G.R. No. 224515 - REMEDIOS V. GEÑORGA, VS. HEIRS OF JULIAN MELITON, REPRESENTED BY ROBERTO MELITON AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, IRENE MELITON, HENRY MELITON, ROBERTO MELITON, HAIDE* MELITON, AND MARIA FE MELITON ESPINOSA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it ordered the administratrix of the estate of Julian, Ma. Fe, or any of Julian's heirs or any person holding the owner's duplicate of TCT No. 8027 (holder) to surrender possession thereof to the RD-Naga; and the RD-Naga to enter on the said title the buyers' respective deeds of sale, and to issue the corresponding certificates of title after compliance with the requirements of the law. [13] It further held that should the holder fail or refuse to comply with the court's directive: ( a ) TCT No. 8027 shall be declared null and void; and ( b ) the RD-Naga shall issue a new certificate of title in lieu thereof, enter the deeds of sale, and issue certificates of title in favor of the buyers. [14] The said decision became final and executory on September 10, 2006 but remained unexecuted due to the sheriff's failure to locate and serve the writ of execution on Ma. Fe despite diligent efforts. [15] Thus, in an Order [16] dated October 2, 2008, the RTC declared TCT No. 8027 null and void, resulting in the issuance of a new one, bearing annotations of the buyers' adverse claims. The new owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 8027 (subject owner's duplicate title) was given to petitioner in 2009. [17] On April 22, 2013, respondents filed a Complaint [18] against petitioner before the court a quo , seeking the surrender of the subject owner's duplicate title with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 2013-0036. They claimed that they are entitled to the possession thereof as registered owners, and suffered damages as a consequence of its unlawful withholding, compelling them to secure the services of counsel to protect their interests. [19] In her Answer, [20] petitioner averred that she and the other buyers are in the process of completing all the requirements for the registration of the sales in their favor, and have paid the estate taxes thereon. They had likewise caused the survey of the land but the first geodetic engineer they hired to conduct the same failed to deliver his services, prompting them to file a complaint against him, and to hire another geodetic engineer. Considering that their possession of the subject owner's duplicate title was by virtue of a court decision, and for the legitimate purpose of registering the sales in their favor and the issuance of titles in their names, they should be allowed to retain possession until the completion of the requirements therefor. [21] The said title was eventually submitted to the RD-Naga [22] on September 13, 2013. [23] The RTC Ruling In a Decision [24] dated July 28, 2014, the RTC granted respondents' petition, and ordered petitioner and/or the RD-Naga to deliver or surrender possession of the subject owner's duplicate title to respondents, considering the long period of time that had lapsed for the annotation of the buyers' deeds of sale. [25] Dissatisfied, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration [26] which was denied in an Order [27] dated September 11, 2014, and, thereafter, appealed