Land Titles and Deeds Finals Transcription
Because you
September 4, 2012, 00:00 – 26:00
(CAVEAT: di kayo ko kaklaro sa answer sa atong classmates, but
kung unsa ang answer kay ibalik ra man sad ug sulti ni ma’am, so
kang ma’am nlang ako gtranscribe.)
Atty: We’ve already discussed this. This is just a review. What
happens after your land registration court grants the application
for original registration?
Ans. Once it is granted, your land registration court will issue an
order granting the application. What happens after that?
After the granting by the land registration court of your
application for original registration, the court will order the LRA to
enter the decree of registration. Once it is in the LRA, and it is also
already entered, and there is issuance of your certificate of title, it
is now sent to your Register of Deeds for transcription. Okay? So
that’s what happens. And your RD upon transcription that will
actually be now the certificate of title that will be given to the
registered owner.
Atty: Now you mentioned about decree of registration, and we
have been mentioning that decree of registration. What is this
Decree of Registration?
Ans: Simply, this is just a document that is issued by your LRA in
the name of the court, telling you that a person was granted his
application for original registration and now he is the registered
owner of a particular parcel of land. Of course, with its technical
descriptions.
Atty: And we also said that after the entry of that decree of
registration in the LRA, it will now pass on o your Register of
Deeds or your RD for transcription. What do we call that book
where your RD will transcribe all those which were transferred
from the LRA to the RD?
Ans: We call it the registration book. And in fact, the registration
book is sequenced, such that kung kinsa tu ang una, up until the
last. So that will constitute now again as we said earlier on the
certificate of title that is given to the registered owner.
Atty: Now, as a review, what is the difference or what is the
importance of knowing when the RD has transcribed the decree
of registration in its books and when it was entered in the LRA?
What are the purposes of knowing these dates?
Ans: In case of double sale or double registration, where the two
parties are now trying to contest the validity of the ownership of
the other, you trace it back to the original certificate of title and
there are two original certificates of titles covering the same
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
parcel of land so you have to trace it back. Why?
have to know who registered it first.
Atty: And what date should you consider in determining who
registered it first?
Ans: It is the date of transcription of the decree because that is
when you consider the OCT having to take effect. So it’s not
enough that you know when it takes effect. You have to know
unsa may gamit?
Atty: Why do we need to know when an OCT takes effect?
Ans: Because it is useful in case of double registration you have to
look who registered it first.
And, on the date of entry of decree in the LRA that is also
important because that is in fact the reckoning period of the 1
year indefeasibility of title would come in.
Atty: Why do we need to know when the title becomes
indefeasible?
Ans: First, if you are the registered owner, it is important to you
so that you will know that at that point in time, no one can attack
your title. If you are the oppositor, the more it is useful to you
because within that one year from the entry of decree in the LRA,
you can still attack and reopen the proceedings through a petition
for review within that one year from the entry of decree in the
LRA. But beyond that one year, as an oppositor, and you still have
valid claims over that parcel of land, you still have a remedy. And
that is action for reconveyance.
Atty: However, if there is now an innocent purchaser for value,
you can no longer ask that it be conveyed back to you. What will
you do?
Ans: Just ask for damages from the party who is the author of the
fraud. Of course, you do not ask from the innocent purchaser for
value.
Atty: Now supposing that that party is insolvent, he cannot pay
you. What do you do?
Ans: You go to the assurance fund. That’s the beauty of land
titles. Dili mo magtagpi-tagpi. That’s how you connect the
principles. So that’s the essence why you have to know when is
the entry of decree in the LRA and when the OCT takes effect,
that’s when it decree is transcribed in the RD.
Del Prado vs. Caballero
(Di kayo ko kadungog..  pero ani ni xa.. )
On May 21, 1987, Antonio Caballero moved for the issuance of
the final decree of registration for their lots.
1
Consequently, on May 25, 1987, the court ordered the National
Land Titles and Registration Administration to issue the decree of
registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor of
Caballeros.
Before ma-issuehan ug OCT ang Caballeros, they sold their lot
11909 to Del Prado on June 11, 1990. Stated in their deed of sale
the boundaries of the lot, and that it contains an area of 4,000
square meters, more or less. Pagdawat na nila sa OCT on
November 15, 1990, it was found out that ang area jud diay sa lot
11909 is 14,457 square meters, more or less.
On March 20, 1991 (take note of the date), Del Prado filed a
“petition for registration of document under PD 1529” so that a
certificate of title be issued in her name with regards to lot 11909.
Del Prado said that the sale was for lump sum, so that ang iyang
bayad was for the whole area covered by the lot 11909.
Caballeros opposed contending that what was only sold to Del
Prado is 4000 square meters ra.
SC said that if there is conflict between the area stated in the
deed of sale and the actual area covered within the boundaries,
the latter prevails, meaning kadto jung covered by the
boundaries. However, SC ruled that this applies only when there is
a slight difference in the area, not in cases like this nga 4,000
square meters ug 14,457 sq meters. )
Atty: When the SC said that when you say more or less, there may
be a slight difference. 4000 and 14000, of course, that is not
slight. That is substantial. And so, the SC said that what is
controlling now is the 4,000. That is the exception to the general
rule.
Atty: Now going back to the remedy that was used by Del Prado.
Del Prado filed a “petition for registration of document under
Presidential Decree (PD) 1529”. That was the name of his action.
What year did he file the petition?
Ans: It was in 1991.
Atty: When was the decree of registration entered in the LRA as
petitioned by Caballero?
Ans: It was on May 25, 1987.
Atty: Which means that the title has become indefeasible when?
Ans: One year after the entry, so, the title became indefeasible in
1988. That’s why the SC said that it was not proper for Del Prado
to have filed the petition for registration of document before the
same court, in that same proceeding since the title has become
indefeasible on 1988, clearly, due to the passing from the entry of
the decree in the LRA. So that’s the case of Del Prado vs.
Caballero.
Atty: In Guaranteed Homes vs. Valdez, we have already discussed
this and this was about an heir, Cipriano, who made a document
adjudicating to himself the property as the sole heir, when in fact,
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
he has siblings. And then come Cipriano, he was able to transfer
the property to spouses Rodolfo and Spouses Rodolfo were able
to sell it to Guaranteed Homes. And so there was question as to
whether the other siblings of Cipriano can cancel the title of
Guaranteed Homes. The SC in this case said that Guaranteed
Homes is considered an innocent purchaser for value. There was a
contention by the siblings of Cipriano that a fraudulent deed just
like the affidavit of adjudication of sole heir made by Cipriano
could not be a root of a valid title and they are in fact correct, that
a fraudulent deed or a forged document cannot become a root of
a valid title. That’s the General Rule. The exception is when it has
already passed on to the hands of an innocent purchaser for
value. In fact, I think I have discussed before, that had the title
stayed with Cipriano, kung kutob ra xa ni Cipriano, and the other
siblings would like to cancel the title then they can do that. I fact it
is imprescriptible because the deed is null and void. And your
Obligations and Contracts tells you that dili na xa mu-prescribe
because the document does not exist. But since Cipriano
transferred it successfully to Rodolfo, who is also an innocent
purchaser for value and Rodolfo successfully transferred it to
Guaranteed Homes, samot nga innocent purchaser for value since
the title was clean, there was nothing in the title to excite
suspicion and we said that as a general rule, your buyer is not
required to go beyond the titles, save for some circumstances, like
if the seller and the name on the title do not correspond to each
other or you’re not even showed the certificate of title. So again,
remember that. General rule is, a forged or a fraudulent deed
cannot become a root of a valid title except when it has passed on
to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. That is
Guaranteed Homes.
(Sept. 4, 2012 part 2)
Atty. Bathan: If I have a land that was granted to me through a
free patent, for my title over that land that was granted to me
through a free patent, for it to be indefeasible, do I have to go
through a land registration proceedings so that I may be given a
certificate of title for it to become indefeasible?
Rollan: For it to become indefeasible, maam, it would not be
necessary for one to go to register the land to a court to affect
such title to become indefeasible. Such title as a free patent, the
law recognizes that it become indefeasible.
Atty. Bathan: Upon the issuance of free patent?
Rollan: After one year upon the issuance of the title.
Atty. Bathan: Alright. Your Supreme Court said that lands granted
through a free patent or a homestead patent are, rather have the
same effect as those titles which were granted to you through a
judicial proceeding, your original registration proceeding. While in
an original registration proceeding, when you have a certificate of
title, it becomes indefeasible upon the lapse of one year from the
entry of decree in the LRA. While in a free patent or in a
homestead patent, it becomes indefeasible still one year but of
2
course different reckoning period-- one year from the issuance of
the free patent.
What if your free patent was later on found out to be
covering lands that are in fact not alienable and disposable?
Rollan: If it is not classified as alienable and disposable then such
title you have is a nullity.
Atty. Bathan: Alright, it is a nullity because those land which will
be granted through a free patent or homestead patent should
only be those land which are alienable and disposable. Just the
same principle to your original registration proceeding those titles
can be cancelled if it is to be found that your title covers land
which are not in fact been registered because they are not
alienable and disposable.
May a tax declaration defeat a certificate of title?
Rollan: No maam, because a tax declaration is not just as concrete
or as good as a certificate of title itself as proof of ownership
because a certificate of title recognizes one as an owner as a good
evidence that one is an owner of that particular land.
Atty Bathan: So it would not matter say there’s a tax declaration
and a receipt of tax payments collected by one person and the
receipt shows that he has been possessing it for 50 years. Would
that not defeat the alleged ownership of somebody else who
holds a certificate of title?
Rollan: If that would happen for a longer period, I think the
acquisitive prescription will now take place.
Atty. Bathan: Ah, so you mean to say, that if I am a registered
owner of a parcel of land, I have a certificate of title, then
someone enters and occupy with my parcel of land for that same
40 or 50 years. His possession would defeat my ownership?
Rollan: I think so maam
Atty. Bathan: Yes. (silence)… Diao. Same question. Will it defeat
my ownership?
Diao: With a tax declaration.
Atty. Bathan: Even if that person holding the tax declaration has
been possessing the property for forty years?
Diao: Titled lot cannot be owned by prescription(?)—(pacenxa..dili
jud masabtan kay hinay ug tingog si Jan)
Atty. Bathan: Alright. A parcel of land which is already covered by
your torrens system cannot be a part of someone else through
acquisitive prescription. Clearly, your tax declaration does not
defeat your certificate of title. Your tax declaration may be useful
and evidencing possession if you are applying for original
registration. That’s one of the ways which you can prove that
you’re in fact possessing a parcel of land. A tax dec or RPT receipt
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
(Real Property Tax Receipt) to evidence possession. But if there is
a dispute between two persons, one having a certificate of title
and another which has a tax declaration, clearly the one who has
the better right to thr parcel of land is the one possessing a
certificate of title.
What is the difference between your OCT and TCT?
Diao: OCT is a certificate given to you after the original
registration while the TCT is a certificate given to a subsequent
buyer of a parcel of land.
Atty. Bathan: Alright. Your OCT or your original certificate of title
is the certificate of title that was initially issued to you. By the
term itself original, mao gyud na xa ang nag una, by virtue of the
original registration proceedings. Your Transfer Certificate of Title
is being issued to a subsequent transferor by virtue of an
involuntary or voluntary dealings in property.
Why do we include involuntary? Dili lang voluntary?
Because there are times that your property may be foreclosed
and of course no one would want that their property would be
foreclosed, that’s involuntary. Or pwede sad na gibira sa gobyerno
for nonpayment taxes, that is also still involuntary. And since
there is now a transfer of ownership there is now the issuance of
the transfer of certificate of title because of the transfer of
ownership. But of course once the TCT is issued the OCT is
cancelled.
Supposing there is the application for original
registration of two or more co- owners, let us just limit it to two
co- owners, and they were granted their application for original
registration. So there is now the question on the issuance of the
certificate of title. Is the RD obliged to issue two owners duplicate
certificate since there are two co- owners?
Diao: …only one
Atty. Bathan: Only one. Supposing the co-owners would request
the RD to issue two duplicate certificate, can the RD refused to
issue?
Diao: Yes….as long as the outstanding certificate will be
surrendered
Atty. Bathan: Alright, if the RD has issued only one, of course,
containing all the names of the co- owners. If you request that all
of the co- owners will have a copy, pwede for as long as you pay
the requisite fee and so the outstanding certificate which was
already issued by the RD should be surrendered so that it can be
cancelled and another certificate will be issued to the co- owners
upon request by the co- owners.
Now, supposing one of the co- owners obtained a loan
from China Bank and so the bank required a mortgage of the
property. So co- owners, we have A and B, B who was the one
who loaned. B now mortgaged the property of course with the
consent of A, there is no a Special Power of Attorney saying that
3
he has consented to the mortgage of the property by B to China
Bank. Of course China Bank would want to protect its interest.
China Bank would want to annotate the Real Estate Mortgage on
the certificate of title. Is it enough that the REM be annotated on
one of the copies, say in the copy of B?
Diao: It must be annotated on both of the duplicate certificate.
Atty. Bathan: Why? Because Section 41 tells you that any other
dealing with property, if you wish to annotate it, it should be
annotated on all copies. Why? Because there is a duplicate. Naa
bay duplicate na lahi ug nawng. Right. So if an annotation shall
appear in one, it should appear in the other because they are
duplicate copies. Right. So that is the reason for Sec. 41.
Reyes vs Raval Reyes
Diao: The petitioners co- owned a parcel of land together
with their brother Francisco. They filed an original registration and
a motion for writ of possession. However, respondent opposed
the possession because he said that he is already in possession of
the property (1/3 share of Francisco) and holds the duplicate
certificate of title. The issue is who has a better right to hold the
duplicate certificate.
Atty. Bathan: The two brothers wanted to get the duplicate
certificate but Raval Reyes hesitated to give back the title. So the
issue is, who should or who has the better right to possess the
certificate of title. What was the ruling of the court?
Diao: The ones whose name is in the certificate of title. The
Petitioners.
Atty. Bathan: And so the SC said the Raval Reyes should return the
certificate of title to the brothers because they have a better right
over the possession of the certificate of title. What was the
answer of the SC on the contention of Raval- Reyes that he should
better hold the duplicate certificate because he is to protect his
interest because he was able to buy the 1/3 share of Francisco?
Diao: His rights are amply protected considering that ___ lis
pendens.
Atty. Bathan: The SC said that no need to worry Raval- Reyes
because your rights are amply protected because you already filed
a petition for partition. So dili na ka kinahanglan mahadlok. You
don’t need to be possessing that piece of paper, just return it to
them because they have a better right to possess it anyway. Your
right has been amply protected. You can always avail of notice of
lis pendens.
What is this notice of lis pendens? That is an
annotation in the certificate of title that the property is under
litigation. So you can avail of other remedies apart from you
keeping that certificate of title when your name hasn’t appeared
in that certificate of title.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
Supposing you have a parcel of land, that land was
owned by Mr. A. That parcel of land was not yet registered by Mr.
A but he has been possessing it, through his own possession and
through his predecessors-in-interest for more than 50 years. He
can in fact apply for original registration but as of the moment he
has not file for the registration of the parcel of land. Mr. A
obtained a loan from Mr. x. Mr. X granted the loan but Mr. X
required a mortgage over that parcel of land. So there was now
mortgage of the parcel of land and the loan was to be payable
after two years. On the 16th month, Mr. A applied for original
registration. So, of course you have complied the requisite for
application, initial hearing etc, etc. But no one had opposed the
original registration and so there was now a grant of original
registration in the name of Mr. A. One and a half years have
lapsed, Mr. A sold that parcel of land, now titled, to Mr. B. Mr. B
got the property and successfully get a certificate of title in his
name. Naabot and two years, Mr. A did not pay the loan despite
demands of Mr. X. So, Mr. X now wants to foreclose the property.
Is Mr. B who was now the owner of the parcel of land that was
mortgaged by A be bound by that mortgage?
Bacquero: If the mortgage is annotated in the OCT, then Mr. B is
bound to the mortgage.
Atty. Bathan: Based on the facts, do you think it was annotated?
Bacquero: It was not.
Atty. Bathan. It was not annotated. In fact there was no
oppositors and so the OCT was clean. So Mr. B as the present
owner now cannot be bound to the mortgage since that was not
annotated on the title.
What was your basis for saying that?
Bacquero: Sec. 44
Atty. Bathan. It is Sec. 44. Sec. 44 of PD 1529 tells you that a
holder of a title cannot be bound to the encumbrances not stated
save for some exceptions again.
Now, supposing it was not real estate mortgage but
unclaimed real estate taxes. Mr. A had a clean title over the land
sold it to Mr. B and A failed to pay two years of real estate taxes.
Now Mr. B as the owner of the land, the government is now
demanding for the payment of the real estate tax. May Mr. B
refuse to pay under the ground that the taxes were not unpaid.
Bacquero: Yes
Atty. Bathan. You may?
Bacquero: Second par of Sec. 44.
Atty. Bathan: Your Sec. 44 says that unpaid real estate taxes for
the two years immediately preceding the sale can need not be
annotated to bind the present owner. Why? Because if you will do
that then it will be very easy to evade taxes kung kelangan nimo
4
ipa- annotate. All you have to do, maybe, is to conspire with the
city assessor and ayaw lang ipa- annotate kay I will sell this if do
ko kabayad. This would be so easy. This provision is in fact a
protection to the government so that they may still be able to
collect the unpaid real estate taxes. There is also an exception on
public roads and highways, that it need not be annotated that the
title covers a public street or highway. So kay wala man ma-
annotate that public road is mine. He/ she cannot say that
because public roads cannot be registered by a private person.
However, there is an exception, if the public road was constructed
after registration, that registered owner can ask for just
compensation because that is in effect and expropriation.
Sept. 11, 2012
Miss: What should be the personal circumstances that should be
stated in a certificate of title?
Jecca:
 names of the owners of the land
 civil status
 (if married) name of their spouses
 Citizenship
 residence and postal address
Miss: why is there a need to put the civil status and, if married,
the names of their spouse?
Jecca: Because the civil status would be descriptive of the status
of the owner because if the property is a conjugal property the
certificate of title will be issued in the name of the spouses
Miss: So, you mean to say that if a certificate of title is issued in
my name, and I have a certificate of title now and I declare there
that I am married, that means that it is my exclusive property
since you said that when it is a conjugal property both are (d ko
kasabot jud )
Jecca: In the case of Litam, the SC said that the phrase “married to
___(name of the spouse)” indicates that the property is the
exclusive property of the spouse who is registered in the cert. of
title because if it were conjugal property it would have been
issued in the name of both spouses (d ko xur)
Miss: how do you know that it is a conjugal property?
Jecca: The SC said that an indication that it is conjugal property..
the only proof that is needed as to when the property was
acquired because if they acquired… (cut by miss)
Miss: Supposing that I have a cert. of title, it is issued in my name
“Maricris Bathan-Lasco married to ___” does that automatically
mean that that is my exclusive property?
Jecca: No, maam. If there is showing that that property is acquired
during the marriage, then they indicate that it is conjugal.
Miss: so, the reason why you will have to put your civil status
there is so that it would be easy to determine whether it is a
conjugal property or not, specially if you are married. So that the
only evidence that you would need, as Miss Jacildo had said, is to
determine when the property was in fact acquired.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
if it was acquired during marriage: even if you use the phrase
“married to__” that property is presumed to be conjugal
LITAM VS. ESPIRITU
In this case, the petitioners (children of Rafael Litam) they say that
Rafael Litam had prior marriage to Sia Khin, then he came to the
Philippines and married Marcosa Rivera. When Rafael Litam died,
they said that they were entitled to the properties that were
subject of this case because they were conjugal property (wa ko
kasabot.. but I think since conjugal property, the children had a
claim over the property as heirs of Rafael Litam). The properties
were registered in the name of “Marcosa Rivera married to
Rafael Litam.”
As to the issue of whether they were children of Rafael Litam, the
SC said that they were not able to prove that they were the
children because Rafael Litam declared under oath that he had no
children.
As to the issue of whether Rafael Litam celebrated a prior
marriage in China, the SC said that the petitioners failed to prove
that marriage because, in fact, they did not present a certificate of
marriage, but only a hearsay account of Louise Litam.
As to the nature of the property, whether they were conjugal or
paraphernal, the SC said that they were paraphernal because:
(1) in several document that were executed by Rafael Litam, he
declared under oath that the properties were bought with the
exclusive money of Marcosa Rivera;
(2) he also declared under oath that in fact he adopted separation
of property;
(3) just because the title was registered in the name of Marcosa
Rivera married to Rafael Litam does not make it a conjugal
property because the phrase “married to Rafael Litam” is merely
descriptive of the civil status of Marcosa Rivera;
(4)with the several evidences that the respondent (Marcosa
Rivera, represented by Espiritu) presented, overcame the
presumption of conjugal property;
(5) there was also no showing as to when the properties were
acquired.
 While there is that presumption that properties being
owned by married people to be conjugal property, that
is merely a presumption. It can be overcome by
presentation of evidence, as was done in this case.
 There were evidences presented that that was in fact
paraphernal property of Marcosa Rivera, and that
Rafael Litam was not co-owner of the property.
 phrase “married to __”  does not automatically
mean that the property is a conjugal property. That is
only indicative of your status. However, it would help
you determine if that is, indeed, conjugal property by
determining when the property was, in fact, acquired.
 Property acquired during the marriage  the
presumption would apply (merely a presumption, can
be overcome by evidences)
PNB VS. CA and VITUG (presumption of co-ownership in conjugal
properties was not applied)
Donata Montemayor, through her son, mortgaged her land to
PNB. It was foreclosed because she defaulted. There was this
case, action for reconveyance, filed by other heirs of the land filed
against the son of Donata claiming that the land was conjugal,
therefore the mortgage with PNB void. The TC dismissed the case,
5
however the CA reversed the ruling saying that the mortgage is
valid only up to one-half of the property.
Miss: why only ½ of the property?
Jovee: because it is conjugal and the other co-heirs are entitled to
their share.
However, the SC ruled in favor of PNB stating that the PNB can
rely on the face of the Torrens title.
Miss: what was certain on the face of the title?
Jovee: that the property was registered to “Donata Montemayor
widow.”
SC also said that action for reconveyance against the son of
Donata is in personam, and it cannot bind PNB and 3rd parties.
Miss: Was it proven that it was a conjugal property?
Jovee: It was proven that the property was conjugal through the
action for reconveyance against the son of Donata.
Miss: was there any evidence presented that the property was
indeed a conjugal property?
Jecca: the respondents claim that there was already a prior case
where it was adjudged that the properties were conjugal.
Miss: having presented that the property was conjugal, how come
the SC sided in favor of PNB when in fact the property must be co-
owned now of the heirs of the late husband?
Jovee: Even if it was proven that it was conjugal property, the
nature of that action (ejectment case) was in personam, then it
cannot bind 3rd parties like PNB. The SC also ruled in favor of PNB
because it applied the doctrine of laches. The heirs are barred by
laches.
Miss: why were the other heirs considered to be in laches?
Jovee: there is an unreasonable delay in claiming their right over
the property.
Miss: what is this principle presumption that the properties are
conjugal vis-à-vis the rights of innocent purchasers for value?
Jovee: the presumption that the property is conjugal will NOT
apply if it is in the hands of innocent purchasers for value..
Miss: And when the title is registered only in one spouse and
there was no showing as to when it was applied.
 The presumption of Art. 160 of the Family Code of
conjugal ownership between husband and wife does
not apply when:
o The title was already in the name of one
spouse (in this case, there was an indication
that Montemayor was already a widow)
o There was no showing of when the property
was acquired
o When it has already passed an innocent
mortgagee (PNB was innocent because
looking at the title, there was nothing to
excite the suspicion of PNB; the title was
clean; and the registered owner was
Montemayor, a widow; it was reasonable
for PNB to assume that there was no need
for the consent of the other heirs in the
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
mortgage because the registered owner
was Montemayor)
REPUBLIC VS. MENDOZA
Malicay: In this case, the Republic is occupying a certain parcel of
land, and that land was registered in the name of Mendoza.
Eventually, the said lot is subdivided into 4 lots. Only lots 1 and 3
were issued certificate title. The 4th lot was divided for the public
school (Republic), but it was still under the name of the
Mendozas. The Mendozas eventually wanted the public school to
vacate the property, claiming that they were still the lawful
owners of the land. The Republic, in behalf of the public school,
said that they already have a right over the property through
prescription (they were possessors of the land for a long time
already).
The RTC favored the Mendozas. The CA affirmed the decision,
saying that the first title cannot be defeated by prescription.
SC: the Torrens title cannot be barred by prescription even against
the Government.
Miss: the SC is, in effect, saying that the State was wrong in their
contention that they already acquired the subject property
through acquisitive prescription because the subject property was
already covered by a Torrens title, and the State is even bound by
the Torrens title.
What was the ruling of the SC to the propriety of filing an action
for ejectment by the Mendozas against the State?
Malicay: SC said that since it was the intention of the Mendozas to
offer the said lot to the Government, then they cannot ask them
(government) to vacate the property. The act of consolidation was
really for the intention that they want to give it to the school.
Miss: Is it not a violation of the right of ownership of the
Mendozas over the property when the SC ruled that it was not
proper for them to file an action for ejectment against the State,
when they are now in effect deprived of their possession over the
parcel of land which they owned?
Malicay: the SC said that the owner has already agreed to the
taking of the property, so the proper remedy for them is just
compensation and not an action for reconveyance.
 The SC said that this is not actually a derogation of the
right of the owner, because the owner by tolerance, by
agreement, and by documents evidencing an intention
to in fact donate the property to the school that was
owned by the Republic.. those evidences showed the
owner’s intention to relinquish their right to ask for
formal expropriation proceedings. Wala na daw sila
right to ask for expropriation. But the SC said that it
does not deprive them of their right over the property
because they can ask for just compensation. They are
still the owners of the lot and their Torrens title is
binding even against the State. However, because they
have tolerated the use for more than 50 years, and
there were documents that presumed that they
intended to donate it to the State, then they have in
effect waived their right to ask for formal
expropriation proceedings.
 What you have waived is possession, not ownership.
You still own it, but you cannot possess it anymore, but
you can still ask for just compensation because you are
6
 still the owner. (do not confuse possession with
ownership)
D.B.T. MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS. PANES
Delos Reyes: there is a parcel owned by B.C. Regalado conveyed
to DBT construction through dacion en pago for services
rendered. In 1992, a certain Ricaredo Panes filed a complaint for
quieting of title stating that he owns the parcel of land with which
B.C. Regalado has title of. Panes only found out that there was
overlapping with the partition when in the process of complying
with the publication requirement for the notice of judicial hearing,
the LRA told them that their land overlapped in the portions of
land subject of Ricaredo’s application with the subdivision plan of
B.C. Regalado. However, when they found out that there was
overlapping, B.C. Regalado had already conveyed the property to
DBT.
There was this fault as to the RD of Quezon City because during
the time when they filed for partition, the RD of QC found that the
TCT only covered one lot. But, eventually, the RD acknowledged,
and filed a motion for relief to file amended answer that they
committed a grave mistake.
The RTC rendered in favor of Panes because the latter was in
adverse possession of the land. He was in possession since he was
15 years old, they paid tax dec. DBT filed MR. it was reversed later
on by the RTC because prescription does not run against a
prescriptive land because Ricarero cannot say that he is the better
owner due to adverse possession because the land was already
titled.
The CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the RTC and reinstated
the previous ruling of the RTC.
SC: The action was not simply for reconveyance, but an action for
quieting of title, which was supposed to be imprescriptible. The
prescriptive period will apply only when there is an actual need to
reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of
the property. If the plaintiff is the real owner of the property, and
he retain the possession of the land, then the prescriptive period
does not run against him.
9/11/12 2nd half
In this case who was the owner of the property and the holder of
the title? It was TVT.
SC decided in favor of TVT. It has a better right.
TVT derived their title from B.C. Regalado. The latter showed
their title to TVT.
SC said: You are not bound to look beyond the certificate title.
TVT relied on the certificate of title of B.C. Regalado. It was clean.
Nothing therein put him on guard or caution. Thus, TVT was
considered to be an innocent purchaser for value. Why
purchaser? It was a dation in payment. He gave up a certain value
for the services he rendered. Thus there was conveyance of the
property in return for the services.
SANCHEZ ORALS:
What is a direct attack and collateral attack?
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
There is an attack on the title when the object of the action is to
nullify or to challenge the judgment of the court. Direct attack
when the object is to challenge the judgment of cert of title.
Collateral attack is when you obtain a different relief from the
court but the annulment of the judgment of the court with
regards to the cert. of title is made an incident thereof.
What is allowed by PD 1529?
Direct attack is allowed in PD 1529.
Caraan Case:
What is the main action in this case? ACCION REIVINDICATORIA.
Does your accion reivindicatoria involve in determining the
validity of your certificate of title?
What is the main purpose of Accion Reivindicatoria? Recovery of
possession. Nothing to do with determining the validity of cert of
title.
Caraan answered that the cert of title is null and void. That it was
invalid. So, the main action was about accion reivindicatoria and
the respondents answered that the cert of title was invalid. So,
the SC said that it was in the form of a collateral attack because
the relief that was mainly asked was for the recovery of
possession but the validity of the title was challenged in the form
of incidental relief. That is a collateral attack.
So you have to look first the purpose of the main action. If the
purpose is to attack the validity of the certificate of title, that is a
direct attack. Pero kung ang punto dili ang pag determine sa
validity sa cert of title, collateral attack na.
ATUEL ORALS – Case of Leyson vs. Bontuyan (Handled by “our”
Law Firm-Bathan)
What is the difference of the case of leyson and caraan?
Plaza: In the caraan the case, they attacked the title through their
answer with counterclaim. In Leyson their counterclaim was in the
form of a separate independent action. (PAKSIT NASAD! Siya ra
gyud nakatubag. Kaw nay anak sa Ginoo! hehe)
In the case of caraan it was an answer with counterclaim.That was
the title of the pleading but actually they attacked the title
through their answer. It was an affirmative defense. They said the
court should award the ownership and possession to us bec the
title of the Cosme’s was null and void.
In the case of bontuyan, while they have an answer and gave their
affirmative defense that the acquisition of the free patent was
defrauded, their material allegations was repleaded again. It was
not only an answer with counterclaim. It was infact an answer
AND a counterclaim. It was a repleading with material allegations.
In effect the leysons filed another case against bontuyan. It was
not merely an answer with counterclaim. But it followed the
7
format as to the proper answer with counterclaim. Actually, it was
filing an independent action. The counterclaim is in fact an
independent proceeding. The main purpose of which is to set
aside the title of the Bontuyan’s.
9/18/12
Alright, number 1 what was the separate opinion in Calalang? In
the Calalang case the issue was who had a better right as between
Lucia and Clemente.
 Lucia was asserting that she registered the sale first
but there was no surrender of the owner’s duplicate
certificate, but Clemente was arguing that he had a
better right because he had registered it and there’s
also a concurrent issuance of new certificates of title.
 But the majority of the SC said that it shall be Lucia and
the reason by the majority was because the origin of
the titles of Clemente were already declared null and
void by a previous ruling of the SC and therefore res
judicata will apply. (majority opinion in an en banc
case)
 A separate opinion of Davide: it could not have been
considered as registration because PD 1529,
specifically Sec. 55, has provided that for it to be
considered registered there must be a surrender of the
certificate of title. I would want you to know that for a
probability that the SC might overturn the case, it just
needs one case, perfectly good pleading together with
the separate opinion of Davide and convince the court
to overturn the jurisprudence.
 BUT AS OF THIS SEMESTER, WHAT YOU WILL FOLLOW
IS THE CASE OF CALALANG
 But if you read the majority opinion, it did not even
dwell on the surrender or non-surrender of duplicate
certificate. So the rule still stands that there must be a
surrendering because the law is very clear only that
the reason why Lucia was declared to have a better
right because the origin of the titles of Clemente was
null and void.
Number 2, Cruz vs. Cabana. We said that it should be from the
time of the second sale up to the time that the certificate of sale
was in fact issued to you, if there is registration. If there is no
registration, then from the time of the sale up until the delivery of
possession.
What is the effect of issuing a TCT without surrendering the
previous TCT? It shall confer no right to the transferee. Again,
because the rule still stands, you have to surrender the previous
TCT to avoid duplicity in title. If you don’t surrender, then that
title might be used again to sell the same property.
Number 4, what is the remedy of the buyer if the seller refuses to
surrender the TCT? File a petition to compel the seller to
surrender his old certificate of title. That is in fact based on Sec.
107 of PD 1529.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
Number 5, what is a rule on forged deeds? GR: it cannot be a root
of valid title. Exc: if it will pass through the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value.
2 scenarios:
 A is a registered owner, B was able to get the
certificate of title without the knowledge of A. B forged
the signature of A and pretended to be A and sold the
property to C. Is C an innocent purchaser for value?
No, therefore A can recover from C.
 A is a registered owner, B stole the certificate of title
from A, this time he made a document showing that A
sold it to him, there is still forgery, and then this made
him now register it in his name since he has a
certificate of title and a deed of sale. And with that
title, he sold it to C who doesn’t have knowledge from
the scheme employed by B. Is he an innocent
purchaser for value? Yes, therefore A cannot recover
from him.
o Remedy of A: damages from B, if he is
insolvent: assurance fund.
Number 10, when is it? Date of the REM, time when it was stolen
or the time it was released? B (sorry nalimot na ko ani..)
What’s the difference between the 1st and 2nd scenario? The
difference is that there was no transfer of title in the name of the
forger or in the name of a person designated, that is necessary to
make a subsequent purchaser an innocent purchaser for value.
 In the first scenario, B did not acquire title.
 In the 2nd scenario, B was able to acquire title and so C
can rely on the title and need not go beyond the title. C
is considered an innocent purchaser for value under PD
1529. Of course, as you can see, they are both
innocent because they were unaware. But to qualify,
there is an additional requirement so that your forged
deed can be a root of a valid title, when is it? If there is
already a transfer in the name of a forged name or in
the name of a person designated by the forger to
enable him to sell it to somebody else.
091912
CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, petitioner, 
vs.
ABUNDIO MADRID, ET
AL., respondents. (case digest)
Facts
This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
against petitioner and in favor of respondents.
The spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu (Madrid) are the
owners of a residential. Planning to build a house thereon, the
said spouses sought short, in November, 1953. One Carmencita de
Jesus (Camencita), godmother of Rosalinda, offered to work for
the shortening of the usually long process before a loan could be
8
granted and the spouses, accepting the proferred assistance,
delivered to her the Transfer Certificate of Title covering the lot in
January, 1954, to be surrendered to the RFC.
Later the spouses were able to secure a loan of P4,000.00 from
their parents for the construction of their house and they decided
to withdraw the application for a loan they had filed with the RFC.
They so informed Carmencita and asked her to retrieve the
Transfer Certificate of Title and return it to them.
Shortly thereafter, Carmencita told them, however, that the RFC
employee in charge of keeping the Transfer Certificate of Title was
out on leave.
In August, 1954, one Florentino Calayag (Calayag) showed up in
the house of the spouses and asked for Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu. Rosalinda answered that she was Rosalinda Yu and
Abundio, that he was Abundio Madrid. Calayag would not believe
them. He said that he was looking for Abundio Madrid and
Rosalinda Yu who had executed a deed of mortgage on the lot
where the house they were in then stood, and that the term of
the mortgage had already expired, he added.
Madrid then retorted that they had not mortgaged their land to
anyone. The spouses immediately went to consult with a lawyer
who accompanied them to the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Rizal. They found out then that the land had been mortgaged to
Constancio Joaquin, (Joaquin) on January 21, 1954.
The appellant, Joaquin, admits that Madrid, the registered owners
of the mortgaged property, were not those persons who had
signed the deed of mortgage.
His version of the case is as follows:
In the month of January, 1954 Carmencita saw Calayag and asked
the latter to find a money-lender who could grant a loan on a
security of real property, showing, at the same time, a Transfer
Certificate of Title in the name of the spouses Madrid. Calayag
approached Joaquin who having funds to spare for the purpose,
visited the land and. finding it well situated, told Calayag to show
him the prospective borrowers.
On the following day, Calayag brought two women to the law
office of Atty. M.S. Calayag and presented them to Joaquin as
Rosalinda Yu and Carmencita. The alleged Rosalinda Yu claimed to
be the owner of the lot with her husband Abundio Madrid who
authorized her to secure a loan on their property, she assured
him, and that Abundio would come where the contract therefor
was ready to sign it with her.
Thus, the deed of mortgage was signed by the persons who posed
themselves as Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu on the following
day. The whole amount of the loan was delivered to the supposed
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
Rosalinda Yu immediately after the registration of the document
of mortgage in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
The appellate court below further found that the petitioner
"visited the property proposed for mortgage to find out at the
same time who was the real owner thereof. But he contented
himself with the information given to him by the person living
then on the land that the owner was woman known as 'Taba'.
There ended his inquiry about the identity of the prospective
mortgagors.
Issue: WON petitioner, Joaquin, is a innocent purchaser for value.
Held:
Negative.
The lower court based it decision on the case of Lara, et al., vs.
Ayroso, in which we held that as the land mortgaged was still in
the name of the real owner when mortgaged to the mortgagees
by an impostor, the mortgagees were defrauded not because they
relied upon what appeared in a Torrens certificate of title, but
because they believed the words of the impostor; that it was the
duty of the mortgagees to ascertain the identity of the man with
whom they were dealing.
In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of
the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a
holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should be
forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if
accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the
registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does
the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the
property.
Petitioner herein in not the innocent purchaser for value
protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged
deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of the
petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be
registered owners but who are not said owners.
Negligence on the part of spouse Madrid?
The court answer in the negative it was perfectly a legitimate act.
Delay in demanding the certificate of title is no act of neglect
either, as respondents have not executed any deed or document
authorizing Carmencita to execute deeds for and on their behalf.
It was petitioner who was negligent, as he did not take enough
care to see to it that the persons who executed the deed of
mortgage are the real registered owners of the property.
Atty B: let's go to the basic facts. You have the registered owner,
the mortgagee and the forger. And then where did the title go?
9
The owner wanted the help of carmencita to obtain a loan and
subsequently they obtained help from their parents and so they
wanted to get back the title from carmencita. And they later
found out that it was already sold to another person.
Atty B: so what is the issue then?
 WON the petitioners who bought the land is an
innocent purchaser for value?
 the purchaser is not an innocent purchaser for value
because the deed issued to him is a forged document
and when the instrument was presented to the
purchaser, the seller is not the one named in the title
and there was a forgery of the impostor. It was a
forged document.
Atty B: what is the ruling of the supreme court whether it is an act
of negligence by the registered owner in surrendering the
certificate of title to somebody else?
 you did not give any authority to the person to whom
the certificate of title was entrusted thereto and
therefore the owners are not negligent
Atty B: so what was applied here? The general rule or the
exception on forged deeds?
 the general rule was applied because
Atty B: there was never a transfer of the certificate of title from
the original owner to the forger.This is a case where some people
try to pretend to be the owners of the property and executed the
deed of mortgage pretending to be the owners of the property.
Munos vs yabut case
(sorry di gyud ko kasabot ni nardo)
ATTY B: was there a determination on the supreme court ruling
whether chan was an innocent purchaser for value?
 there was no determination
ATTY B: there was no determination because the supreme court
said that they are not a trier of facts, what they did rule rather
was that it shall be remanded to the court of origin so that it may
be determined whether or not they are innocent purchaser for
value since they were not impleaded as parties to the case. And
since they were not impleaded as parties to the case. They they
could not have defended themselves. And so the supreme court
said that the writ of execution againt them cannot be binding
against BPI and spouses chan because they were not impleaded.
Was it necessary to impleade them? The supreme court said yes
because that the action for reconveyance and this action is an
action in personam, even if it deals with real property, yes its a
real action but it bind only the person who were made parties to
the case that is an action in personam. So that means that they
have to be remanded back to the court of origin, if the court of
origin will find that the spouses chan are in fact innocent
purchasers for value and such judgement will become final, can
munos get back the property? Not anymore because they are
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
already in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, but if
they can prove that the spouses chan are not then munos can get
back the property.
Duran case
the petitioner was the owner of the parcel of land and there was a
forgery of the sale by the mother of the petitioner and the title
that was forged by the mother was transferred into the name of
the mother and subsequently the mother mortaged the property
to a third person and the buyer now wants to take over the
property. The daughter discovered this and is now assailing the
mortgage.
Issue: is the mortgage with the private respondent valid
and the court held that the general rule is that a forged deed
cannot be a root of a valid title. But in this case the certificate of
title was already transferred to the name of the forger and so the
rule that a party dealing with a registered land can rely on the
validity of the title. The respondent in this case is considered as a
mortgagee in good faith because there was no any circumstance
that would further lead them to look beyond the certificate of
title.
ATTY B: does it mean that the daughter has no remedy at all since
the mortgage is valid?
 in this case she cannot recover the property since the
private respondent already has title over the property
ATTY B: so you what is her remedy under the law?
 in this case she can go against the forger and incase of
insolvency she can go agains the insurance fund.
ATTY B: how will you make a mortgagee at the same level as a
purchaser in determining whether they are in good faith or not?is
a mortgagee a purchaser?
 no
ATTY B: so why do we put them at the same level?
 since in so far as the situation they have to rely on the
title over the land
ATTY B: is a mortgagee a purchaser?
 no unless in even of foreclosure and he would buy the
property.
ATTY B: so the mortgagee, we try to determine whether the
mortgagee is in good faith or not in the same rule that an
innocent purchaser for value because a mortgagee in fact
become a purchaser in the event of a foreclosure sale and the
redemption period have lapsed without the mortgagor redeeming
the property. In effect this is an involuntary sale. So to determine
10
whether a mortgagee is in good faith or not , the same rule
applies with innocent purchasers for value.
Adriano case
adriano owns a parcel of land and angelica salvador asked for the
certificate of title to obtain a loan and so adriano gave the title to
salvador but without the knowledge of adriano, salvador already
mortgaged the property to pangilinan and upon notice of the
mortgagee, angelina salvador failed to pay and now pangilinan
was asking for the ownership of the property because it was
already foreclosed that, so adriano said that the mortgage was
invalid because it was in fact forged and the respondent contend
that there was a principal-agent relationship since adriano
entrusted his title to salvador and the acts of the agent was also
the acts of adriano. The CA ruled in favor of pangilinan because in
a case where there are 2 innocent persons, the one who should
bear the loss should be the mortgagor, issue: WON there should
be the onsent of the owner of the property for there to be a valid
mortgage. SC said that tyes, there should be the consent of the
owner of the property, in fact it is stated in article 2085 in the civil
code that the requisites for a valid title is that first there should be
a security to secure a principal obligation and 2nd it should be
made by the owner of the property and 3rd the person
constituting the mortgage have the right to dispose of the
property and the SC said that the mortgage was not valid because
the mortgagor was not the owner and it was angelina slavador
and not adriano. And so the mortgage is not valid. In establishing
that the mortgage is not valid then pangilinan is not an innocent
mortgagee for value.
ATTY B: was there a transfer of title form the original owner to the
forger?
 no
ATTY B: so this is a case again of someone pretending to be
pretending to be the owner? So what rule applies?
 the general rule that a forged deed should not be a
root of a valid title.
ATTY B: so in the case of durano that was a case in which the
daughter is the owner of the land and the mother who was able
to transfer the title in her name and that was why the exception
was applied where a forged deed may become a root of a valid
title when it passes through the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value and if there is no transfer yet of the certificate of title
from the name of the original owner to the forger and the forger
is an impostor like pretending to be the owner, then the general
rule will apply.
ATTY B: will there be an issuance of a new certificate of title if you
only present to the register of deeds a deed of sale and also you
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
surrender of the owner's duplicate copy of the certificate of title
and also you pay the required fees?
 yes
ATTY B: how about a contract to sell?
 not yet
ATTY B: so if you are a mortgagee you will not be issued a new
certificate of title.
 only in the contract to sell where there is no fulfillment
of the contract because upon full payment a contract
of sale will be issued and only upon which you can be
issued a new certificate of title.
ATTY B: in a real estate mortgage, is there an issuance of a new
certificate of title?
 a mortgage will only be annotated in the certificate of
title
ATTY B: how about a certificate of sale as a consequence of an
auction sale due to foreclosure?
 yes
ATTY B: after the redemption period have lapse without the
owner redeeming the property only when you can have a new
certificate of title. How about an affidavit of adjudication of sloe
heir?
 yes
ATTY B: how about an extra judicial settlement of an estate?
 only where there is a partition of the heirs over the
property.
ATTY B: who is the original owner? Decedent. Where do you
usually find your annotation?
 at the dorsal portion of the title
ATTY B: in the deed of voluntary instrument which you present,
the register of deeds for registration like a real estate mortgage or
a contract to sell, particulars with regard to your grantee should
contain in that deed.
 it shall contain the ff such as the name of the grantee
 the address
 the citizenship
 if married the name of the spouse
 if partnership , corporation then there should be the
address of the principal office
 if there is a change in address then it shall be indorsed
to the register of deeds on showing of sworn
statements
ATTY B: if there are summons and it has to be sent then where
shall it be sent?
 to the address in the title
ATTY B: supposing the grantee is not there he or she is in abroad,
will that notice be binding on her?
 regardless og asa siya it will be binding upon her here
sa philippines or abroad.
11
ATTY B: alright so there is only an issuance of a new certificate of
title if there is divestiture of ownership or a transfer of ownership
like a contract of sale like an extra judicial settlement of estate
there's transfer of ownership from one person to another or an
affidavit of adjudication of a sole heir. In contracts to sell when
there is no transfer of ownership yet upon full payment then you
cannot be issued a new certificate of title yet all the RD has to do
is to annotate it. How about certificates of sale in an auction sale,
if the redemption period has not lapsed yet, you may have it
annotated but you will not be issued a certificate of title if the
redemption period has not lapsed yet. 1 year for an individual
mortgagor and 3 months for a mortgagor corporation and any
document that does not transfer ownership will only be
annotated. In your deed of conveyances and any deed that will be
registered in the registry of deeds what shall be in the deed?
Name address spouse if corporation there must be a statement
that the corporation is qualified to acquire private lands and
definitely corporations shall not be allowed to acquire lands of
public domain. Notices shall be mailed to the address that is
stated in the deed. If the person in the addresses is not there it
will still bind him or her but it is however in the discretion of the
court if it will require additional notices to be sent. What is in the
primary entry book? Show the annotation on when it was made
the date. And your RD does not have the discretion as to which
document he will enter first because it should be in order in which
he received the documents so first received so first to be
registered.
9/25/12 Part I
Real Estate Mortgage - the land is used as a security for a loan or
an obligation.
Requisites of a Valid Mortgage:
1. The mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property
2. The property is used as security for a principal obligation
3. The mortgagor has the capacity to dispose of the property
Q: If you say that the mortgagor is should be the absolute owner
of the property does that mean that the owner of the property
may not appoint somebody else to mortgage the property for
him?
A: Yes, he can through an agent.
Q: How will the agent make that binding against the owner or the
principal?
A: If the agent has a special power of attorney.
Q: So that's enough that the agent has a special power of attorney
to bind the mortgagor? so if I’m the agent and I have a special
power of attorney and you didn't bind the owner in favor of me as
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
the agent that is all I need and then I will just bind the real estate
mortgage contract, that's already binding against the mortgagor?
A: it must be annotated at the back of the title
Q: so that is enough already? So in the blank provided for under
the name of the mortgager, it's enough that you put there your
name to bind the owner?
A: i believe it must have the period of mortgage, the time of
redemption.
Q: in a real estate mortgage of course the mortgagor will have to
sign right? But since the case that we have, that we are trying to
explain now is a case where the owner of the properties cannot
sign that's why he appointed somebody else, that's why he has an
SPA, right? My question is, is this SPA enough such that in the real
estate mortgage the blank provided for under the mortgager, the
signature now will be the signature of the agent, Richard
Caminade, is that enough? Is that enough for you to bind the
owner of the property?
A: Yes, because there is a Special Power of Attorney and I'm acting
as your agent.
Q: So that's enough as that's what we see here as the agent of the
principal?
A: Yes
Q: Yes, it's still enough that you just give there the name of the
agent? Is it enough?
A: No.
Q: What is missing if it's not enough?
A: To bind the owner it must be signed and sealed in the name of
the principal.
Q: How do you do that?
A: There is the signature of the agent, there is an indication that
this person signing is merely an agent, and there is the disclosure
of the principal. So it's not enough that there is a Special Power of
Attorney. To bind the owner, not only do you have a Special
Power of Attorney but in the signing of the real estate mortgage
contract by the agent, he must indicate that he is merely signing
as an agent and he must disclose his principal because if you just
merely sign there your name, even you put there as agent, maybe
the owner of the property I can always defend myself by saying
that that is not binding against me. Jurisprudence tell you that not
only do you need an SPA but you will also need a full disclosure of
who your principal is and that you’re merely acting as an agent to
bind the owner of that property.
Q: Let's say for example, this parcel of land is co-owned by A & B.
As co-owners of the property, they decided to obtain a loan from
12
X and X required that there be a mortgage over this parcel of land
they co-owned. Prior to the loan becoming due and demandable,
A & B decided to subdivide the property and A also decided to
extinguish his part of the obligations to X. Will his payment of his
part of the loan application release this part of the property over
the mortgage that was executed over it?
A: No, because the mortgaged property was the whole A & B.
Q: What is the characteristic of a mortgage that supports your
answer, that this property cannot be released?
A: It's indivisible.
Q: Supposing, X owns this property OKed a loan from A, executed
a mortgage over the property but prior to the loan obligation
becoming due and demandable, X in the meantime sold this to Y.
So Y now owns the property and this mortgage he executed over
A was also annotated at the back of the TCT, is Y bound on the
mortgage if A decides to foreclose upon the loan?
A: Y is bound by the mortgage of X to A because as it was
recorded in the TCT and that such mortgage that was annotated
at the back of the TCT must be respected by Y.
Q: Why was that the characteristic of the mortgage?
A: that would be the inseparable characteristic of the mortgage; it
follows the property wherever the owner is. However, if it was
not annotated on the Certificate of Title, then Y has no knowledge
of the mortgage then Y is not bound. Even if there is no
annotation but Y has personal knowledge then Y is bound because
his notice is tantamount to his registry.
Q: X is the owner of the property, Y is the lessor. X obtained a loan
from Z; X executed a mortgage over the property. Who has the
better right of possession? a. X; b. Y; c. Z; d. none of the above
A: It would be B. Because the act of X leasing his property to Y, X
puts a limit to the possession of such property.
Q: Why do you not give the right of possession to the mortgagor?
A: Z has no right over the property because no ownership has
passed yet from X to Z. Mortgage does not convey or transfer
ownership to the mortgagee.
Lagrosa vs. CA
Julio Arizaba was not the absolute owner of the land because
when he mortgaged the property he had not fully paid yet the 24-
month payment period. It was only under a contract to sell. Being
such, the deed of assignment of the mortgage was invalid as well.
Article 2085 of the CC lays down the essential requirements of
pledge and mortgage namely:
1. That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal
obligation;
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
2. That the pledgor or the mortgagor should be the absolute
owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged; and
3. That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the
free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that
they be legally authorized for the purpose.
So of course the one who had a better right to the property was
the daughter of Arizaba who was the legitimate heir and she was
also the one who made the subsequent payments over the parcel
of land.
Q: Will the non-registration of a REM make the mortgage invalid?
A: It will be valid between the parties to the mortgage however it
will not bind third persons.
Q: How about registration of a forged REM? Will registration cure
the invalidity of forged REM?
A: The registration does not cure the invalidity of the REM
because registration is merely a notice that the document exists
but it does not render an invalid document valid. It does not cure
the defect.
Rural Bank of Oroquieta vs. CA
SC: to be a mortgagee in good faith and you are a bank, what is
required is not just ordinary diligence but more than ordinary
diligence because a bank is vested with public interest. There
should be ocular inspection before a bank permits a property to
be mortgaged. So in this case Rural Bank of Oroquieta failed to
conduct an ocular inspection. The SC said that had they conducted
an ocular inspection they could give discovered that there were in
fact occupants already who were the beneficiaries to the lot in
question. Rural bank contended that they went to the register of
deeds to check the status of the lot but the SC said that that was
not enough to rely on the title. They have to do more than that
like an ocular inspection and check with the RD.
Gonzales vs IAC
Facts: The spouses Asuncion Sustiguer and Dioscoro Buensuceso
were the original owners of Lot No. 2161 of the Cadastral Survey
of Barotac Nuevo, the property subject of this controversy.
For delinquency in the payment of the real estate taxes due
thereon, the land was sold at public auction to the Province of
Iloilo in 1955.
Hortencia Buensuceso, daughter of said spouses, discovered in
the office of the Register of Deeds of Iloilo that the Certificate of
Title of subject land, OCT No. 3351, was still in the name of her
parents. Hortencia paid the back taxes on the land in behalf of her
mother (who by that time was already separated in fact from her
father) in whose favor the Provincial Treasurer executed a deed of
repurchase on April 10, 1969.
13
On April 17, 1969, the spouses Gaudioso Panzo and Hortencia
Buensuceso bought the land from the latter's mother for
P1,000.00.
On February 26, 1971, a reconstituted original certificate of title
was issued in the name of Asuncion Sustiguer alone.
The said spouses then mortgaged the property to respondent
Rural Bank of Pavia for P5,000.00. Upon their failure to pay the
account, respondent bank foreclosed the mortgage on August 11,
1973 and the bank was the highest bidder.
On April 18, 1974, petitioner as judicial co-administratrix of the
Intestate Estate of the late Matias Yusay brought an action against
the spouses Panzo and the respondent Rural Bank seeking the
annulment and cancellation of the title in the name of the Panzos
and the issuance of a new title in favor of Yusay.
petitioner alleged among other things: that the subject property
was first mortgaged to Yusay on April 30, 1929 by the spouses
Sustiguer and Buensuceso; that sometime in November, 1934,
said property was verbally sold to Yusay by the same spouses;
that since Yusay bought the property in 1948, he and his
administrator and later plaintiff administratrix
Issue: whether or not the respondent bank was an innocent
mortgagee and subsequent buyer for value in good faith of the
property.
Ruling: The certificate of title was in the name of the mortgagors
when the land was mortgaged by them to respondent bank. Such
being the case, said respondent bank, as mortgagee, had the right
to rely on what appeared on the certificate of title and, in the
absence of anything to excite suspicion, was under no obligation
to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate. It has also
been held that a bank is not required, before accepting a
mortgage, to make an investigation of the title of the property
being given as security.
The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing
with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the
torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of
inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make inquiry.
— It is true that the notice of lis pendens is an announcement to
the whole world that a particular real property is in litigation, and
serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said
property does so at his own risk, so that he gambles on the results
of the litigation over said property.
it has also been held that any subsequent lien or encumbrance
annotated at the back of the certificate of title cannot in any way
prejudice the mortgage previously registered, and the lots subject
thereto pass to the purchaser at the public auction sale free from
any lien or encumbrance. Otherwise, the value of the mortgage
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
could be easily destroyed by a subsequent record of an adverse
claim, for no one would purchase at a foreclosure sale if bound by
the posterior claim. A person who takes a mortgage in good faith
and for a valuable consideration, the record showing a clear title
in the mortgagor will be protected against any equitable titles to
the premises or equitable claims on the title, in favor of their
persons, of which he had no notice, actual or constructive and
that protection extends to a purchaser at a Sheriff's sale under
proceedings on the mortgage although such purchaser had notice
of the alleged equity.
it is the respondent bank, the mortgagee itself, which purchased
the subject property in the foreclosure sale. Being an innocent
mortgagee with a superior lien over that of petitioner, its right to
a foreclosure of the property is reserved. The notice of lis pendens
which antedated the foreclosure and sale at public auction of
subject property could not affect the rights of the respondent
bank because the foreclosure sale retroacts to the date of
registration of the mortgage. Its character of being an innocent
mortgagee continues up to the date of actual foreclosure and sale
at public auction. At any rate, even if the pending litigation
between petitioner and the Panzos be finally decided in favor of
the former, it will have no effect on the ownership rights of the
respondent bank over the subject property since a forcible entry
suit is not conclusive as to ownership but only as to possession.
It is well-settled that a Torrens Title cannot be collaterally
attacked. The issue on the validity of the title can only be raised in
an action expressly instituted for that purpose. A Torrens Title can
be attacked only for fraud within one year after the date of the
issuance of the decree of registration. Such attack must be direct
and not by collateral proceeding. The title represented by the
certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified, enlarged or
diminished in a collateral proceeding.
Where the torrens title of the land was in the name of the
mortgagor and later given as security for a bank loan, the
subsequent declaration of said title as null and void is not a
ground for nullifying the mortgage right of the bank, which had
acted in good faith. Being thus an innocent mortgagee for value,
its right or lien upon the land mortgaged must be respected and
protected, even if the mortgagors obtained their title thereto thru
fraud.
Can I not argue that since the foreclosure sale was made AFTER
the annotation of notice of LIS PENDENS, then the bank should
not be considered in good faith, as it was already notified by the
annotation of notice of LIS PENDENS which was before the
foreclosure sale.
Answer: No. Foreclosure sale retroacts to the date of registration
of mortgage which was prior to the notice of LIS PENDENS. So
between the 2 encumbrances, one that had a prior right will have
to be respected. SC explained that if it be allowed that the
subsequent lien or encumbrance to defeat a prior claim would run
amuck the Torrens System, coz it would then be very easy to
defeat a prior lien or an encumbrance.
14

What is Notice of LIS PENDENS?
Answer: it serves as a notice to the whole world that the subject
property is subject to litigation. it serves as a warning to third
persons that they assume the risk that depends to the outcome of
litigation.
What if it was the notice of LIS PENDENS that was annotated
before the annotation of the mortgage, can the bank still say that
it was a mortgagee in good faith?
Answer: No. because there was already a notice of LIS PENDENS
prior to the REM, then when the bank accepted the mortgage
over the property, it should have already put it on guard that
should the litigation be not in favor of the mortgagor then they
have no choice but to release the property to the winner of the
pending litigation.
May a real estate mortgage be cancelled?
Answer: Yes. When there is already due payment of the
obligation.
A REM will be discharged or cancelled upon full payment of the
principal contract. So upon the extinguishment of the principal
contract then the accessory contract will also be extinguished
following the principle that the accessory follows the principal.
In a REM, may the parties agree in writing that upon default in the
payment of the amount of the principal obligation, the title of the
mortgage property will automatically vest in favor of the
mortgagee?
Answer: No. It would be void since it would be then a pactum
commissorium. In order to transfer title to the mortgagee, it must
undergo followers proceedings and in a public auction, the
mortgagee is given priority in bidding, it is only when the
mortgagee is the highest bidder that the title be given to him.
What is the reason why it has to undergo auction sale when in
fact in most cases the mortgagee is the only bidder?
Answer: (Ms. Toledo) Because it would be in a form of Novation.
As the mortgage is applied to payment of debt as if a title to a
land is considered a payment to the mortgage then it is
considered novation.
The subject of indebtedness will be changed. So that's why it must
be in public auction as only the proceeds of auction will be
applied.
A pactum commissorium is void because it is against public policy,
why?
Answer: if you allow automatic transfer of ownership it would
cause unjust enrichment in favor of mortgagee because the value
of property is always more than the amount of obligation. If you
allow automatic transfer, the value of the land will appreciate
over time. If the value of the land now as it is mortgaged is P1M
and the value of obligation is only P800,000, if there is foreclosure
next year, the value of that land may double or triple, so the land
value would be P2M or P3M. The obligation even if with interest
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
will not amount to P2M or P3M. For instance if the interest is P1.2
M if you allow automatic transfer, alkansi ang mortgagor because
you are paying more than what you owe. That is why it is void
being against public policy.
98% of the mortgages, the properties are always more thn the
value of the principal obligation.
What is a foreclosure?
- a process wherein when the mortgagor defaults in payment,
then the proceeds thereon will be applied to the payment for the
indebtedness.
Supposing the highest bidder gave a bid of P1M where total
obligation is P800,000 and the proceeds amounted to P1M, how
much will you give the mortgagee?
Answer: only to the extent of indebtedness which is P800,000 and
the remaining P200,000 will be given to the mortgagor.
Requisites before you can foreclose a mortgage:
1. The debt must become due and demandable
2. The debtor must be in delay or default
3. There must be a demand. Without the demand you cannot
consider the debtor in default.
In case the debtor defaults, what other remedies aside from
foreclosure available to the mortgagee?
Answer: Mortgagee may file an action for collection of sum of
money.
If the mortgagee chose the action for collection of sum of money,
may he change his mind and consider the filing for foreclosure?
Answer: No. The remedies are alternative. If you choose one that
is the waiver of the right to avail of the other remedy
Suppose I chose to foreclose the property, the highest bidder bid
for P800,000 when the obligation is P1M, may I file an action to
collect deficiency?
Answer: Yes. That is the only time when the mortgagee can avail
of the action to collect the sum of money only when there is
deficiency. This is not Recto Law on chattel mortgage. This is REM.
What is the prescription or prescriptive period in the filing for
action of judicial foreclosure?
Answer: 10 years from the time the right of action accrues which
is from the time debtor defaulted payment.
> Suppose Jan 1997, the obligation became due and demandable,
> on Jan 2002, it was the time mortgagee demanded payment still
the debtor did not pay
> so another demand was made on Jan 2004, still no payment.
>>Can he file foreclosure proceeding now, Sept. 25, 2012?
Answer: Yes. Ledesma vs. CA: A written extrajudicial demand
wipes out the period that has already elapsed and starts anew the
prescriptive period.
Thus, he can still file today as the period is to be counted from the
15
last demand. Because the demand wipes out the period that has
already elapsed and starts anew the prescriptive period.
What are the two types of foreclosure?
1. Judicial- file in the court having jurisdiction over the place
- when to consider the highest bidder to have the title over the
mortgaged property? During the confirmation of the sale by the
court.
- is it necessary to have hearing in confirming the sale? Yes. So
that the mortgagor can know his remedies. Rural Bank of
Oroquieta case
2. Extrajudicial - file it before the sheriff
- hearing is not necessary. Just allow the redemption period to
expire and then once it expires, you can call the sheriff and ask
the sheriff to make a final certificate of sale.
9-26-12
In a JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE, when will the mortgagor be divested
of his ownership over the property?
 The owner will be divested of the ownership of his
property when he fails to redeem the property within
one year from the time the certificate of sale is
registered.
Do you need a hearing in a JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE SALE to
confirm the sale?
 Yes. A hearing is necessary to give notice to the owner
and to hear why he was not able to redeem the
property. During that period, the owner may still
redeem the property from the mortgagee until the
confirmation of the sale.
So after the confirmation of the sale by the court in a JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE, can the mortgagor still redeem his property
afterwards?
 GENERAL RULE: You CANNOT redeem the property
after confirmation by the court of the sale in a
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
 EXCEPTION: When the mortgagee is a BANK.
So in a JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE, there is an AUCTION SALE that
will happen and the property is awarded to the HIGHEST BIDDER.
Then there is a CERTIFICATE of SALE that is issued and you are
then going to register the certificate of sale. AFTER the expiration
of one year from the registration of the certificate of sale, then
you are going to ask the court to hold a HEARING to CONFIRM the
SALE.
Why do you need to confirm the sale?
 Because the redemption period has expired.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
So as a GENERAL RULE, after the redemption period of 1 year has
expired and confirmation of the sale, the mortgagor no longer has
a right to redeem. But there is an exception; the EXCEPTION is in a
JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE (remember that this is only for JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE) where the mortgagee is a BANK.
BOROMEO vs CA and ESB
What are the requisites of a valid injunction?
 The Supreme Court said that an injunction does not
necessarily lie against an extrajudicial foreclosure
because the right that we are talking about, from the
very beginning, has been LIMITED by the EXECUTION
OF THE REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE executed by the
mortgagor himself.
 So yes, he has a right over his property but because he
executed a REM, he has RESTRICTED his rights over the
property and HAS CONSENTED to the FORECLOSURE
upon default in payment.
 BUT in this case, the INJUNCTION was granted. Why?
o Alright. In this case, the one who foreclosed
was the Equitable Savings Bank, while the
REM in the promissory was in fact executed
in favour of the Equitable PCI Bank.
 There was a contention that Equitable Savings Bank
and Equitable PCI Bank must be considered as one
juridical person because Equitable Savings Bank was
owned by the Equitable PCI Bank.
 But the Supreme Court said that
you cannot treat them as one
juridical personality because
even if you are a subsidiary, your
personality is separate from the
parent company.
 Does this mean that the RIGHT TO FORECLOSE cannot
be assigned at all?
o It can be assigned.
 How can you assign the RIGHT TO FORCLOSE?
o You assign the LOAN or you sell the LOAN
because a loan is actually a receivable. It is
an asset on the part of the bank
o So if you want to assign the right to
foreclose, you have to assign the principal
contract because REM is merely an
accessory contract.
o The accessory always follows the principal.
 What Equitable PCI Bank should have done was enter
into a Deed of Assignment or a Deed of Sale where the
Equitable PCI Bank will assign the LOAN ITSELF to
Equitable Savings Bank so that the loan will transfer to
Equitable Savings Bank and it will give Equitable
Savings Bank the RIGHT to COLLECT the payment or
the RIGHT TO FORECLOSE should there be no payment.
o In this case, there was no deed of sale or
assignment. Nidiritso ra ang Equitable
Savings Bank ug foreclose.
16
  So, the RIGHT TO FORECLOSE may also be assigned by
assigning, of course, the principal contract of loan.
 So on one hand, you have the right to foreclose that
can be assigned by the mortgagee by assigning the
entire loan.
How about the right of the mortgagor to redeem to a third party
who is not a subsequent lien holder? Can it also be assigned?
 A mortgagor may assign to a 3rd party because that
property is his. So, in fact, he can sell the property to a
third party and the third party can now redeem the
property for him.
 Instead of the mortgagor redeeming the property, the
third party redeems (because in most cases, the fact
that they defaulted, that means they don’t have
money anymore, and therefore, you cannot expect
them to redeem also because they don’t have money.)
 So what they do is they sell the property to somebody
else (a relative or close friend)and then that 3rd party
will redeem the property.
o So mahulog nga iyang gibaligya ang
property. So ang mulukat, in layman’s term,
kay kato na ang 3rd party.
 What usually happens is, let’s say the obligation is only
800k, and then, usually, as we said, the mortgaged
property is usually much greater than the amount of
the obligation.
o So let’s say the outstanding principal
obligation is only 800k and the value of the
property is 2M.
o Then the mortgagor does not have 800k to
redeem the property.
o What he does is he executes a deed of sale
to a third party, selling the property to the
third party AT ITS VALUE. Let’s say, 1.5M.
o So he enters a deed of sale 1.5M, 800k
payable to the mortgagee and 700k payable
to the mortgagor.
o SO, DILI SIYA ALKANSI. If he does not assign
the right to redeem, mabira ang tibuok
yuta. Samot na if the mortgagee becomes
the highest bidder.
o Ok lang if there is a third party who is the
highest bidder, who bids MORE than the
principal obligation.
o Let’s say for example, in the bidding:
 Milky is the mortgagee,
 Ralph is the mortgagor,
 Richard is a third party bidder.
 Ralph owes Milky an
outstanding principal in interest
of 800k. Of course, as a
mortgagee, Milky will not bid
higher than 800k. She will bid
only 800k.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
 Sometimes, Milky can even bid
less than the obligation so that
Milky can still go after Ralph in
case Milky wins as the highest
bidder.
 So Milky bids 800k, the principal
outstanding obligation of Ralph
is also 800k.
 Then here comes Richard, the
third party bidder, and he bids
1M for the property. So Richard
then wins the highest bid.
 So of the 1M, 800k will be given
to Milky in payment of the
principal obligation, and the
200k will go to Ralph.
 BUT in that case, alkansi kayo ka,
why? Because you don’t have
the property anymore. And you
only get the value equivalent to
the outstanding principal
obligation, and NOT even the
value of the property. Swerte
nalang ganeh nga naae highest
bidder bidding more than the
principal obligation. How much
more alkansi if Milky is only the
one bidding? (Wala nay 200k, if
that’s the case.)
 Milky would be buying the
property for a very low, low
price and Ralph would be very,
very alkansi.
o That’s why the 3rd party enters into a deed
of sale with a third party so that he, in fact,
gets the ACTUAL VALUE of the property.
o Of course, he should also pay his LOAN
from the proceeds of that sale because that
is his legal obligation. BUT at least there is
an exchange for the REAL VALUE of the
property.
What is the redemption period?
 It is one year from the registration of the certificate of
sale.
 In the case of Landrito, the Supreme Court said that
while Act 3135 says that the redemption period is 1
year from the sale, that actually means 1 year from the
registration of the certificate of sale.
 Why do you have 1 year period from the registration,
and not from the sale itself?
o Because PD 1529 says that upon
registration, there is constructive notice to
the whole world of the sale.
17
  In Landrito also, there was also an argument that there
was an extension of the redemption period. Why did
the court deny this? What is the requisite, then, to
make an extension of the redemption period valid and
binding upon the parties?
o So here, the SC said that, yes, your
redemption period may be extended. But to
make it valid and binding between the
parties, not only should you agree in writing
of the extension, but it must be followed by
an offer to pay the redemption price.
o Here, the SC ruled that there was NO offer
to pay because, in fact, they filed a
complaint. If you file a complaint, then you
are not willing to pay. That is the ruling.
What is the difference between Equity of Redemption and Right
of Redemption?
 So the Equity of Redemption is what we are talking
about. Because that is the period wherein the
mortgagor has the right to redeem the property after it
has defaulted in payment of the obligation but prior to
the confirmation of the sale.
 Again, we said, we confirm the sale after the expiration
of the redemption period.
 While RIGHT OF REDEMPTION is the right of the
mortgagor to redeem the property even after the
confirmation of the sale. When is that?
o When the mortgagee is a bank in a JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE.
What is your redemption period if the mortgaged property is
covered by a Free Patent or a Homestead Patent?
 2 years from the foreclosure sale if it is untitled
 it’s 2 years counted from the registration of the
certificate of sale if it has a Torrens Title
 But if you fail to redeem it within 2 years, you are still
given 5 years counted from the expiration of the
redemption period. Why?
o Because the Public Land Act wants to
preserve the property within the family of
the grantee or patentee.
o That is, in fact, an award by the government
to those who tilled the land for a long time.
o So even if you failed to redeem it, you still
have 5 years because the Public Land Act
prohibits the alienation of the property
within 5 years.
o So if na-mortgage nimo siya, there is no
effective conveyance yet. But if it is already
foreclosed, then you are in fact alienating it
involuntarily. So, you are given 5 years from
the expiration of the redemption period.
o That’s pursuant to the Public Land Act.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
What is the consequence if the redemption period has expired?
 The sheriff will now issue a certificate of final sale and
it will be registered. This will in effect, cancel the old
Certificate of Title and a new Certificate will be issued
to the purchaser of the property.
 That is what you call CONSOLIDATION of the TITLE
Yulienco vs CA
 Possession is already a matter of right after
consolidation. The issuance of the writ of possession is
already ministerial on the part of the court after
consolidation (both EXTRAJUDICIAL and JUDICIAL
FORECLOSURE). Why?
o Because the purchaser is already the owner
of the property.
o So if you’re the owner already, then
necessarily, possession will follow as a
matter of right.
o So it is wrong for the petitioner to say that
the granting of the writ of possession is a
matter of discretion because the RTC did
not exercise any discretion in issuing the
writ of possession as it was already
ministerial.
o Once there has been consolidation, the
purchaser already becomes the owner of
the property.
SAMSON vs RIVERA
 May a writ of possession be granted by the court
during the redemption period? YES.
 What does the mortgagee have to do for the writ of
possession to be issued in his favour even during the
redemption period?
o Upon motion by the purchaser to possess
the property
o Also, he must file a bond equal to 12
months’ use of the property
 You need to post a bond so that
in case the mortgagor chooses to
redeem the property, from the
time that he was dispossessed,
you will have to pay him the
value for the use of his property
o You will only file a bond if you file for a writ
of possession DURING the redemption
period.
o BUT if your action for writ of possession is
AFTER the redemption period has expired
18
 and it was already consolidated in your
name, you don’t have to file a bond
because you are now the owner of the
property
In cases where there are 2 encumbrances, 2 mortgagors.
 Who has the better right to the property?
o The FIRST MORTGAGOR.
CASE OF DE VERA – Same principle, so skip.
PNB vs ICB
 PNB was able to foreclose the property and there were
subsequent lien holders. PNB was not the only lien
holder over the property. But PNB was able to
foreclose the property. The redemption period expired
and the mortgagor was not able to redeem the
property. So the Certificate of Sale became final and
the title was consolidated in PNB’s favour.
 But there is a problem. The new TCTs of PNB still
carried the other encumbrances.
 So PNB is now asking to have the encumbrances
cancelled
 SC: It ruled that YES, the encumbrances should be
cancelled. It is the right of the first encumbrancer to
have a clean title. The SC said that once the previous
lien holder has already foreclosed the property, then it
has already foreclosed all other encumbrances.
 The SC also said that the subsequent lien holders have
a right. What is this right? The right to redeem the
property from the prior mortgagor and avail of the 1
year redemption period. (basa sa example below to
understand this right better. )
o So if you have the first mortgagee and the
second mortgagee, and the first mortgagee
forecloses the property, (of course you
already know that after he forecloses the
property, he does not yet become the
absolute owner, he still has to wait for 1
year from the registration of the certificate
of sale
 not only will the mortgagor be
able to avail of the redemption
period, so can the subsequent
lien holders, just like the second
mortgagee.
o So after the foreclosure by the first
mortgagee, the second mortgagee can in
fact call the 1st mortgagee and ask him what
the redemption price is. SO that the 2nd
mortgagee can pay the redemption price.
 The second mortgagee is
actually now paying the
obligation of the mortgagor.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
o If he pays the first mortgagee, then the
second mortgagee can now ask the register
of deeds to cancel the first mortgage so
that he now becomes the next mortgagee
in line.
o So if the mortgagor will now default in
payment of the loan that is due the second
mortgagee, then the 2nd mortgagee can
foreclose the property.
o If he forecloses the property and the
mortgagor now wishes to redeem the
property within the 1 year period again
from the time that the second mortgagor
registers the certificate of sale in his favour,
how much will the mortgagor pay?
 The mortgagor will pay his loan
obligation to the 2nd mortgagee
AND the redemption price that
the 2nd mortgagee paid to the 1st
mortgagee.
o So, in effect, the mortgagor still pays the
entire loan obligation to the 1st mortgagee
and the 2nd mortgagee.
o Now supposing the 1st mortgagee has NOT
YET foreclosed the property, may the 2nd
mortgagee ask for the cancellation of the 1st
mortgage?
 Still yes. As long as the 2nd
mortgagee pays whatever the
mortgagor owes to the 1st
mortgagee.
 So the 2nd mortgagee pays the
obligation of the mortgagor to
the 1st mortgagee and the 2nd
mortgagee will be the one to
collect the 2 loans from the
mortgagor.
SY vs CAPISTRANO
 Caveat Emptor – Buyer beware!
 The same principle: When we are dealing with a
person who is NOT the registered owner, you cannot
just rely on the title; you have to go beyond the title.
You have to conduct an investigation on the property.
 So much more if what is shown to you is a mere
photocopy of the title or the contract.
10-2-12
VII. b. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
i. Attachments
In Sec.69 that would tell you that the nature actually of
an attachment that is by virtue of an order in court.
Such that if there is a controversy or claim, collection
19
 of sum of money, if you are not _____ (di
maklaro…sorry.) enough to pay and you are the loser
party, then your properties may be attached by virtue
of an order of the court. So, if there is such an order to
attach, then that order will have to be presented
before your Register of Deeds for it to be annotated.
Anyway, the procedure on attachment will be delved
more when you have your Remedial Law.
ii. Adverse Claims
That is Sec.70. You don’t need to file an action in court
so that you may annotate an adverse claim. Unlike an
attachment that is by virtue of an order in court, if you
have an adverse claim over the property and you want
your adverse claim to be protected, you have to
register it. You don’t need to go through a court
proceeding, you don’t need to file an action in court.
What will you do then? You will only have to make a
sworn statement. Or in short, you just have to make an
affidavit because it is in fact a sworn statement. And in
your affidavit, there must be a statement of your
alleged right or interest, under whom such alleged
right or interest is acquired… that’s in your Agcaoili
book…, the description of the land in which the right or
interest is claimed, and of course the number of the
certificate of title. Why? Of course as to guide your RD
as to which TCT he will annotate the adverse claim.
Sec.70 will also tell you that the effectivity of the
adverse claims is supposedly just 30 days, but that
does not mean that after the expiration of the 30 days
it will automatically be cancelled. What the law means
is that after 30 days, the owner of the property may
ask for a cancellation of the adverse claim. Now if you
want a cancellation, it is not by a mere affidavit but
this time it will have to be through an action in court. It
will have to heard as to whether or not it would be
proper to remove or cancel the adverse claim.
The adverse claim is a remedy that may be availed of
by the claimant only when the law does not provide for
any remedy. In other words, if your claim over the
property is by virtue of a deed of sale, is there a
remedy provided in PD 1529? Yes, there is. Unsa may
remedy nimo? If it’s by virtue of a deed of sale, all you
have to do is surrender the old owner’s duplicate
certificate, you show the deed of sale, and you will be
issued a new certificate. So, no need to annotate that
as an adverse claim because there is in fact a remedy
provided for that.
What would be an example of an adverse claim? An
example would be annotating a contract to sell. Ngano
man? Because you will not be issued a new certificate
of title because in a contract to sell, as in the cases that
we’ve discussed, the SC said that there is no
conveyance of ownership before full payment. So, if
you want third parties to be aware that the property is
under a contract to sell, to let them know that that it is
now under an agreement to be sold to you upon full
payment, how do you protect your right? Through an
adverse claim.
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
Another example is a lease for a very long period of
time. Now, if you have an agreement with the owner
to lease the property for 10 years, you have to protect
your right. Why? because as a lessee, you cannot
prevent the owner of the property from not selling.
Diba di man ka kaingon sa owner nga ayaw bayag
ibaligya ha kay naa baya tay lease agreement for 10
years. You cannot do that. What you can do is
annotate an adverse claim that in fact you are under a
leasehold agreement for 10 years so that if the old
owner will sell it to a new owner, the new owner will
be bound by the lease. Ngano ma bound man siya?
Because at the time that he bought it, kaybaw man
siya nga nay 10-year leasehold agreement. Okay...
Of course mortgage. Your mortgage is in fact an
adverse claim. Because again you cannot ask for a new
title because that does not convey ownership. That’s
only a lien on the property.
Golden Haven Memorial Park vs. Filinvest
This case is about a very large tract of land which was
sold by the original owners. The owners entered into a
contract to sell with Golden Haven. It was only under a
contract to sell of several parcels of land. Golden
Haven, to protect its interest, annotated an adverse
claim and what was annotated was the contract to sell.
Unknown to Golden Haven, some of the owners also
sold it to Filinvest. This time, the agreement was a
deed of sale. So Filinvest…you already know that
there’s a remedy for that and that is for an issuance of
a new title… Filinvest now applied for the issuance of a
new title and it was denied because of the contract to
sell. Filinvest was saying that it was an innocent
purchaser for value because according to Filinvest the
annotation on the adverse claim does not pertain to all
the lots that it bought… naa lay uban, but not all. What
did the SC say?
The SC said that when you bought it, you saw already
the annotation. Even if it does not pertain to all the
lots that you bought, that should have already put you
on inquiry. It should have already put you on guard. It
should have already warned you that the sellers are
engaged in double selling. So because of that, the SC
said that Filinvest could not be considered as an
innocent purchaser for value because the purpose of
an adverse claim is actually to serve as a notice, a
warning to those who may deal with the property. So
Filinvest should have already been warned that when it
bought some of the properties and bought in fact a
property which had an annotation, that should have
already warned them to investigate further the
property because it was a clear indication that the
sellers were engaged in double selling.
iii. Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land and
Application for New Certificate Upon Expiration of
Redemption
Sec.75, we’ve already discussed that if in a mortgage
_______ (di jud nako maklaro diri na part. sige na
nakog balik. (T^T) Huhuhu… ) application of a new
certificate upon expiration of the redemption period…
So if it’s a mortgage, it was foreclosed, then you have
20
 one year redemption period unless of course it was
granted through a homestead or free patent then the
redemption period would be 2 years. So if the
mortgagor fails to redeem it within the redemption
period, then of course if it’s a judicial foreclosure, you
will have to ask a court through a motion so that the
confirmation of the sale may be heard, but if it’s an
extra-judicial foreclosure sale, then you’ll just have to
wait for the redemption period to expire and then you
inform the Sheriff so that the Sheriff can give you a
final certificate of sale. Then after that you can now
process it with the RD to have a new title issued in
your name and we call that consolidation.
Padilla, Jr. vs. Phil. Producer’s Cooperative
The cooperative filed a case for collection of sum of
money against the petitioners. And in that civil case,
the cooperative won. Since it was found that the
petitioners had no money to fulfill the obligation, and
so gi attach ang mga properties nila. So now, the
cooperative filed for a motion to execute the judgment
and in fact it was sold on execution sale…mura ra
gyapun na siyag auction sale… and they became the
highest bidder. Now, they wanted to transfer the title
in their name. They want to consolidate it because the
redemption period has expired without Padilla and his
wife being able to redeem the property. Karon, when
they tried to register it with the Register of Deeds, the
RD denied the registration in their name. Why?
because there was no surrender of the owner’s
duplicate certificate, ilang Padilla. So, the cooperative
was now saying that how can we surrender it to you
when clearly Padilla will refuse to give it to us. Because
this was not a voluntary sale, this was an involuntary
sale. It was sold through an execution sale. So what
they did was to file a motion in court so that the court
may order or direct the Register of Deeds to issue
them a new certificate of title.
The issue here when it reached the SC was the
propriety of the motion praying to the court to order
the RD to issue the certificate of title even without
surrendering the previous owner’s duplicate
certificate.
The SC said that the remedy they availed of was
incorrect. Why? because PD 1529 clearly states that for
you to be issued a new certificate of title, there must
be a surrender of the old one. Now as to their
contention that it would be very hard for them to get
the title, the SC said that the proper remedy should
have been to file a separate action in court praying
that the court will order the previous owner to
surrender the certificate. Okay? Dili shortcut. Dili nga
mo derecho ka ug ask sa court to order the RD because
then you are asking the court and the RD to violate the
provision of law nga dapat man gyud mag surrender.
And the reason for the surrender as we said is to avoid
double selling. So the correct action that they should
have done was to file a separate action in court for
specific performance…praying the court to issue an
order directing that old owner, the previous owner, to
surrender his certificate of title.
iv. Lis Pendens
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
We’ve already touched on this. We said that lis
pendens is actually an announcement to the whole
world that there is a pending litigation over the
property. The purpose of the lis pendens as explained
in the case of Viewmaster Construction vs. Maulit, et.
al is to first, protect the claimant, the party claiming
an interest over the property, and second, to
announce to the whole world of such pending litigation
over the property and to forewarn them that should
you deal with the property then you are gambling on
the outcome of the case. In the case of Viewmaster,
there was an issue raised because the notice of lis
pendens that was annotated was pertaining to a
litigation whose main issue was not the ownership of
the property. The owner of the property was saying
that, you cannot annotate a notice of lis pendens on
the property on a litigation that actually does not
revolve around the issue of ownership over the
property. Kay dapat kuno ang notice of lis pendens,
dapat about sa ownership sa property. What did the SC
say? The SC said not necessarily. You may have a
notice of lis pendens annotated not even pertaining to
a litigation involving ownership but it may only be even
about use or occupation or possession of the
property… that is also in fact an interest over a parcel
of land. Not necessarily ownership. So if mag notice of
lis pendens ka ana nga property, not necessarily nga
and pending litigation is about contesting claims of
ownership. Dili necessary. Pwede ra daw nga ang
litigation is in fact about use or possession or
occupation. Not necessarily claiming ownership.
Because as we said, ownership is different from
possession.
Okay… The case of St. Mary vs. RD Makati was about
the propriety of having a notice of lis pendens that was
previously cancelled and re-annotated again. So there
was a contesting claim between St.Mary and Soriano.
Soriano was saying that the sale to St. Mary was in fact
forged. It was a fraudulent sale. It was from his father
to ODC, and then ODC to St.Mary. He was saying that
there was in fact no sale. So he is now claiming that
being an heir, he was the owner over the property. So,
because of these contesting claims, he filed a case
against St. Mary and of course the predecessors-in-
interest, for the declaration of nullity of the sale and
for the cancellation of the title in favor of St.Mary.
Now, because of this pending litigation, Soriano caused
the annotation of lis pendens. So clearly, naay pending
litigation over a claim of ownership because somebody
is now saying that St. Mary is not the owner, I am suing
St.Mary because I am in fact the owner. The trial court
found for St. Mary and St. Mary of course filed a
motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens kay nidaog
man sila. And so it was cancelled. In the meantime, St.
Mary mortgaged the land, to obtain a loan, to another
party. At the same time, Soriano elevated it to the CA.
Soriano is now asking the CA to re-annotate the notice
of lis pendens. St. Mary opposed the motion to re-
annotate because according to St. Mary, there is no
more right to have the notice of lis pendens annotated
because it was already decided in the trial court…they
already won. What was the ruling of the SC? The SC
said it is but right to re-annotate it. Why? Because the
21
case is not yet over. There is still a pending litigation. In
fact, the case has been elevated to the CA. So there is
in fact a pending litigation. A pending litigation is not
constrained only to the trial stage. For so long as there
is no final and executory decision yet, the case is still
pending. And apart from that, the SC said that to
protect the interest of Soriano, it is but right to re-
annotate the notice of lis pendens especially now that
St.Mary is dealing with the property with third
persons. Dapat ang third persons should be aware kay
if dili nimo sila ipa aware, mahimo silang innocent
purchaser. Ug mahimo silang innocent purchaser, if
ever Soriano will be adjudged the true owner, luoy
kaayu si Soriano. Dili na niya ma get back iyang
property. But in this case, the SC did not rule on who
has a better right. It was just an incidental issue. It was
just about the re-annotation. So you will not see here
in the case who was adjudged as the owner of the
property. Only the issue here was whether it is proper
to re-annotate. And yes it is proper because the case is
still pending.
In that case also, the SC enumerated two grounds that
a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even if there
is a pending litigation: that the annotation was for the
purpose of molesting the title of the adverse party, or
when the annotation is not necessary to protect the
title of the party who caused it to be recorded.
In the case of De La Merced vs. GSIS, this again is
about a notice of lis pendens and the effect of a notice
of lis pendens to a transferee pendente lite. What’s a
transferee pendente lite? A transferee of the property
while the case is still pending. So there was a
controversy as to who has a better right over the
property. I’m not going to dwell on that because you
already know that, how to determine kinsay naay
better right. So, I’m just going directly to the notice of
lis pendens. During the pendency of the litigation, so
nag-away si De La Merced ug GSIS kung kinsay naay
better right. During the pendency of the litigation, GSIS
sold it to a third party. Now, so katong third party is
what you call the transferee pendente lite. Ngano
man? Kay transferee cya pending litigation. So si GSIS
is the transferor pendente lite. So cya na ang nag
gukod. Now, ang case na resolve na. And the case was
resolved against GSIS. The transferee pendente lite is
now saying that you cannot get the property from me
because you did not implead me in the case. So the
decision of the court shall not be binding against me.
Ma binding ra unta to cya if gi apil daw cya sa kaso.
What was the ruling of the SC? The SC said that you
being the transferee pendente lite, you seeing the
notice of lis pendens, you have already gambled on the
outcome of the case such that, if your predecessor-in-
interest is found to have no right over the property,
that means you too will not have a rightful claim over
the property. You need not be impleaded because you
just take over whatever right your transferor has
because of the notice of lis pendens. If wala pa toy
notice of lis pendens, pwede pa cya muingon nga
innocent cya granting nga wala gyud cyay knowledge
of any fact that the title is fake. But in this case, there
was a notice of lis pendens. So, the third party cannot
say I am not bound because you did not implead me in
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
the case. You need not be impleaded because you are
gambling on the outcome of the case.
VIII. Registration of judgments, orders, partition
If there’s a judgement in court pertaining to a property, there’s a
partition, you have to show the order of the court to have it
registered.
Sec 79 Surrender of owners duplicate
Duplicate certificate has to be surrendered (the previous one), for
you to have a new certificate issued.
IX . Assurance fund
We have discussed in passing about claiming against the
assurance fund if the author of the fraud is insolvent.
The assurance fund comes from you because upon registration of
Certificate of Title you would have to pay the Register of Deeds ¼
of 1% of the latest assessed value of your property. It would be
managed by the National Treasurer, and he would invest it
somewhere else, (just like an insurance--collect money then
reinvest it somewhere else to gain profit);this is an insurance if
ever you will be deprived of your property due to the rigidity of
the rules of the Torrens System. Again, the custody and
management od the assurance fund will belong to the National
Treasurer.
Sec 95 Claims against the assurance fund
 This section tells you that for you to be able to claim
against AF you must be able to prove that you have
exercised the proper diligence, that you had no
negligence at all-- you lost your right over your
property but you exercised all the diligence required of
you.
 When will you lose your right over the property when
in fact you’re the true owner?
o When there’s an innocent purchaser for
value (IPV) even if you can prove that you
are in fact the true owner if the forger was
able to transfer it to his name and after
transferring it to his name was able to
transfer it to an IPV you can no longer get
the property back--you’re deprived of your
property, hence, you may claim against the
assurance fund.
 Torres v CA June 21, 1990
o Facts: This is a case where the claim against
the assurance fund was denied by the SC.
This involved a very large parcel of land
which was also a subject of a double sale.
The purchaser claimed that he was an IPV
but the SC said he cannot be considered as
one because an IPV becomes such if you
have a title (title of the owner ), the real
title over the subject property, and it was
through a fraudulent scheme or through
forgery that the title was cancelled and a
22
 new one was issued in the name of the
forger or in any other name which was
chosen by the forger, and then after that
there is a cancellation of his title, a transfer
to a third party which has no knowledge
whatsoever of the scheme (an IPV). In this
case, there was a title held by the real
owner, this was a very large parcel of land
with a building on it and it was for rent,
there was a relative who now applied for
the reconstitution of the title saying that
the title was lost. This person now who had
the title reconstituted but there was still in
fact the original title. He used this title to
obtain a loan and he mortgaged the land,
he was not able to pay the loan so it was
foreclosed. However, the real owner found
out about this so he asked for an injunction
because he is in fact the real owner.
o ISSUE: who has the better right? Is it the
real owner or is it this mortgagee who
claims to be an innocent mortgagee for
value because when he saw the
reconstituted title it was clean.
o HELD:
 Granting that you have exercised
all the diligence as a mortgagee
of this title, the principle of IPV
does not apply because the real
title is still existing. “The doctrine
of an IPV cannot be applied
where the owner still holds a
valid and existing Certificate of
Title covering the same interest
in a realty because the title is
indefeasible and binding against
the whole world.” The
reconstituted title is null and
void .
 The title relied upon by the
mortgagee was a reconstituted
title which on its face was
written an “RT” so it’s not
enough that you look at the title,
you have to investigate and go
beyond. The SC said that this
involved a very large property
with a building why did the
mortgagee not ask who pays the
real property taxes? He was not
considered an innocent
mortgagee for value, there being
negligence on his part, he cannot
claim from the assurance fund.
Despite loss on his part, he can
only go against the forger and
not the assurance fund.
Sec 96 against whom should the action be filed?
 If the loss or your damage or the deprivation of the use
of your property was brought about by the mistake or
negligence of government personnel like the RD:
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
o File it against the RD where the property is
located and the national treasurer (he has
the custody of the assurance fund so you
must implead him) so in case you would be
adjudged innocent and without negligence,
you may claim from the assurance fund.
 If it is against another person who was the author of
the fraud or forgery:
o File it against that person plus the RD plus
the National Treasurer because sec 97 tells
you that in case you’re adjudged innocent
and without negligence then satisfaction of
the judgment must come from the forger
first. Only when he is insolvent or if you’ve
attached all his properties and it’s still not
enough to pay the damage caused to you,
then that's the oly time that you claim
against the assurance fund.
o BUT take note, sec 99 tells you that the
state will be subrogated in your rights to go
against the author. So ultimately you let
the perpetrator pay for the damage.
Sec 102 Prescription: 6 yrs from the time the cause of action
accrues.
XII. Petitions and actions after original registration
Sec 107 Surrender of withheld duplicate certificate
 Filing a separate court action praying that it will order
the previous owner to surrender the certificate.
 Toledo Banaga v CA January 29, 1999 [Atty B: read
this]
Sec 108 Amendment and alteration of certificates
 In an original registration you have to republish the
amendment and alteration but sec 108 is an
amendment and alteration that is done AFTER
registration.
 PD 1529 tells you that you cannot merely request the
RD for the amendment or alteration but you would
have to through a court proceeding.
 Oliva v Republic April 27, 2007
o Facts: Oliva filed a petition for reduction of
a legal easement. He was granted a patent,
but there was a condition that there should
be a 40 m legal easement. Oliva was saying
that this property in Talamban was already
turned residential and 40 m should be
reduced to 2 m. So what Oliva did was to
file an action in court because he cannot
just request the RD.
o Issue: OSG contends that Oliva cannot ask
for the reduction because the easement
was in fact public property.
o Held: From the time the patent was issued,
the property was already removed from the
public domain and therefore has become
A&D, court has already taken judicial notice
that Talamban is already a residential area.
23
 It’s just right that Oliva first filed a petition
to have it reduced and so it was in fact
reduced.
 Philippine Cotton Corp v Gagoomal February 11, 2008
o Facts: This was about a title that allegedly
got razed by fire, hence lost. The owners
filed for petition for reconstitution of title.
The original title had an adverse claim but
when it was reconstituted it did not carry
the adverse claim (it became a clean title).
Upon finding out, the adverse claimants
then requested the RD to re-annotate their
adverse claim. But RD only re-annotated it
only on the copy of the RD.
o Issue: WON it was proper for the RD to re-
annotate immediately upon request
without asking of the surrender of the
reconstituted title.
o Held: It was not proper for the RD to re-
annotate it without asking for the surrender
of the reconstituted titles. It it’s a duplicate
then whatever annotation that one copy
has, it must appear in all copies.
Sec 108 Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate
 Feliciano v Zaldivar Sept. 26, 2006
o When we speak of reconstitution you are
asking the court to order the RD to issue a
new certificate of title because your old
certificate was lost.
o It was found out that there was a
reconstitution of a title which was in fact
not lost. The SC said that when the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title has not been
lost but but is in the possession of another
person, then the reconstituted title is void
because the court that rendered the
decision has no jurisdiction. There is no
jurisdiction because one of the jurisdictional
fact is not present: that the old certificate
should have been LOST. Reconstitution can
be validly made only in case of loss of the
original certificate.
o Facts: This person who was allegedly the
real owner, found out that her property was
sold to another person without her selling
it. But during the course of the trial it was
found that she has signed a deed of sale.
There was the principle that there was a
presumption that you know what you’re
signing, but in this case it was found out
that this woman as a person of “limited
education” so the presumption will not
apply. It was now up to the other party top
prove that the document she was signing
was explained to her. They were not able to
discharge the burden.
Sec 110 Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens title
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
 You will have to follow the prescribed rules under RA
26 on reconstitution as long they are consistent with
PD1529.
 [Atty B: READ the three cases-- Pascua v Republic,
Republic v Cattaroja, Bienvendo Castillo v Republic] In
those cases the SC cited RA 26 as to the documents
that you will present to prove that the title in fact
exists. It is not enough that you prove that it was lost
but it is very hard to prove that in fact the title existed.
Saying that the title was lost can be open to fraud
because it’s easy to say that it was lost but in fact you
don’t have title over it.
 RA 26 listed SIX documents that you can present as
proof of existence of the title:
o The first five in the list are documents
issued officially by government offices
including the certified true copy of the title.
o The sixth enumeration is “any other
document that would satisfy the court” *in
the cases they used this sixth enumeration]
the SC held that this should be interpreted
by using ejusdem generis. It should be a
document of similar characteristic or import
as the first five in the list. Hence these
“other documents” should be OFFICIAL with
the official seal etc.
October 3, 2012
Bastowe Philippines
This is about estoppel. We already learn that estoppel
does not run against the State – general rule. SO,
barstowe Philippines introduces to you an exception to
the general rule. SO this is a case between Barstowe
Philippines (BP) and the republic. BP is saying that they
own the large tract of land that they are developing.
And BP, they bought it from a certain Servando (X). BP
sought for the reconstitution of their titles.
On the other hand, your state also applied for
reconstitution and then found out that there were
already existing titles and were for that same parcel of
land – the very large parcel of land.
So, there is now a controversy as to who has the better
right over the parcels of land – BP or the state.
Examination of the facts, the SC said, that the
reconstituted titles (RT) of BP were in fact forgeries.
Why? Because SC in the examination of the facts that
were unravelled during the trial – it was found that the
RD then when he was bought to court to testify said
that the signatures found on the titles were not his.
And in fact there was a mistake in the … reconstitution.
At the time that the RT were supposed issued, he was
already the RD but what was placed in the titles was
that he was a Deputy Register. So that already
tainted… that rose (?) doubts as to the genuineness of
the title of BP as opposed to the evidence presented
24
by the RP. The Republic was able to present evidence
of the conveyance from its predecessor in interest –
First Philippines Holdings Corporation.
Now, there is now an issue also as to w/r the state –
being adjudged as the real owner over the property
can now get back all the lots that were involved in this
case. Since BP was a developer, it has issued a license
to…
So BP is now saying that the state is estopped due to
the mistake and negligence of its employees because
of the fact that they were given a license to develop
this area, then … should be borne by the State. The
State now argues that estoppel does not run against
them. But remember that being developer, they were
able to sell lots already. Some of the lots were already
sold.
To resolve the controversy the SC said, AS TO THOSE
LOTS THAT WERE ALREADY SOLD, to innocent
purchasers for value, the State can no longer recover –
that lots. They’re already estopped because an
exception to the rule in estoppel is when there are
innocent purchasers for value involved. However, on
the remaining lots that were not yet sold by BP, the
state has two options: (1) to get the property back, or
(2) to let BP pay for the value of the property.
So in the case, the SC stated, “that the estoppel by
laches may lie against the Republic when titles to the
subdivision lots are already in the names of the
respective IPFV from BP – it may not be used by BP to
defeat the title of the Republic as regards the
subdivision lots which remain – kato’ng nabaligya to
IPFV, you can apply the exception on estoppel; but on
the remaining unsold lots, the State can get that back
or have BP pay for the value.
In the case of Yujuico v Republic, a certain Castro
applied for Original Registration/confirmation of title.
And he was awarded the registration – so she was
issued a OCT. Having OCT, there was now a subsequent
sale from Castro to a certain Yujuico. And Yujuico
having bought it, have divided the parcel of land to two
had one lot registered in his name, and the other lot
registered in some other person’s name. After 27 years
from the time of original registration – that was only
the time that the State filed a case for annulment of
the title of Castro including the derivative title of
Yujuico and this other person. So, Yujuico is now
raising the issue on estoppel due to inaction of the
state for 27 years; and also raised the ** of being an
IPFV. What was the ruling of the supreme court?
The Supreme Court said that Yujuico is correct. The
state may be (unclear) by estoppel or laches if there
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
are IPFV involved, and in this case Yujuico was an
innocent for value because at the time that he bought
the property, the title was clean. The contention of the
State that it was the State’s property was because they
found out that at the time that the application was
granted, the land was still underwater. And it said that
if it still submerged, then it is a land of public domain.
And we also learned an action for reversion is
imprescriptible, but the SC now gives an exception and
that is when an IPFV is involved.
And the SC even said that this right of IPFV even runs
against the state and that is based on section 32 of PD
1529, re: IPFV.
So the SC said, to repeat the principle, “equitable
estoppel may be invoked against public authorities,
when as in this case, the lot was already alienated to
IPFV, and the government did not undertake any act to
contest the title for a unreasonable (unclear).” In this
case, it was 27 years. And the SC further said, reversion
may no longer prosper as the land has become
(private) lands and the fraudulent acquisition cannot
affect the titles of IPFV. While the General Rule is that
an action is to recover lands of public domain is
imprescriptible, said right can be barred by laches.
Section 32 of PD 1529 recognize the rights of an IPFV
OVER AND ABOVE THE INTEREST OF THE STATE. So
that is an exception to the general rule.
Had the titles still been with Castro, then even after 27
years, the state could have the titles reverted back to
them. Cause in this case, it was found that there was
fraud (with some employees of the government).
(enumerates parts of the syllabus which will be
discussed in some other subject)
Condominium Act! Sales and Property. We’ll also touch
a little. 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 whole. You know what
condominiums are. It is a building divided into several
units. You have also common areas: the lobbies, the
staircase, etc2x.
Who owns the common areas? The Condominium
Corporation. What makes the Condominium Corp? The
Shareholders. Who are the shareholders? The unit
owners. When can you be considered a unit owner?
When you have fully paid the price of the unit. And
when we have a unit owner who had fully paid the
price, what is your price? The right is to have the
condominium certificate of title delivered to you by
the developer because the unit is now yours. As
opposed to the common areas, that are owned by the
shareholders of the condominium.
Warranties and Representations
25
BPI v ALS Management Corp. ALS Management is a
developer and this developer was filing a complaint for
collection of sum of money for the registration
because BPI already fully paid the unit, so because we
said that it is now the right of the unit owner to have
the condominium certificate of title. So, the developer
was now asking for the payment of the registration
fees. BPI refused to pay, and in answer to the
complaint, BPI said, we will not pay because upon our
investigation you have broken some of your (unclear).
Apart from that answer, BPI filed a counterclaim. BPI is
now claiming for damages on the ground that ALS
Management has not complied with their promise. The
promise that was embodied in the brochures. There
were several promises: first, that the condominium will
be a condominium-living at its very best. Apart from
that, they enumerated also the facilities that they were
going to provide. Bathrooms, top of the line, ilang
balcony, nindot ang ilahang, they also have closed chu
chu. So those were among the facilities enumerated in
the brochure.
In the lower court level, BPI won. So, the lower court
has decided, that indeed, the developer was not able
to fulfil its promise as enumerated in the brochure. So
this was raised by the developer to the CA. In the CA,
the developer now raised the issue on jurisdiction,
because according to the developer, the one that has
jurisdiction over controversies on breach of promise on
a condominium project on terms of payment will be
the HLURB and not the lower courts. As to that first
issue, the SC said that YES YOU ARE CORRECT, that it
shall be the HLURB that has jurisdiction, BUT you will
have to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest
possible opportunity. But you did not raise that in the
lower courts. You voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the lower court because you
participated in the trial. Now that you have lost dira pa
ka muraise sa issue on jurisdiction. SO SC SAID (wku
kasabot, even during discussion, wa sad ko kasabot sa
giyawyaw ni maam). Na, Ok ra nimo ang jurisdiction,
pero kay napildi ka that’s the only time you raise it.
That was the first issue that was delved upon by SC.
Another issue was on warranties and representations,
on whether the developer is obliged to provide for that
facilities that were enumerated and its warranties and
representations in the brochure. The developer was
saying that we are not obliged because in that same
brochure they placed a disclaimer.
And the disclaimer reads, “the particulars stated as
well the (visuals shown) are intended to give a general
idea of the project to be undertaken and as such, are
not to be relied upon as statements or representations
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY
of facts. So ingon ang developer Sala na nimo BPI nga
misalign ka sa among brochure, naa mi disclaimer!
So what was the ruling of the SC as to how to interpret
disclaimers. SC said, the disclaimer should be only be
applied to the general statements – condominium-
living at its best! Kana’ puwede ka mudisclaim ana.
BUT! If you have already enumerated facilities that will
provide and in fact those are the reasons why a
prospective purchaser decides to buy units. Kay nindot
ang facilities. But they were not able to provide that.
SC said, even if there is a disclaimer, sa general lang na
siya nga description but not on the enumeration of the
facilities that you’ve promised to provide. Those that
are written in the brochures.
10-3-12 2nd part
(De vera vs CA)
 De vera bought a condo unit from a developer UPSCCI.
He was already able to pay the down payment, now
the balance was suppose to be paid by ms.____. The
developer also obtained a loan from a bank, but there
was also an agreement that those purchasers who are
applying for a pag-ibig loan, that there will be a bridge
financing loan by this bank. A bridge financing loan is a
loan that will serve as replacement to the pag-ibig loan
ky dugay pa man xa ma release. So ang mu finance ra
usa ang bangko. And then pag naa na ang laon ang
bank na ang mu kuha. Now this bank told De vera that
his loan in pag-ibig was granted because it was coursed
through the bank. So De vera now believed that his
unit was already was now released. He thought the
unit was fully paid. So he can now demand for the
certificate of title. Now unfortunately for De vera the
loan diay was denied. So wala ma bayran ang unit. So
remember the developer made a loan, so the bank
now foreclosed. Ana si de vere, patay, na apil ako unit,
na bayran na man kaha ni… so he asked the bank as to
the status. So dnha pa xa na informed that it was
denied. So de vera filed an action for damages against
the developer and the bank.
SC said based on the condominium act. That it is now
the duty of the developer to redeem the unit
mortgaged because de vera honestly believed that he
was the owner, because he did not know that the unit
was not paid for. So the developer will have to redeem
without additional cost to de vera. What de vera owes
is only the balance. Dili na nimo xa pa apilon sa
redemption.
(Gold Loop Properties inc vs CA)
The purchaser of a Condo unit was already able to take
over the unit without the contract to sell, but despite
demands the developer refused to give the contract to
26
 sell. So ang purchaser ga pa ugat pd xa, di ka mu
hatag? D pd ko mu bayad ky wala ang contract to sell.

So the issue is whether the act of the purchaser to

withhold the payment was proper.

Held: it is the right of a party to a contract to be made

aware of his rights and obligations under the contract.
How can he protect his rights if he is not aware of his
obligations under the contract?
(*so justified iya pag withhold because he had a right
to demand for the contract to sell?)

(Goal ink vs ca)

The developer had a problem with his contractor. The contractor

pre terminated their contract before the bldg was finished. So the
developer had to finish the building. So the developer obtained a
loan from the bank and the bank asked for collateral. But some
floors were already finished and naa nay mga nka bayad. The
owner of the units has the right to ask for the certificate. So
nangayo na ang mga owner sa certificates, but the bank withheld
it saying that it will use it as collateral for the loan.

SC said it is wrong because it is already the unit owner’s property.

You cannot use a collateral property which you do not own. So
the condominium units have a right to demand for the certificates
of title upon full payment.

Jurisdiction of the HLURB you can read that in the case of BPI.

END OF THE SEM! =)

If you are pressed for time. Ayaw pag facebook! Hahaha

Read the cases.

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS FINALS TRANSCRIPTION BY ROOM 405 A.Y. 2012-2013, EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY 27
FOR ROOM 405 AND FRIENDS ONLY