Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25161)
Facts:
In Re Petition for the Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. RO-3552 (4853), G.R. No. L-25161, August 31, 1976, Supreme Court Second Division, Antonio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Luisa Ocol filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of La Union under Section 111 of Act No. 496 requesting an order that the respondents surrender the owner’s duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. RO-3552 (4853). The purpose was to enable the annotation/registration of an Escritura de Compra-Venta executed on June 17, 1930 by Marcela de Guzman, Mariano Rivera, and Tito Nipa (purporting to represent other heirs of Carlos Nipa), in favor of Anastacio Bilog and Evarista Mabalot; petitioner claimed she later purchased from Evarista Mabalot and Maximino Bilog.Petitioner alleged the deed had been presented for registration twice (November 14, 1949 and April 8, 1965) but respondents refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate. Copies of the petition with notice of hearing were sent to respondents by registered mail; the petition was set for hearing May 3, 1965. No respondent appeared and on May 10, 1965 the trial court ordered respondents to deliver the owner’s duplicate to the Register of Deeds within ten days.
On May 21, 1965 respondents filed a motion for reconsideration arguing, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction because no summons had been issued by the Clerk; they also challenged the petition’s merit, asserting Mariano Rivera had no interest and that Tito Nipa denied the authenticity of his signature (forgery) via affidavit. Petitioner opposed, asserting service complied with Section 113 of Act No. 496 and invoking Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes to argue that objections to validity/authenticity should await post-registration litigation.
On June 14, 1965 the trial court granted respondents’ motion for reconsideration and set aside the May 10 order, reasoning that the proceeding partook of the nature of an ordinary civil action requiring issuance of summons and the opportunity to answer (Rule 7, Rules of Court; Rule 14 procedural requirements), and that a hearing was necessary because substantial controversies as to identi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of First Instance acquire jurisdiction over the respondents so as to lawfully issue the May 10, 1965 surrender order where service was by copies sent under Section 113, Act No. 496, rather than by summons?
- Whether a petition under Section 111 of Act No. 496 is a summary proceeding that permits the Land Registration Court to determine and order surrender despite substantial controversies over the validity/authenticity of the instrument (and thus whether Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)