Facts:

This case involves an appeal by Gregorio Carian against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. The case pertains to a group of eight lots (1617, 1855, 1949, 1921, 1516, 1613, 1614, and 1616) from the Cadastral Survey of Kabankalan, Negron Occidental, which originally belonged to the spouses Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Carian under the Torrens system. Following the death of Guillermo Nombre, who left no descendants or ascendants, his collateral relatives initiated Civil Case No. 6936 against his widow, Victoriana Carian, and other relatives. On March 9, 1937, a decision was rendered involving a compromise agreement that stipulated the division of the properties and acknowledged Victoriana's usufructuary rights over Lot No. 1617 during her lifetime. Nearly 15 years later, on January 8, 1952, Gregorio Carian filed a sworn declaration claiming to be the sole heir of Victoriana Carian, who had died intestate in 1938. He requested that the Register o

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The properties in dispute are eight (8) lots (Lots 1617, 155, 1949, 1921, 1516, 1613, 1614, and 1616) in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, originally registered under the Torrens system in the names of Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Carian (alias Victoria Carian) as part of their conjugal partnership.
• Upon the death of Guillermo Nombre, who left no ascendants or descendants, collateral relatives initiated Civil Case No. 6936 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, contesting the division of the conjugal partnership.

Settlement and Compromise Agreement Details

• The decision rendered on March 9, 1937, in the civil case was based on a compromise agreement. Key stipulations included:
• Recognition that the eight (8) lots (with improvements) formed part of the conjugal partnership.
• Each party (Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Carian) was entitled to one-half pro-indiviso of the properties.
• Upon Guillermo Nombre’s death, his heirs—comprising Victoriana Carian and his collateral relatives—assumed his debts totalling P775 and the corresponding inheritance tax, these obligations to be deducted from his share.
• Victoriana Carian was to redeem two mortgaged properties and enjoy the usufruct of Lot No. 1617 during her lifetime.
• The properties were to be divided equally once the decision became final, with the heirs of Guillermo obligated to pay P775 (without interest) within one (1) year, secured by a mortgage of their interests.

Subsequent Registration and Declaration of Heirship

• Approximately fifteen years later, on January 8, 1952, Gregorio Carian—nephew and alleged sole heir of Victoriana Carian—filed a sworn declaration of heirship.
• His declaration stated that Victoriana Carian died intestate on May 9, 1938, leaving no debts, and requested that the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental issue titles in his name for the share of the conjugal partnership as established in the earlier decision.
• Consequently, on January 15, 1952, the office of the Register of Deeds cancelled Original Certificate of Title No. 21625 (RO-1634) covering Lot No. 1516 and, instead, issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9084 in the name of Gregorio Carian.

Petition by the Register of Deeds and Further Developments

• On March 21, 1955, Cirilo Abrasia, the Register of Deeds, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental to cancel the issued Transfer Certificate of Title, arguing that:
• The decision in Civil Case No. 6936 had been “improperly registered” because it was not confirmed by the cadastral court.
• A motion for such confirmation had never been filed, constituting an “oversight and mistake of law” that was deemed jurisdictional in nature.
• This petition led to an order dated April 2, 1955, granting the petition and cancelling the transfer certificate, thereby aiming to reinstate the Original Certificate of Title.
• Gregorio Carian subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on April 27, 1955, which was opposed by the heirs of Guillermo Nombre (May 13, 1955) and the Register of Deeds (May 20, 1955); the motion for reconsideration was ultimately denied.

Contentions Raised on Appeal

• The issues raised in the appeal involved two primary grounds:
• Allegations that Victoriana Carian left unpaid debts, specifically sums of P1,200 and P2,000 allegedly owed to Eugenia Gargalicano and Crisostomo Abdin, respectively, at the time of her death.
• The argument that the decision in Civil Case No. 6936 could not be properly registered (and used to effect the cancellation of the title) without prior confirmation by the cadastral court.
• Evidentiary matters:
• No proof or evidence was presented to establish the existence of any unpaid debts attributable to Victoriana Carian.
• The fact that over 18 years had elapsed since the decision and that no creditor had intervened or sought relief under Rule 74 further diminished the debt-based contention.
• Additional developments included the subsequent lease of Lot No. 1516 to a third party, Espiridion Presbitero, complicating the matter of title cancellation with respect to the interests of bona fide lessees.

Issue:

Validity of the Registration and Subsequent Cancellation

• Whether the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9084 on the ground of “improper registration” (due to the absence of cadastral court confirmation) is proper under the law.
• Whether the petition by the Register of Deeds to reinstate the Original Certificate of Title was legally tenable.

Allegations of Outstanding Debts

• Whether the claim that Victoriana Carian left unpaid debts (namely P1,200 and P2,000 claims) is substantiated by evidence and legally relevant to the registration and cancellation of titles.
• Whether such alleged debts, even if noted in the earlier compromise agreement, remain actionable after the lapse of time without creditor intervention.

Impact on Third-Party Rights

• The issue of protecting the rights and interests of third parties, such as the lessee (Espiridion Presbitero), who acquired rights based on the transfer certificate now sought to be cancelled.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)