GR 141256; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 141256 . July 15, 2005.
ESTANISLAO PADILLA, JR., Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE PRODUCERS’ COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent cooperative obtained a final money judgment against petitioner. To satisfy the judgment, three of petitioner’s registered lots were levied and sold at public auction, with respondent as the highest bidder. After the one-year redemption period lapsed without petitioner redeeming the properties, respondent filed a motion in the same trial court that rendered the judgment, seeking an order to direct the Register of Deeds to cancel petitioner’s titles and issue new ones in its name. The trial court granted the motion. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the motion was a procedurally improper remedy for transferring title and that respondent’s right to execute the judgment had prescribed.
ISSUE
The principal issues were: (1) whether respondent’s right to seek the issuance of new titles was barred by prescription; and (2) whether a motion in the same case was the proper procedural vehicle to compel the cancellation of the old certificates of title and the issuance of new ones.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. On the first issue, the right to seek the issuance of new titles had not prescribed. The Court, citing Heirs of Blancaflor v. Court of Appeals, ruled that the purchaser’s inchoate right from an execution sale is a property right entitled to protection, and the enforcement of that right via a petition for the issuance of a new title is not subject to the five-year period for enforcing a judgment by motion under Rule 39. The prescriptive period for filing an action to quiet title applies, which is much longer.
On the second and decisive issue, the Court held that a mere motion in the execution case was not the proper remedy. The involuntary transfer of title following an execution sale involving registered land is governed by Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree). This provision requires the filing of a separate petition in the corresponding Regional Trial Court, sitting as a cadastral or land registration court, not a mere motion in the ordinary civil action. The proceeding is in rem, necessitating proper publication to bind all interested parties. While the Court disapproved of petitioner’s tactics to frustrate the judgment, respondent was obligated to follow the correct statutory procedure. The orders of the lower courts were annulled, but respondent was not precluded from filing the proper petition under Section 107 of P.D. No. 1529 to obtain new titles.