G.R. No. L-10519; April 30, 1959
EUGENIA R. MENDOZA, petitioner-appellee, vs. SOLOMON S. ABRERA and FRANCISCO ABRERA, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Taciana Samante was the registered owner of Lot No. 2187 under Original Certificate of Title No. I-3818, mortgaged to the Agricultural Industrial Bank. On March 2, 1944, Samante and her son Francisco Abrera sold the land to Eugenia R. Mendoza. On June 28, 1954, Mendoza filed a petition in the cadastral court, alleging she had fully paid the bank loan from the sale proceeds, resulting in the cancellation of the lien, but that the owner’s duplicate title and other documents were lost due to a robbery. She prayed for a declaration of loss, reconstitution of the title, and issuance of a transfer certificate of title in her name. Solomon and Francisco Abrera, sons of the deceased Samante, opposed, claiming the sale was obtained by fraud, duress, and intimidation, and that Mendoza’s rights had prescribed for not being asserted within ten years. The Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (RFC), the bank’s successor, also opposed, alleging lack of knowledge of the sale and payment. On September 17, 1954, the court ordered the reconstitution of the original title in Samante’s name with the RFC lien annotated, without prejudice to Mendoza’s right to file an action to cancel the lien or assert her rights against the Abreras. On July 14, 1955, Mendoza filed another petition to register the deed of sale, surrender of the reconstituted title from RFC, cancellation of the original title, and issuance of a transfer certificate in her name with the lien annotated. The Abrera brothers filed an amended opposition, raising the defenses of prescription, bar by prior judgment, lack of creditor’s consent to the sale, and the need for an ordinary civil action. The RFC also opposed, alleging bar by prior order and lack of consent to the sale. On August 31, 1955, the court decreed: (a) ordering the Abrera heirs to file an action for annulment of the deed of sale within 30 days and to notify the court; (b) should they fail, ordering RFC to surrender the title to the Register of Deeds and ordering the Register to register the deed of sale and issue a transfer certificate of title to Mendoza with the mortgage lien transcribed; and (c) reiterating that if RFC accepts payment from the heirs, it must hold delivery of the title pending the final decision of any annulment action. The Abreras’ motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for registration is barred by res judicata due to the prior court order.
2. Whether the petition for registration has prescribed because the deed of sale was executed more than ten years prior.
3. Whether Mendoza should have filed an ordinary civil action instead of a petition in the cadastral court.

RULING

1. No, the petition is not barred by res judicata. The prior order of September 17, 1954, expressly reserved Mendoza’s right to file any action to cancel the RFC lien and to assert her rights against the Abrera brothers. The second petition was filed in pursuance of that reservation.
2. No, prescription is not a proper ground for denial in this cadastral proceeding. Under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ), no limitation period is fixed for filing a petition to annotate a deed of sale on a certificate of title. The cadastral court lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the right to register has lapsed due to prescription. Such an objection must be raised in an ordinary civil action. The appealed order appropriately authorized the oppositors to file an action for annulment to address such claims.
3. No, an ordinary civil action was not required. The opposition filed by the Abrera brothers did not substantively question the existence and validity of the deed of sale, as they presented no allegations or proofs of fraud, duress, or intimidation during the trial. The registration of the sale and issuance of a transfer certificate of title are ministerial duties of the Register of Deeds, which the Court of First Instance, sitting as a cadastral court, could order. The petition is in accordance with Sections 111 and 112 of Act No. 496 , as there was no genuine dispute over the deed’s existence and validity. Claims of fraud or duress must be ventilated in an ordinary civil action, not in the cadastral court. Therefore, the court correctly ordered the oppositors to file an annulment action within 30 days.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.