GR L 1234; (April, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-1234; April 30, 1949
VICTORINO FLORO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Victorino Floro purchased five parcels of land from defendant-appellee Santiago Granada under a pacto de retro sale with lease. After liberation, Granada obtained reconstituted transfer certificates of title in his name but refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificates to Floro to allow registration and annotation of the pacto de retro contract. Floro filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel Granada to deliver the certificates. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Floro should instead file a petition in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, where the land is located and the original registration decree was entered, to compel surrender of the certificates under the Land Registration Act.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over Floro’s action to compel Granada to deliver the owner’s duplicate certificates of title to enable registration of the pacto de retro sale.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the proper remedy and venue lie under the Land Registration Act. A pacto de retro sale transfers legal title (fee simple) to the vendee (Floro), subject only to the vendor’s right of redemption. To register such a transfer when the vendor withholds the owner’s duplicate certificate, the vendee must file a petition in the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is located—specifically, in the original registration case—pursuant to Section 111 of Act No. 496 . That court may then order the surrender of the duplicate certificate and direct the issuance of a new certificate in the vendee’s name. The Manila court correctly declined jurisdiction, as the action should have been filed in Occidental Negros.
AI Generated by Armztrong.