Del Rosario v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of Lot No. 669, initially registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 17379 in the name of Casiano Cornejo. Antonio del Rosario and Apolonia Galicia obtained a favorable judgment against Cornejo and secured a writ of execution, leading to an attachment and subsequent public auction of the lot. Emiliana Santos claims ownership through a sale with pacto de retro from Cornejo, which was executed prior to the public auction but registered afterward. 2. Procedural History: Following a judgment in favor of Antonio del Rosario and Apolonia Galicia, a writ of execution was issued and noted on Original Certificate of Title No. 17379 on March 27, 1934. A sale with pacto de retro of the same lot from Casiano Cornejo to Emiliana Santos was registered on April 27, 1934. The lot was sold at public auction on May 3, 1934, to del Rosario and Galicia, who were the highest bidders. Emiliana Santos filed a third-party claim, but the required legal action to enforce her claim was not timely brought. After the redemption period expired, a final deed of sale was issued to del Rosario and Galicia on May 3, 1935. When they presented this deed for registration, it was discovered that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8211, in favor of Emiliana Santos, had been prepared but not finalized. 3. The Petition: Antonio del Rosario and Apolonia Galicia filed a motion in the cadastral case, seeking an order to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8211, which was being prepared for Emiliana Santos, and to issue a new title in their names. The Court of First Instance initially ordered the cancellation and issuance of a new title in favor of del Rosario and Galicia. Emiliana Santos appealed this decision, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the cancellation and issuance of title based on a simple motion and that her opposition should have been sustained. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the portion of the judgment ordering the cancellation of the unissued title No. 8211, finding that no valid title in Santos's name existed to be cancelled, and affirmed the rest of the lower court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the court a quo erred in ordering the cancellation of transfer certificate of title No. 8211 and the issuance of another in lieu thereof in the name of the appellees. Whether the court a quo erred in not sustaining the opposition of the appellant based on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to order the cancellation of transfer certificate of title No. 8211 and the issuance of another in lieu thereof in the name of the appellees, upon a simple motion. Whether the court a quo erred in denying the motion for new trial filed by the appellant.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is reversed in so far as it orders the cancellation of transfer certificate of title No. 8211, and it is affirmed in all other respects. The costs are to be taxed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the cancellation of title: The Supreme Court held that the registration of the writ of execution in favor of the petitioners-appellees, noted at the back of the original certificate of title, took precedence over the subsequent registration of the deed of sale with pacto de retro in favor of the oppositor-appellant. This principle is based on the rule of prior tempore potior jure (he who is first in time is preferred in right). The Court cited the case of Worcester vs. Ocampo and Ocampo, which established that a right acquired by virtue of a prior registration of an attachment in execution is superior to a right acquired by virtue of a subsequent sale with pacto de retro, even if the sale was executed prior to the attachment, if the sale was not registered until after the attachment. On the validity of the transfer certificate of title in favor of Emiliana Santos: The Court found that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8211, which was to be issued in the name of Emiliana Santos, was not perfected because the register of deeds never signed it. This was due to the presentation of the final deed of sale by the petitioners-appellees and their petition for the cancellation of the original title and issuance of a new one in their favor. Therefore, there existed no legal and valid transfer certificate of title over lot No. 669 in favor of Emiliana Santos that could be cancelled. On the denial of the motion for new trial: While not explicitly detailed in the provided text, the affirmation of the judgment in all other respects implies that the denial of the motion for new trial was also sustained, as it was an assigned error by the appellant. The core of the appeal revolved around the priority of rights based on registration, which the Supreme Court resolved in favor of the execution creditors.
Main Doctrine
The registration of a writ of execution in the office of the register of deeds, noted at the back of the original certificate of title, takes precedence over a subsequent registration of a sale with pacto de retro of the same property, even if the deed of sale with pacto de retro was executed prior to the registration of the writ of execution.