FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed against the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of three real properties in Bago City. A marketing cooperative, the respondent, filed a civil case against the petitioner for collection of a sum of money. The petitioner was declared in default and the trial court rendered a decision in favor of the respondent. To satisfy the judgment, the properties owned by the petitioner were levied and sold, with the respondent as the highest bidder. The certificate of sale was recorded in the Register of Deeds. The respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles over the properties in its name. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the order. The petitioner argues that the respondent's motion was procedurally infirm and barred by prescription. The principal issues in the case are whether or not the respondent's right to have new titles issued in its name prescribed and whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for the cancellation of the petitioner's certificates of title and new ones issued in the respondent's name.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent's right to have new titles issued in its name is now barred by prescription.

2. Whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling petitioner's certificates of title and new ones issued in its name.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that respondent's right to petition the court for the issuance of new certificates of title has not yet prescribed. The Court cited the case of Heirs of Blancaflor vs. Court of Appeals, wherein it was established that the right to have new titles issued in the name of the party who purchased the levied property at an auction sale arises immediately upon the purchase at the auction sale. Therefore, respondent's right to petition for the issuance of new titles has not yet prescribed.

2. The Court did not directly address whether the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling petitioner's certificates of title and issuing new ones in respondent's name. Instead, the Court focused on the issue of prescription. However, it can be inferred that the Court considered the motion in question to be the proper remedy, as it proceeded to state the rule established in Heirs of Blancaflor case regarding the right to petition for the cancellation of the old title and the issuance of a new one.

PRINCIPLES:

• The right to have new titles issued in the name of the purchaser at an auction sale arises immediately upon the purchase at the auction sale. This right does not prescribe. (Heirs of Blancaflor vs. Court of Appeals)