On 21 March 1956 the petitioners filed a  petition in G.L.R.O. Cad. Rec. No.  159  alleging and claiming that they  are the  heirs of the late Manuel  Rivera who died intestate leaving a parcel of land situated on Evangelista street, Santa  Cruz, Manila, containing an area of 47.10 sq. m. more or less,  described in transfer  certificate of title No. 28709  (Sp.  Proc. No. 29718, Court of First Instance of Manila) ; that the owner's duplicate certificate of title to the parcel of land in  the possession of one of the heirs was lost or destroyed during the battle for liberation of Manila in February 1945; that on the back of the transfer certificate of title,  a certified copy of which is attached to the petition (Annex A), two encumbrances are recorded, to wit:   (1) the appointment on 19 June 1926  of Mariano Ocampo  y  Zamora as administrator  of  the estate of the late Manuel Rivera y Angeles in  Sp. Proc. No. 29718 of the Court of  First Instance  of Manila,  entered at 10:52 o'clock a.m. on 20 June 1927;  and (2) a notice of the levy upon execution dated  12 July 1932 to satisfy a judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Case No. 36466 in  favor of Maria  A. Garcia, plaintiff, against Jacinta  Rivera,  defendant, for the sum of Pl,630.80 with interest thereon from  22 April 1931 until paid  and P50.24 for costs of the suit and expenses incurred in the execution of the judgment, entered at 11:12 o'clock a.m.  on 13 July 1932; that the two encumbrances have no  more  reason to continue  recorded on  the  transfer certificate of title, because the administrator Mariano Ocampo y Zamora died in 1938  and the record of special proceedings No. 29718 was destroyed or burned during the war; because the sum due the  judgment  creditor Maria  A. Garcia,  which was for P1,630.80 only together with interest thereon from 22 April 1931 until paid, and P50.24 for costs and expenses incurred in the execution of the judgment, had  already been satisfied in the form of rentals received by the judgment  creditor from Irineo A.  Cristobal, the petitioners' lessee, amounting to P5,200 which is very much in excess of the amount due her, and for that reason she should turn over the excess  to  the  petitioners under the principle  of solutio indebiti;  and lastly because the entry of the encumbrance having been made on 13 July 1932, or  more than ten years from the  date of entry, whatever right the judgment creditor might still have thereunder is already barred by statute;  and that the petitioners as heirs of the late Manuel Rivera y Angeles, already had  executed a  deed  of partition of the parcel  of  land attached to the  petition (Annex B).  They prayed that the  Registrar of Deeds  in and for the City of Manila be directed to issue  another owner's duplicate of certificate of title No. 28709; to cancel  the two encumbrances appearing on the back thereof; and  to issue a new title in the  name  of the  petitioners  in  the proportion stated in their  petition.     

Maria A. Garcia filed an  opposition to the petition  on the ground that on 20 March 1956 she brought an action against the petitioners  in the  same  Court raising the question of ownership and title to the parcel of land (civil No. 29242, p. 71, Rec. on App.); and that for that reason  the land registration court  had no jurisdiction to  grant  what the petitioners pray in their petition.   The petitioners  filed a reply to  the opposition; the  oppositor, a rejoinder  to the petitioners'  reply; the petitioners, a  sur-reply; the   oppositor, an answer to the sur-reply; and the petitioners, a closing remarks.

After hearing, on 26  April 1956 the Court of First Instance of Manila, Fourth Branch, acting as land registration court,  entered  an  order  directing the  Registrar  of Deeds  in  and for the City  of  Manila, upon payment  of his lawful  fees, to issue  another  owner's duplicate  of transfer certificate  of title  No. 28709, in lieu of  the lost one,  and. to  cancel the two encumbrances appearing  on the back thereof, but denying the petitioners' prayer for a  new transfer certificate of  title to  be  issued in their names, without prejudice to their right to file for registration the deed of partition executed by them with the Office of  the Registrar of  Deeds in  accord  with  law and the Rules of  Court.

The oppositor has appealed to this  Court on the ground that the order is contrary to law.   In  her brief she assigns an error of law only.

Sections 109  and 112 of Act No. 496 provide:

If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a  grantee, heir, devisee, assignee, or other person applying for the entry  of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument a suggestion of the  fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or  other person in interest and registered.  The Court may thereupon, upon the petition of the registered owner or other person  in interest, after notice and hearing direct the issue of a new duplicate  certificate,  which shall contain a  memorandum of the  fact  that it  is  issued in  place  of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as the original duplicate for  all the purpose of this Act.  (109)

* * * Any registered owner  or  other person in interest may at any time apply by petition to  the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested,  contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have  terminated and  ceased;  * * *  and the court  shall have jurisdiction to  hear and determine the petition after notice to  all parties in  interest and may order the  entry of a new certificate, the entry or  cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary,  as it  may deem proper: * *  *  (112)

There  is  no  question that  under  the  foregoing  quoted provisions of  Act  No. 496, the court of  first instance, acting as land registration court, may,  upon petition of the  registered  owner  or other  person in interest, after notice  and  hearing,  and upon  satisfactory  proof,  direct the issuance of a hew duplicate certificate of title  in lieu of  a lost or  destroyed  one,  and the  cancellation of encumbrances on a certificate of title which have terminated or ceased.   Having shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the owner's  duplicate of transfer certificate of title No. 28709 had been lost  or destroyed during  the  battle for liberation of Manila, the appellees are entitled to the issuance of another owner's duplicate of transfer certificate of  title  No. 28709.  Having also  shown to  the Court's satisfaction that  Mariano  Ocampo  y Zarilora, who had been appointed by the probate court in  Sp. Proc. No. 29718 to  administer the  estate  of  the  late Manuel Rivera  y Angeles, died in 1938, and the record  of that fact on the back of the certificate of title would serve no useful purpose, the appellees may ask for the cancellation thereof and the Court commits no error in directing the cancellation of the annotation  on the certificate  of title of the administrator's  appointment  by the probate  court.  As regards the  second encumbrance recorded at the appellant's instance, from 13 July 1932,  the date  of the registration, to 21 March  1956, the  date  of the filing of the instant petition, and 20 March 1956, of the appellant's complaint in civil case No. 29242  (p. 71, Rec. on App.),  almost 24 years had  already elapsed without the appellant having taken any step to make effective her right thereunder and for that reason whatever  right she  might have under it is already barred by the statute of limitations.  Such being the case the said  encumbrance may also be ordered cancelled.

Jurisdiction being conferred by law,  the filing of a suit by the appellant against the appellees in the Court of First Instance to  secure  a declaration that she  is the owner of and  entitled to one-half of  the  parcel  of land, cannot divest the land registration court of its jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellees petition for an order directing the Registrar  of Deeds in and for the City of Manila to issue another  duplicate for the owner  of transfer certificate of title No. 28709 in lieu of the one lost and to cancel the encumbrances mentioned above, pursuant to the provisions of sections 109 and  112 of the Land Registration Act herein before quoted.

The order appealed from  is affirmed, with costs  against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  and Endencia, JJ.,  concur.