Title
Young vs. El Registrador de Titulos de Manila
Case
G.R. No. 46972
Decision Date
Nov 20, 1940
Carlos Young challenged fees charged by the Registrar of Titles for canceling mortgages on 313 subdivided lots; the Court upheld the fees, citing legal authority and the subdivision's impact.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 46972)

Facts:

  1. Mortgage Execution and Registration: On April 6, 1932, Carlos Young executed a mortgage deed over two parcels of land (covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 41242 and 41243) in favor of "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila." This mortgage was duly registered with the Registrar of Titles of Manila.

  2. Subdivision of the Land: After the mortgage registration, Carlos Young subdivided the two parcels into several lots, as reflected in Plan Psd-8395. This subdivision plan was approved by the Director of Lands on August 5, 1932, and by the Court of First Instance of Manila on December 29, 1933. The plan was annotated on the back of the titles.

  3. Transfer of Mortgage: On August 29, 1934, "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila" transferred its mortgage rights over the subdivided lots to the Bank of the Philippine Islands.

  4. Cancellation of Mortgages:

    • On January 6, 1939, the Bank of the Philippine Islands executed a deed canceling the mortgage in its favor.
    • On April 10, 1939, "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila" executed another deed canceling the mortgage in its favor.
  5. Remaining Lots: At the time of the cancellations, 313 lots from the subdivision remained unsold and were still registered under Carlos Young's name.

  6. Registrar’s Fees: The Registrar of Titles of Manila required Carlos Young to pay P313 for each cancellation deed (totaling P626), based on the number of lots (313) affected by the cancellations, in addition to presentation fees.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Registrar of Titles of Manila has the right to charge Carlos Young P313 for each cancellation deed, in addition to presentation fees, based on the number of lots affected.
  2. Whether the Court of First Instance of Manila erred in denying Carlos Young’s motion for reconsideration and new trial.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research tool in the Philippines with case digests and full jurisprudence. AI summaries highlight key points but might skip important details or context. Always check the full text for accuracy.