G.R. No. L-9510; October 31, 1957
CIRILO ABRASIA, Register of Deeds, petitioner-appellee, vs. GREGORIO CARIAN, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Lots 1617, 1355, 1949, 1921, 1516, 1613, 1614, and 1616 of the Kabankalan Cadastral Survey were registered under the Torrens system in the name of the spouses Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Carian and belonged to their conjugal partnership. Upon Guillermo Nombre’s death without descendants or ascendants, his collateral relatives filed Civil Case No. 6936 against the widow Victoriana Carian and other relatives. A decision was rendered on March 9, 1937, based on a compromise agreement stipulating that: the lots were conjugal property; Guillermo and Victoriana each owned a one-half pro-indiviso share; Guillermo’s heirs were Victoriana and his collateral relatives; these heirs assumed payment of his debts (P775) and inheritance tax from his share; Victoriana would redeem two mortgaged properties; during her lifetime, Victoriana had a usufruct over Lot 1617; the conjugal partnership would be divided equally between Victoriana and Guillermo’s heirs; and Guillermo’s heirs mortgaged their share to secure payment of the P775 to Victoriana.
On January 8, 1952, Gregorio Carian executed a sworn “declaration of heirship,” stating that Victoriana Carian died intestate on May 9, 1938, leaving no debts, and that he, as her nephew and only heir (son of her only brother Jacinto Carian), was entitled to her share. He requested the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental to issue certificates of title in his name for Victoriana’s share. On January 15, 1952, the decision in Civil Case No. 6936 and the declaration of heirship were filed with the Register of Deeds, who subsequently cancelled Original Certificate of Title No. 21625 (covering Lot 1516) and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9084 in Gregorio Carian’s name.
On March 21, 1955, Cirilo Abrasia, the Register of Deeds, filed a petition in the cadastral court, alleging that the decision in Civil Case No. 6936 was improperly registered because it was not confirmed by the cadastral court. He claimed this was a “jurisdictional” mistake and sought authority to cancel TCT No. T-9084 and reinstate OCT No. 21625. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental granted the petition on April 2, 1955. Gregorio Carian’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 20, 1955, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Register of Deeds correctly sought and the lower court properly ordered the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9084 and reinstatement of Original Certificate of Title No. 21625 on the grounds that: (1) Victoriana Carian left unpaid debts, and (2) the decision in Civil Case No. 6936 could not be registered without prior confirmation by the cadastral court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court.
1. Regarding Victoriana Carian’s alleged unpaid debts: The record showed no evidence that Victoriana left unpaid debts. The opposition by Guillermo Nombre’s heirs cited debts from the 1937 compromise agreement and other claims, but no proof was presented. The order was issued in 1955, about 17 years after Victoriana’s death in 1938. In the absence of contrary proof, the Court presumed the creditors’ causes of action had prescribed. Furthermore, under Section 1 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, it is presumed a decedent left no debts if no creditor petitions for letters of administration within two years after death. No such petition was filed. Creditors, if any, were the proper parties to seek relief, not the Register of Deeds or Guillermo’s heirs. Additionally, after TCT No. T-9084 was issued, Lot 1516 was leased to Espiridion Presbitero, and the lease was annotated on the title. Cancelling the title would affect the lessee’s rights without giving him an opportunity to be heard.
2. Regarding the need for cadastral court confirmation: Neither the appellee (Register of Deeds) nor the lower court cited any legal provision or authority supporting the theory that the decision in Civil Case No. 6936 could not be registered and justify the cancellation and issuance of titles without prior confirmation by the cadastral court. The Supreme Court found no basis for this requirement.
Therefore, the order appealed from was set aside and reversed. No costs were awarded.