1 Ramoso Vs Obligado Et Al

ARMESTO RAMOSO, petitioner, vs. JOSE OBLIGADO ET AL., respondents.
1940-06-21 | G.R. No. 46548
DECISION
MORAN, J:
An appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
One Feliciano Capinpin was owner of a homestead granted him on September 21, 1921, and registered
in the office of the registrar of deeds of Nueva Ecija under title No. 1080. He died, and his widow, Luisa
Jarduela, and son by the first marriage, Geronimo Capinpin, sold the property to respondent Juan
Obligado on May 17, 1930. When the cadastral proceedings were opened in Nueva Ecija, the widow,
without the son, claimed the property, and the court awarded it to her on December 10, 1929, the final
decree of registration and the original certificate of title having been issued on December 8, 1930, and
January 7, 1931, respectively. On October 26, 1934, the widow transferred the property to her lawyer,
Armesto Ramoso, the herein petitioner, in whose favor transfer certificate of title No. 8550 was issued.
The question now is whether Armesto Ramoso, under his transfer certificate of title, is entitled to the
property as against the first transferee, Juan Obligado.
A homestead patent, once registered under the Registration Act, becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens
title, and cannot thereafter be the subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral
case. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is null and void and should be
cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do is to make corrections of technical errors in the description
of the property contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned by two or more
coowners. (Pamintuan vs. San Agustin et al., 43 Phil., 558, 561; El Hogar Filipino vs. Olviga et al., 60
Phil., 17, 18.) Accordingly, the order of registration issued by the cadastral court in favor of the widow is
null and void, and, consequently, no valid transfer could have been made by her in favor of the petitioner,
Armesto Ramos. In other words, the latter has no right to the property.
It is argued, however, that, if in a cadastral proceeding, the court may order the partition of the property
already registered, then it may also validly award the property in favor of the supposed sole heir of the
person in whose favor the title was issued. This conclusion is wrong. Awarding the property to a
supposed sole heir is not ordering its partition. If, according to the registered title, the property belongs to
several owners, the cadastral court may order partition among them. But when the registered title
belongs to only one person, the cadastral court cannot, if that person is dead, order the registration of
the property in favor of the heirs or its partition among them, for that would presuppose a declaration of
heirs, a function which devolves upon probate courts. We do not mean to say that the cadastral court
cannot do so in connection with unregistered lands, the actual ownership of which it must determine. But
when the ownership has already been determined and a registered title has already been issued, the
cadastral court cannot adjudicate anew the ownership of the property and order the issuance of an
original title to successors in interest. Such successors in interest, either by inheritance or by contract,
are entitled only to a transfer certificate of title which can be issued in proceedings that are not proper in
a cadastral court. The issuance of an original title to the successors in interest is in fact equivalent to
setting aside the original title issued in favor of their predecessor in interest. And this cannot be done by
the cadastral court.
It is true that this is a question of jurisdiction of the cadastral court, which the Court of Appeals may not
entertain. But there is no showing that the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of
| Page 1 of 2
Appeals on this matter and has taken the proper steps to have the case certified to this Court. Under this
circumstance, this court will confine itself to reviewing the pronouncement of the Court of Appeals on the
question of jurisdiction and such other questions of law as have been properly raised by the petitioner.
In the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals, it is held that the herein petitioner acted in bad faith in
acquiring the property from Luisa Jarduela, for, prior to the acquisition, he knew that the property had
already been sold to Juan Obligado. This is a question of fact which we will not review. And the finding of
the Court of Appeals on this matter is another ground for holding that the petitioner has no right to the
property.
Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.
Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
| Page 2 of 2

1 Ramoso Vs Obligado Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Ramoso Vs Obligado Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Ramoso Vs Obligado Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARMESTO RAMOSO, petitioner, vs. JOSE OBLIGADO ET AL., respondents.

1940-06-21 | G.R. No. 46548

An appeal by certiorari from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

You might also like