G.R. No. L-21887; July 30, 1969
TEOTIMO T. TOMADA and ROSALIA TAN, petitioners-appellees, vs. RODOLFO T. TOMADA, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioners-spouses Teotimo T. Tomada and Rosalia Tan filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, sitting as a land registration court, seeking the cancellation of an adverse claim annotated on Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 4631, 4630, and 3649 covering Lots Nos. 166-B, 167-A, and a 1/7 share of Lot No. 1691, Ormoc Cadastre. They alleged they purchased the properties from Felisa T. Tomada (Tan) Hilton through her attorney-in-fact, Atty. Bruno A. Villamor, under a deed of sale dated April 5, 1963. This deed was initially unregistered because the special power of attorney executed in the U.S. lacked authentication by a Philippine consul. Subsequently, on April 6, 1963, Vicente Tomada, acting under a general power of attorney from Felisa, executed a deed of sale over the same properties in favor of respondent Rodolfo T. Tomada. Respondent registered an affidavit of adverse claim on April 16, 1963. Petitioners later secured a new authenticated special power of attorney, executed a confirmatory deed of sale dated June 5, 1963, and registered it on June 7, 1963, resulting in the issuance of new titles in their names with respondent’s adverse claim annotated. Petitioners asked the court to declare them the lawful purchasers, declare the adverse claim frivolous, order its cancellation, and award attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent opposed, claiming absolute ownership by virtue of his prior purchase and possession, and contended that the land registration court lacked jurisdiction to try the conflicting claims of ownership, which should be resolved in an ordinary civil action. After a hearing where respondent was represented by counsel but presented only a payment receipt, the trial court granted the petition, declaring respondent’s sale null and void for lack of consideration and lack of authority in the attorney-in-fact, and ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration court under Section 110 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), had jurisdiction to resolve the conflicting claims of ownership between two vendees of the same properties and to declare the nullity of a deed of sale, or whether such issues are cognizable only by the court in an ordinary civil action.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the lower court and dismissed the petition. It held that the land registration court lacked jurisdiction over the case. The real issue presented was not merely the validity of the adverse claim for annotation purposes, but one of ownership involving the validity of a sale under a general power of attorney and a conflict of rights between two vendees of the same properties. Such questions of ownership are beyond the summary jurisdiction of a land registration court and properly pertain to the court acting under its ordinary civil jurisdiction. The proceedings under the Land Registration Act are summary and inadequate for litigating issues properly belonging to civil actions. Consequently, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to discuss the other assigned errors.