
    Martínez v. The Registrar of Property.
    Complaint against the Registrar of Property of Aguadilla.
    No. 5.
    Decided June 27, 1903.
    Cancellation.— Via Gubernativa. — The nullity of cancellations effected "by registrars of property can not be decreed in proceedings known as (via gubernativa). This must be done by courts in a proper declaratory action.
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    Joaquin Moreno, owner of a farm situated in the district of Mayagüez and duly recorded in the Registry, executed a voluntary mortgage on said property, in favor of Victor Martinez who had his mortgage recorded, said mortgage being thereafter twice extended by deed No. 549 of May 28, 1897, executed in Mayagüez before Mariano Riera Palmer, notary public, for six thousand three hundred and thirty pesos, and sixty-three centavos provincial money, as principal, and two thousand pesos to guarantee cost of collection, the creditor Martinez recording his mortgage right under date of August 12, 1897. After the execution of the mortgage in favor of Martinez, that is to say on March 30, 1898, á cautionary notice of attachment against1 Joaquin Moreno was entered on the same mortgaged property and two other farms for two thousand pesos in favor of Maria Moreno de Ramirez, which cautionary notice was made final by another entry dated August 10, 1898. Years afterwards, that is to say, on February 1, 1900, by deed No. 100, executed in Mayagüez before Mariano Riera Palmer, notary public, the debtor and owner of the farm, Joaquin Moreno, conveyed the property to the creditor, Victor Martinez, in payment of his mortgage debt, and in the deed of conveyance no mention was made of the attachment in favor of Mrs. Moreno de Ramirez.
    It will be noted, that the admission of this deed of conveyance to record was not applied for by Martinez, but a copy of the deed was presented at the Registry for admission to record by,Sergio Ramirez, the husband of Mrs. Maria Moreno, acting as the parole agent of Joaquin Moreno.
    ■ After the prosecution of the suit brought by Maria Moreno de Ramirez against Joaquin Moreno for the recovery of her credit which had given rise to the cautionary notice of attachment on said farm, judgment was rendered on May 21, 1900, ordering a public sale and, finally, on November 12, 1900, the said property was adjudicated to Mrs. Moreno de Ramirez, in satisfaction of the amount claimed by her.
    In consequence of said judgment, a writ issued by the court of the same district was presented at the Registry of Property of Aguadilla, ordering the cancellation of the record of ownership in favor of Victor Martinez, inasmuch as said property had been adjudicated to Mrs. Moreno in the action for the recovery of a debt, prosecuted by her against the owner, Joaquin Moreno, which cancellation was immediately effected by the Registrar of Property. There upon Victor Martinez filed in the Supreme Court a complaint against said Registrar, praying that aforesaid cancellation be declared null and void, leaving in force the record of ownership of the farm in question, which stood in his favor in the Registry of Property.
    The Supreme Court, by a decision rendered April 20, 1903, directed the party concerned to assert his right before the proper court and in the manner prescribed by law. Then Martinez again appeared before the same court, praying for a reconsideration of the aforesaid decision and renewing his prayer that the cancellation be declared null and void, or in lieu thereof, that the record of the adjudication in favor of Mrs. Moreno in aforesaid execution proceedings, for which she had applied, be ordered to be effected in conformity with article 9 of the Mortgage Law, that is to say, with the incumbrance of the mortgage constituted by Moreno in favor- of said Martínez, and upon this new netition the following opinion was rendered.
    
      Mr. Martinez, for petitioner.
   Opinion of the Court.

The nullity of cancellations effected by Registrars of Property can not be decreed in proceedings of this character (via gubernativa;), hut must be done by courts of justice in a proper declaratory action. The Supreme Court cannot decide the second point incidentally submitted in aforesaid petition. The prayer made therein is. denied, and the decision rendered on the 20th of April last upon the former complaint, of which the one now rendered is a reproduction, is ordered to be complied with, and communication hereof ordered to be made.

Chief Justice Quiñones, and Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary, concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not sit at the hearing of this case.  