G.R. No. 130380 . March 17, 1999.
HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and GREATER MANILA EQUIPMENT MARKETING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

In 1968, the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered a judgment against Gaudencio Blancaflor in favor of Sarmiento Trading Corporation. To execute this judgment, Blancaflor’s property, Lot No. 22 covered by TCT No. 14749, was sold at a sheriff’s auction to Sarmiento Trading. The certificate of sale was inscribed on the title in December 1968. After the redemption period, a final deed of sale was issued in January 1970. In March 1970, the CFI of Iloilo, acting as a cadastral court, ordered the cancellation of Blancaflor’s title and the issuance of a new one in favor of Sarmiento Trading.
Despite this court order, no new title was issued because Blancaflor, and later his heirs, retained the owner’s duplicate certificate. In 1989, Greater Manila Equipment Marketing Corporation (the successor-in-interest) filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court to compel the surrender of the duplicate title. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the heirs to surrender the title or have it deemed cancelled. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether the action to compel the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, arising from an execution sale conducted in 1968, had already prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The action had not prescribed. The Court clarified that the right arising from the execution sale and the subsequent court order for the issuance of a new title is an imprescriptible right in rem concerning registered land. The execution process created a lien on the property, and the issuance of the final deed of sale transferred ownership to the buyer. The 1970 cadastral court order for cancellation and re-issuance of the title was a final order that vested title in the buyer.
The petitioners’ argument on prescription is untenable. An action for reconveyance based on a void title may prescribe, but here, the buyer’s title was acquired through a valid court-sanctioned execution sale and a subsequent judicial order. The buyer’s right is not a mere personal action but one that affects title to the land itself. Furthermore, the annotations on the original certificate of title (the notice of levy and certificate of sale) constituted constructive notice to the whole world from the time of registration, pursuant to Section 52 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. The failure to annotate these on the owner’s duplicate copy is immaterial for an involuntary dealing like an execution sale. The law provides a specific remedy—a petition under Section 107 of P.D. 1529—to compel surrender or cancel the duplicate, which was properly availed of. The long lapse of time did not extinguish the vested right.