Manarin v. Manarin

 

Manarin v. Manarin

G.R. No. 247564

January 11, 2023

 

FACTS:

                On June 5, 1997, respondent heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement of estate of Fermin Manarin where they adjudicated unto themselves, as legal heirs, a 504,286 square-meter lot in Carmona, Cavite, covered by TCT No. T-741686. Because of being not included in the said extrajudicial settlement despite also being a legal heir, petitioner sought the annulment of the extrajudicial settlement of estate against the respondents. On November 15, 2005, both parties entered into a compromise agreement; stipulating therein that a.) they are the legitimate descendants of Fermin Manarin; b.) that the property would be sold or offered for joint venture to interested buyers; c.) the proceeds of the sale would be equally shared by the heirs of Fermin; and d.) Danilo Sayarot, who financed the reconstitution of the TCT, would turn over the owner’s copy of the title to the parties.

On December 10, 2012, respondent heirs executed an SPA in favor of Fely Panganiban, giving her the power and duty to take custody and possession of the duplicate copy of the TCT. On July 14 of the following year, petitioner filed an omnibus motion praying for: (a) correction of the title number of the property from TCT No. T-7416786 to TCT No. T-741686, (b) issuance of a writ of execution, and (c) cancellation of Entry No. 2013004653 on TCT No. T-741686. On September 26, 2017, the RTC granted the petitioner’s omnibus motion correcting the TCT number but denied the cancellation of entry. Danilo was also ordered to turn over the owner’s copy of the title. However, on May 21 of the following year, a sheriff’s report indicated that Danilo was not in the possession of the same. Thus, an amended Omnibus Motion to Declare Lost Title with Motion to Issue an Order for the Issues of a New Title in Lieu of the Lost One was filed, and was subsequently granted by the RTC.

A Manifestation by the Register of Deeds of Cavite informed the RTC that Fely executed an affidavit claiming to be in possession of the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT. Respondents then sought to annul the order directing the issuance of the new title. RTC, however, directed Fely to surrender such TCT, saying that SPA granting her custody was contrary to the RTC decision in 2012. Such was assailed by the respondents, to no avail. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a Manifestation, informing the CA that the Register of Deeds of Cavite already issued a new owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT. The CA nullified the orders of the RTC, ruling that the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy must have been filed separately, and should have complied with the requirements under Sec. 109 of PD 1529.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether the RTC erred in issuing an Order directing the surrender of possession and custody of the owner’s duplicate copy of the subject TCT

 

HELD:

                No, the RTC did not err in its issuance of Orders in this case. To clarify, in the instant case, what has been considered lost is the owner's duplicate copy of the subject TCT, and not the original copy of the TCT on file with the Register of Deeds. Accordingly, since the issue deals with an owner's duplicate certificate of title, either Sec. 107 or 109 of P.D. No. 1529 should apply. Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529 provides the proper remedy when an owner's duplicate certificate of title is being withheld by another person.

On the other hand, Sec. 109 of P.D. No. 1529 provides the proper remedy of replacement of an owner's duplicate certificate of title when it is lost or destroyed. A reading of both provisions clearly shows that Sec. 107 is the remedy applicable where the owner's duplicate certificate of title is withheld by another person, who is unauthorized to hold the same; it does not contemplate a situation where the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not lost or destroyed. Said provision indicates that the party-in-interest may file a petition in court to compel the surrender of the owner's duplicate certificate of title in case the person in possession of it refuses or fails to surrender the same to the Register of Deeds in order to register any voluntary or involuntary instrument and the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title. The Court finds that the RTC correctly applied the provisions of Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529 in the issuance of a new owner's duplicate certificate of title because Fely refused to surrender the same. In Spouses Ibias v. Macabeo, it was held that therein respondent should have availed of the remedy provided under Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529 since the owner's duplicate certificate of title was not in fact lost or destroyed, but was in the possession of another. Here, the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not lost, but is in fact in the possession and custody of Fely by virtue of the SPA executed by respondent heirs themselves. The said SPA was even annotated at the back of the title as Entry No. 2013004653. Fely even executed an Affidavit to attest that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-741686 was not lost or missing, but in her possession and custody pursuant to the SPA.