G.R. No. L-25161 - IN RE: Repetition for Surrender of Owner's Duplicate of Original Certificate of Title vs. Heirs of Rivera

On April 8, 1965, Luisa Ocol, petitioner-appellant, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of La Union under Section 111 of the Land Registration Act.
The petition sought an order compelling the heirs of Mariano Rivera to surrender the owner’s duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. RO-3552 (4853), registered in the names “Maria Rivera, single; Marcela de Guzman, widow; and Heirs of Carlos Nipa.”
The purpose of the petition was to facilitate the registration of a Deed of Sale (Escritura de Compra-Venta) covering Lot No. 1820 in Sto. Tomas, La Union, executed on June 17, 1930, by Marcela de Guzman, Mariano Rivera, and Tito Nipa.

The deed of sale, which purportedly evidences a transaction with Anastacio Bilog and Evarista Mabalot, was presented twice for annotation on the owner’s duplicate – first on November 14, 1949, and again on April 8, 1965.
The annotation, necessary for the subsequent registration of the sale, could not be effected due to the respondents’ refusal to surrender the duplicate title.

Respondents (the heirs of Mariano Rivera – Ramon, Teresita, Remegio, and Teodorico Rivera) were served copies of the petition on April 26, 1965, with the hearing scheduled for May 3, 1965.
None of the respondents appeared on the scheduled hearing, prompting the lower court to issue, on May 10, 1965, an Order directing them to surrender the certificate within ten (10) days from receipt.

The lower court did not in fact acquire jurisdiction over them because no summons was issued as required by Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.
The petition was flawed since one of the purported vendors (Mariano Rivera) lacked an interest in the property; and
The signature of Tito Nipa on the deed was claimed to be a forgery.

Petitioner countered on June 7, 1965, asserting that notice had been properly given through registered mails with return receipts in compliance with Section 113 of Act No. 496, and that the validity and authenticity of the document were not at issue at the registration stage.

On June 14, 1965, the lower court granted the motion for reconsideration, setting aside its earlier Order of May 10, 1965. The Court held that:

The petition was more akin to a civil action rather than a summary proceeding because it sought the final resolution regarding the surrender of the certificate.
The failure to issue proper summons (as mandated by Rule 7) barred the court from gaining jurisdiction over the respondents.
A hearing was essential, given the question of whether the deed—which involved a vendor, Mariano Rivera, who did not appear among the registered owners—was validly executed.

On June 24, 1965, petitioner filed a motion to reconsider this new order, but it was ultimately denied on July 12, 1965, with the trial court maintaining that the absence of duly issued summons precluded jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, petitioner Luisa Ocol directly appealed, contending that:

The earlier order on June 14, 1965, setting aside the May 10, 1965 order was erroneous due to proper service via registered mail as per Section 113 of Act No. 496, and
The clerk should have been directed to serve summons to the respondents, thereby ensuring a valid hearing.

The case raised critical questions concerning jurisdiction, the appropriateness of summary procedures in land registration cases, and the proper venue for resolving substantial disputes regarding deed authenticity and property interests.

Whether the Court of First Instance, acting in its capacity as a Land Registration Court, acquired proper jurisdiction over the respondents given that no summons was issued in compliance with the Rules of Court.
Whether the special and limited jurisdiction under Section 111 of Act No. 496 can cover the present controversy, especially in light of the requests and issues raised.

Whether the deed of sale, executed under questionable circumstances (including alleged forgery of Tito Nipa’s signature and the involvement of Mariano Rivera, who was not one of the registered owners), is valid and registerable.
Whether objections concerning the document’s authenticity and the rights or interests of the registered owners should be litigated in a summary proceeding or an ordinary civil action.

Whether the service of copies of the petition via registered mail, even with return receipts, satisfies the requirements for due notice and jurisdiction, in the absence of formal issuance of summons.
Whether the failure to comply with the summons requirement automatically deprives the court of jurisdiction to resolve the matter, notwithstanding the apparent service of documents.