GR L 18725; (March, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18725 March 31, 1965
JOSE MA. LEDESMA, petitioner-appellee, vs. FELIX VILLASEÑOR, movant-appellant.
FACTS
Felix Villaseñor, as special administrator of his father Eusebio Villaseñor’s estate, filed a petition (Civil Case No. 5662) in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to enjoin the Register of Deeds from registering a deed of sale where Eusebio conveyed two lots to Jose Ma. Ledesma, alleging the deed was fictitious and the signature forged. The court issued a preliminary injunction. Ledesma intervened. On October 3, 1960, the court lifted the injunction and dismissed Villaseñor’s petition. On October 5, 1960, Ledesma filed a petition in the cadastral record of the lots, asking the court to order the Register of Deeds to register the deed, citing the dismissal and dissolution of the injunction. The court, without notice to the Register of Deeds or Villaseñor, issued an order for registration on the same day. The Register of Deeds complied, cancelling the old titles and issuing new ones in Ledesma’s name. On October 8, 1960, upon another petition by Ledesma, the court ordered the cancellation of the newly issued certificates and the issuance of new ones again in his name. Villaseñor moved for reconsideration and appealed upon its denial.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in issuing the orders directing the registration of the deed of sale and the issuance of new certificates of title in Ledesma’s name without notice and hearing, and while the dismissal of the civil case contesting the deed was not yet final.
RULING
Yes, the lower court committed error. The dissolution of the preliminary injunction removed the obstacle for the Register of Deeds to register the deed if it was registrable on its face, as his duty is ministerial. However, the court’s orders in the cadastral proceeding, issued without notice to the Register of Deeds or Villaseñor, were improper. The dismissal of Civil Case No. 5662 was not yet final, and the court was aware the deed’s validity was still contested. The court should have afforded Villaseñor notice and hearing to reiterate his objections and present evidence, or to note the civil action was not definitively settled. The court’s action improperly took the ministerial function from the Register of Deeds and preempted the question still pending in the civil action. The orders appealed from are set aside.