CASIANO CANO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. JULIA MIRASOL. ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND, APPELLANTS.

Lot No. 1152 of the cadastral survey of Cabatuan, Iloilo was
originally owned by Francisca Cabanas as evidenced “by Original
Certificate of Title No. 6618. It was latei inherited by her nephew
Jose Jiloea who on April 16, 1929 sold it to one Jacinto Yniego.
Although the deed of sale was not registered in the office of the
register of deeds, the title to the property was however given to the
vendee which he kept until he died on December 23, 1937.

On January 31, 1937, Yniego sold a portion of the land having an
area of 606 square meters to one Casiano Cano who took possession
thereof immediately after the sale, but the heirs of Jacinto Yniego
continued keeping in their possession TCT No. 6618 and it was only on
May 23, 1958 . when, they registered the sale executed in favor of
their ancestor in the office of the register of deeds as a result of
which Transfer Certificate of  Title No. T-25564 was issued in his name.

Having learned of the registration of the sale of Lot No. 1152 in
favor of Jacinto Yniego and the issuance in his name of TCT No.
T-25564, Casiano Cano demanded from his heirs that they surrender said
title to the register of deeds in order that the sale made in his favor
may be annotated on the back thereof, and when they refused to do so,
on June 2, 1958 Cano filed a petition with the Court of First Instance
of Iloilo in Cadastral Case No. 72 praying that the aforesaid heirs, be
ordered to surrender to the register of deeds the title already
adverted to within 5 days from receipt of the order in order that the
purpose above-mentioned may be complied with. The heirs’ opposed the
petition disputing the genuineness and due execution of the sale of
the land made by their ancestor in favor of, petitioner with the
alternative argument that, even if the sale be valid, petitioner’s
right to ask for relief has already long prescribed so that they should
be allowed to hold their owner’s certificate of title free from any
encumbrance or annotation.

On June 24, 1958, after, hearing both parties, the court granted the
relief prayed for Respondents’ motion for reaonsideration having been
denied,. they appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the case was
certified to us on the ground that the only issue involved is one of
law.

It is claimed that sometime in 1937, Jacinto Yniego,
predecessor-in-interest of respondents, sold to petitioner a portion of
Lot No. 1152 covering an area of 600 square meters and that
notwithstanding his repeated requests that they allow the registration
of his sale on the back of its title which was then in their possession
by surrendering it to the register of deeds, respondents refused, and
so he filed the instant petition before the cadastral court of Iloilo
in order that the relief he desires may be granted. Respondents registered their opposition to the petition and in support thereof
they not only disputed the genuineness and due execution of the sale
allegedly made in favor of petitioner by their predecessor-in-interest
but set up the defence that, even if the sale be valid, the right of
petitioner to ask for the relief prayed for has already prescribed
under the provision of Articles 1144 and 2258 of the new Civil Code.
This defense was brushed aside by the court a gun, and instead issued
an order granting th relief prayed for. Since the issue raised before
the court a quo refers to the genuineness and due execution of the sale
of a portion ol Lot No. 1152 allegedly made in favor of petitioner the late Jacinto Yniego, predecessor-in-interest of respondents, and to
the prescription of the supposed right of petitioner to have his sale
registered on the back of the transfer certificate of title issued in
the name of the vendor, we believe it unhcessary to dwell on the merits
of the controversy for the reason that the court a quo lacks
jurisdiction to act thereon in its capacity as cadastral or
registration court. As this Court has aptly said: “If any party claims
that a person registering a deed of sale can no longer do so, because
the deed was executed more than 10 years before, such objection must be
raised in an ordinary civil action, for a cadastral court kicks
jurisdiction to consider whether the right to register or annotate a
deed of sale.lias already lapsed. * * .* For the same reasons stated
above, the claim,made by the oppositors against the sale, i.e., that it
was tainted with fraud and duress, can also be ventilated only in an
ordinary civil action in an ordinary court and not before a cadastral
court.”^[1] (Italics
supplied). We may add that, considering that the instant petition was
filed apparently under the authority of Section 111 of Act 496, the
court ft quo also lacks jurisdiction to act thereon in view of the
controversial issues raised by respondents.2 Its duty is to dismiss the
petition in order that said issues may be threshed out in an ordinary
case before a regular court; (Tangunan vs. Republic of the Philippines,
94 Phil., 171; 50 Off. Gaz., 115; Jimenez vs. De Castro, 40 Off. Gaz.,
No. 3, 1st Supp. p. 80; Government of the Philippines vs. Jalaiidoni,
44 Off. Gaz., 1837; Garcia vs. Belzunce, 84 Phil. 802; Mirafior vs.
Leafio, 93 Phil., 466; Laguia ‘vs. Casimiro, 98 Phil., 102; Enriq’uez
vs. Atienza, 100 Phil., 1072, Angeles, vs. Razon, 106 Phil., 384;
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation vs. Alto Surety & Insurance Co.,
107 Phil., 386; Government of the Republic i/f the Philippines vs.
Laperal, 108 Phil,, 860; Floriza vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et
al., Ill Phil., 177.) Wherefore, the order appealed from is set aside.
No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Macalintal, JJ., concur.

 

---

^[1] Mendoza vs. Abrera, et al., 105 Phil., 611.

^[2] This section stands on the same footing as Section 112 of the same Act.