G.R. No. L-32442 October 23, 1972
ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. RICARDO RELUCIO, Alias RICARDO RELUCIO NGO THIM, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Asian Surety filed a collection suit against respondent Ricardo Relucio and another. The defendants were declared in default, and a judgment by default was rendered against them. Relucio filed a motion to lift the order of default and set aside the judgment, which was denied by the trial court. Relucio appealed this denial to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-22079). Prior to the perfection of this appeal, the trial court issued a writ of execution. The sheriff levied on Relucio’s real property, sold it at public auction to Asian Surety, and, after the redemption period, executed a final deed of sale.
Subsequently, Asian Surety filed a petition in a different branch of the trial court (now acting as a land registration court) for the cancellation of Relucio’s certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in its name, based on the sheriff’s final deed. Relucio opposed, arguing the petition would render his pending appeal ineffectual. The trial court granted Asian Surety’s petition. Relucio appealed this grant to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s order. Asian Surety then appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court, acting as a land registration court, had jurisdiction to order the cancellation of Relucio’s title and the issuance of a new one to Asian Surety while Relucio’s appeal from the denial of his petition for relief from the default judgment was pending.

RULING

No, the trial court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic hinges on the effect of a perfected appeal on the trial court’s jurisdiction. Under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, once an appeal is perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except to issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve matters litigated by the appeal. Relucio’s appeal (G.R. No. L-22079) placed the validity of the default judgment itself in question.
The order for cancellation of title was not a protective order but the final act of executing that very judgment. It directly involved the matter litigated in the appeal—the enforceability of the judgment against Relucio. Therefore, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to issue it. The Court rejected Asian Surety’s argument that the petition was a mere ministerial act under the Land Registration Act. While the act of issuing a new title may be ministerial, the antecedent order directing such issuance was a judicial act requiring jurisdiction, which the court lacked. The proper course was to await the final outcome of the pending appeal.