G.R. No. L-10322; May 28, 1958
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Director of Lands, applicant, vs. JACINTA ALVAREZ, ET AL., claimants. LIM HAY BE, petitioner-appellee. DALMACIO ATILANO and EUTALIA ATILANO, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Lim Hay Be, as administratrix of the estate of Laureano Madrazo, filed a motion in the cadastral court. She alleged that the intestate Madrazo acquired the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3843 at a public auction sale, which was confirmed by a court order dated July 4, 1939. The owner’s duplicate certificate was in the possession of the original registered owners, Melchor Rojas and Maria Socorro Pantaleon, but demands for its surrender were not complied with. Petitioner claimed the duplicate was now with oppositors Dalmacio Atilano and Eutalia Atilano and prayed for an order directing them to surrender it to the Register of Deeds for cancellation and issuance of a new title in Madrazo’s name.
Oppositors Dalmacio and Eutalia Atilano objected, claiming ownership through a series of unregistered deeds: the land was originally sold by the registered owners to Alipio Atilano on February 17, 1920, and subsequently sold to them on February 2, 1936. They asserted possession of both the land and the owner’s duplicate certificate, denied any demand for its delivery, and contended that the 1939 order could no longer be enforced by motion.
The evidence showed OCT No. 3843 was issued in 1913 in the names of Melchor Rojas and Maria Socorro Pantaleon. The unregistered sales to Alipio Atilano (1920) and then to the oppositors (1936) occurred. The property was attached in a civil case in 1935, with the attachment annotated on the title. The court had ordered the cancellation of the title and issuance of a new one for Madrazo in 1939.

ISSUE

Whether the cadastral court had jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s motion and resolve the conflicting claims of ownership over the land, which involved the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court and dismissed the petition. The cadastral court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the motion and the issues raised. The petition essentially sought to enforce a 1939 order and resolve a dispute over ownership between the petitioner’s intestate (who claimed under a court-confirmed auction sale) and the oppositors (who claimed under prior unregistered sales and possession). Citing established jurisprudence (Miraflor vs. Leaño, Cabangcala vs. Domingo, Enriquez vs. Atienza, Castillo vs. Ramos), the Supreme Court held that a cadastral court, acting as such, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such contentious claims of ownership long after the final decree of registration has been issued. The lack of jurisdiction was opportunely raised by the oppositors in their motion for reconsideration in the trial court and on appeal. Costs were imposed on the petitioner-appellee.