G.R. No. 47965 ; June 13, 1941
EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS, solicitante, vs. MARIANO ABACAHIN Y OTRO, reclamantes; ANA UMBAO DE CARPIO, mocionante y apelada; FILOMENA REUDAS DE UMBAO, opositora y apelante.

FACTS

In Cadastral Case No. 16 of Surigao, Ana Umbao de Carpio filed a motion requesting the court to order the Register of Deeds to issue a new owner’s duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. 698 for cadastral lot No. 778, alleging the previously issued duplicate was lost. Filomena Ruedas de Umbao opposed the motion, asserting that the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 698 was not lost but was in her possession, and that Ana Umbao was not the sole owner of the land. Filomena claimed the property belonged in common to Ana, her sister Rosario Umbao de Tionko, and herself (Filomena), as decreed by the Court of First Instance of Surigao in the intestate proceedings of the deceased Petronilo Umbao (Special Proceeding No. 1342). In view of the opposition, Ana filed an amended motion, seeking an order for Filomena to appear and be compelled to deliver the duplicate title to her. After a hearing, the court issued an order dated June 8, 1939, compelling Filomena to deliver the document to Ana. Filomena appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether Ana Umbao de Carpio has the right to possess the owner’s duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. 698, to the exclusion of the opponent-appellant, Filomena Ruedas de Umbao.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order. The resolution is clear and inescapable. It was admitted that the final decree issued in the cadastral proceeding on May 28, 1936, for lot No. 778, was in favor of Ana Umbao, and the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 698 was issued by the Register of Deeds in her favor. Consequently, under Section 41 of Act No. 496 (the Land Registration Act), as amended, the person entitled to possess the certificate of title is the registered owner in whose favor the decree was issued, which is Ana, and not the appellant. Filomena’s claim that she has an equal right to possess the title because the land belongs to the three sisters is without merit. The law mandates that the owner’s duplicate be issued to and delivered to the registered owner in whose favor the land was decreed. If Filomena believes she has a right to a share in lot No. 778 as a co-heir, she must pursue an independent action to obtain her alleged participation. The Court also rejected Filomena’s procedural argument that Ana should have filed an ordinary action to recover the title, ruling that the issue raised by the amended motion was a mere incident in the cadastral case and could properly be raised by motion without initiating a separate ordinary suit. The appealed order was confirmed, with costs against the appellant, without prejudice to Filomena filing the appropriate action to assert her claimed hereditary share in the lot.