Cordero v. Court of First Instance
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Raymundo Cordero was a surety for an administrator of an intestate estate. Due to malversation by the administrator, properties offered as security were sold on execution to Rosario Cosme de Mendoza. No redemption occurred, and a final decree of sale was issued. Procedural History: Respondent Rosario Cosme de Mendoza filed a petition to cancel certificates of title in petitioner's name and issue new ones in the intestate's name, with a writ of possession. Petitioner opposed, arguing the validity of the execution and sale was pending determination by the Supreme Court. The respondent Court of First Instance initially postponed resolution but later set aside its order, granted the cancellation and issuance of new titles with a writ of possession. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and new trial was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the respondent court's order. The Court of Appeals denied the writ. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the registration court had the authority to order the cancellation of original certificates of title and issue new ones in favor of the purchaser at public auction when the validity of the order of execution and the auction sale was disputed under oath by the petitioner. Whether the issuance of a writ of possession against the original registered owner is beyond the jurisdiction of the registration court.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to cancel titles and issue new ones: The Court affirmed that a Court of First Instance, acting as a land registration tribunal, possesses the power to order the cancellation of certificates of title and the issuance of new ones. This authority is derived from Sections 78 and 112 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496). Section 78 explicitly allows a person claiming under an execution or deed from an execution sale to petition the court for a new certificate after the redemption period expires. While Section 78 also provides that the registered owner may pursue lawful remedies to impeach or annul proceedings prior to the entry of a new certificate, this does not divest the court of its jurisdiction to act on the petition. The Court emphasized that A verbis legis non est recedendum (from the words of the law, one must not depart). Furthermore, the petitioner's sole ground for opposition, the pendency of a case in the Supreme Court, was rendered moot when this Court subsequently declared the legality of the order of execution. On the issuance of a writ of possession: The Court held that the registration court has the authority to issue a writ of possession. Section 17 of Act No. 496 grants the Court of Land Registration the power to enforce its orders, judgments, or decrees in the same manner as Courts of First Instance, including the issuance of a writ of possession. This power extends to placing the applicant in possession of the property covered by a decree in their favor. The Court cited Pasay Estate Co. vs. Del Rosario and Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Llorente to support the principle that a purchaser of registered land, as a successor in interest, has the right to the title and possession thereof and may ask for a writ of possession. The petitioner's claim that the writ could not be issued against him as the original registered owner was dismissed, as the Supreme Court's prior decision in Cosme de Mendoza vs. Pacheco and Cordero had already settled the question of ownership and possession in favor of the respondent purchaser, making the denial of possession a contradiction.
Main Doctrine
A Court of First Instance, exercising land registration jurisdiction, has the power to order the cancellation of certificates of title and the issuance of new ones in favor of a purchaser at an execution sale, even if the validity of the execution and sale is disputed, provided the legal remedies for challenging such proceedings have been exhausted or resolved.