FIRST DIVISION
THE
PHILIPPINE COTTON G.R. No. 130389
CORPORATION,
Petitioner-Appellant,
Present:
PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA,
and
LEONARDO-
DE CASTRO, JJ.
NARAINDAS GAGOOMAL and
ENGRACIO ANG,
Respondents-Appellees,
CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Promulgated:
Intervenor-Appellee. February 11, 2008
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This
is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
assailing the Decision[2] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) promulgated on
The
facts of record would indicate that Pacific Mills, Inc. (Pacific Mills) originally
owned five parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos.
136640, 136441, 222370 and 134249. These properties were subsequently purchased
by respondents on an installment basis from Pacific Mills on
On
On
During
the pendency of the appeal or on
Sometime
in 1992, Pacific Mills filed a petition for reconstitution of the burned TCTs
through administrative reconstitution, in accordance with Republic Act No.
6732.[4] On
On
February 8, 1993, petitioner wrote the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City
requesting for the annotation of the notice of levy, and, subsequently, the annotation
of a favorable decision of this Court rendered on August 3, 1992, on the new
TCTs issued to respondents.
On
February 10, 1993, Samuel C. Cleofe, the Quezon City Register of Deeds,
informed respondents that the letter-request for re-annotation of notice of
levy had been entered in the Primary Entry Book 574/Volume 24, and asked them
to surrender their owners’ duplicate copies of TCT Nos. 56683 to 56686.[9]
Immediately
upon receipt of the said letter, respondents verified the original copies of
titles in the possession of the Registry of Deeds and discovered that the
following annotations were included at the back of the titles: “Request for
Re-Annotation of Notice of Levy” and “Letter Request for Annotation of Entry of
Judgment of Supreme Court.”
Thereafter,
respondents filed on
On
WHEREFORE,
premises above considered, there being no justification for the Quezon City
Register of Deeds in making the annotation on petitioners’ original TCT Nos.
56683 (RT-55703), 56684 (RT-55702), 56685 (RT-55748) and 56686 (RT-55705), said
respondent is hereby ordered to DELETE therefrom the said annotation “request
for annotation and the annotated Supreme Court decision against the Pacific
Mills, Inc.” and to desist from its request for petitioners to submit their
owners duplicate of titles to annotate such request of the Philippine Cotton
Corporation.
There
being no justiciable issue in the complaint-in-intervention, let the
annotations of a mortgage executed by petitioners on December 18, 1992 in favor
of intervenor China Banking Corporation remain on petitioners’ subject TCTs.
SO
ORDERED.[10]
The
trial court ratiocinated that:
Under the
circumstances, respondent [the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City] should and
could have properly refused such request instead of immediately annotating it.
In the same light, “The Register of Deeds may likewise properly refuse
registration of an order attachment when it appears that the title
involved is not in the name of the defendant and there is no evidence submitted
to indicate that the said defendant has any present or future interest in the
property covered by the titles.” (Gotauco vs. Register of Deeds of Tayabas,
59 Phil. 756, 1934 and Geonanga vs. Hodges, 55 O.G. p. 2891, April 21, 1958).
(Underscoring Supplied)[11]
Unsatisfied
with the outcome of the case, petitioner filed a notice of appeal before the
CA, contending that:
“THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF QUEZON CITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO RE-ANNOTATE THE NOTICE OF LEVY AND TO
ANNOTATE THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT ON TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF
TITLE NOS. 56683, 56684, 56685 AND 56686, ALL ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONERS-APPELLEES AS A RESULT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
TITLES.”[12]
In
its
Hence,
this petition.
Petitioner
presents the following assignment of errors:
FIRST ERROR
THE
SECOND ERROR
THE LOWER COURT, IN
CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, LIKEWISE ERRED IN ORDERING THE QUEZON CITY REGISTER OF
DEEDS TO DELETE THE ANNOTATION THAT READS: “REQUEST FOR ANNOTATION AND THE
ANNOTATED SUPREME COURT DECISION AGAINST PACIFIC MILLS, INC.”, FROM
PETITIONERS’ ORIGINAL TCT NOS. 96683 [sic] (RT-55703), 56684 (RT-55702),
56685 (RT-55748) AND 56686 (RT-55705) AND TO DESIST FROM REQUESTING
RESPONDENTS/APPELLEES TO SUBMIT THEIR OWNERS’ DUPLICATE OF TITLES FOR
ANNOTATION OF PETITIONER PHILIPPINE COTTON CORPORATION’S REQUEST.[13]
Petitioner
asserts that a cursory reading of Section 71 of Presidential Decree No. 1529
shows that it is the ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds, in the matter
of an attachment or other liens in the nature of involuntary dealing in
registered land, to “send notice by mail to a registered owner requesting him
to produce his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of attachment or
other lien may be made thereon.” This provision, according to petitioner,
actually applies whenever a writ of attachment has been issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction after hearing on the issuance of the said writ. The
notice of attachment not having been dissolved, it was ministerial on the part
of the Register of Deeds to record the notice on the TCTs he issued.
Petitioner
would persuade this Court that it is the ministerial duty of the Register of
Deeds to record any encumbrance or lien on respondents’ existing TCTs. It cites,
as proof of its supposition, Sections 10 and 71 of the Property Registration
Decree (P.D. No. 1529), which are quoted as follows:
Section
10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. — The office of the
Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments
affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province
or city wherein such office is situated.
It shall
be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument
presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which
complies with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said
instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same
are properly cancelled. If the instrument is not registrable, he shall
forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in
writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his right
to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree.
x x x
Section
71. Surrender of certificate in
involuntary dealings. – If an attachment or other lien in the nature of
involuntary dealing in registered land is registered, and the duplicate
certificate is not presented at the time of registration, the Register of
Deeds, shall, within thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by mail to the
registered owner, stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting
him to send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the
attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the owner neglects or refuses
to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall report the
matter to the court, and it shall, after notice, enter an order to the
owner to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein, and may
enforce the order by suitable process. (Underscoring supplied)
The
Court is not in accord with the stance of petitioner. Section 10 of P.D. No.
1529 merely involves the general functions of the Register of Deeds, while
Section 71 thereof relates to an attachment or lien in a registered land in
which the duplicate certificate was not presented at the time of the
registration of the said lien or attachment.
A
special law specifically deals with the procedure for the reconstitution of
Liens and
other encumbrances affecting a destroyed or lost certificate of title shall be
reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be
available, in the following order:
(a)
Annotations
or memoranda appearing on the owner’s, co-owner’s, mortgagee’s or lessee’s
duplicate;
(b)
Registered
documents on file in the registry of deeds, or authenticated copies thereof
showing that the originals thereof had been registered; and
(c)
Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the
property covered by the lost or destroyed certificate of title. (Underscoring
supplied)
Furthermore,
Sections 8 and 11 of the same Act provide for the procedure for the notation of
an interest that did not appear in the reconstituted certificate of title,
mandating that a petition be filed before a court of competent
jurisdiction:
Section 8.
Any person whose right or interest was duly noted in the original of a
certificate of title, at the time it was lost or destroyed, but does not
appear so noted on the reconstituted certificate of title, which is
subject to the reservation provided in the preceding section, may, while such
reservation subsists, file a petition with the proper Court of First Instance
for the annotation of such right or interest on said reconstituted certificate
of title, and the court, after notice and hearing, shall determine the
merits of the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may
require. The petition shall state the number of the reconstituted certificate
of title and the nature, as well as a description, of the right or interest
claimed. (Underscoring supplied)
x x x
Section
11. Petitions for reconstitution of registered interests, liens and other
encumbrances, based on sources enumerated in sections 4(b) and/or 4(c) of this
Act, shall be filed, by the interested party, with the proper Court of First
Instance. The petition shall be accompanied with the necessary documents
and shall state, among other things, the number of the certificate of title and
the nature as well as a description of the interest, lien or encumbrance which
is to be reconstituted, and the court, after publication, in the manner stated
in section nine of this Act, and hearing shall determine the merits of the
petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require.
(Underscoring supplied)
Clearly,
therefore, it is not the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to record
a right or an interest that was not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate
of title. As a matter of fact, this task is not even within the ambit of the
Register of Deed’s job as the responsibility is lodged by law to the proper
courts. The foregoing quoted provisions of the law leave no question nor any
doubt that it is indeed the duty of the trial court to determine the merits of
the petition and render judgment as justice and equity may require.
This
conclusion is bolstered by Chapter X,[15] Section
108 of P.D. No. 1529, which provides:
Sec. 108. Amendment
and alteration of certificates. — 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 Register
of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A
registered owner or other person having an interest in registered property,
or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the
Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the
ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant inchoate appearing on the certificate, have
terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the
certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error
was made in entering the certificate or any memorandum thereon, or on any
duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate
has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered
as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of
heirs or creditors will thereby be affected, or that a corporation which owned
registered land and has been dissolved has not yet conveyed the same within
three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the
court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in
interest, and may order the entry or cancellation 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 or bond if
necessary, as it may consider proper: Provided, however, That this
section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the
judgment or 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, or his heirs
and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner’s duplicate
certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in
the preceding section,
All
petitions or motions filed under this section as well as under any other
provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
(Underscoring supplied)
The
court’s intervention in the amendment of the registration book after the entry
of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon is categorically stated in
the Property Registration Decree and cannot be denied by the mere allegations
of petitioner. Hence, the contentions that the Register of Deeds may “validly
re-annotate the incumbrance/liens and annotate the Supreme Court decision on
the administratively reconstituted transfer certificates of titles (TCTs)” have
no basis in law and jurisprudence.
Petitioner
further submits that the issuance of the TCTs to respondents is
fraudulent. It suggests that under
Sections 69 and 73 of P.D. No. 1529, any person whose interest does not appear
on a reconstituted title may file a request directly with the Register of
Deeds.
As correctly observed by respondents, P.D. No.
1529 principally pertains to the registration of property, while R.A. No. 26 is
a special law on the procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens certificates
of title that were lost or destroyed. Specifically, Section 69[16]
of P.D. No. 1529 refers to an attachment that arose after the issuance
of a certificate of title; while Section 71[17]
of the same law pertains to the registration of the order of a court of an
attachment that was continued, reduced, dissolved or otherwise affected by a
judgment of the court. Undoubtedly, the foregoing provisions find no
application in the present case since petitioner insists that its interest was
annotated prior to the reconstitution of the disputed certificates of
title.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50332, dated August 29,
1997, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101,
in Civil Case No. Q-6056(93),[18]
are hereby AFFIRMED.
No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Fidel P. Purisima and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now retired members of this Court) concurring, rollo, pp. 83-87.
[3] Deed of Absolute Sale, Annex “A,” records, pp. 5-10.
[4] “An Act Allowing Administrative Reconstitution of Original Copies of Certificates of Titles Lost or Destroyed Due to Fire, Flood and Other Force Majeure, Amending for the Purpose Section One Hundred Ten of Presidential Decree Numbered Fifteen Twenty-Nine and Section Five of Republic Act Numbered Twenty-Six.”
[5] Annex “B,” records, pp. 11-13.
[6] Annex “C,” id. at 14-16.
[7] Annex “E,” id. at 19-20.
[8] Annex “D,” id. at 17-18.
[9] See Annex “F,” id. at 21.
[10] Penned by Judge Pedro T. Santiago, id. at 457-458.
[11]
[12] Rollo, p. 86.
[13]
[14] “An Act Providing a Special
Procedure for the Reconstitution of
[15] Petitions and Actions After Original Registration.
[16] Sec. 69. Attachments. – An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order or process issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve any lien, status, right, or attachment upon registered land, shall be filed and registered in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city in which the land lies, and, in addition to the particulars required in such papers for registration, shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or lien is not claimed on all the land in any certificate of title, a description sufficiently accurate for identification of the land or interest intended to be affected. A restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by the court shall be entered and registered on the certificate of title affected, free of charge.
[17] Sec. 71. Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings. – If an attachment or other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is not presented at the time of registration, the Register of Deeds, shall, within thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by mail to the registered owner, stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting him to send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the owner neglects or refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall report the matter to the court, and it shall, after notice, enter an order to the owner to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein, and may enforce the order by suitable process.
[18] The case was re-raffled to Branch 101 on January 13, 1995.