G.R. No.

L-24568 March 2, 1926

SISENANDO RIVERA, RUPERTA GONZALEZ, JULIAN PANLILIO and MARIA

RIVERA, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE MANUEL V. MORAN, Auxiliary Judge of First Instance of Tarlac,
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ESTANISLAO GARCIA and RAFAEL LLORENTE, respondents.

Facts:

In 1922, the Court of First Instance (CFI) ordered the registration of various parcels of land
under the cadastral case in the names of private respondents Estanislao Garcia and Rafael
Llorente. The Director of Lands, filed motions for a new trial which were denied. No decree of
registration has been entered. Subsequently, Llorente transferred his interest in the lots to Garcia
who mortgaged the land to the petitioners Rivera, Gonzalez, and Panlilio. The mortgage was
inscribed in the unregistered land register on April 10, 1923.

In February 1923, the Director of Lands presented a petition for review of the cadastral case alleging
fraud, which was later on granted by the court. The petitioners filed a petition against the reopening
of the cadastral case.

Issue:

WON petition for review alleging fraud cannot be filed if there is no decree of registration made.

WON petitioners are mortgagees in good faith

Rulings:

No. Section 38 of the Land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a
decree on the grounds of fraud must be filed "within one year after entry of the decree." Giving this
provision a literal interpretation it may at first seen that the petition for review cannot be presented
until the final decree has been entered but the Court ruled that the intention of Legislature is that a
petition for review, under section 38, may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court's
decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration.

Likewise, the petitioners are not purchaser in good faith. They acquired their interest in the
land before any final decree had been entered; the litigation was therefore in effect still pending and
to appear that they were aware of the fact. Finally, the inscription in the unregistered land register
did not materially improve the petitioner's situation; such inscriptions are without prejudice to third
parties with a better right.
G.R. No. 27449 September 10, 1927

CHUA PUA HERMANOS, petitioner -appellant,

vs.
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS, respondent-appellee.

Facts:

On April 3, 1922, the appellant, petitioner Chua Pua Hermanos, instituted a civil action against Jone
Katigbak for the purpose of recovery a sum of money. A judgment was rendered in favor of the
petitioner and the house and land of Katigbak was attached. The levied property was sold to public
auction which the petitioner, as lone bidder, won, thereby a certificate of sale was issued by the
sheriff to the latter. Upon presentation to the Register of Deeds such certificate of sale, the RD
refused to record it because there was already a certificate of sale recorded on the registry of books
for unregistered subject property. One Samuel Murray, administrator of another creditor of Katigbak,
also levied the house and lot of the latter and obtained such property thru public auction where a
certificate of sale was issued and recorded on the registry of books.

Issue: WON RD should record the certificate of sale of the petitioner.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court held that until separate books shall be provided especially for noting and recording
of instruments executed by the public officials, the registration of such instruments must be effected
by noting and recording them in the books ordinarily used for the registration of instruments relating
to unregistered property. The conditions prescribed in section 194 of the Administrative Code, as
amended by Act No. 2837, are not applicable to the deed of a sheriff conveying land sold by the
sheriff under execution. Moreover, it has been held by this court that the fact that the property sold
under execution is found to be already registered in the name of some other person than the
execution debtor is no obstacle to the registration of the sheriff's deed.

The RD does not exercise a quasi-judicial power in determining the rights of persons under
sheriff's deeds. His duty with respect to the notation or recording of these instruments, so far at least
as relates to unregistered property, is ministerial only. Only the courts can determine who has the
better rights between two judgment creditors.
G.R. No. 185477 December 4, 2009

HERMINIO M. GUTIERREZ and ELISA A. GUTIERREZ-MAYUGA, Petitioners,

vs.
FLORA MENDOZA-PLAZA and PONCIANO HERNANDEZ, Respondents.

Facts:

The parcel of land subject of this case is an unregistered land located in Sto. Tomas, Batangas
owned by Ignacio Mendoza, common ascendant of the parties herein. Petitioner Herminio Gutierrez
is the grandson of Ignacio from his daughter in first marriage and Elisa Gutierrez-Mayuga is the
daughter of Herminio. Respondent Flora Mendoza-Plaza is the daughter of Ignacio in his second
marriage and Ponciano Hernandez is his grandson also in his second marriage. After the death of
his first wife Juana, Ignacio married he younger sister Ignacia.

On 8 March 1940, Ignacio executed a deed of donation inter vivos,9 whereby the subject property
was donated to the his children in the second marriage. Ignacia accepted the donation on behalf of
her children. Dominador and Victoria, Ignatio’s children in the first marriage, were also signatories to
the deed of donation inter vivos as instrumental witnesses. The deed was likewise duly notarized,
but the same was not recorded in the Registry of Deeds.

On 27 April 2006, respondents filed a Complaint of recovery of possession of the southern part of
subject property. Allegedly, petitioners took possession and constructed a house of strong materials
therein, despite the vigorous objection and opposition of the respondents. Petitioners claimed that
they have been occupied and possessed the subject property openly, peacefully and publicly.
Likewise, they disputed the genuineness and authenticity of the deed of donation inter vivos,
considering that for more than 65 years the said document was not registered with the office of the
Register of Deeds to cause its transfer to respondents.

Issue: WON the unregistered deed of donation shall not bind the petitioners.

Ruling:

No. The non-registration of the aforesaid deed does not also affect the validity thereof. Registration
is not a requirement for validity of the contract as between the parties, for the effect of registration
serves chiefly to bind third persons. The principal purpose of registration is merely to notify other
persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered
into.23 The conveyance of unregistered land shall not be valid against any person unless registered,
except (1) the grantor, (2) his heirs and devisees, and (3) third persons having actual notice or
knowledge thereof. Petitioners are the heirs of Ignacio, the grantor of the subject property. Thus,
they are bound by the provisions of the deed of donation inter vivos.