G.R. No. L-29119 February 28, 1983
CO CHIN LENG, petitioner-appellee, vs. CO CHIN TONG, MACARIO CO LING and ONG HAI TONG, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

Petitioner Co Chin Leng, a co-owner of a one-tenth share in a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 58759, sought to mortgage his share to China Banking Corporation. The Register of Deeds of Manila refused registration because the owner’s duplicate certificate of title could not be presented. Petitioner alleged that the duplicate was in the possession of co-owner Co Chin Tong, who refused to surrender it despite demands. During proceedings, it was revealed that the duplicate was actually held by another co-owner, respondent Ong Hai Tong. Petitioner thus filed a petition in the Court of First Instance, sitting as a land registration court, praying for an order directing the surrender of the duplicate or, upon failure, for its cancellation and the issuance of a new one.
Respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the land registration court lacked jurisdiction as the matter partook of a civil action. They contended there was no legal provision authorizing the court to declare a title null and void and issue a new one, that the petition stated no cause of action, and that the remedy was improper. The lower court issued an order directing Ong Hai Tong or any respondent in possession to surrender the duplicate to the Register of Deeds within five days, authorizing its cancellation and the issuance of a new title if not complied with. Respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the land registration court had jurisdiction to order the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title to allow the annotation of a mortgage on a co-owner’s share.

RULING

Yes, the land registration court had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders. The legal logic is anchored on Section 72 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ), as interpreted in Director of Lands vs. Heirs of Abadezco. This provision outlines the procedure when an owner’s duplicate certificate is withheld, preventing the registration of an instrument like a mortgage. The Court clarified that to give full effect to the registration system’s purposes, Section 72 is applicable to the registration of a mortgage deed. The lower court, acting under this authority, properly ordered the surrender of the duplicate to facilitate the mortgage’s annotation. The proceeding was correctly filed in the original registration case as required by law.
The Court rejected respondents’ jurisdictional challenge, noting that the petition’s sole objective was to compel surrender for registration, not to adjudicate the mortgage’s validity. Questions regarding the mortgage’s effect or any co-ownership agreements were beyond the scope of this summary proceeding and could be litigated in a separate civil action. The Court found no valid reason for withholding the duplicate and upheld the lower court’s use of its authority to enforce its orders, ensuring the Torrens system’s efficacy by allowing legitimate transactions to be registered. Costs were imposed on respondents-appellants.