Padilla v. Philippine Producers' Cooperative Marketing Association
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner and his wife were registered owners of three lots. Respondent filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money against petitioner. Petitioner failed to file an answer and was declared in default. A decision was rendered in favor of respondent. A writ of execution was issued, and the three lots were levied and auctioned off. Respondent was the sole bidder, and a certificate of sale was executed in its favor and recorded in the Register of Deeds. Petitioner failed to exercise his right of redemption within the 12-month period. Procedural History: Respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, which was granted. Subsequently, respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles in its name, alleging the Register of Deeds' refusal to do so without the owner's duplicate copies, which were with petitioner. The trial court granted this motion. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order. The Petition: Petitioner contends that respondent's motion was a real action that required a separate suit, that he was not furnished a copy, that the execution of judgment was barred by prescription under Rule 39, Section 6, and that respondent failed to follow the procedure under Section 107 of PD 1529.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent's right to have new titles issued in its name is barred by prescription. Whether a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to cancel existing certificates of title and issue new ones is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and annulled the trial court's order directing the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates of title in favor of respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court ruled that respondent's right to petition for the issuance of new certificates of title had not prescribed. The Court cited Heirs of Blancaflor vs. Court of Appeals, stating that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and sale, and the purchaser acquires a right over the title upon purchase at the auction sale, which becomes absolute upon the expiration of the redemption period. In this case, the levy and sale occurred less than a year after the decision became final and executory, thus timely. Petitioner's failure to redeem further divested him of ownership. On the issue of the proper remedy: The Court found petitioner correct in assailing the propriety of respondent's filing a mere motion for cancellation and issuance of new titles. The Court held that Section 107 of PD 1529 requires a separate petition in court to compel the surrender of duplicate certificates of title when a new one is needed due to an involuntary instrument or refusal to surrender the duplicate. The Court emphasized that this procedure ensures due process and prevents fraudulent conveyance of land. While respondent could still file the proper petition with the cadastral court, the motion filed was procedurally infirm.
Main Doctrine
A motion to direct the Register of Deeds to cancel existing certificates of title and issue new ones in the name of the purchaser in an involuntary sale is not the proper remedy; a separate cadastral action initiated via petition is required under Section 107 of PD 1529.