G.R. No. 19742 ; March 16, 1923
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner; PASTOR SAUSE, PAZ SAUSE, ENCARNACION SAUSE, and MANUEL SAUSE, petitioners-appellees, vs. MATEO PAYVA, administrator-appellant.

FACTS

Clara Amarmas sold a 10-hectare portion of her land (Lot 1298) to Julio Sause under a pacto de retro sale, with a three-year redemption period ending July 8, 1919. Clara Amarmas died, and her estate was under administration. The redemption period expired without repurchase. The heirs of Julio Sause filed a motion in the intestate proceedings, invoking Section 72 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), to compel the administrator of Clara Amarmas’s estate to surrender the duplicate certificate of title so that the sale could be annotated and, upon consolidation of ownership, a new title issued in their favor. The administrator opposed, arguing that by previously presenting a claim for P200 (the repurchase price) to the claims committee in the estate settlement, the Sause heirs had waived their rights under the pacto de retro and elected to be treated as ordinary creditors. The trial court initially denied the motion but later set aside its order and, after hearing, granted the motion, ordering the administrator to surrender the title. The administrator appealed. The Sause heirs moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the order was issued under Section 72 of the Land Registration Act and was not appealable.

ISSUE

Whether the order of the trial court directing the administrator to surrender the certificate of title for annotation and eventual transfer is appealable.

RULING

Yes, the order is appealable. While a routine order under Section 72 of the Land Registration Act to surrender a certificate for annotation of a lien or claim may not be appealable, the order in this case went beyond a mere procedural directive. It resolved substantial questions regarding the parties’ rights—specifically, whether the Sause heirs, by filing a claim with the committee, had waived their rights under the pacto de retro and whether ownership had consolidated in their favor due to non-redemption. Furthermore, the order would lead to the cancellation of the existing certificate and the issuance of a new one, effecting a transfer of ownership. Such an order that adjudicates important rights and has definitive consequences is appealable. The motion to dismiss the appeal was denied.