Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 176929 July 4, 2008
INOCENCIO Y. LUCASAN o! "#$%&l '() '% *"& Ju)#+#'l A)$#(#%*!'*o! o *"& I(*&%*'*& E%*'*& o *"&
l'*& JULIANITA SOR,ITO LUCASAN, petitioner,
vs.
P-ILIPPINE .EPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION /P.IC0 '% !&+&#1&! '() l#2u#)'*o! o *"&
)&u(+* PACI3IC ,AN4ING CORPORATION, respondents.
D ! I S I O N
NAC-URA, J.5
On appeal is the March "#, "$$% Decision
&
of the !ourt of 'ppeals (!') in !'*+.R. !V No. ,&-&,, affir.in/
the 0ul1 "2, "$$# Order
"
of the Re/ional Trial !ourt (RT!) of 3acolod !it1, 3ranch 2#, /rantin/ respondent4s
.otion to dis.iss, as 5ell as its subse6uent Resolution
#
den1in/ petitioner4s .otion for reconsideration.
The factual antecedents are as follo5s.
Petitioner Inocencio 7. 8ucasan (8ucasan) and his 5ife 0ulianita Sorbito (no5 deceased) 5ere the o5ners of 8ot
Nos. &-$$*' and ""9* situated in 3acolod !it1, respectivel1 covered b1 T!T Nos. T*%,&&- and T*&#,&%.
On 'u/ust #, &9:", Pacific 3an;in/ !orporation (P3!) e<tended a P-,$$$.$$ loan to 8ucasan, 5ith !arlos
3enares as his co*.a;er. 8ucasan and 3enares failed to pa1 the loan 5hen it beca.e due and de.andable.
!onse6uentl1, P3! filed a collection case 5ith the RT! of 3acolod !it1, doc;eted as !ivil !ase No. &"&,,.
On 'pril #$, &9:9, the RT! rendered a decision orderin/ 8ucasan and 3enares to =ointl1 and severall1 pa1 P3!
P:,&99.99 5ith interest at &2> per annu. co.puted fro. ?ebruar1 :, &9:9, until the full pa1.ent of the
obli/ation. 8ucasan failed to pa1 the .onetar1 a5ard@ thus, to satisf1 the =ud/.ent, the RT! issued a 5rit of
e<ecution directin/ the sheriff to effect a lev1 on the properties o5ned b1 8ucasan and sell the sa.e at public
auction.
In co.pliance 5ith the 5rit, the !it1 Sheriff of 3acolod issued a Notice of .bar/o on 0anuar1 ,, &9,&, 5hich
5as annotated on 8ucasan4s T!T Nos. T*%,&&- and T*&#,&% as ntr1 No. &&$&$:. 'nnotated as prior
encu.brances on the sa.e titles 5ere the .ort/a/es in favor of Philippine National 3an; (PN3) and Republic
Planter4s 3an; (RP3) e<ecuted to secure 8ucasan4s loans 5ith the ban;s.
On Ma1 &#, &9,&, the lots 5ere sold at public auction and 5ere a5arded to P3! as the hi/hest bidder. '
certificate of sale 5as e<ecuted in its favor and 5as re/istered and annotated on T!T Nos. T* %,&&- and T*
&#,&% as ntr1 No. &&"--" on 0une -, &9,&. Neither PN3 nor RP3, the .ort/a/ees, assailed the auction sale.
8ucasan, as 5ell as the .ort/a/ee ban;s, PN3 and RP3, did not redee. the properties 5ithin the rede.ption
period. Nevertheless, P3! did not file a petition for consolidation of o5nership.
In 0anuar1 &99:, 8ucasan, throu/h counsel, 5rote a letter to the Philippine Deposit Insurance !orporation
(PDI!), P3!4s receiver and li6uidator see;in/ the cancellation of the certificate of sale and offerin/ to pa1
P3!4s clai. a/ainst 8ucasan.
2

Not lon/ thereafter, 8ucasan paid his loans 5ith the PN3 and RP3. !onse6uentl1, the .ort/a/ee ban;s
e<ecuted their respective releases of .ort/a/e, resultin/ in the cancellation of the prior encu.brances in favor
of PN3 and RP3.
On 'u/ust &#, "$$&, PDI! denied 8ucasan4s re6uest for the cancellation of the certificate of sale statin/A
Please be infor.ed that based on our records, T!T Nos. T*%,&&- and T*&#,&% have alread1 beco.e part
of the ac6uired assets of Pacific 3an;in/ !orporation b1 virtue of a !ertificate of Sale dated Ma1 &#,
&9,& e<ecuted b1 the !it1 Sheriff of 3acolod. Subse6uentl1, this docu.ent 5as re/istered on the titles
on 0une -, &9,& so that the last da1 of the rede.ption period 5as 0une -, &9,".
Bith re/ard to 1our re6uest, 5e re/ret to infor. 1ou that reac6uisition of the sub=ect properties have to
be throu/h sale follo5in/ PDI!4s polic1 on disposal. 'ccordin/l1, these properties can be disposed
throu/h public biddin/ usin/ the latest appraised value in the total a.ount of P",9$$,#$$.$$ as of March
"9, "$$$ as a .ini.u. bid. If 1ou are still interested to ac6uire the properties, please /et in touch 5ith
our 'sset Mana/e.ent +roup < < <.
-
8ucasan then filed a petition deno.inated as declaratory relief 5ith the RT! of 3acolod !it1 doc;eted as !ivil
!ase No. $"*&&,:2.
%
He sou/ht confir.ation of his ri/hts provided in the second para/raph of Section &, Rule
%# of the Rules of !ourt in relation to Section :- of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. &-"9. 8ucasan also pleaded
for the liftin/ andCor cancellation of the notice of e.bar/o and the certificate of sale annotated on T!T Nos. T*
%,&&- and T*&#,&%, and offered to pa1 P&$$,$$$.$$ or such a.ount as .a1 be deter.ined b1 the RT!, as
consideration for the cancellation.
PDI! .oved to dis.iss the co.plaint for lac; of cause of action. It averred that an action to 6uiet title under
Section & of Rule %# .a1 onl1 be brou/ht 5hen there is a cloud on, or to prevent a cloud fro. bein/ cast upon,
the title to real propert1. It asseverated that a cloud on the title is an outstandin/ instru.ent record, clai.,
encu.brance or proceedin/ 5hich is actuall1 invalid or inoperative, but 5hich .a1 nevertheless i.pair or
affect in=uriousl1 the title to propert1. PDI! clai.ed that the notice of e.bar/o 5as issued pursuant to a 5rit of
e<ecution in !ivil !ase No. &"&,,, 5hile the certificate of sale 5as e<ecuted as a result of a public biddin/.
Thus, their annotations on the titles 5ere valid, operative or effective. PDI! asserted that 8ucasan4s petition is
nothin/ but a dis/uised atte.pt to co.pel PDI! to resell the properties at a reduced price of P&$$,$$$.$$.
'ccordin/l1, it pra1ed for the dis.issal of the petition.
:

8ucasan opposed the .otion.
,
He countered that the sub=ect properties 5ere still in his possession, and neither
P3! nor PDI! instituted an action for consolidation of o5nership. Since the certificate of title 5as still in his
na.e, he contended that he could pursue all le/al and e6uitable re.edies, includin/ those provided for in
Section &, Rule %# of the Rules of !ourt to reac6uire the properties. He also clai.ed that PDI!4s polic1 of
disposin/ the sub=ect properties throu/h public biddin/ at the appraised value of P",9$$,#$$.$$ 5as un=ust,
capricious and arbitrar1, considerin/ that the =ud/.ent debt a.ounted onl1 to P:,&99.99 5ith interest at &2>
per annu.. 8ucasan ur/ed the RT! to appl1 the liberal construction of the rede.ption la5s stressed in Cometa
v. Court of Appeals.
9

In its Order
&$
dated 0ul1 "2, "$$#, the RT! /ranted PDI!4s .otion to dis.iss, thusA
The clouds conte.plated b1 the provision of la5 under 'rticle 2:% of the !ivil !ode is one 5here the
instru.ent, record, clai., encu.brance or proceedin/ is apparentl1 valid or effective on its face that
nothin/ appears to be 5ron/, but in realit1, is null and void. Hence, the petition filed b1 D8ucasanE
pursuant to the said article is e6uivalent to 6uestionin/ the validit1 of the subse6uent annotation of ntr1
No. &&$&$: and ntr1 No. &&"-"" in T!T Nos. T*&#,&% and T*%,&&-.
Records disclose that ntr1 No. &&$&$: 5hich is a Notice of .bar/o 5as issued b1 virtue of a valid
=ud/.ent rendered in !ivil !ase No. &"&,, entitled FPacific 3an;in/ !orporation vs. DInocencioE
8ucasan, et al.,F 5hereb1 the !ourt found D8ucasanE liable in favor of DP3!E the su. of P:,&99.99 5ith
&2> interest per annu. to be co.puted fro. ?ebruar1 :, &9:9 until full1 paid.
's .andated in Sec. &", Rule #9 of the Revised Rules of !ourt, such lev1 on e<ecution create a lien in
favor of DP3!E over the ri/ht, title and interest of D8ucasanE over the t5o (") sub=ect parcels of land
covered b1 T!T Nos. T*&#,&% and T*%,&&-, sub=ect to liens and encu.brances then e<istin/. The fact
that D8ucasanE has redee.ed the .ort/a/e properties fro. the first .ort/a/es (sic), PN3 and PN3 (sic)
Republic 3an;, does not vest hi. an1 title free fro. the lien of DP3!E.
Bhile the la5 re6uires that the =ud/.ent debtor, D8ucasanE .ust be served 5ith a notice of lev1 and
even if not served there5ith, the defect is cured b1 service on hi. of the notice of sale prior to the sale,
no5here in the petition 5hich alle/es that D8usasanE refutes the validit1 of the e<ecution sale. Thus, he is
dee.ed to have received and reco/niGed the sa.e.
's support for his thesis, D8ucasanE cites the case of 3alan/a vs. !a., et al. (supra). Ho5ever this !ourt
is unable to a/ree that it is applicable to the present case. 's correctl1 ar/ued b1 DPDI!E, in that case the
proceedin/s under e<ecution suffered infir.it1 fro. the ver1 start as the lev1 and sale .ade b1 the
sheriff of the land of petitioner 3alan/a included the house erected on the land DandE constituted as a
fa.il1 ho.e 5hich, under the la5, e<e.pt fro. e<ecution. In the case at bar, no ob=ection 5as
interposed b1 D8ucasanE as a valid lev1 has been .ade pursuant to Sec. :, Rule -: of the Revised Rules
of !ourt, as a conse6uence of 5hich, the sale .ade pursuant to Sec. && of the sa.e rule is also valid and
effective.
&&
The dispositive portion of the RT! Order readsA
6-ERE3ORE, findin/ the clai. of an1 cloud over the titles of D8ucasanE to be bereft of basis in fact
and in la5, the Motion to Dis.iss filed b1 DPDI!E is /ranted. 'ccordin/l1, this is hereb1 ordered
.ISMISSE..
SO OR.ERE..
&"

8ucasan filed a .otion for reconsideration, but the RT! denied it on October "$, "$$#.
&#
On appeal, the !' affir.ed in toto the RT! rulin/. It declared that 8ucasan alread1 lost his ri/ht to redee. the
properties 5hen he failed to e<ercise it 5ithin the prescribed period. The effect of such failure 5as to vest in
P3! absolute o5nership over the sub=ect properties.
&2

The !' disposed, thusA
6-ERE3ORE, in vie5 of all the fore/oin/ pre.ises, the appeal is hereb1 .ENIE.. 'ccordin/l1, the
assailed Order of the Re/ional Trial !ourt of 3acolod !it1, 3ranch 2# dated "2 0ul1 "$$# dis.issin/
D8ucasan4sE Petition for Declarator1 Relief and the subse6uent Order of the sa.e !ourt dated "$
October "$$# den1in/ D8ucasan4sE .otion for reconsideration fro. the Order of Denial (sic) are hereb1
affir.ed in toto. No costs.
SO OR.ERE..
&-
8ucasan sou/ht a reconsideration of the !' Decision, but the sa.e 5as denied on ?ebruar1 :, "$$:.
&%
3efore us, 8ucasan i.pu/ns the !' Decision on the follo5in/ /roundsA
&* TH !OHRT O? 'PP'8S RRD 'ND +R'V87 '3HSD ITS DIS!RTION IN
'??IRMIN+ TH ORDR O? DISMISS'8 O? TH PTITIONR4S PTITION IN TH
R+ION'8 TRI'8 !OHRT BHN IT DISR+'RDD TH !8'R PROVISION O? S!TION
:- O? PRSIDNTI'8 D!R NO. &-"9 'ND PHT TO N'H+HT TH 'PP8I!'38
0HRISPRHDN! IN ZACARIAS COMETA < < < 'ND TH !'SS !ITD THRIN, INSPIT
(sic) O? TH !8'R 'ND OHTST'NDIN+ SIMI8'RIT7 O? ?'!TS BITH TH !'S HNDR
!ONSIDR'TION.
"* TH !OHRT O? 'PP'8S '8SO RRD 'ND +R'V87 '3HSD ITS DIS!RTION BHN
IT ?'I8D TO !ONSIDR TH'T TH NOTI! O? M3'R+O 'ND !RTI?I!'T O? S'8
ISSHD 37 TH !IT7 SHRI?? BR ON87 8V7 ON TH INTRST O? TH PTITIONR
ON TH TBO (") SH30!T 8OTS, 'S D!RD IN QUEZO !EARI" # $ARTS
COR$ORATIO, < < <, BHI!H IS 8IIBIS 'PP8I!'38 TO TH !'S 'T 3'R.
&:
8ucasan posits that he has sufficient cause of action a/ainst PDI!@ thus, he chides the RT! for dis.issin/ his
co.plaint, and the !' for affir.in/ the dis.issal. In support of his thesis, he cites Section :- of Presidential
Decree (PD) No. &-"9, or the $roperty Re%istration &ecree
&,
and Cometa v. Court of Appeals.
&9

's /leaned fro. the aver.ents of the co.plaint, 8ucasan4s action 5as one for 6uietin/ of title under Rule %# of
the Rules of !ourt. ssentiall1, he sou/ht the cancellation of the notice of e.bar/o and the certificate of sale
annotated on T!T Nos. T*%,&&- and T*&#,&% clai.in/ that the said annotations beclouded the validit1 and
efficac1 of his title. The RT!, ho5ever, dis.issed his co.plaint for lac; of cause of action 5hich 5as affir.ed
b1 the !' in its assailed Decision. Thus, the ;e1 issue for our consideration is 5hether the dis.issal of
8ucasan4s co.plaint 5as proper.
Juietin/ of title is a co..on la5 re.ed1 for the re.oval of an1 cloud of doubt or uncertaint1 5ith respect to
real propert1. The !ivil !ode authoriGes the said re.ed1 in the follo5in/ lan/ua/eA
'RT. 2:%. Bhenever there is a cloud on title to real propert1 or an1 interest therein, b1 reason of an1
instru.ent, record, clai., encu.brance or proceedin/ 5hich is apparentl1 valid or effective but is in
truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and .a1 be pre=udicial to said title, an
action .a1 be brou/ht to re.ove such cloud or to 6uiet the title.
'n action .a1 also be brou/ht to prevent a cloud fro. bein/ cast upon title to real propert1 or an1
interest therein.
'RT. 2::. The plaintiff .ust have le/al or e6uitable title to, or interest in the real propert1 5hich is the
sub=ect*.atter of the action. He need not be in possession of said propert1.
To avail of the re.ed1 of 6uietin/ of title, t5o (") indispensable re6uisites .ust concur, na.el1A (&) the plaintiff
or co.plainant has a le/al or an e6uitable title to or interest in the real propert1 sub=ect of the action@ and (") the
deed, clai., encu.brance or proceedin/ clai.ed to be castin/ a cloud on his title .ust be sho5n to be in fact
invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validit1 or le/al efficac1.
"$
Stated differentl1, the
plaintiff .ust sho5 that he has a le/al or at least an e6uitable title over the real propert1 in dispute, and that
so.e deed or proceedin/ beclouds its validit1 or efficac1.
Hnfortunatel1, the fore/oin/ re6uisites are 5antin/ in this case.
'd.ittedl1, the sub=ect parcels of land 5ere levied upon b1 virtue of a 5rit of e<ecution issued in !ivil !ase
No. &"&,,. On Ma1 &#, &9,&, a public auction of the sub=ect parcels of land 5as held and the lots 5ere a5arded
to P3! as the hi/hest bidder. ' certificate of sale in favor of P3! 5as issued on the sa.e da1, and 5as
re/istered and annotated on T!T Nos. T*%,&&- and T*&#,&% as ntr1 No. &&"--" on 0une -, &9,&.
Hnder the &9%2 Rules of !ourt, 5hich 5ere in effect at that ti.e, the =ud/.ent debtor or rede.ptioner had the
ri/ht to redee. the propert1 fro. P3! 5ithin t5elve (&") .onths fro. the re/istration of the certificate of
sale.
"&
Bith the e<piration of the t5elve*.onth period of rede.ption and no rede.ption havin/ been .ade, as
in this case, the =ud/.ent debtor or the rede.ptioner lost 5hatever ri/ht he had over the land in 6uestion.
""

8ucasan ad.itted that he failed to redee. the properties 5ithin the rede.ption period, on account of his then
li.ited financial situation.
"#
It 5as onl1 in 0anuar1 &99: or fifteen (&-) 1ears later that he .anifested his desire
to reac6uire the properties. !learl1 thus, he had lost 5hatever ri/ht he had over 8ot Nos. &-$$*' and ""9*.
The pa1.ent of loans .ade b1 8ucasan to PN3 and RP3 in &99: cannot, in an1 5a1, operate to restore
5hatever ri/hts he had over the sub=ect properties. Such pa1.ent onl1 e<tin/uished his loan obli/ations to the
.ort/a/ee ban;s and the liens 5hich 8ucasan clai.ed 5ere subsistin/ at the ti.e of the re/istration of the
notice of e.bar/o and certificate of sale.
Neither can 8ucasan capitaliGe on P3!4s failure to file a petition for consolidation of o5nership after the
e<piration of the rede.ption period. 's 5e e<plained in Calacala v. Repu'licA
"2
DPEetitionersK predecessors*in*interest lost 5hatever ri/ht the1 had over DtheE land in 6uestion fro. the
ver1 .o.ent the1 failed to redee. it durin/ the &*1ear period of rede.ption. !ertainl1, the RepublicKs
failure to e<ecute the acts referred to b1 the petitioners 5ithin ten (&$) 1ears fro. the re/istration of the
!ertificate of Sale cannot, in an1 5a1, operate to restore 5hatever ri/hts petitionersK predecessors*in*
interest had over the sa.e. ?or sure, petitioners have 1et to cite an1 provision of la5 or rule of
=urisprudence, and 5e are not a5are of an1, to the effect that the failure of a bu1er in a foreclosure sale
to secure a !ertificate of ?inal Sale, e<ecute an 'ffidavit of !onsolidation of O5nership and obtain a
5rit of possession over the propert1 thus ac6uired, 5ithin ten (&$) 1ears fro. the re/istration of the
!ertificate of Sale 5ill operate to brin/ o5nership bac; to hi. 5hose propert1 has been previousl1
foreclosed and sold.
< < < <
Moreover, 5ith the rule that the e<piration of the &*1ear rede.ption period forecloses the obli/orKs ri/ht
to redee. and that the sale thereb1 beco.es absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at
best a .ere for.alit1 and .ere confir.ation of the title that is alread1 vested in the purchaser. 's this
!ourt has said in Manuel vs. $(ilippine ational !an)* et al.A
Note .ust be ta;en of the fact that under the Rules of !ourt the e<piration of that one*1ear
period forecloses the o5nerKs ri/ht to redee., thus .a;in/ the sheriffKs sale absolute. T"&
#%%u'(+& *"&!&'*&! o ' #('l )&&) o %'l& 7&+o$&% ' $&!& o!$'l#*y, '( '+* $&!&ly
+o(#!$'*o!y o *"& *#*l& *"'* #% 'l!&')y #( *"& 8u!+"'%&! '() +o(%*#*u*#(9 o#+#'l &1#)&(+&
o *"'* '+*. (.phasis supplied.)
!ertainl1, 8ucasan no lon/er possess an1 le/al or e6uitable title to or interest over the sub=ect parcels of land@
hence, he cannot validl1 .aintain an action for +uietin% of title.
?urther.ore, 8ucasan failed to de.onstrate that the notice of e.bar/o and the certificate of sale are invalid or
inoperative. In fact, he never put in issue the validit1 of the lev1 on e<ecution and of the certificate of sale dul1
re/istered on 0une -, &9,&. It is clear, therefore, that the second re6uisite for an action to +uiet title is, li;e5ise,
absent.
!oncededl1, 8ucasan can pursue all the le/al and e6uitable re.edies to i.peach or annul the e<ecution sale
prior to the issuance of a ne5 certificate of title in favor of P3!. Hnfortunatel1, the re.ed1 he had chosen
cannot prosper because he failed to satisf1 the re6uisites provided for b1 la5 for an action to +uiet title. Hence,
the RT! ri/htfull1 dis.issed 8ucasan4s co.plaint.
8ucasan tries to find solace in our rulin/ in Cometa v. Court of Appeals. Sadl1 for hi., that case is not on all
fours 5ith his case, for it 5as not for +uietin% of title but a petition for issuance of a 5rit of possession and
cancellation of lis pendens. 8i;e5ise, in !o.eta the re/istered o5ner assailed the validit1 of the lev1 and sale,
5hich 8ucasan failed to do.
Hndoubtedl1, 8ucasan4s ri/ht to redee. the sub=ect properties had elapsed on 0une -, &9,". His offer to redee.
the sa.e in &99: or lon/ after the e<piration of the rede.ption period is not reall1 one for rede.ption but for
repurchase. Thus, P3! and PDI!, its receiver and li6uidator, are no lon/er bound b1 the bid price. It is entirel1
5ithin their discretion to set a hi/her price. 's 5e e<plained in &e Ro'les v. Court of AppealsA
"-
The ri/ht to redee. beco.es functus officio on the date of its e<pir1, and its e<ercise after the period is
not reall1 one of rede.ption but a repurchase. Distinction .ust be .ade because rede.ption is b1 force
of la5@ the purchaser at public auction is bound to accept rede.ption. Repurchase ho5ever of foreclosed
propert1, after rede.ption period, i.poses no such obli/ation. 'fter e<pir1, the purchaser .a1 or .a1
not re*sell the propert1 but no la5 5ill co.pel hi. to do so. 'nd, he is not bound b1 the bid price@ it is
entirel1 5ithin his discretion to set a hi/her price, for after all, the propert1 alread1 belon/s to hi. as
o5ner.
'ccordin/l1, the condition i.posed b1 the PDI! for the re*ac6uisition of the propert1 cannot be considered
un=ust or unreasonable.
Veril1, in several cases,
"%
this !ourt allo5ed rede.ption even after the lapse of the rede.ption period. 3ut in
those cases a valid tender 5as .ade b1 the ori/inal o5ners 5ithin the rede.ption period. ven in Cometa, the
rede.ption 5as allo5ed be1ond the rede.ption period because a valid tender of pa1.ent 5as .ade 5ithin the
rede.ption period. The sa.e is not true in the case before us.
In fine, 5e find that the RT! correctl1 dis.issed 8ucasan4s co.plaint for +uietin% of title. Thus, the !'
co..itted no reversible error in sustainin/ the RT!.
6-ERE3ORE, the petition is .ENIE.. The Decision and Resolution of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'*+.R. !V
No. ,&-&,, are A33IRME.. !osts a/ainst the petitioner.
SO OR.ERE..
,nares-Santia%o* C(airperson* Austria-Martine.* C(ico-a.ario* Reyes* //.* concur.
3oo*(o*&%
&
Penned b1 'ssociate 0ustice Pa.pio '. 'barintos, 5ith 'ssociate 0ustices nrico '. 8anGanas and
'polinario D. 3ruselas, 0r., concurrin/@ rollo, pp. ",*#-.
"
Rollo, pp. "&*"9.
#
Id. at #%*#:.
2
RT! records, p. ",.
-
Id. at #&.
%
Id. at &*&".
:
Id. at %2*:#.
,
Id. at ,2*,,.
9
2$2 Phil. &$: ("$$&).
&$
RT! records, pp. &&#*&&9.
&&
Id. at &&,*&&9.
&"
Id. at &&9.
&#
Id. at &2".
&2
Rollo, pp. ",*#-.
&-
Id. at #-.
&%
Id. at #%*#:.
&:
Id. at &&.
&,
S!. :-. 'pplication for ne5 certificate upon e<piration of rede.ption period. L Hpon the e<piration
of the ti.e, if an1, allo5ed b1 la5 for rede.ption after the re/istered land has been sold on e<ecution
ta;en or sold for the enforce.ent of a lien of an1 description, e<cept a .ort/a/e lien, the purchaser at
such sale or an1one clai.in/ under hi. .a1 petition the court for the entr1 of a ne5 certificate of title
to hi..
3efore the entr1 of ne5 certificate of title, the re/istered o5ner .a1 pursue all le/al and e6uitable
re.edies to i.peach or annul such proceedin/s.
&9
Supra note 9.
"$
!alacala v. Republic, +.R. No. &-22&-, 0ul1 ",, "$$-, 2%2 S!R' 2#,, 222.
"&
See D3P v. 8eonor Vda. de Moll, &-$ Phil. &$& (&9:").
""
See !alacala v. Republic, supra note "$, at 22-.
"#
8etter dated October #$, "$$&, RT! records, pp. #"*##.
"2
Supra, at 22-*22:.
"-
+.R. No. &",$-#, 0une &$, "$$2, 2#& S!R' -%%, -:$, citin/ Natino v. Inter.ediate 'ppellate !ourt,
&9: S!R' #"# (&99&).
"%
Delos Re1es v. Inter.ediate 'ppellate !ourt, +.R. No. :2:%,, 'u/ust &&, &9,9, &:% S!R' #92@
Tolentino v. !ourt of 'ppeals, &9# Phil. %%# (&9,&)@ Doronila v. Vas6ueG, :" Phil. -:" (&92&).