G.R. No. L-18596; September 30, 1964
ALVAREZ MALAGUIT (MORO), plaintiff-appellant, vs. FELIX ALIPIO ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Alvarez Malaguit filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Basilan City to recover possession of portions of Lot No. 67, a 34,775 sq. m. parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 10246, from defendants Felix Alipio and others. Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership, alleging defendants usurped portions during his absence. Defendants countered they were the true owners of their respective occupied portions, having acquired them through purchase and possessing them adversely, and they submitted a subdivision plan to delineate their claims.
The trial court dismissed the complaint. It found Lot No. 67 was originally owned by Domingo Malaguit and, upon his death, was registered pro-indiviso in the names of his six heirs, including plaintiff and his five siblings. The court ruled plaintiff owned only a 1/6 share, not the entire lot. It further held the defendants derived valid title from transactions with plaintiff’s co-heirs and ordered the registration of the defendants’ portions based on their subdivision plan. Plaintiff appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether plaintiff was the exclusive owner of Lot No. 67; (2) whether the defendants had validly acquired ownership of their respective portions; and (3) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order the registration of the defendants’ shares.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, affirming it in substance but correcting a jurisdictional error. On ownership, the Court upheld the finding that plaintiff owned only a 1/6 undivided share. The decree of registration and the original certificate of title conclusively established co-ownership among the six heirs. Plaintiff’s claim that his siblings had renounced their shares in his favor was contradicted by documentary evidence showing these siblings had sold their interests to third parties years before the alleged renunciations, indicating prior oral partition.
Regarding the defendants’ titles, the Court found they had proven ownership through a chain of valid conveyances traceable to the Malaguit heirs. The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that these sales were void for lack of approval by provincial or municipal authorities under the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu. That legal requirement applied only to transactions involving Moros. The evidence showed plaintiff and his siblings were Christians (their names lacked the “Moro” designation in the decree, unlike their wives), thus the approval was unnecessary.
However, the Court held the trial court erred in directly ordering the registration of the defendants’ portions. Since the lot was under the Torrens system, a petition for such registration under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the registration court. Therefore, that portion of the dispositive ruling was eliminated. The decision was affirmed in all other respects.