GASPAR DUMLAO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO T. DOMINGO, RESPONDENT, JOSE APOSTOL, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, the Hon. Jose N. Leuterio, presiding, issued in Cadastral Case
No. 2922, L.R.C. Cad. Eec, No. 49239, ordering Jose Apostol,
oppositor-appellant herein, to surrender Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 16671 to the Kegister of Deeds of Nueva Bcija or to petitioner’s
counsel in Cadastral Case No. 2922 of the said court.

It appears that in Civil Case No. 1961 of the Court of First Instance
filed on October 29, 1955 entitled “Gaspar Dumlao, plaintiff, vs.
Marcelo T. Domingo, defendant,” the latter was ordered in the decision
rendered by the lower court to reconvey to the plaintiff the property
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 16671. The defendant
having failed to execute the deed of reconveyance after said decision
had become. final and executory, the clerk of court, in compliance with
an order of the lower court authorizing him to execute said deed of
reconveyance, executed the same, place and on behalf of defendant and
in favor of plaintiff. But in order to have this deed of reconveyance
recorded in the Registry of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, it was necessary that
the owner’s duplicate of said certificate of title be surrendered to
said office.

On April 4, 1957, Gaspar Dumlao in Cadastral Case No. 2922, L.R.C. Rec.
No. 49239, petitioned the court to order Marcelo T. Domingo to
surrender owner’s duplicate certificate of title No. 16671 to the
Register of Deeds or to his (Dumlao’s) counsel. The motion was granted
by the lower court in an order dated July 1, 1957. On January 20, 1958,
Marcelo T. Domingo manifested in court that he did not have the title
in his possession as he had previously delivered it to one Jose
Apostol, to guarantee payment of a debt. So in a petition dated
February 12, 1958, Gaspar Dumlao prayed the court to order said Jose
Apostol to surrender the said owner’s duplicate of the transfer
certificate of title in question. This petition was granted in an order
dated February 12, 1958.

Jose Apostol objected to the surrender claiming that said owner’s
duplicate of title was turned over to him by virtue of an obligation
annotated at the back of the original of the said certificate of title.
The court overruled the objection of Apostol declaring that the
registration of the deed of reconveyance and the issuance of a new
title in plaintiff’s favor would not and cannot prejudice the appellant
whose rights according to the opposition were duly annotated and
registered in the certificate of title, because the transfer
certificate in the name of Dumlao would carry the lien of said Jose
Apostol in the title, citing the case of Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co.,
et al. vs.
Reyes, et. al., 92 Phil., 177. Consequently the court ordered said Jose
Apostol to surrender either to the petitioner or directly to the
Register of Deeds the’ said transfer certificate, of title, that the
deed of reconveyance in favor, of Dumlao be registered and annotated on
the title and that another title be issued in favor of the petitioner.

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, Jose Apostol brought
an appeal to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to Us, since
only questions of law are involved.

Appellant argues in the main that inasmuch as he has already an
interest and right to hold the title in question, to require him to
surrender the same would be tantamount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law; that the decision in his favor in Civil
Case No. 1748 would.be rendered ineffectual. (Civil Case No. 1748 was
filed by Apostol before the present case, to enforce an obligation of
Marcelo T. Domingo, and in the decision therein, the property covered
by the title in question was attached.)

There is no merit in the above argument of oppositor- appellant Jose
Apostol, because as expressly stated in the order of the court
requiring the Surrender of the transfer certificate of title “in favor
of1 Dumlao (the certificate) would carry the lien in the name of the
said Jose Apostbl,” and because “it is not intended by the proceeding
for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already
registered rights over the land subsisting or existing from the time of
registration. These rights are not put in issue when an instrument is
subsequently presented for registration.” The above ruling of the court
below ia supported by Section 38 of the Land Registration Act. The
order of the court is expressly authorized by Section 111 of the Land
Registration Act which in part provides:

“Sec. 111. In every case where the clerk or any
register of deeds is requested to enter a new. certificate in pursuance
of an instrument purporting to be executed by the registered owner, or
by reason of any instrument or proceedings which divest the title of
the registered owner against his consent, if the outstanding owner’s
duplicate certificate is not presented for cancellation when such
request is made, the clerk or register of deeds shall not enter a new
certificate, but the person claiming to be entitled thereto may apply
by petition to the court. The court, after hearing, may order tha
registered owner or any person witholding the duplicate to surrender
the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate upon such
surrender.”

It is also contended in this appeal that the court issuing the order
against oppositor-appellant Jose Apostol for the presentation of the
transfer certificate of title had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case for the reason that Apostol was not a party in Civjl
Case No. 1961 in which case the order for the delivery of the
certificate of title was issued. In answer to this argument it should
be stated that the certificate of title in question is in the name of
Marcelo T. Domingo, who was defendant in the civil action in which the
order for the delivery of the certificates of title was issued. As the
certificate of title was in the name of said Marcelo T. Domingo, the
court had the power to direct any person in possession of the said
title in the name of Domingo to deliver said certificate of title to
the court or the register of deeds.

It must be remembered that in the new certificate of title to be
issued in the name of petitioner Dumlao, in lieu of the certificate of
title in the name of Domingo to be cancelled, the entries appearing at
the back of said certificate of title in favor of Apostol will also be
annotated in the new title to be issued in the name of Gaspar Dumlao.
(See. 59, Land Registration Act). This is a guarantee that any rights
that Apostol may have acquired to the property prior to the issuance of
the new certificate of title in the name of Dumlao will not be
affected.

Finding no merit in the grounds raised in the appeal of Jose
Apostol, the order appealed from is hereby, affirmed, with costs
against the oppositor-appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.