G.R. No. L-8317; May 23, 1958
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN ABAD, ET AL. CALIXTO C. AQUINO, petitioner-appellee, FENICULA MOLINO, ROSANELIA MOLINO and MIGUEL MOLINO, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On December 18, 1933, a decision in Cadastral Case No. 25 (G.L.R.O. Record No. 3189) adjudicated specific portions of Lot No. 382 to Perfecto Molino, Maximiano Molino, and Anselmo Molino. After the decision became final but before the issuance of the decree, Anselmo Molino and Calixto C. Aquino executed a document (Exhibit F) on January 11, 1938, purporting to be a deed of sale conveying Anselmo’s portion to Aquino for P1,400 (P800 cash, P600 in installments). Lot 382 was later subdivided into Lots 382-A, 382-B, and 382-C (Anselmo’s portion), with the subdivision plan approved on December 29, 1948. Anselmo Molino died on December 24, 1939. On August 17, 1951, Aquino filed a petition in the cadastral case, alleging full payment and praying for the decree over Lot 382-C to be issued in his favor. The petition was opposed by Anselmo’s heirs (Miguel, Fenicula, and Rosanelia Molino), who claimed Exhibit F was actually a mortgage securing a debt already paid from rentals, and that Aquino should pay them rentals for his use of the lot. The Court of First Instance of Cagayan, in an order dated November 28, 1952, overruled the opposition and dismissed the counterclaim, holding that as a cadastral court, it lacked authority to determine the issues raised (the true nature of Exhibit F and the claim for rentals) and that such matters should be resolved in an ordinary civil action. The court ordered the issuance of the decree for Lot 382-C in favor of Aquino. The heirs appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance, acting as a cadastral court, erred in: 1) overruling the opposition and dismissing the counterclaim, and 2) finding that a sale occurred and ordering the decree issued in favor of Aquino.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court. On the first issue, the cadastral court correctly held that its jurisdiction was limited. It could not adjudicate the oppositors’ claims that Exhibit F was a mortgage tainted by fraud or that a debt had been paid, nor could it award money claims for rentals. These issues required an ordinary civil action. The court’s authority under Section 29 of Act No. 496 (as amended by Act No. 3901 ) was to order the decree issued in the name of the conveyee (Aquino) based on the presented instrument, not to determine its validity vis-à-vis third-party claims. On the second issue, the lower court did not err. Exhibit F was on its face a deed of sale. Under the law, title passed to the purchaser upon execution of the deed, irrespective of whether the installment payments were completed. The fact that Aquino may not have fully paid the price before Anselmo’s death did not affect the conveyance itself. The order directing the issuance of the decree in Aquino’s favor was proper.