G.R. Nos. L-21703-04; August 31, 1966
Mateo H. Reyes and Juan H. Reyes, petitioners and appellants, vs. Mateo Raval Reyes, respondent and appellee.

FACTS

Petitioners Mateo H. Reyes and Juan H. Reyes, along with their brother Francisco H. Reyes, are the registered co-owners of several parcels of land covered by Original Certificates of Title Nos. 22161 and 8066. On July 17, 1962, petitioners filed a motion in the cadastral cases for a writ of possession over all lots covered by these titles. Respondent Mateo Raval Reyes opposed, claiming possession of the lots under OCT No. 22161 and asserting a right to possession of the lots under OCT No. 8066, having allegedly purchased the undivided one-third share of Francisco H. Reyes. The court granted the amended writ of possession on January 7, 1963, from which respondent did not appeal. Subsequently, petitioners filed an ordinary civil action (Civil Case No. 3659) to recover the products or value of the lots and moral damages. In that case, respondent answered and filed a counterclaim for partition of the lots, reiterating his claim as a co-owner based on the alleged purchase. Pending trial in Civil Case No. 3659, petitioners moved in the cadastral cases to compel respondent to surrender the owners’ duplicates of the certificates of title. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the lots were subjects of litigation in the pending civil case. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Who between the petitioners-appellants (registered owners) and the respondent-appellee (claimant of an unregistered interest) has a better right to the possession or custody of the owners’ duplicates of the certificates of title?

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court and ordered respondent to deliver the owners’ duplicates of the titles to petitioners. The Court held that the registered owner in whose name the land is inscribed in the certificate of title has a preferential right to possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate over one whose name does not appear on the title and who has yet to establish his right. Citing Director of Lands vs. Abacahin (72 Phil. 326), the Court ruled that if respondent believes he has a right as a co-owner, he must exercise an independent action to obtain his share. Since respondent had already filed a counterclaim for partition in Civil Case No. 3659 to protect his alleged rights, and could further avail of a notice of lis pendens under the Rules of Court, there was no justifiable reason for him to retain custody of the owners’ duplicates. The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on petitioners’ additional argument regarding res judicata.