GR 139881; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 139881 ; December 18, 2001
ERNESTO L. JARDELEZA, JR., GLENDA L. JARDELEZA-UY, and GILDA LEDESMA-JARDELEZA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 6TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 22, ILOILO CITY; and ROLANDO L. JARDELEZA, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Rolando Jardeleza filed a petition in the original cadastral case, docketed as an incidental proceeding, praying that petitioner Glenda Jardeleza-Uy be compelled to surrender to him the owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-114669 covering Lot No. 3303-B. He alleged that he was the registered owner of the lot, having purchased it from Giler Agro Development Corporation, and that after the subdivision and titling process, the owner’s duplicate copy was claimed and wrongfully retained by his sister, Glenda. Despite repeated demands, she refused to surrender it, prejudicing his rights as the registered owner.
The trial court denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss and, without resolving their pending motion for reconsideration, issued an order dated July 29, 1997, directing Glenda Jardeleza-Uy to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title to the branch clerk of court, to be held subject to the outcome of a separate pending action for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 23297). The Court of Appeals upheld this order, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ordering the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title to the court’s custody during the pendency of the main action for quieting of title.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and set aside the trial court’s order. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that the possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title is an incident and an attribute of ownership. The core controversy in the pending Civil Case No. 23297 is the very issue of ownership over Lot No. 3303-B. Until that main case is adjudicated with finality and a party’s title is nullified, the registered owner is entitled to retain possession of the duplicate certificate as evidence of such ownership.
The trial court’s order, issued while the question of ownership remained unresolved, effectively prejudged the case and derogated the ownership rights of petitioner Glenda Jardeleza-Uy as the holder of the title. It constituted a grave abuse of discretion because it dispossessed her of a vital evidence of ownership prematurely, without a final determination that she was not entitled to it. The proper recourse for a party claiming ownership against the registered owner is to seek the nullification of the title in the main action, not to secure its surrender through an incidental proceeding before the issue of ownership is settled.