Generoso Mendoza vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-36637 – 84 SCRA 76 – Civil Law – Land Titles and Deeds – Judgment Confirms Title – In whose name may title be dealt with – Sec 29, PD 1529

In 1964, it was proven that a parcel of land located in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, is owned by Mendoza. Mendoza applied for a title. During pendency of the application before the land registration court, Mendoza sold the land to Daniel Cruz. The contract of sale was admitted in court in lieu of the pending application for land title. The registration court rendered a decision in July 1965, ordering the registration of the two parcels of land in the name of Cruz subject to the usufructuary rights of Mendoza.

The decision became final and executory. In 1968, however, upon failure of Cruz to pay Mendoza, Mendoza petitioned that the title issued in the name of Cruz be cancelled. The land registration court ruled in favor of Mendoza on the ground that the court erred in its earlier decision in issuing the land title to Cruz – who was not a party to the application of title initiated by Mendoza. Cruz appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cruz.

ISSUE: Whether or not the title can be dealt with in the name of a “third party”.

HELD: Yes. The Court of Appeals ruling must be sustained. First of all, it was proven that Mendoza caused the registration in the name of Cruz pursuant to their contract of sale. Second, Mendoza overlooks Section 29 of the Land Registration Act which expressly authorizes the registration of the land subject matter of a registration proceeding in the name of the buyer (Cruz) or of the person to whom the land has been conveyed by an instrument executed during the interval of time between the filing of the application for registration and the issuance of the decree of title.

“SEC. 29. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of title by the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, the land therein described may be dealt with and instruments relating thereto shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds at any time before issuance of the decree of title, in the same manner as if no application had been made. The interested party may, however, present such instruments to the Court of First Instance instead of presenting them to the office of the register of deeds, together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application, and the court after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the encumbrance created by a said instruments, or order the decree of registration issued in the name of the buyer or of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments. . . .

A stranger or a third party may be dealt with in the land registration proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case. And the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case show that these requirements have been complied with in this case.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Aquino):

It is not lawful and just that the two lots in litigation should be registered in the name of Daniel Cruz. The registration in his name is not proper because he did not intervene in the land registration proceeding; he did not defray the expenses thereof, and he has not paid to Generoso Mendoza, or his widow, Diega de Leon, the sum of P6,000 as the price of the parcel of land.

Read full text