8/17/2019 G.R. Nos. L-21703-04

1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. L-21703-04 August 31, 1966

MATEO H. REES !"# $UAN H. REES, petitioners and appellants,

vs.

MATEO RA%AL REES, respondent and appellee.

Harold M. Hernando for petitioners and appellants.

Rafael Ruiz for respondent and appellee.

REES, $.&.L., J.:

Direct appeal on pure question of law fro an order of the Court of !irst "nstance of "locos Norte, in

its Cadastral Cases Nos. #$, %. R. C. Rec. No. $$&&, and '(, %. R. C. Rec. No. $))', den*in+

petitioners otion to copel respondent to surrender their owners duplicates of -ri+inal Certificates

of itle Nos. (($/$ and &0//, as well as fro a subsequent order of the sae court, refusin+, upon

petitioners otion, to reconsider the first order of denial.

he undisputed facts are1 three brothers, Mateo 2., 3uan 2., and !rancisco 2., all surnaed Re*es,

are the re+istered owners of several parcels of land, to wit4 %ots Nos. $5&)$, $5&)/, $5)0( and

$5)$(, of the %aoa+ 6"locos Norte7 Cadastre, ebraced in and covered b* -ri+inal Certificate of itle

No. (($/$, and also %ots Nos. (0'&$ and (0'&', of the sae cadastral surve*, ebraced in and

covered b* -ri+inal Certificate of itle No. &0//, both of the Re+istr* of Deeds of "locos Norte. hesetitles were issued pursuant to a decree of re+istration, dated #$ Ma* $)'0.

-n $8 3ul* $)/(, petitioners Mateo 2. Re*es and 3uan 2. Re*es filed, in the above stated cadastral

cases, a otion for issuance of writs of possession over all the lots covered b* both Certificates of

itle above referred to.

Respondent Mateo Raval Re*es opposed the otion, adittin+ that he is onl* in possession of the

lots covered b* -ri+inal Certificate of itle No. (($/$, but den*in+ that he possesses the lots

covered b* -ri+inal Certificate of itle No. &0//4 however, he claied that he has been in, and is

entitled to, the possession thereof 6i.e., %ots Nos. (0'&$ and (0'&'7, havin+ acquired b* wa* of

absolute sale 6not recorded7 fro petitioners brother, !rancisco 2. Re*es, the latters undivided one9third 6$:#7 share, interest and participation to these disputed lots.

 After due hearin+ of this appellant, the court a quo issued, on (0 Deceber $)/(, the writ of

possession with respect to %ot Nos. $5&)$ and $5&)/, which writ was, upon petitioners otion for

reconsideration, aended, on 8 3anuar* $)/#, to include all the other lots covered b* both titles.

Respondent did not appeal fro this order aendin+ the writ of possession.

8/17/2019 G.R. Nos. L-21703-04

2/4

;ubsequentl*, petitioners in the above cadastral cases, as plaintiffs, coenced, on $5 3anuar*

$)/#, before the sae court of first instance, an ordinar* civil action see

8/17/2019 G.R. Nos. L-21703-04

3/4

he sole issue to be resolved in the instant appeal is1 who between petitioners9appellants or

respondent9appellee has a better ri+ht to the possession or custod* of the disputed owners

duplicates of certificates of title.

?hile we a+ree with the court a quo that the disputed lots are sub=ects of liti+ation in Civil Case No.

#/5), it appearin+ that respondent, as defendant therein, had presented a counterclai for partitionof the lots covered b* the titles, we see no valid and plausible reason to =ustif*, on this +round, the

withholdin+ fro the re+istered owners, such as the petitioners9appellants herein, the custod* and

possession of the owners duplicates of certificates of title. "n a decided case, this Court has alread*

held that the owner of the land in whose favor and in whose nae said land is re+istered and

inscribed in the certificate of title has a ore preferential ri+ht to the possession of the owners

duplicate than one whose nae does not appear in the certificate and has *et to establish his ri+ht

to the possession thereto. hus, this Court said1

Coo acertadaente di=o el 3u@+ado, lo unico que se suscita es si Ana bao de Carpio

tiene derecho a la possession del duplicado para el dueno del Certificado de itulo -ri+inal

No. /)&, con preferencia a la opositora9apelante. A nuestro =uicio, la solucion es clara eineludible. 2allandose aditido que el decreto final que se dicto en el e>pediente catastral

en (& de a*o de $)#/, en relacion con el lote No. 88&, fue a favor de Ana bao * que el

duplicado para el dueo del Certificado de itulo -ri+inal No. /)& se e>pidio por el

Re+istrador de itulos a favor de la isa es obvious que quien tiene derecho a poseer el

certificado de titulo es ella * no la apelante 6art. '$ de la %e* No. ')/, tal coo ha sido

reforado7.

 Ale+a la apelante que ella tiene tanto derecho coo la apelada a poseer el titulo porque el

terreno a que se refiere es de la propiedad de las tres heranas. %a pretension no es

eritoria ;e+un el articulo '$ de la %e* No. ')/, confore ha sido enendado, el duplicado

para el dueno debe e>pedirse por el Re+istrador a nobre de la persona a cu*o favor se hadecretado el terreno * dispone, adeas, que dicho duplicado debe entre+arsele al dueo

inscrito. ;i la apelante cree que tiene derecho a participar en el lote No. 88&, coo

coheredera, debe e=ercitar una accion independiente, encainada a obtener su

participacion. 6El Director de errenos contra Abacahin 8( Phil. #(/7.

"t bein+ undisputed that respondent had alread* availed of an independent civil action to recover his

alle+ed co9owners share in the disputed lots b* filin+ a counterclai for partition in said Civil Case

No. #/5), his ri+hts appear to be apl* protected4 and considerin+ that he a* also avail of, to

better protect his ri+hts thereto, the provision on notice of lis pendens under ;ection (', Rule $', of

the Revised Rules of Court, for the purpose of recordin+ the fact that the lots covered b* the titles in

question are liti+ated in said Civil Case No. #/5), we a+ain see no =ustifiable reason for respondentto retain the custod* of the owners duplicates of certificates of titles.

"n view of the above considerations, we dee it unnecessar* to pass on the erits of the second

contention of petitioners9appellants.

?herefore, the orders appealed fro should be, as the* are hereb*, reversed4 and, in accordance

with this opinion, respondent Mateo Raval Re*es is hereb* ordered to deliver to petitioners the

8/17/2019 G.R. Nos. L-21703-04

4/4

owners duplicates of -ri+inal Certificates of itle No. (($/$ and &0//. ?ith costs a+ainst

respondent9appellee, Mateo Raval Re*es.

Concepcion, C.., !arrera, "izon, Ma#alintal, !en$zon, .%., &aldi'ar, (anchez and Castro, .,

concur.

Re$ala, ., too# no part.