JANUARIO L. JISON, SR., PETITIONER, VS. HON. IGNACIO DEBUQUE, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, CONCHITA DE VERA AND THOMAS J. FORD, RESPONDENTS.

This
is a petition for certiorari against an order dated September 1, 1960
of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, Hon. Ignacio Debuque,
presiding, issued in Civil Case No. V-2936, entitled “Land Registration
Case No. R-332, GLRO Record No. 54712, Thomas J. Ford & Januario L.
Jison, applicants”, and for injunction to restrain said court from
proceeding with the trial and hearing of a motion dated May 14, 1956 of
respondent herein Conchita de Vera.

On May 29, 1956, Conchita
de Vera filed a motion dated May 14, 1956, with the Court of First
Instance of Capiz, in the above-entitled land registration case. She
alleged therein that she bought several real properties included in
Haciendas “Carmen” and “Lucaron”, situated in the Municipalities of
Dumalag and Dao, Capiz, from Julio M. Santos on July 17, 1944; that
Julio M. Santos, in turn, bought said properties from Januario L. Jison
on March 16, 1944; that Januario L. Jison acquired said lands by
purchase from the spouses Thomas J. Ford and Maria Garcia-Ford on April
21, 1936. She, therefore, prayed that the Register of Deeds be
authorized to cancel the original certificate of title issued in 1941
to Januario L. Jison covering the 3 parcels of land described in the
survey plans: PSU 73824; PSU 52276, Lot 2 and PSU 52276 amd. Lot 4;
that Original Certificate of Title No. 0-110 covering the 10 parcels of
land described in PSU 101637, Lots Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive; PSU 73839,
Lots Nos. 6, 7 and 13; PCS-528, Lot No. 3 and SWO 14659 (plan PSU –
91910); and original certificate of title No. 0-111 covering PSU 73839,
Lots Nos. 1, 3 and 5, both issued in the year 1952 in the name of
Januario L. Jison be cancelled and in lieu thereof, to issue the
corresponding transfer certificate of title in the name of the movant.

On
August 8, 1957, the lower court directed the Register of Deeds of Capiz
to report on the allegations of the motion of Conchita de Vera. On
August 26, 1957, petitioner herein moved to set aside the order of the
lower court dated August 8, 1957, because he was not notified of the
motion. The lower court, however, on September 18, 1957 directed its
Clerk to set the motion for hearing. On October 1, 1957, the petitioner
herein filed an opposition to the motion of Conchita de Vera, claiming
that the lower court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the oppositor and over the subject-matter because ownership is involved
as a question therein. Movant Conchita de Vera replied to said
opposition, and on July 9, 1960 petitioner herein moved to dismiss the
motion, reiterating its objection to the lower court’s exercise of
jurisdiction to try and hear the motion. An opposition to said motion
to dismiss was filed by movant on July 25, 1960. Acting upon said
motion to dismiss, the lower court on September 1, 1960 denied the
same, holding that inasmuch as the question involves only determination
of whether the lands sold to movant Conchita de Vera are the same as
those covered by the titles of Januario L. Jison, petitioner herein,
the lower court then has jurisdiction to try and hear the motion. A
motion for reconsideration of the order of denial having been denied,
Januario L. Jison has filed the instant petition in this Court.

The
sole issue in this petition is whether or not the lower court has
jurisdiction to consider the motion of respondent Conchita de Vera.

Petitioner
argues that as there is a controversy over the ownership of the lots in
question, the lower court has no jurisdiction to hear respondent Vera’s
motion. Petitioner cites authorities to show that a question of
ownership should be ventilated in a separate action to be filed in a
court of general jurisdiction.

We agree with the petitioner
in this respect. But the above legal principle does not apply to the
case at bar. In this case petitioner himself had admitted having sold
several parcels of land of said haciendas to Julio M. Santos, who, in
turn, sold them to the respondent herein Conchita de Vera. These are
the same lands which movant asked the lower court to order registration
in her name. There is therefore no substantial controversy over the
ownership of said lots. The only question is whether said lots sold to
the movant are the same lots covered by the certificates of title of
the petitioner herein. If these are the same lots, then the lower court
has jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 112 of the Land
Registration Act to order the cancellation of said titles and the
issuance of new ones in the name of the movant. This is so, because, as
already adverted to above, the petitioner himself does not question the
existence and validity of the sale of the lots to the movant.

Wherefore,
the petition is hereby denied, the order sought herein to be annulled
is affirmed, and the trial court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the
hearing of the motion is hereby upheld. With costs against the
petitioner. So ordered.

Padilla, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.