Betco v. La Flor De Intal
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the registration of a document intended to cancel conditions endorsed on a certificate of title. The opponent-appellee objected to the approval of a bill of exceptions, arguing that the order directing the form of annotation by the register of deeds was not a final judgment from which an appeal could be perfected. 2. Procedural History: The case originated in the Court of First Instance of Manila, functioning as a land court. An order was issued by the judge of the fourth branch directing the register of deeds on the form of an annotation. The petitioner-appellant sought to appeal this order via a bill of exceptions. The opponent-appellee moved to dismiss the appeal in the Supreme Court, challenging the appealability of the order. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant sought review by the Supreme Court of an order issued by the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The core of the petition revolves around whether such an order, directing the register of deeds on the form of an annotation for cancellation of conditions on a title, is a final judgment appealable to the Supreme Court. The petitioner-appellant argues for the right to appeal, tracing the authority of the land court and its successor through various legislative acts.
Issue(s)
Is an order made by the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, functioning as a land court, addressed to the register of deeds, directing the form of an annotation to be indorsed on the back of a certificate of title and the cancellation of entries, a final judgment in a civil action from which the aggrieved party has the right to perfect a bill of exceptions for review by the Supreme Court?
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that an appeal by bill of exceptions can be taken from an order entered by the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, pursuant to the authority conferred by section 200 of the Administrative Code. The Court directed the register of deeds to admit to registry the document presented as a cancellation of conditions endorsed on Certificate of Transfer No. 10357 and to cancel the entries designated as "A. P. 523" and "A. P. 524" in their entirety.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that an order issued by a judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI), acting as a land court in Manila under Section 200 of the Administrative Code, is indeed a final judgment from which an appeal by bill of exceptions may be taken. The Court traced the legislative history, noting that under Spanish sovereignty, registrars' doubts regarding the Mortgage Law were referred to the president of the Audiencia or a judge of first instance. With the establishment of the Court of Land Registration by Act No. 496, Section 53 explicitly provided for questions to be referred to the court for decision, with the court entering an order prescribing the form of memorandum to the register of deeds, and Act No. 1108 stated that "Every order, decision, and decree of the Court of Land Registration may be reviewed by the Supreme Court." When the Court of Land Registration was abolished by Act No. 2347 (Judiciary Reorganization Act) and its powers transferred to the CFIs, the legislative intent to allow appeal remained. Section 11 of Act No. 2347 specifically conferred upon the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth District the powers previously held by the Court of Land Registration, and Section 200 of the Administrative Code continued this authority, prescribing that the judge "shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made." The Court emphasized that the duties of a registrar of property, especially under the Mortgage Law, are largely quasi-judicial, as articulated in Debrunner vs. Jaramillo ([1908], 12 Phil., 316). This quasi-judicial nature necessitates judicial review. Furthermore, the Court cited McGirr vs. Hamilton and Abreu ([1915], 30 Phil., 563) to reinforce the long-standing judicial trend confirming a practically unlimited right of appeal to the Supreme Court from all judgments and orders pronounced by the Courts of First Instance. Therefore, by historical legislative intent and established jurisprudence, such an order constitutes an appealable final judgment.
Main Doctrine
An order made by the judge of the fourth branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, directing the register of deeds on the form of an annotation on a certificate of title, is a final judgment from which an appeal by bill of exceptions may be perfected to the Supreme Court.