G.R. No. L-27210. June 29, 1972.
Agapito Supio, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Bernardino Garde, et al., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, heirs of Aniceto Gicano, filed an action for partition of Lot No. 915, claiming co-ownership with the defendants-appellees, who are also heirs. Their claim was based on a judicially reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 41323) issued in 1965, which listed all heirs as registered owners. The defendants opposed the partition, asserting exclusive ownership under an earlier, uncancelled Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. 15502) issued in 1922 solely in their names and their mother, Irene Gicano.
The parties stipulated that the defendants’ OCT 15502 remains valid and uncancelled. It was issued pursuant to a 1922 Supreme Court decision that adjudicated the entire lot exclusively to the defendants, a fact known to the plaintiffs. Following the 1965 reconstitution and issuance of the plaintiffs’ TCT, the defendants filed a pending petition for relief in the cadastral proceedings to annul the reconstitution orders.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs can maintain an action for partition based on their reconstituted certificate of title while a superior, earlier-issued, and uncancelled Torrens title exists in the names of the defendants exclusively.

RULING

No. The trial court correctly dismissed the action for partition. The indispensable requirement for an action for partition is that the plaintiffs must have a clear legal right to co-ownership. Here, two conflicting certificates of title exist over the same land. The defendants’ OCT 15502, issued by virtue of a final 1922 Supreme Court decision, is the earlier and superior title. It remains uncancelled and evidences exclusive ownership in the defendants’ favor.
The plaintiffs’ reconstituted title cannot override the prior valid title. Under the Torrens system, a reconstituted title is subordinate to an existing original title. The proper remedy is not partition but a direct proceeding to resolve the conflict of titles. Republic Act No. 26 (Section 19) mandates that when a lost title is reconstituted in the name of a person different from the holder of the recovered original title, the register of deeds must bring the matter to court for cancellation of the reconstituted title. The pending petition for relief in the cadastral court is precisely that proceeding. The partition action is premature and must yield until the land court definitively determines which title prevails. The dismissal is affirmed, without prejudice to the resolution of the title conflict in the appropriate cadastral case.