Philippine Cotton Corporation v. Gagoomal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pacific Mills, Inc. (Pacific Mills) sold five parcels of land to respondents Naraindas Gagoomal and Engracio Ang on an installment basis in 1979. Prior to this sale, on June 23, 1983, petitioner Philippine Cotton Corporation (PCC) filed a collection case against Pacific Mills for an alleged loan obligation. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and annotated on the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) of the five parcels of land on August 17, 1983. A decision was rendered against Pacific Mills on December 27, 1985, which was affirmed on appeal. Procedural History: During the pendency of Pacific Mills' appeal to the Supreme Court, the Quezon City Hall, including the Registry of Deeds records, was destroyed by fire in 1988. Pacific Mills subsequently obtained reconstituted TCTs through administrative reconstitution under Republic Act No. 6732. These reconstituted TCTs did not include the annotation of PCC's preliminary attachment but did reflect the sale to respondents and their full payment. The reconstituted TCTs were then cancelled in favor of respondents. PCC later requested the annotation of the notice of levy and a Supreme Court decision on these new TCTs. Respondents, upon learning of these annotation requests, filed a Petition for the Cancellation of Annotations in Land Titles. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the deletion of the annotations. PCC appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the appeal, ruling that the issue was a pure question of law beyond its jurisdiction. This led to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Philippine Cotton Corporation seeks review of the CA's decision, asserting that the Register of Deeds has the authority to re-annotate the encumbrance/liens and annotate the Supreme Court decision on the administratively reconstituted TCTs. PCC argues that Section 71 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 imposes a ministerial duty on the Register of Deeds to record such attachments and liens upon proper request, especially when the writ of attachment was issued after a hearing and has not been dissolved. PCC contends that the Register of Deeds should have annotated its notice of levy and the Supreme Court decision on the respondents' TCTs. The petition raises two assignments of error concerning the lower courts' failure to sustain the Register of Deeds' authority to re-annotate and their subsequent order to delete the annotations.
Issue(s)
Whether the Register of Deeds has the authority to re-annotate the notice of levy and annotate the Supreme Court decision on the administratively reconstituted Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in favor of petitioner, considering the provisions of Republic Act No. 26 and Presidential Decree No. 1529. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the issue raised was a pure question of law.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 50332, dated August 29, 1997, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101, in Civil Case No. Q-6056(93) are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Register of Deeds to re-annotate: The Court held that the Register of Deeds has no ministerial duty to record a right or interest that was not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate of title. Republic Act No. 26 specifically provides the procedure for annotating rights or interests that do not appear in the reconstituted certificate, requiring a petition to the court. Section 10 of P.D. No. 1529 pertains to the general functions of the Register of Deeds, while Section 71 deals with attachments or liens where the duplicate certificate was not presented at the time of registration; these do not apply when the petitioner claims an interest that was supposedly annotated prior to the reconstitution of the titles, and which did not appear in the reconstituted titles. Furthermore, Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529 explicitly states that no erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or memorandum thereon, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. Therefore, the task of determining the merits of such claims is lodged with the courts, not the Register of Deeds. On the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the appeal: The Court affirmed the CA's dismissal of the appeal. The issue of whether the Register of Deeds has the authority to re-annotate a lien on an administratively reconstituted title, when such lien does not appear on the reconstituted title, is a pure question of law. Such questions fall outside the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals when the case originates from the RTC and involves a question of law, as opposed to a question of fact. The CA correctly ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the appeal as presented.
Main Doctrine
The Register of Deeds has no ministerial duty to annotate a lien or encumbrance on an administratively reconstituted title if such lien or encumbrance does not appear on the reconstituted certificate of title. The determination of the merits of such a claim requires a court order, as provided by law.