Amparo  Davila Vda.  de Barrera  was the registered owner of  lots  Nos.  18 and 20-B, Block No.  29, of  the Cadastral  Survey of Manila, the first  containing  an area of 444.20  sq.  m.  and the second, 31.60 sq.  m.   On 30 January 1946 the two lots  were  conveyed to Maria Rosado Ruiz and transfer certificates of  title Nos.  78878  and 78879  were issued  in her  name but the latter  failed to declare in her  name the  lots for assessment purposes,  as provided for in section 2484 of  the  Revised Administrative Code.  For failure to pay the taxes due on said lots for 1947  amounting  to  £88.71, the  City Treasurer  of Manila advertised the two  lots for sale  at  public auction to satisfy the taxes  due and penalties pursuant to section 2498 of the Revised Administrative Code.  On  27 November 1947, the City Treasurer of  Manila  sold the two lots at an auction sale to Lourdes T. Paguio for the sum of P100.67 representing the total tax  due and  unpaid,  the penalty therefor and costs as of that date.  On  7 April 1948 the  City Treasurer issued to  Lourdes T. Paguio  a certificate of sale of said lots (section 2498, Revised Administrative Code).  After the expiration of one year, or on  11  May 1949 the City Treasurer issued  in favor of Lourdes T. Paguio a final and  absolute deed of sale of said lots pursuant to section 2500 of the  Revised Administrative  Code.  Alleging  and claiming that all the steps taken leading to the public  auction sale of the two  lots were fraudulently concealed  by Lourdes T. Paguio from Maria  Rosado Ruiz;  that the certificate of sale  and  the final and  absolute deed of sale executed by the  City Treasurer in favor of Lourdes T. Paguio were not registered in the office of  the Register of Deeds; that  the sale at public auction was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law; that the advertisement by  posting of a notice as required by law was not complied  with;  that the publication of the notice  of sale was made  in the Bagong Balita, an unknown paper and not of general circulation; that the  notice of sale  did not state  the name of  the declared owner and tax declarant Amparo Davila Vda. de Barrera or the true  owner Maria  Rosado  Ruiz, the said sale having been advertised in the name  of Amparo Davila Vda. de Barrera; that the City  Treasurer  sold both  lots or  parcels of land  when the  sale  of  a portion thereof would have been sufficient to satisfy the tax due;  that the purchase  price  of P100.67  was grossly inadequate  and clearly unconscionable,  taking into consideration  the fact that the  assessed value  of the lots was P5,188  and  the market value at the time the lots were sold at public auction was P14,000; that Lourdes T. Paguio bid in bad faith at  the public auction sale because she knew at the time she made her bid for  the two lots that they no longer belonged  to Amparo  Davila  Vda. de Barrera; that after securing the deed of sale for the two lots  from  the City Treasurer as provided for in section 2500 of the  Revised) Administrative Code,  Lourdes T. Paguio filed a  petition in G. L. R. 0. Cad. Rec. No. 154, Court of First Instance of Manila, praying  that Maria Rosado Ruiz be ordered to surrender the  owner's duplicate transfer certificates of title Nos. 78878 and 78879 for cancellation; ^and that acting upon that petition the cadastral court denied the  petition but that on appeal the Supreme Court reversed the order and granted the  petition  of Lourdes  T. Paguio,1 Maria Rosado Ruiz and her husband, the plaintiffs'  pray  that the sale at public auction and the judgment in G.L.R.O.  Cad. Rec. No. 154, G. R. No. L-5301, supra, be declared  null and void and of no force and effect; that Lourdes T. Paguio and her husband be ordered to deliver the two lots in question to them  (the plaintiffs) upon  payment or reimbursement by the latter to  the former of the sum of  PI00.67  plus interest due thereon or to grant to the plaintiffs the right to redeem the lots within  such  period and under  such terms  as the Court may justly determine and require on equitable grounds; and for  such  further relief as equity and justice  may  warrant.

Lourdes T. Paguio and her husband, the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the action  brought by the plaintiffs  against them is barred by a prior judgment.  Holding that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court  in Paguio vs. Ruiz,^[1] G. R. No. Lr-5301,  30 May 1953, 50 Off. Gaz., 156, contitutes res  judicata and bars the present action, the Court dismissed the complaint  without pronouncement as to costs.  The  plaintiffs have appealed.

Section 111 of the Land Registration Act,  Act No. 496, partly provides:

In every case where the clerk or any register of deeds is  requested to enter, a new certificate in pursuance of an instrument purporting to be executed by the registered  owner, or by reason of any instrument or proceedings which divest the title of the registered owner against his consent, if the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate is  not presented for cancellation when  such request is made,  the clerk or register of deeds shall not enter a new certificate, but  the person claiming to be entitled thereto may apply by petition to  the court.  The court, after hearing, may order the. registered owner or any person withholding the  duplicate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate upon such surrender.  (Italics supplied.)

When Lourdes T. Paguio filed a petition in the land registration court (G.L.R.O. Cad.  Ree.  No. 154)  praying that Maria  Rosado Ruiz, the  registered owner, be directed to surrender  the owner's  duplicate transfer certificates, of title Nos. 78878  and 78879 issued in her name, the latter filed an  objection thereto, stating  that  she had not been notified of the tax delinquency nor of the sale  for delinquency by the City Treasurer; that Amparo.Davila Vda. de Barrera having ceased on 27 November 1947 to be the owner of the two lots, Lourdes T. Paguio, the then petitioner, did not acquire any right thereto under the auction sale and was not in possession of  the two lots;  and that she  (Maria Rosado Ruiz)  was in  possession thereof and could not be deprived of her rights and interest therein without  due process of law.

The  authority  of  the court in land registration cases to order the registered owner to surrender  his duplicate certificate of title, pursuant to section 111 of the Land Registration Act  (Act No. 496), must be predicated upon the validity and legality of the claim of the petitioner that he is  entitled to such surrender  so that a  new certificate of title may be issued to him, because the registered1 owner had been lawfully divested of  his title to the  registered land.  To such petition the registered owner may object, as  Maria  Rosado Ruiz  did  object to  the petition for surrender, but failed to  object to  the jurisdiction of the cadastral court.   In order that the  court  may  order the registered  owner to surrender  his owner's duplicate certificate of title  it  has to determine upon  the evidence presented by the parties whether the registered owner had been lawfully divested of his title thereto.  That, of course, requires and involves determination of the question of title to the registered property.  As the authority  granted to the Court by section 111 of the  Land Registration Act (Act  No. 496) does not constitute reopening of the decree entered as a result of proceedings m rem for the confirmation of imperfect titles under the said Act, it cannot be deemed to contravene the purpose and aim of the Torrens system., In these  circumstances we cannot say that the cadastral court did not have jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the issues raised by  the  parties upon a petition for surrender of the owner's  duplicate certificates of title. Even if we were to hold that the land/ registration court had no jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the  objection and grounds therefor raised  by Maria Rosado Ruiz, still under the ruling in Sinapilo vs. Gracia, 28 Phil.,  269;  Nolan vs. Montelibano, 29 Phil, 236; Amor vs. Krummer, 76 Phil., 481; and Amor vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil., 484; and section 11, Rule  40, that "A case  tried by an  inferior court without jurisdiction over the subject matter shall be dismissed on appeal by the Court of  First Instance.   But instead of dismissing the case, the Court of First Instance in  the exercise of its original jurisdiction, may try the case on the merits if the parties therein file their pleadings and go to the trial without any objection to  such jurisdiction," the Court may be deemed  to have entered  on  the  exercise of its original and  general jurisdiction.  The trial court decided against the petitioner upon the authority of the ruling in Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47  Phil., 23, to the effect thai proceedings in the sale of properties for delinquency in the payment of real estate taxes are in personam and not in rem.  On  appeal the respondent Maria Rosado Ruiz reiterated  her objection and  reasons therefor against the surrender of her certificates of title but this Court reversed the order of the trial  court appealed from.^[1]   In view of the statement made in his brief by counsel for the  plaintiffs-appellants to the effect that the then petitioner, now defendant-appellee Lourdes T.  Paguio, objected to the jurisdiction of the land registration court to take cognizance of the question of title to the two lots involved in the petition for the surrender of the owner's duplicate certificates of title, we went over again the  record on appeal in the case of Lourdes T. Paguio vs. Maria Rosado Ruiz * G. R.  No. L-5301,  30  May 1953, and  found  that  the  petitioner-appellant" did not object to the exercise by the Court of its  jurisdiction to decide the  question  of title to the two lots involved in the petition for surrender  of the owner's duplicate certificates  of title but only  on appeal to  secure the reversal  of the order appealed from.

The point  of misjoinder of parties is without  merit. The lots were  registered in  the  name of  Maria Rosado Ruiz alone.  The certificate of sale and deed of sale were in the name of Lourdes T, Paguio alone.

We reiterate our sympathy  for the appellants, as we did in the previous case;  but courts have no choice,  as we said in that case,  but to apply the law.

The order  dismissing the complaint  is affirmed, without pronouncement as to  costs..

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

---

^[1] Paguio vs. Ruiz, 93 Phil., 306, 50 Off. Gaz., 156.
^[1] Paguio vs. Ruiz, supra.
^[*] 93 Phil., 306.