u<ir:iilrli.

'
Philippines.

Notes on Land Title and Deeds Talk of Dean Eduardo Oe Los Angeleet

disposable lands of the orlblic domain under a bona fide claim of ownershio since June 12, 1945 orearlier;

The Torrens Sy'stem was conceived in Australia and adopted in the

lki

purposes are:

to

make

a title indefealilble.

- lf land not alienable as forest or park reservation (Tiwi Hot Springs), land cannot be registered and certificate of title is
void (Palomo v. CA, 266 SCRA 393).

imorescriotiblg. and immune from collateral attacks. Advantags of registration:

f. indefeasibility after one year from entry of decree 2. imprescriptible 3. conclusive 4. immunity from collateral attack Cabrera v. CA,267 SCRA 339 whEre one co-owner registration of entire lot

2. 3.

Those who have acquired ownershiD of Drivate lands bv plgscription under the orovisions of existino laws;

tSsg-luh9--bave--eSSulgl ownershio of Drivate lands or abandoned river beds bv rioht of accession or,accretion
under the existing laws;

BUT registration i9 not a mode of acquiring title

does not sign deed of sale, buyer cannot apply for

accretion occurs where (a) the deposit is gradual and ' imperceptiblE, (b) made through effects of current of water,

Modes

donation, accreti;n, sale and acquisitive Drescriotion, i e ' 10 years in good faith and 30 years in bad faith.

of

Acquisition

of

Property: possession,

su-ccession'

js adjacent.to and (c) the land where accretion takes place river banks. Registration still necessary to confirm and make title imprescriPtible.
Those who hav
manner Broyided tor bv law.

4.

As a general rule, once land is reoistered. under the Torrens System and c-ertificate of title ls issues, it cannot be taken exceot if taken bv the Department of Agrarian Reform.
REGISTRATION

A corooration cannot reoister oublic land. They

under PD 1529

a@ corooiationan@

ga!++!y]e+i!

But

itis..a.PhiliPPine
Note:

ii plutic tano is held by an individual from June 12, 1945 or earlier ipso jure. the land bacomes private
Note, however, that roqistration onlY confirr.ns titlg.so the title mugt be a rnooe of acquiring title to property (E g' valio. Reoistraiion

Who

ian

Register: (Sec. 14)

1.

Those who bv themselves throuon their oredqcesqors-in-

@r.eI++=and noiorious-i6Gession ano occuo'ltion ot alienarte

based on talk of EA on July 14,

ii--ana

ano

reserved as townsite, it cannot be acquired ever if iegGterea alreaCy bocause a townsite4 is outside the. commerce- oJ mirt ineretore, VOID. Reoistration cannot validate a claim if there is

ii

ismt

I t

original handout

l993

utrion

refA pt -bar review notes by EA

arrd pre-bar

talk ofEA

.Upd-1ed

on 2004 on 2004

no valid title.

Possession, to ripen into ownership, must b open, actual, and continuoug thcc Jun 12, 1945 or earlier and musl b6 physical and material and not casual (e.9., going to the property once a yar.) A Forest land is a non-registrable land, Only the executive branch of the government xan declassify a forest land into alienable agricultural lands. Mere payment of land taxes is not sufficient, ,t must be coupled with possession in the concept of an owner.
PROCESS OF REGISTRATION OF

7.

Ocular inspaction - improvements, lots owne6, adjacent owner. Thrn the court will prepare a report. HearingiTrial

8.

-the

applicant must prove three things:

a. b. c.

Proof of publicatton (jurisdictional matte0 prolf of ownership Proof of identity of land

..

LAND

Oppositor can introduce evidence to support opposition

rebuttal evidenco.

Survey - results rn survey plan to be signed by a geodetic engineer and approved by the director of
Lands.

9.

Decision

three situations:

2.

File application for registration with RTO where land actually

situated;

is

a, b.

c.

court decide in favor of applicart court decides in favor of oppositor/s proves.ownership

court dismisses the case because

nobody

a. ldentity basis o, ownership b, ldentify land c. ldentify adjacent owner d. ldentify occupantsi/tenants e. ldentifyencumbrances 3. Setting of initial hearing 4. Publication/8osting (must precede initial hearing r otherwise court without .iurisdiction) 5. oppositor files verified opposition on or before hearins 6. Otherwise, court issues order of general default OR if the oppositor attends the hearing but h6 Coes not file opposition, the court may grant extension but if at that

10. Court issues order for a Decree 11. lssuance Decree 12. Registr of Deeds lddues Original Certificate of Title
REMEDIES
I

From an Order of Default

"
b.

3:;:li,

j;:i'j"hfl""r",,1fjr:irj,ff THff

and excusable negligence. Atter decision - petition for relief on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake and negligence.

default.

time, still no opposition, the court will order a special

2.

From a Decision

a. The losing party may file a

decision becomes final.

Wthin 15 days from receipt, otherwise

motion for reconsideration on the ground that the decision ig contrary to lawevidnce, lt must be filed
the

b.

' c.

the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence or a newly discovered
evidence. lt must be filed within 15 days.

the losing party may lile a motion for new trial on

Where a decree has already been issued, the losing party may file a petitron for review under Sec. 32, PD 1529 on the ground of deprivation of dominical rights over the land thru aclual and extrinsic fraud. lt must be filed within I year from issuance of the decree provided there is no innocent purchaser for value (lpv). An lpv is one who buys the property without knowledge of any defect in the
title AND pays lust price for the land.

The losing party may appeat on the ground that the decision is contrary to lawevidence. lt may be filled within 15 days.

However, if more than one year has elapsed, the losing party may file an action for reconveyance on the ground that the person lost dominical rights over the property because of extrinsic fraud or
breach of trust, provided there is no lPV. So reconveyance is:

As a general rule, the party must file either a motion for reconsideration or a motion for new trial (Omnibus motion rule, put all grounds). lf there is newly discovered evidence after filing a motion for reconsideration and the party is not aware of it at the time of hearing, and if it was denied, the part can file a motion for a new trial. lf the motion for a new
trial is dnied, the party may stil, appeal.

where
land:

person is deprived of land because of

actual fraud or breach of trust, he may recover the

i. ii.

within 4 years from discovery of fraud where there is need to annul a fraudulent deed (i.e.

3.

From

a Final Judgrnent

lapse of 15 days.

decision becomes final after the

Where a decree has not yetrbeen issued, the losing party may file a petition for reliel under rule 38 of the Rules of Courl on the grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, and excusable negligonce. lt must be verified and filed 60 days from notice but no morg than 6 months from entry of decision.

,
iii.

within 10 years from breach ot an implied trust if aggrieved party is not in possession of land (because i, aggrieved party in possession of land, auction is to quiet ti e which is imprescriptibte, pabrera v. CA , 267 scRA 339) at any time if there is breach os an express
trust.

fraud is thru document or contract)

PROVIDED land is not transferred to an innocenl purchaser

property in application for land registration, as a result of which such person is not given notice of proceedings, amounts to actual fraud. (Extrinsic fraud where it

actual physical possession

Failure to intentional omission of applicant to disclose the

of

for value.

But if already sold to lPV, the only remedy for the losing party is to file an action for damages against the perpetrato, of ,raud wilhin 4

prevents a party from having a trial. ) (Roxas v. CA, 270 SCRA 209).

years. He will not get the land back, only the value of the land plus
damags. So damages ar awarded when there is unlawful deprivation of land, no negligence of the party deprived, reconveyance is not possible, and action is filed within four years.

Amendments

Amendments can be done summarilv under Sec. 108 of PD 1529 if: registored interest terminates there error

lf the perpetrator of fraud is insolvent the losing party may file an action for damages against the Assurance Fund within 6 years
provided there is no negligence and breach of trust. NOTE:

But if there is a substantial change in the OCT or the chanqe is

disouted. the oartv must oo thru the ordinarv reoistfation oroceedino.
E.9.

or

is

in

ce rtificate

no serious dispute as to error of change of status does not amount to reopening does not impair rights of innocent purchassr.

lnnocent purchaser for value

no notice of flaw or claim ol other pr8on pays a full and fair price

1.

- cannot be changed summarily under Sec. 108 because this is a substantial change. File an ordinary proceeding.
change from 16 degrees to 18 degrees

must examine the seller's duplicate certificate of title (lslamic Directorale v. CA,272 SCRA 254) As a general rule, a final decision with publication binds all parties in

2. 3.

typographical error "Joaquin Bernas."

change from 'Joaquin Beeernas" to

rem, therefore, binds the whole world. Persons (oppositors and squatters) can be evlcted/ousted by a mere writ of possession from courl. lf a person eniers before the issuance of the decree. the owner can evict lhe oerson thru a writ of oossession. But if a oerson enters after th6 issuance of the decree. the owner must file an
eiectment

'
2.

change from "Sed Cande, married to Ana Santos" to "Sed Cande." lf wife ob.iects, Sec. 108 is not applicable. lt must
go thru a full-blown hearing.

Reconstitution

suit.

Certificate of Tille

lf a duqlicate OCT ir lost. one mav file an action for roelacement. lf the orioinal OCT is lost. one mav file for an action of reconstitution. lf a title has been reconstiluted, anyone dealing with the title must exercise extraordinary diligence to be deemed an lPV.

An Original Certificate of Title is evidence of title, that the land is registered under the Torrens System. lt is issued in two coDieg: one orhinal which is uJ:lh the Reqister of Deeds and one duolicate for tlg
reoistered owner, Conflicting certificates

Petition must notifv occuoants, adiacent owners and adverse claimants bv oublication. oostino anq Dersonal notices. Otherwise, reconstituted title is voirJ.
Where brother-in.-lavv pretends to be the registered owner of the Iand, files for reconstitution, obtains reconstituted certificate and

prior title prevails unless defective

mortgages to another, mortgagee has no better right than mortgagor especially vyhers true registered owner still has copy of his TCT (Torres v. Ca, 186 SCRA 167)

3.

Double

Sale .

A sale affects third persons onlv from date of resistration. Under Art. '1544 of the Civil Code, ownership passes to buyer in good faith who first records the sale in registry of property. Notice of adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest

An adverse claim has a life of 30 davs. othBrwise, it lapses. An atfidavit of adverse claim must be entered at once into the dav book so that the subsequent buyer is constructively bound. ln case of double sale, the oerson cannot invoke reoistration in qood faith as mentioned in Nt. 1544 of th Civit Code of the Philippines when there is a lis oendens annotated at the back of the title. Filing of an action may take time. CHAIN OF TIME

of a person over a piece of land and serves as a warning to third persons dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest thereon. (Sajonas v. CA, 258 SCRA 79). But notice must state how and under whom the alleged right of claimant acquired. (Lozano v. Ballesteros, 195 SCRA 681). Adverse claim effective once entered in a dav book even if owner's duplicate not
surrendered. (Garcia v. CA, 95 SCRA 380). SUBSEOUENT REGISTRATION (,.e., the land is already titled and you deal with it)
Note: there is registration of voluntary transactions (sale, mortgage, etc.) once deed entered in day book AND registrant surrenders ownde/s duplicate certificate and pays fees.

This is an exception to the cival law doctrine that the stream cannot be higher than the source, i.e., even if the seller has no ti e, the buyer can have titl6. So foroed document can be the root of a val;d
title.

The parties who lorged th deed and simulated the signatures of other parties are in bad faith and the forged deed is a nullity and cannot serye as a just title (Reyes v. CA, 258 SCM 651).
Example #
1

TITLE

XVALID

registered owner of TCT 12345 gos to

us,

so gives title to

I isnd Y

1.

Mortgago

voto

ntrusted to by

A mortgage is deemed reoistered if the mortoage is entered in the dav book even if it is not annotated at the back of th title. Therefore, a buyer is bound by mortgage. Latest SC decision;

entry of mortgage in day book = registration

forges X's signature in deed of sale of land in Y's favor, Y gets TCT 12346 from Register of Deeds (Y is a torger, therefore, Y has a void title)

2.

Advorse Claims or Lis Pendans

zVALID

Y sells land to Z as IPV

Z registers land and gets TCf 12347 Z has a valid title

X returns and asks Y for title and learns the sale of land to Z. X cannot recovor from Z because as between two persons, the one who caused the loss and who is deemed negligent must suffer. Remedv of X is to file an action aoainst Y for damaoes. But if Z. has not vet obtrained title. X can recover from

Duran v. IAC 138 SCRA 48S Circe owned two lots. She left for the U.S. Later, a deed of sale was made in favor of Circ's mother, which deed was registered. Circe's mother then mortgaged the lots. When Circe learned about this, she wrote the register Of dseds that she never executad the deed of sale to her mother. ln the meEntime, the mortgagee has foreclosed. When Circe's mother ,ailed to redeem, the mortgagee obtained title in its name. Circe claimed her signature in the deed was forgery. HELD: While Article 2085 of the Civil Coe requires ownership by the mortgagor of the land to make the mortgage valid, insofar as third parties are concorned, Circe's mother was the registered owner. lt is a oeneral rule that there is no dutv to look bevond the certificate of title. The mortoaoe is in oood faith. lt acouired title. Circe did not even intervene in the foreclosure sale. She was neolioent.

Example # 2

XY-

owns TCT 12345

misrepresents to Z that he is X and sells land to Z

if Z gets title TCT 12347 --r title is VOID; ZG neoliqent because he has the dutv to find out that the seller is the reoistered owner. therefore. X can recover the oropertv from Z. Also if the price of the property is suspiciously low. There is no chain of title since Y did not get any tille in his name, therefore, Z has no title also.

Z-

Tinio-Obsequio v. CA, 230 SCRA 550

It has ben consistently held that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid titte when an innocent purchasar for value inervenes.

Example # 3 Y forges the deed of sale but does not register it to get a new litle. Y Fhows to Z. Z buys. Y makes deed of title in favof of Z. X can recover the prooertv from Z because there is no chain of title. As between 2 persons, the one who should shoulder the loss is the one who is negligent. ln this example, Z is negligent. Note that X must have a valid title in the first place, otheMise, there can be NO chain of title but land is mortgaged, X can recover trom Z but must respect the mortgago.

A deed ot sale was executed by an impostor without the authority of the owner of the land Eold is a nullity, and registration will not validate what otherwise is an invalid document. However, where the certificatB of title was alreadv trqnsferred from the name of the true owner to the foroer and. while it remained that wav. the land was subseouently sold to an innocent ourchaser. the vendee had the rioht to relv uoon what aopeared in the certificate and in the absence of anvthino to excite suspicion. was under no oblioation to look bevond the cerlifieat6.

Suruey of Recent Caaes on Land Titles and Doeds Cases on Chain of Title

Notices to owners of adjoining lots and actual occupants of the subject property are not mandatory and jurisdictional in petition for judicial roconstitution of destroyed OCT when the source of such reconstitution is the owner's duplicate copy thereof (Republic v. Planes, 381 SCRA 215).
Reqistratron is nalESulyelCllgl-tllle. Under the Torrens System, registration only gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. A holder in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled to the protection of law, for the law cannot be used as a shield for fraud. (Lee v. Manipon, 381 SCRA 788)

A building in good faith is one who builds with the beliefs that the land he is building on is his. (Orquiola v. CA, 386 SCRA 301).
An action to ouit titlG mav be brouaht when there exists a cloud on the title to real orooertv or anv interest thereon.. (Gapacan v. Omipet, 387 SCRA 383). Once a parcel is included within a watershed reservation duly established by Executive Prociamation, a presumotion arises that the land contrnues to b6 part of such reservation - and is inalienable until clear and convincino evidence of subseouent declassification is shown. (Collado v. CA, 390 SCRA 343).

Anv lien annotated on Eevious certificates of title should be incoroorated in or carried over to the ne\,v certificate of title. Such lien is inseparable from the property as it is a right in rem. (Padcon Condo Corp. v. Ortigas center, 382 SCRA 222).
It requires more than a party's bare allegation to defeat the OCT which on its face eniovs the leoal Dresumotion of reoularitv of issuance. (Alvarico v. Sola, 383 SCRA 232).

The rioht of reversion or reconvevance to the State of public properties registered and which are not capabl of private appropriation does not prescribe. (ld.)
Persons dealino with prooertv covered bv a Torrens certificate of ti!!C-as buyers or mortgages, are not reouired to oo befond what aooears on the face of the title. (De Leon v. Calalo, 391 SCRA 752). Mere-AEJeISe-pgSSgSCiEfor a period provided by law would automaticallv entitle the oossessor to the riqht to reoister Dublic land in his name - but ha has to character of the land bv a oositive act ofqovernment such as a presidential proclemation, executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of lha Bureau of Lands, legislative act or certification of the DENR (Republic v. CA, 392 SCRA 190).

A orivate individual mav not brino an action for reversion (ld.) Historicalty, lands reclaimed by government are not available for sale to private parttes unlike other alienable public lands #elEimgd lands retain their inherent Dotential as areas for oublic use or DUblic seryice (Chavez v. PEA, 384 SCRA r

152).

Jurisprudence holding that the orant of Datent of issuance of certaficate of title the alienable land of the oublic dompin automaticallv becomes Drivate land gAnnot aoolv to oovernment unites and entities like PEA. (ld.) Such lands must be transferred to disqualified Drivate Da4ieg or o6iernnrent uiilities not tasred to disoose of oubtic lan-ds.before tlrese lands can become private or oatrimonial lands. (ld.)

The State rrohibits the sale or encumbrance of lhe homqslgq.dlithin IlyeJqgIg ifter the orant of oatent. (Republic v. Alejaga, 393 SCRA
361) Even after :he lapse of one year, the State mavgino action ior reversion if oublic land has been fraudulentlv qranted.lld.)

When a p.rty hrr actual knowledge of facts End circum8tancB that would imprl a r.asonably cautious man to make inquiry, rolying on the face ol the title i3 not enough. (Naawan Com. Rural Bank v. CA, 39s SCRA 43) Cancellation of titles case cannot be orooerly dismissed on the oround of forum shoooino predicated on filino and oendino of a damage case. (UP v. Susi, 397 SCRA 365)
A survev of land subject of an application for registration is an essential reouisite.(Dolino v. CA, 401 SCRA 695) A certification of title cannot.be subiect of collateral 8$ack. (Anicete v. Ealanon, 402 SCRA 514)

lf the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not lost or destroyed, there is nothing to rsconltitute. The reconstitution proceedings and second owner's duplicate certificate of title are void. (Pinda v. CA, 409 SCRA 438)
No valid TCT can issue from a void TCT unless an innocent
purchaser for value has intervened. (ld.)

But the nullity of th scond duplicate TCT did not affect the validity of the sale belween spouses Benitez and Mojica nor the validity of a mortgage annotated therson ,f the mortgage annotatsd the mortgage in good faith. What b void is the reconstituted TCT, not the title of ownership of Mojica or Gonzales. (ld.)

The fact that the oiginal owner (Mojica) had knowledge of a first
mortgagee (Gonzales), absent proof that the latter had actual knowledge of such unregistered mortgage. The subsequent annotation of lis pendens does not defeat the rights of the mortgagee (Gonzales) who registBred his mortgage when the notice of lis pendens was not yet annotated or the purchaser at the auction sale who derives his rights trom the mortgagee. The rule is that the auction sale ret occ'ls to ihe date ef thc :'csistraticn Df lhe mortgage.
(td.)

Ownership is not th6 same ownershio. (Erman v. Erman, 403 SCRA 193)
An action is an attack on a title when the object of the action is to nullify the title and thus challenge the judgment or proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is dlrect when the uirject of an irclrJrr iJ ti a:'lnirl c: 3et sside such il^igrnent oi ei Lioir r iis

as@

unregistered mortgage did not constitute actual notice to the second

enforcement. (ld.) A counter-claim can be considered a direct attack on the title. (ld.) The one-year period does not apply when the person seeking annulmenl of title @r re-conveyance is in possession of the lot. (ld.) Absence of opposition from government_agencies ls of no moment because the State cannot be estopped bv the elnission. mistake or error of its officials and aoents. (Republic v. Lac, 405 SCRA 291)
requires an express and positive act from the government. (ld.)
I

Where calim of possession of land started in 1962, such is not sufficient basis to apply for registration of luch land which under PD1073 and 1529 should have started in June 12, 1945 or earlier. (Nadela v. City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315)

The private parties are precluded from claiming ownorship of the land in dispute as the issue of ownership by UP haB long been settled in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and have
therefore become incontestable. (Pael v. CA, 415 SCRA 451)

Declassification

of forest land and conversion into alienable

land