Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42109. May 13, 1935. ]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE BENARES FERNANDEZ ET AL., Defendants. JOSE BENARES FERNANDEZ, Appellant.

Simeon Bitanga for Appellant.

Roman J. Lacson for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND; OWNERSHIP AND TITLE; INSUFFICIENCY OF TITLE. — Appellant’s deed of September 26, 1923 from U. V. and L. V. was of no force or effect with respect to the one-half interest which U. V. formerly had in the lot in question, because prior to that time he had already conveyed his interest to S. F., and a new transfer certificate of title had been issued in favor of S. F. and L. V. on September 6, 1920 (Exhibit B).

2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO PRESENT OWNER’S DUPLICATE OF CERTIFICATE OF TITLE TO REGISTER OF DEEDS. — As to the share of L. V., appellant’s deed from her could not prejudice third persons, because it was not registered on transfer certificate of title No. 2207 in the office of the register of deeds, and the reason therefor was the failure of the appellant to present the owner’s duplicate of said certificate to the register of deeds, as required by section 55 of Act No. 496. The appellant did not therefore acquire any right to the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in his favor with respect to the interest of L. V. (Fidelity and Surety Co. v. Conegero Vda. de Lizarraga, 41 Phil., 396; Director of Lands v. Addison, 49 Phil., 19.)

3. ID.; ID.; ATTACHMENT AND SALE OF LAND FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES. — When S. F. executed the document, Exhibit 3, on October 17, 1928, conveying her interest in the land to the appellant, her interest therein had already been attached by the provincial sheriff and sold by him at public auction to the Philippine National Bank, and the certificate of sale file in the office of the register of deeds in accordance with the law (sections 429 and 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure). It was not necessary for the sheriff to present the owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title when he filed notice of the attachment with the register of deeds, nor was it necessary for the Philippine National Bank to present the owner’s duplicate when the bank filed its certificate of sale for registration (sections 71 and 72 of Act No. 496).


D E C I S I O N


VICKERS, J.:


Jose Benares Fernandez, one of the defendants, appeals from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, declaring the plaintiff to be the absolute owner of Lot No. 971 of the cadastral survey of Murcia and ordering the register of deeds of Occidental Negros to issue a new transfer certificate of title to said lot in favor of the plaintiff, and condemning the appellant to pay the costs.

Appellant’s attorney alleges that the lower court erred:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Al no resolver en su sentencia que tan pronto se consiguio el segundo duplicado del certificado de transferencia de titulo No. 2207 del Lote No. 971 en cuestion, el Registrador de Titulos demandado tenia la obligacion legal y ministerial de expedir nuevo certificado de transferencia de titutlo a favor del primero que haya presentado su documento en el registro, o sea a favor del demandado Jose Benares Fernandez, en virtud de los contratos de compraventa anexos C y E del convenio de hechos, exhibitos 1 y 3 Benares.

"2. Al resolver en su sentencia que el Anexo L del parrafo 10 del convenio de hechos, es mas preferente que el Anexo C del parrafo 3.
Top of Page