keeping in his custody the owner’s duplicates
of the certificates of title entrusted to him and to make them available at any
time to the court as specified in the court’s order in the partition case
(2023), so the petitions below continue, respondent Pablo Ralla
without court authority “made the reconstitution of the titles to get
ahead of the receiver in reconstituting them.” It was said that this was
done with fraudulent intent “to give efficacy to the validity of the deed
of sale adverted to so as to bind the land.”

Once in possession of the owners’ reconstituted titles and
without the court authority, respondent Pablo Ralla
“surreptitiously caused the cancellation” thereof and procured new Torrens
titles to the 113 lots “in his name and of his wife, the respondent,
Carmen Muñoz.”

The Register of Deeds was made party respondent to the eight
petitions upon the averment that, at the time the disputed deed of sale was
registered in his office, he had full knowledge of the
fact that the properties covered by the certificates of title in question were
“being litigated in Court”.

The eight petitions wound up with the prayer that the
cancellation of the original certificates of title as well as the issuance in
lieu thereof of new titles in favor of respondents Pablo Ralla
and Carmen Muñoz be declared null and void, and that
the original Torrens titles be restored.

The cadastral court – on June
11, 1965 – dismissed the petitions. 
Because, in the court’s own words, said petitions involve “issues
which are litigious and hence outside of the limited jurisdiction of this court
to hear, try and decide.”

The problem posed calls for the application of paragraph 1, Section 112 of Act 496 relied upon by petitioner, thus –

“SEC. 112.  No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be
made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of
a memorandum there­on and the attestation of the same by the clerk or any
register of deeds, except by order of the court.  Any registered owner or other person in
interest may at any time apply by petition to the court, upon the ground that
registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant,
or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interests have arisen or
been created which do not appear upon the certificate; x x
x or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court
shall have jurisdiction to hear and deter­mine the petition after notice to all
parties in interest, and may order the entry of a new certificate, the entry or
cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon
such terms and con­ditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem
proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be
construed to give the court authority to open the original decree of
registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which
shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate
for value and in good faith, of his heirs or assigns, without his or their
written consent.”

We draw enlightenment from judicial construction long respected
that relief under Section 112 just cited may be granted if there is una­nimity
amongst the parties; or, in case of opposition, no serious adverse claim or
serious objection on the part of an interested party affecting the subject
matter of the petition.^[3]
Considered serious enough to warrant dismissal of the petition under Section
112 is the question involving ownership of or title to real property.^[4]

From our viewpoint, there is no
necessity for the cadastral court to pass upon the question of the Validity of
the alleged sale by Rosendo Ralla
in favor of Pablo Ralla.  The point we want to drive home is that the higher
interests of justice demand that – given the testate estate proceeding covering
the estate of Rosendo Ralla
and the partition proceeding covering that of Paz Escarella
– none of the parties should be allowed to take advantage of the other.  Prior to the registration of that deed of
sale, Pedro Ralla and respondent spouses Pablo Ralla and Carmen Muñoz were on
the same footing.  That was disturbed by
the registration.  Why?  Obviously, Pablo Ralla
could take advantage of the titles appearing in his name and that of his wife
to the detriment of the interest of Pedro Ralla.  Really, if those Torrens
titles were to remain as they are now, Pablo Ralla
and Carmen Muñoz would be placed at a distinct
advantage over Pedro Ralla.  They will, for instance, enjoy the
presumption of legitimate ownership of the 113 lots because of the Torrens
titles.  Worse, proliferation of court
cases may result.  Such a changed
situation of the parties brought about by registration is utterly unfair.

Courts are not powerless to fashion a remedy.  Equitable considerations require that the status
quo ante be restored.  All
that is required is proof that the owner’s duplicates of the original Torrens
titles were delivered by the court to Pablo Ralla in
trust for safekeeping, and to produce them when required by the court.

For the reasons given, the order of June 11, 1965 is hereby reversed; and –

We, accordingly, order: 
(1) that the cadastral court make an inquiry to ascertain the fact
averred in the petition, to wit:  whether
or not the owner’s duplicates of the original certificates of title presented
and offered in evidence in Special Proceedings No. 564 (Testate Estate of the
deceased Rosendo Ralla)
and/or in Civil Case No. 2023 (Partition of Estate of Paz Escarella)
were entrusted to respondent Pablo Ralla for
safekeeping with the obligation to produce them when demanded by the court; and
(2) upon an affirmative finding, that the said cadastral court direct
respondent Register of Deeds (a) to cancel the Torrens titles in the names of
the spouses Pablo Ralla and Carmen Muñoz, and (b) to reinstate the original Torrens titles in
the names of Maria Madrid and Rosendo Ralla and Paz Escarella; or,
otherwise, to dismiss the petitions herein.

Cost against respondents Pablo Ralla
and Carmen Muñoz.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Angeles, and
Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Cadastral Cases Nos. M-5061, M-5063,
M-5064, M-5066, M-5067, M-5069, M-5070, and M-5072.

^[2] The
titles themselves appear in the names of Maria Madrid (said to be the mother of
Rosendo Ralla, petitioner’s brief, p. 5) and the spouses Rosendo Ralla and Paz Escarella.

^[3]
Garcia vs. Belzunce, 84 Phil. 802, 804-805;
Nicolas Lizares & Co., Inc. vs. Tan, 85
Phil. 159, 161-162; Cabangcala vs. Domingo, 96
Phil. 124, 126; Lagula vs. Casimiro,
98 Phil. 102, 106; Enriquez vs. Atienza, 100
Phil. 1072, 1077-1078; Caoibes vs. Sison de Martinez, 102 Phil. 19, 30-31; Angeles vs. Razon, L-13679, October 26, 1959; Rehabilitation Finance
Corporation vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., L-14303, March
24, 1960; Government vs. Laperal, L-14228, June
30, 1960 and cases cited; Almirañez
vs. Devera, L-19496, February 27, 1965.

^[4] Angeles vs. Razon, supra;
Lagula vs. Casimiro,
supra; Almirañez vs. Devera, supra.