L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 )

A t t y. G i m a r i n o

- instrument shall be regarded as registered only from the moment it

Land Titles is noted in the day book;

- record is constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal

and equitable

Finals Reviewer
AY 2017 — Atty. Gimarino
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION OF VOLUNTARY DEALINGS

a. Filing and registration in the day book of the notarized deed or

Subsequent Registration instrument;

Voluntary Dealings with Registered Lands b. Surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title; and

A. Primary Entry Book (Sec. 56) 1 c. Payment in full of the proper registration fees within 15 days from
B. Double Sales 2 date of entry

C. Buyer in Good Faith 3

D. Real Estate Mortgage 4
E. Sale Involving Real Estate 5 REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

F. Caveat Emptor Principle 6

Involuntary Dealings (a)Compliance with the essential requisites of a contract

A. Attachments (Sec. 69) 8 (b)Observance of the formal requirements of public instruments

B. Adverse Claims (Sec. 70) 8 (c)Performance of the jurisdictional requisites for registration

C. Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land 9 (d)In addition, special laws require the submission of supporting
D. Lis Pendens (sec. 76) 10
E. Levies on Execution 12 documents for certain transactions before registration is allowed

Registration of Judgements, Orders; Partitions (Sec. 78-92)

Surrender of Owner’s Duplicate (Sec. 107, PD 1529) 13
Assurance Fund DBP vs Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija
Claims against Assurance Fund (Sec. 95) 14 Entry in the primary entry book alone is considered a complete act
Registration of Patents of registration as long as all the requirements are present.
Certificates of Titles Pursuant to Patents (Sec. 103) 15
Issuance of Free Patents to Residential Lands (RA 10023) 16 Facts: DBP presented for registration a sheriff's certificate of sale in its favor of
Certification of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patent two parcels of land covered, both in the names of the Sps. Bautista and
Certificate of Land Transfers (Sec. 105) Calison. The transaction was entered in the Registry's Primary Entry Book. DBP
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform of 1998 (RA 6657) paid the requisite registration fees on the same day. Annotation of the sale on
Petitions and Actions after Original Registration the covering certificates of title could not, however be effected because the
Surrender of Withheld Duplicate Certificate (Sec. 107) 16 originals of those certificates were found to be missing from the files of the
Amendment and Alteration of Certificates (Sec. 108) 17 Registry, where they were supposed to be kept, and could not be located. DBP
Notice and Replacement of Lost Duplicate Certificate 18
Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original Torrens Title (Sec. 110) 19 instituted proceedings to reconstitute said certificates, and reconstitution was
Estoppel in Action for Cancellation of Title 21 ordered in a decision rendered on June 15, 1982. For reasons not apparent on
Schedule of Fees, Special Fund the record, the certificates of title were reconstituted only on June 19, 1984.
Forms Used in Land Registration and Conveyance Issue: Whether the certificate of sale could be registered using the old entry
Dealings with Unregistered Lands
Registration of Chattel Mortgages made in 1980 notwithstanding the fact that the original copies of the
Consultas (Section 117) reconstituted certificates of title were issued only on June 19, 1984.
Final Provisions Held: Yes. DBP, complied with all that was required of it for purposes of both
The Condominium Act (RA 4726) primary entry and annotation of the certificate of sale. So long as the registrant
Definition (Sec 2, RA 4726) 25 has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and
Warranties and Representations 25 annotation, nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on
Redemption of Mortgaged Amortization 26
Suspension of Monthly Amortization 26 the register of deeds.
Alteration of Plans 27
Subdivision and Condominium Protective Buyer’s Decree (PD 957)
Jurisdiction of the HLURB 27
Pertinent Laws and Provisions National Housing Authority vs Augusto Basa
Reiteration of DBP
Sps. Basa procured a loaned from NHA secured by real estate mortgage. The
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION loan remained unpaid and NHA foreclosed the mortgage. The sheriff's
certificate of sale was registered and annotated only on the owner's duplicate
CHAPTER 5 (SEC. 51 TO 77) copies of the titles in the hands of the respondents, since the titles in the
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS custody of the RD were among those burned down when a fire gutted the QC
City Hall. After the redemption period, NHA consolidated ownership over the
foreclosed properties, and the same was inscribed by the RD on the
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner certificates of title in the hand of NHA. Respondents theorized that since the
of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the sheriff's certificate was only inscribed on the owner's duplicate certificate of
same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, title, and not on the certificate of title in the possession of the RD, then there
leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed,
mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey was no effective registration and the one-year redemption period had not
or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall begun to run. Thus, respondents sought to redeem the property.
operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Issue: Whether the annotation of the sheriff's certificate of sale on the owner's
Register of Deeds to make registration. duplicate certificate of titles is sufficient registration considering that the
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as inscription on the original certificates could not be made as the same got
third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration burned.
shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where Held: Yes. The prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the
the land lies. registrant has fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and
annotation, so that what is left to be accomplished lies solely on the register of
A. Primary Entry Book (Sec. 56) deeds.
Section 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies. Each Register of Deeds
shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he shall Chikka ni sir regarding this case:
enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writs and He was still in the ROD during this time. He was one of the people who drafted the circular.
processes filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary LRA Circular 3 — draft of the circular
process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute of reception of More than half a million original titles where destroyed. No one wants to pay the real estate tax
all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as because there was no original tct. Had a big impact in the economy.
registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when DBP vs RoD of Nueva Ecija — was promulgated after the fire
made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date: Provided, Mere entry in the primary entry book produces the effect of registration.
that the national government as well as the provincial and city governments shall Issue a temporary original tct.
be exempt from the payment of such fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry Circular was approved — regional registration of transaction; 70,000 availed
and registration.
Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with the Durawood vs Candice Bona
Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a reference to
the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to registered land in the Principle: All the requirements must be complied with in order to
office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in the same manner as confer jurisdiction upon the RD.
court records, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Register of Deeds, Facts: Durawood filed an action for sum of money plus damages with a prayer
under the direction of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may prescribe. for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against LBB Construction as
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective copies payment for construction materials. RTC then issued an Order for the issuance
and shall be attested and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with the file of a writ of attachment. On June 17, 2004, A Notice of Levy on Attachment was
number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them. annotated on the TCT of LBB’s property. Candice Bona filed a Motion seeking
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the leave to intervene claiming therein that LBB Construction had sold the
Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees. property to her and her siblings through a Deed of Absolute Sale. She
asserted that the sale is the subject of an entry dated June 16, 2004 in the
books of the RD, while the levy on attachment is subject to an entry dated later
VOLUNTARY DEALING
on June 17, 2004.
- in accordance with the will of the registered owner;
Issue: Whether the sale annotated earlier should prevail over the levy on
- necessary to surrender the owner’s duplicate
execution.
Held: No. While it was true that the levy came later, it turned out that the fee
PRIMARY ENTRY BOOK OR DAY BOOK
required in the sale was not paid. There was one requirement that was not
- record of all instruments, including copies of writs and processes, complied with which was necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the RD. As
affecting registered lands;
such, there was no complete act of registration. For failure to pay the fee, the
- preliminary process in registration
levy on execution takes precedence over the Deed of Absolute Sale.

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. Page 1 of 30

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
THINGS TO REMEMBER BEFORE INVOKING DBP PRINCIPLE
Winda’s claim is not tenable. The rule of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title
1. There should be compliance with the essential requisites of a valid
contract.
or if the land has fallen into the hands of a purchaser for value, the title
2. Legal formalities of certain documents should be complied with i.e.
notarized or in a public instrument, signature of parties and
witnesses in each page, etc. Absent any mandatory requirement,
RD may refuse the registration of a voluntary dealing.
recover ownership and possession of the land.
3. Performance of the jurisdictional requirements. You have to show
the owner’s duplicate copy should be presented in a voluntary
dealing and then the registration fee should be paid. In the
absence of payment of registration fee, the RD has no jurisdiction
to entertain the transaction.
4. It should be accompanied with supporting documents i.e. BIR
Capital gains tax, transfer tax, SPA, etc.
B. Double Sales
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs CA
ISSUE
1. That action had already prescribed
2. Ruling of CA is founded entirely on speculation and conjuncture and is
constitutive of grave abuse of discretion
HELD
RE: prescription
The very allegations in petitioner MWSS' complaint show that the subject
property was sold through contracts which, at most, can be considered only as
voidable, and not void.
Three elements of a contract: consent. Object and the cause of obligation are all
present.
Petitioner MWSS admits that it consented to the sale of the property, with the
qualification that such consent was allegedly unduly influenced by the
President Marcos.
Taking such allegation to be hypothetically true, such would have resulted in
only voidable contracts because all three elements of a contract, still obtained
nonetheless. The alleged vitiation of MWSS' consent did not make the sale null
and void ab initio. contract where consent is given through mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud, is voidable
Concepts of Voidable Contracts. — Voidable or annullable contracts are existent,
valid, and binding, although they can be annulled because of want of capacity
or vitiated consent of the one of the parties, but before annulment, they are
effective and obligatory between parties. Hence, it is valid until it is set aside
and its validity may be assailed only in an action for that purpose. They can be
confirmed or ratified
President Marcos unduly influenced the sale, the prescriptive period to annul the
same would have begun on February 26, 1986 which this Court takes judicial
notice of as the date President Marcos was deposed. Prescription would have
set in by February 26, 1990 or more than three years before petitioner MWSS'
complaint was failed.
MWSS maintains that Mr. Illustre (manager) was not authorized to enter into such
“Initial agreement”- must likewise be noted that presidential approval had yet
to be obtained.
Thus, the "initial agreement" was not a sale as it did not in any way transfer
ownership over the property. The proposed terms had yet to be approved by
the President and the agreement in principle still had to be formalized in a
deed of sale. Written authority as is required under Art. 1834 of the New Civil
Code, was not needed at the point of the "initial agreement”
Verily, the principle on prescription of actions is designed to cover situations
such as the case at bar, where there have been a series of transfers to innocent
purchasers for value. To set 'aside these transactions only to accommodate a
party who has slept on his rights is anathema to good order.
RE: Laches
Right to have the contract declared void ab initio may be barred by laches
although not barred by prescription:
(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving
rise to the situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint
seeks a remedy;
(2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, having had knowledge or notice
of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
institute a suit;
(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the
complainant, or the suit is not held barred.
RE: RATIFICATION
The perceived infirmity in the "initial agreement" can be cured by ratification. So
settled is the precept that ratification can be made by the corporate board
either expressly or impliedly. Implied ratification may take various forms — like
silence or acquiescence; by acts showing approval or adoption of the contract;
or by acceptance and retention of benefits flowing therefrom. Both modes of
ratification have been made in this case.
In 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde Sports Center Corp.
(Verde) a 10-hectare property belonging to their conjugal partnership,
without Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda learned
of the sale, after her husband’s demise. Upon completion of the
construction in 1952, she tried but failed to get the membership
privileges in Verde.
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the sale on the
ground that she did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde contends
that, in accordance with the Spanish Civil Code which was then in force,
the sale did not need her concurrence. Verde contends that in any case,
the action has prescribed or is barred by laches. Winda rejoins that her
Torrens title covering the property is indefeasible and imprescriptible.
Decide the case.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
means that after one year from the date of issue of the decree of registration,
becomes incontestable and incontrovertible. Imprescriptibility, on the other
hand, means that no title to the land in derogation of that of the registered
owner may be acquired by adverse possession or acquisitive prescription or
that the registered owner does not lose by extinctive prescription his right to
The action in this case is for annulment of the sale executed by the husband
over a conjugal partnership property covered by a Torrens title. Actions on
contracts are subject to prescription.
ART. 1544, NCC. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person
acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in
good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person
who presents
RULE IN CASE OF DOUBLE SALE
• Where two or more TCT are issued to different persons for the same
lots, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that the original title was
not cancelled when the first TCT was issued to replace the original
title, which title prevails?
• General rule is that in case of 2 certificates of title purporting to
include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the land
comprised in the latter certificate be wholly or only in part,
comprised in the earlier certificate
• Where 2 certificates of title purport to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails. In successive registrations, where more than
1 certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in
land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the
estate or interest; and the person is deemed to hold under the prior
certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or
indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest
certificate issued in respect thereof.
• The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against
the vendee of the owner of the latter certificate.
Note: Registration contemplated in this provision refers to registration
under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as
the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien
upon the land. This rule precisely applies to cases involving conflicting
rights over registered property and those of innocent transferees who
relied on the clean title of the properties. Thus, we held that
registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the
same. (Melencio v. CA)
Rodriguez vs Sioson
FACTS: Municipality of Bataan bought a parcel of land from Neri of 1.7 hectares
LOT 398.
Lot 398 was subdivided into 5 lots. Lots 398 A & B were the only lot remaining
that Neri had absolute title thereto which duplicate title was being retained by
the Municipality pending payment of subdivision expenses
Neri alleged that Mayor suggested that the sale to Thelma for the Mayor to
expropriate it.
Thelma issued a check approximately 1 million — had insufficient funds; agreed
that it be payable in installment, only Php 400k was paid.
Thelma caused annotation of adverse claim when she learned that a terminal
was going to be built and filed an injunction against the mayor alleging
ownership over the land presenting an undated and unsigned deed of sale
2002 — Neri filed affidavit of loss of OCT over lot 398 A & B which caused the
cancellation of adverse claim; reconstitution of the title; sold the subject
property to respondents.
Respondent sought actual possession but was disturbed when Thelma sent
guards which camped and filed forcible entry against Thelma
Thelma learned of the 2nd sale and filed a decree of nullity case and presented
a deed of sale signed Neri & notarized
RTC — favored Thelma
- that the sale was a contract of sale, that is subject of double sale
- registration of respondent is VOID for the sale to them is void for no object
CA — rendered that it was a contract to sell
ISSUE: W/N there was a contract of sale or contract to sell
HELD: Article 1544 on double sale only applies to contract of sale.
RTC — says its a COS because Neri acknowledged the receipt of the Php 400k as
partial payment hence owners of property was already with Thelma
CA — it was a contract to sell for the transfer of the property conditioned on
Thelma’s full payment of the purchase price
SC — CA correctly ruled
Melencio vs CA
Principle: Registration should be made in the proper registry in
order to bind the land. If a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title
is sold, but the sale is registered under Act 3344, and not PD 1529,
the sale is not considered registered and the registration of the
deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.
Note: Act 3344 is the system for registration of unregistered lands.
Facts: The entire property was brought under the operation of the Torrens
System but the title thereto was lost during the Second World War. The
Page 2 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Amodias allegedly conveyed the subject property to respondent AZNAR. This
transaction was registered under Act 3344. Subsequently, the Amodias
conveyed the subject property in favor of Go Kim Chuan. A TCT was issued in
the name of Go Kim Chuan under Act 496. AZNAR filed a case against
petitioners Amodias and Go Kim Chuan for Annulment of Sale and
Cancellation of TCT alleging that the sale to Go Kim Chuan was an invalid
second sale of the subject property which had earlier been sold to it.
Issue: Who between Go Kim Chuan and AZNAR was able to validly register the
property.
Ruling: Since the sale in favor of AZNAR was registered under Act No. 3344 and
not under Act No. 496, the said document is deemed not registered. Rather, it
was the sale in favor of Go Kim Chuan which was registered under Act No. 496.
AZNAR insists that since there was no Torrens title on file in 1964, insofar as the
vendors, AZNAR, and the Register of Deeds are concerned, the subject
property was unregistered at the time. The contention is untenable. The fact
that the certificate of title over the registered land
Antonio vs Santos
Principle: When two certificates of title are issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in
date must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where
more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person
holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person
who relies on a subsequent certificate.
Facts: Antonio filed an application for the registration of two parcels of land,
one of which His application was docketed as LRC No. 142-A. RTC declared
him the true and absolute owner in fee simple of the two parcels of land he
applied for but set aside its decision with respect to the second lot to avoid
duplication of issuance of titles. After investigation, he discovered that the
second lot was already titled in the name of respondents Santos. He argued
that the OCT in respondents' names, insofar as it included the second lot, is,
null and void because it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations
and machinations. On the other hand, respondents averred that OCT No. 108
was duly issued to them by the RD and further alleged that prior to the
issuance of OCT No. 108, they, as registered owners, had always been in
peaceful possession of the property and at no time had Antonio possessed the
property, nor did he ever make any claim against the said property.
Issues: Was the decision in LRC No. 142-A sufficient basis of petitioner's claim of
ownership over the subject property?
Ruling: Petitioner cannot rely on the decision in LRC No. 142- A. Even if a title
had been issued to petitioner based on said decision, his title would be of a
later date than the title of respondents, hence inefficacious and ineffective.
On 12 June 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On 30 June
1995, he sold the same land to Jose. Who has a better right if::
(a) The first sale is registered ahead of the second sale, with knowledge of
the latter. Why?
(b)The second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with knowledge of
the latter. Why?
Answer:
(a)The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first to be registered, even
though the first buyer knew of the second sale. The fact that he knew of
the second sale at the time of his registration does not make him as acting
in bad faith because the sale to him was ahead in time, hence, has a
priority in right. What creates bad faith in the case of double sale of land
is knowledge of a previous sale.
(b)The first buyer is still to be preferred, where the second sale is registered
ahead of the first sale but with knowledge of the latter. This is because the
second buyer, who at the time he registered his sale knew that the
property had already been sold to someone else, acted in bad faith.
C. Buyer in Good Faith
Section 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance,
mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting
registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive
notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate.
No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the
owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases
expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary
instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a
memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new
certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon
all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good
faith.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and
equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to
the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. After the entry of
the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent
registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or
a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
THINGS TO REMEMBER REGARDING SEC. 53
Poblete’s title as collateral in its loan account with Land Bank.
1. Surrender of owner’s duplicate certificate is authority for the RD to
enter registration. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by
the RD unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is presented with
such instrument, except in cases upon order of the court for
cause shown.
acted with haste in granting the mortgage loan and did not ascertain the
- The issuance of a new TCT by the RD to the purchaser, w/o the
presentation of the owner’s duplicate, is unwarranted and
confers no right on the purchaser.
The pari delicto rule provides ―when two parties are equally at fault, the law
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
- In case of refusal or failure to surrender owner’s duplicate
certificate, the party in interest may file a petition in court to
compel surrender of the same to the RD pursuant to Sec. 107.
- Original owner may seek annulment of transfer on the ground of
fraud.
2. Generally, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. But a
forged deed may be the basis of a valid title if the certificate of
title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner
to the name of the forger, and while it remained that way, the land
was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser for value.
REGISTRATION IS CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TO THIRD PERSONS
• The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect
the land insofar as third persons are concerned
• It is the act of registration which creates a constructive notice to the
whole world and binds third persons
• Absent such registration, a conveyance doesn’t affect or bind the land
• Under the rule on notice, there is a conclusive presumption that the
purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the
title
• He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is
presumed to know every fact shown by the record and is presumed
to know every fact which an examination of the record would have
disclosed
• Since it is the act of registration which transfers ownership of the land
sold, it has been held that a subsequent claimant cannot claim a
better right over the land which had been previously registered in the
name of another.
• A notice of lis pendens serves as a warning to a prospective
purchaser or encumbrancer that the particular property is in litigation
and that he should keep his hands off the same, unless he intends
to gamble on the results of the litigation.
BUT A PURCHASER WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT OF HIS VENDOR’S
TITLE CANNOT CLAIM GOOD FAITH
• A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in
good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the
vendor
• His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists or his willful closing
of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in the
vendor’s title, will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it
afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it
appears that he had no such notice of the defect as would have led
to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which
may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation.
A FORGED DEED MAY BE THE BASIS OF A GOOD TITLE IN THE HANDS OF A
BONA FIDE PURCHASER
• A forged deed may be the root of a valid title in the hands of a bona
fide purchaser or mortgagee
• Torrens system permits a forged transfer, when duly entered in the
registry, to become the root of a valid title in a bona fide purchaser
• The law erects a safeguard against a forged transfer being registered
by the requirement that no transfer shall be registered unless the
owner’s certificate is produced along with the instrument of transfer
• Public policy, expediency, and the need for a statute of repose as to
the possession of land, demand such a rule.
• The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon the land
mortgaged must be respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title through fraud.
LBP vs Poblete
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in upholding the finding of the trial court declaring
the TCT No. T-20151 as null and void.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
It is well-entrenched rule, as applied, by the CA, that a forged or fraudulent deed
is a nullity and conveys no title. Moreover, where the deed of sale states that
the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been, the deed is void
ab initio for lack of consideration. Since the deed, is void, the title is also void.
Since the land title has been declared void by final judgment, the Real Estate
Mortgage over it is also void.
It is essential that the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the mortgage;
otherwise, the mortgage is void.  The doctrine ―the mortgagee in good
faith as a rule does not apply to banks which are required to observe a higher
standard of diligence. A bank cannot assume that, simply because the title
offered as security is on its face, free of any encumbrances or lien, it is relieved
of the responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the
properties to be mortgage.
The records do not even show that Land Bank investigated and inspected the
actual occupants. Land Bank merely mentioned Maniego’s loan application
upon his presentation of OCT No. P-12026, which was still under the name of
Poblete. Land Bank even ignored the fact that Kapantay previously used
Furthermore, only one day after Maniego obtained TCT No. P-20151 under his
name, Land Bank and Maniego executed a Credit Line Agreement and Real
Mortgage. It appears that Maniego’s loan was already completely processed
while the collateral was still in the name of Poblete. Where said mortgagee
ownership of the land being mortgaged, it cannot be considered innocent
mortgagee.
leaves them as they are and denies recovery by either one of them. This court
adopt the decisions of RTC and CA that only Maniego is at fault. Finally, on the
Page 3 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
issue of estoppels and laches, such question were not raised before the trial
court. It is settled that an issue which are neither alleged in the complaint nor
raised during the trial cannot be raised for the time on appeal.
The issue on the nullity of Maniego’s title had already been foreclosed when this
Court denied Maniego’s petition for review in the Resolution dated 13 July
2011, which became final and executory on 19 January 2012. It is settled that a
decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and
may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the
court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. This is without
prejudice, however, to the right of Maniego to recover from Poblete what he
paid to Kapantay for the account of Poblete, otherwise there will be unjust
enrichment by Poblete.
Legarda vs CA
Principle: When the subject property is already in the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value, it can no longer be returned to its
original owner.
Facts: Cathay filed a complaint against Legarda alleging that Legarda entered
into a lease agreement with it, through its representative Cabrera, and that
there was a breach of the terms thereof. Pursuant to a court order, the property
of the Legarda was eventually sold to Cabrera at a public auction and
thereafter registered under his name. After learning the unfortunate turn of
events, Legarda sought to annul the judgment at the CA. Howver, Legarda was
declared in default due to negligence of counsel. Later, the SC (Gayanco
decision) ruled in favor of Legarda on account that the negligence of her
counsel affected her right to due process. It ordered Cathay to reconvey the
property to Legarda and to cancel the registration of the said property in the
name of Cathay. However, after this decision, Cathay was not able to return the
property to Legarda because it nor longer possessed nor owned the property
since such has already been subject to a series of transfers to innocent third
parties at the time of promulgation of the said judgment.
Issue: Whether or not the subsequent transfers of the property are valid as the
sucessors in interest were considered as innocent purchasers for value.
Held: Yes, the transfers were valid and the successors of interest of Cabrera are
innocent purchasers of good faith. The successors relied on the clean title of
the subject land that were presented by their predecessors. Since the property
is already in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, it can no longer be
returned to its original owner by Cabrera, much less by Cathay itself.
Gabutan vs Nacalaban
ISSUE: (1) W/N the action for reconveyance is proper
(2) W/N the college is a buyer in good faith
HELD: Gabutan, et al., through the testimonies of Felisia, Crisanta, and Trifonia,
established that Melecia's money was used in buying the property, but its title
was placed in Godofredo's name. She purchased the property because Felisia
wanted to build a pharmacy on it. On one occasion in Melecia's house, and
when the entire family was present, Melecia gave Godofredo the money to
purchase the property.  Melecia entrusted the money to Godofredo because
he was in Cagayan de Oro, and per Melecia's instruction, the deed of sale
covering the property was placed in his name. It was allegedly her practice to
buy properties and place them in her children's name, but it was understood
that she and her children co-own the properties.
Melecia built a residential building on the property, where her daughter Crisanta
and some of her grandchildren resided.  Godofredo also thereafter built a
house on the property. Twice, he also mortgaged the property to secure loans.
Melecia allowed him to do so because she trusted him. After Godofredo's
death, and when Baldomera fell ill, there were family discussions to transfer the
title in Melecia's name so Melecia's children can divide it together with the rest
of Melecia's properties. The plans, however, always fell through.
Article 1448 of the Civil Code provides in part that there is an implied trust when
property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is
paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the
property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. The trust
created here, which is also referred to as a purchase money resulting trust,
occurs when there is (1) an actual payment of money, property or services, or
an equivalent, constituting valuable consideration; (2) and such consideration
must be furnished by the alleged beneficiary of a resulting trust.  These two
elements are present here.
Having established the creation of an implied resulting trust, the action for
reconveyance filed by Gabutan, et al., the heirs of Melecia in whose benefit the
trust was created, is proper. An action for reconveyance is a legal and
equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose land was
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another, to compel the
registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
College is not a buyer in good faith. To prove good faith, a buyer of registered
and titled land need only show that he relied on the face of the title to the
property. He need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is not obliged
to explore beyond the four corners of the title. Such degree of proof of good
faith, however, is sufficient only when the following 
 A property has been identified or set apart from the mass of property of
conditions concur: first, the seller is the registered owner of the land; second,
the latter is in possession thereof; and third, at the time of the sale, the buyer
was not aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or
of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey
title to the property.
Thus, the College, which has the burden to prove the status of being a purchaser
in good faith, is required to prove the  concurrence  of the above conditions.
This  onus probandi  cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the legal
presumption of good faith.We find that the College failed to discharge this
burden. They knew that the heirs of Melecia lived on the property yet did not
conduct a proper inquiry into it. The "honesty of intention" which constitutes
good faith implies a  freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought
to put a person on inquiry.  If the land purchased is in the possession of a
person other than the vendor, the purchaser must be wary and must
investigate the rights of the actual possessor.  Without such inquiry, the
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
purchaser cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over
the property.
Cusi vs Domingo
Principle: A purchaser of property, without taking the ordinary
precautions of honest persons doing business and examining the
records of the proper RD, cannot be in good faith where the title
thereof shows that it was reconstituted or reissued owner’s copy of
certificate of title.
Facts: The disputed property was a vacant unfenced lot covered by a TCT in the
name of respondent Domingo. Representing herself as the owner of the
property, Sy petitioned for the issuance of a new owner’s copy of Domingo’s
TCT, appending to her petition a deed of absolute sale purportedly executed
in her favor by Domingo; and an affidavit of loss whereby she claimed that her
bag containing the owner’s copy of said TCT had been snatched. RTC granted
Sy’s petition and Sy eventually procured a TCT her name. Sy subsequently
subdivided the property into two, and sold each half by way of contract to sell
to Spouses De Vera and to Spouses Cusi. All the while, the transactions
between Sy and the De Veras, and between Sy and the Cusis were unknown to
Domingo, whose TCT remained in her undisturbed possession. Domingo
commenced this action against Sy and the De Veras and the Cusis in the RTC
seeking the annulment or cancellation of titles, injunction and damages.
Issue: Whether the Cusis and De Vera, having relied on a reissued title, are
purchasers for value and good faith.
Held: The petitioners were not innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
The petitioners were shown to have been deficient in their vigilance as buyers
of the property. It was not enough for them to show that the property was
unfenced and vacant nor was it safe for them to simply rely on the face of Sy’s
TCT in view of the fact that they were aware that her TCT was derived from a
duplicate owner’s copy reissued by virtue of the loss of the original duplicate
owner’s copy. That circumstance should have already alerted them to the need
to inquire beyond the face of Sy’s TCT.
This is a case of mirror principle — what you see in the title is what you
get. Do not go beyond the title.
Curtain principle — land registration is binding; once the curtains fall
Saberon vs Ventanilla
Principle: Registration is the operative act that conveys ownership
or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
Registration is constructive notice to third persons.
Facts: The Ventanillas sought the recovery of two parcels of land which the
vendors, MRCI and AUVC, sold to another party. The Ventanillas caused the
attachment of a notice of levy covering the subject property and was
annotated in the entry book of the RD of QC. MRCI dealt the same property to
Marquez, however, the notice of levy was not carried over to Marquez’s title.
Marquez subsequently sold the property to the Saberons. The Saberons filed a
case on one central argument—that they were purchasers in good faith, having
relied on the correctness of the certificates of title covering the lots in question.
Admittedly, the notice of levy covering the subject property was annotated in
the entry book of the RD of QC prior to the issuance of a TCT in the name of
the Saberons.
Issue: Did the notice on levy annotated in the entry book of the RD of QC serve
as constructive notice to the Saberons?
Held: No bad faith can be ascribed to the parties alike. Nevertheless, the equal
footing of the parties necessarily tilts in favor of the superiority of the
Ventanillas' notice of levy. The fact that the notice of levy on attachment was
not annotated on the original title on file in the RD, which resulted in its non-
annotation on the title of Marquez should not prejudice petitioner. As long as
the requisites required by law in order to effect attachment are complied with
and the appropriate fees duly paid, attachment is duly perfected. What
remained to be done was not within the Ventanillas’ power to perform but was
a duty incumbent solely on the RD. Clearly, the Ventanillas’ levy was placed on
record prior to the sale. This shows the superiority and preference in rights of
the Ventanillas over the property as against the Saberons.
D. Real Estate Mortgage
Section 60. Mortgage or lease of registered land. Mortgage and leases shall be
registered in the manner provided in Section 54 of this Decree. The owner of
registered land may mortgage or lease it by executing the deed in a form sufficient
in law. Such deed of mortgage or lease and all instruments which assign, extend,
discharge or otherwise deal with the mortgage or lease shall be registered, and
shall take effect upon the title only from time of registration.
No mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate certificate of title shall hereafter be issued by
the Registers of Deeds, and those issued prior to the effectivity of this Decree are
hereby deemed canceled and the holders thereof shall immediately surrender the
same to the Register of Deeds concerned.
ESSENCE OF MORTGAGE
the debtor-mortgagor as security for the payment of money or the
fulfillment of obligation to answer the amount of indebtedness, in case
of default of payment.
REQUISITES OF MORTGAGE (ART. 2085, NCC)
1. Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;
2. The mortgagor be the absolute owner of the 

thing mortgaged; and
3. That the persons constituting the mortgage have the free disposal
of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally
authorized for the purpose.
HOW FORECLOSED:
1. JUDICIAL Foreclosure — governed by Rule 68 of the Rules of
Court
Page 4 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL — governed by Act 3135, as amended by Act 411
It is established that the title remained to be registered in the name of Bernardo,
THINGS TO REMEMBER REGARDING REM
Where the mortgagor is an impostor who only pretended to be the registered
- Mortgage lien is a right in rem which follows the property;
- A REM is a voluntary transaction, as such, you have to present the
owner’s duplicate of copy for purposes of registration;
name, and the mortgagee cannot rely on such pretense as what appears on
- The REM is the accessory contract; the primary contract is the
contract of loan.
Evelyn failed to provide necessary evidence to support that she is a mortgagee
Home Bankers Savings vs CA
Principle: The one who mortgaged the property must be the
absolute owner of the property. With respect to banks, they have
to go beyond the title and exercise extraordinary diligence.
Facts: Each of private respondents namely, entered into separate contracts to
sell with TransAmerican through the latter's Owner/General Manager, Engr.
Jesus Garcia, involving certain portions of land. On May 30, 1989, Engr. Garcia
and his wife obtained a loan from petitioner Home Bankers without the prior
approval of the HLURB and mortgaged eight lots as collateral. Home Bankers
registered its mortgage on these titles without any other encumbrance or lien
annotated therein. However, five out of these eight titles turned out to be
private respondents' townhouses subject of the contracts to sell with
TransAmerican. Home Bankers eventually foreclosed the mortgage, and a
sheriff’s certificate of sale in its favor was annotated on the titles of the subject
lots.
Issue: Whether the mortgage was valid and enforceable against respondents.
Held: No, the mortagege was null and void. Garcia was not the absolute owner
of the subject parcels. Moeover, Home Bankers cannot be innocent purchasers
because judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of banks to
investigate, examine and assess the real estate offered as security for the
application of a loan. We cannot overemphasize the fact that the Bank cannot
barefacedly argue that simply because the title or titles offered as security were
clean of any encumbrances or lien, that it was thereby relieved of taking any
other step to verify the over-reaching implications should the subdivision be
auctioned on foreclosure.
Definition of Subdivision Project according to Section 2(d) of P.D. No. 957
(d) Subdivision project — Subdivision project shall mean a tract or parcel of land registered under Act
No. 496 which is partitioned primarily for residential purposes into individual lots with or without
improvements thereon, and offered, to the public for sale, in cash or in installment terms. It shall
include all residential, commercial, industrial and recreational areas, as well as open spaces and other
community and public areas in the project.
De La Merced vs GSIS
Facts: The Zulueta spouses mortgaged several lots contained to the GSIS, which
eventually foreclosed on the mortgaged properties. Upon consolidation of
GSISs ownership, TCT in Zuluetas name was cancelled, and TCT was issued in
GSISs name. Upon learning of the foreclosure, petitioners Dela Merced filed a
complaint praying for the nullity of the GSIS foreclosure on the subject
properties on the ground that he, was the owner of these lots at the time of the
foreclosure. Dela Merced caused the annotation of lis pendens on GSISs TCT
in order to protect his interests in the subject properties. GSIS then sold the
properties to Victorino and Dimaguila and the TCT was subsequently
cancelled and new individual titles were issued. Both titles had the notice of lis
pendens which was carried over from the previous TCT.
Issue: Whether a judgment against GSIS is binding to purchasers pendente lite
Victorino and Dimaguila.
Held: When a transferee pendente lite takes property with notice of lis
pendens, such transferee undertakes to respect the outcome of the litigation.
An order to cancel the transferor's title may be enforced against his
transferee, whose title is expressly subject to the outcome of the litigation by
the fact of the annotation of lis pendens. The existence of these entries on
Dimaguila's and Victorino's titles bars any defense of good faith against
petitioners and effectively makes Dimaguila and Victorino mere privies of
GSIS and subject to whatever rights GSIS might have in the subject properties,
which (as it turns out) is none at all. What Dimaguila and Victorino possess are
derivative titles of the GSIS's over the subject parcels, which this Court has
finally adjudicated to be null and void.
Ruiz vs Dimailig
Not a mortgagee in good faith.
Issue: WON EVELYN IS A MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH – NO!
GEN. RULE ON RULE 45: issue of whether a person is a mortgagee in good
faith is not within the ambit of Rule 45 Petition. It is a factual determination,
which is outside the scope of petition for review on certiorari.
EXCEPTION: when there is a different or conflicting factual findings between the
RTC and CA, such as in this case.
GENERAL RULE ON VALIDITY OF MORTGAGE: No valid mortgage will arise
unless the mortgagor has a valid title or ownership over the mortgaged
property.
EXCEPTION: MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH: A mortgagee can invoke that he
or she derived title even if the mortgagor's title on the property is defective, if
he or she acted in good faith.
This doctrine presupposes "that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful owner
of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over
the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he
succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what
appears on the said title."
In short, the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith assumes that the title to the
subject property had already been transferred or registered in the name of the
impostor who thereafter transacts with a mortgagee who acted in good faith.
A mortgagee cannot simply ignore facts that should have put a reasonable
person on guard, and thereafter claim that he or she acted in good faith under
the belief that the mortgagor's title is not defective.
BURDEN OF PROOF: Lies upon the person who claims such status.
IN THIS CASE:
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
the rightful and real owner, and not in the name of the impostor.
owner, and acting on such pretense, mortgaged the property to another, the
mortgagor evidently did not succeed in having the property titled in his or her
the title is not the impostor's name but that of the registered owner.
in good faith and for value because of the following reasons:
• It was established that the Deed of REM was a forged instrument, since
Bernardo could not have executed it because he was abroad at the time of
its execution.
• Title remained to Bernardo and it was not transferred to the impostor’s name.
• Even assuming that the title was transferred to impostor, still Evelyn failed to
take necessary steps to verify the identity of the impostor.
⦿ did not ask for ID and merely relied on the community tax and picture;
⦿ the impostor did not participate in the negotiations, which could have
arouse suspicion in Evelyn’s part
⦿ she failed to verify the title of the impostor over the property by asking the
occupants of the surrounding properties, since she remained in the
vehicle during the ocular inspection
Cesar bought a residential condominium unit from High Rise Co. and paid
the price in full. He moved into the unit, but somehow he was not given
the Condominium Certificate of Title covering the property. Unknown to
him, High Rise Co. subsequently mortgaged the entire condominium
building to Metrobank as security for a loan of P500 million. High Rise
Co. failed to pay the loan and the bank foreclosed the mortgage. At the
foreclosure sale, the bank acquired the building, being the highest bidder.
When Cesar learned about this, he filed an action to annul the foreclosure
sale insofar as his unit was concerned. The bank put up the defense that it
relied on the condominium certificates of title presented by High Rise
Co., which were clean. Hence, it was a mortgagee and buyer in good faith.
Is this defense tenable or not?
Metrobank’s defense is untenable. As a rule, an innocent purchaser for value
acquires a good and clean title to the property. However, it is settled that one
who closes his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on guard is not
an innocent purchaser for value. In the present problem, the bank is
expected as a matter of standard operating procedure, to have conducted an
ocular inspection of the premises before granting any loan. Apparently,
Metrobank did not follow this procedure, otherwise, it should have
discovered that the condominium unit in question was occupied by Cesar
and that fact should have led it to make further inquiry. Under the
circumstances, Metrobank cannot be considered a mortgagee and buyer in
good faith.
E. Sale Involving Real Estate
TO BE ENFORCEABLE:
ART. 1358, NCC xxx [s]ales of real property or of an interest therein are governed by
Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405. xxx
Art. 1403 (2) – xxx In the following cases, an agreement hereafter made shall be
unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof
be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence,
therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary
evidence of its contents xxx
TO BE REGISTRABLE
ART. 1358, NCC - The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contract which have for their object the creation, transmission,
modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property xxx
SEC. 112, P.D. 1529 – Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of
attorney and other voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or
unregistered land, executed in accordance with law in the form of public
instruments shall be registrable: Provided, that, every such instrument shall be
signed by the person or persons executing the same in the presence of at least two
witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon, and shall be acknowledged to be the
free act and edeed of the person or persons executing the same before a notary
public or other public officer authorized by law to take acknowledgment. xxx
TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE
ART. 1357, NCC – If the law requires a document or other special form, the
contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract
has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action
upon the contract.
TYPES OF PRICING AGREEMENT (IN SALES INVOLVING REAL ESTATE)
• Unit Price Contract — purchase price is determined by way of
reference to a stated rate per unit area
• Lump Sum Contract — full purchase price is stated for an
immovable, the area of which may be declared based on an
estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated
Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared,
the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over
the stated area. In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it
is the latter which should prevail. It is well established that the specific
boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement
with respect to the area contained within its boundaries.
The use of “more or less” or similar words in designating quantity
covers only a reasonable excess or deficiency. The words are
intended to cover slight or unimportant inaccuracies in quantity and
ordinarily to be interpreted as taking case of unsubstantial differences
compared to the whole number of items inferred.
Page 5 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Esguerra vs Trinidad
Facts: Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (Esguerra spouses) were the
owners of several parcels of land. Half of which (17,642 square meters) they
sold to their grandchildren, herein petitioners; and a 23,989-square meter
parcel of land of which they also sold to petitioners, and the remaining 500
square meters they sold to their other grandchildren, the brothers Eulalio and
Julian Trinidad (Trinidad brothers).
Also sold to the Trinidad brothers were a 7,048-square meter parcel of land and
a 768-square meter parcel of land. The Esguerra spouses executed the
necessary Deed of Sale in favor of petitioners and Trinidad brothers. Both
documents were executed before a notary public.
Eulalio Trinidad later sold his share of the land to his daughters-respondents
herein, a portion of the land consisting of 1,693 square meters was later
assigned Lot No. 3593 during a cadastral survey conducted in the late 1960s.
Respondents applied for registration of title of Lot No. 3593 and was issued OCT
No. 0-3631. Meanwhile, petitioners sold to respondents' parents Eulalio
Trinidad and Damiana Rodeadilla (Trinidad spouses) a portion of about 5,000
square meters of the 23,489-square meter of land which theypreviously
acquired from the Esguerra spouses.
During the same cadastral survey conducted in the late 1960s, it was discovered
that the about 5,000-square meter portion of petitioners' parcel of land sold to
the Trinidadspouses which was assigned Lot No. 3591 actually measured 6,268
square meters.
Respondents applied for registration of title of Lot No. 3591 and was issued OCT
No. 0-6498.
Petitioners, alleging that upon verification with the LRA they discovered the
issuance of the above-stated two OCTs, filed on August 29, 1994 before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan two separate complaints for
their nullification on the ground that they were procured through fraud or
misrepresentation.
Issues: Whether or not the provisions of Article 1542 of the Civil Code were
properly applied;
Ruling: Yes, the provisions of Article 1542 of the New Civil Code were properly
applied. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a
certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than
that stated in the contract. The lower courts correctly characterized the sale of
Lot No. 3591 as one involving a lump sum contract. The Bilihan ng Lupa shows
that the parties agreed on the purchase price of P1,000.00 on a
predetermined, albeit unsurveyed, area of 5,000 square meters and not on a
particular rate per unit area. As noted by the Court of Appeals, the identity of
the realty was sufficiently described.
Under Article 1542, what is controlling is the entire land included within the
boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or smaller
than that recited in the deed. Though measured as 5,000 square meters, more
or less, such measurement is only an approximation, and not an exact
measurement. Moreover, we take note of the fact that the said deed of sale
mentioned the boundaries covering the whole area of 33,489 square meters,
including the "bahaging palayan." Had appellants intended to sell only a
portion of the "bahaging palayan," they could have stated the specific area in
the deed of sale and not the entire "bahaging palayan".
Atty G’s comments: Lump sum contract rule is that it should be the
boundaries that should be controlling and not the area stated. How
did the document describe as to the boundary? The instrument stated
the “bahaging palayan”, although it was measured as 5000 sq. meters
more or less. It was considered by SC as lump sum contract as part of
the sale because of the description “bahaging palayan”. There was an
increase by 1/4th of a fraction in the area contemplated in the deed of
sale and it cannot be considered as unconscionable excess. So the
excess 1,268 sq. meters is deemed part of the sale.
4. Petitioner avers that she and her husband were not aware of the mortgage
Del Prado vs Caballero
Facts: Spouses Antonio L. Caballero and Leonarda B. Caballero obtained a
favorable judgment over several parcels of land situated in Guba, Cebu City,
one of which was Cadastral Lot No.11909, the subject of this controversy.
Consequently, on May 25,1987, the same court, ordered the National Land
Titles and Deeds Registration Administration to issue the decree of registration
and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor of the Caballeros. Therein, the
technical description of Lot No. 11909 states that said lot measures about
14,457 square meters, more or less.
On June 11, 1990, respondents sold to petitioner, Carmen del Prado, Lot No.
11909 on the basis of the tax declaration covering the property. On March 20,
1991, petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for
Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529" in order that
a certificate of title be issued in her name, covering the whole Lot No. 11909. In
the petition, petitioner alleged that the tenor of the instrument of sale
indicated that the sale was for a lump sum or cuerpocierto, in which case, the
vendor was bound to deliver all that was included within said boundaries even
when it exceeded the area specified in the contract.
Respondents opposed, on the main ground that only 4,000 sqm of Lot No.
11909 was sold to petitioner. They claimed that the sale was not for a lump
sum. They moved for the outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of
prescription and lack of jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not the sale of the land was for a lump sum or not.
Ruling: Sale is for a lump sum.
The use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a
reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the
description "more or less" with reference to its area does not thereby ipso
facto take all risk of quantity in the land. Numerical data are not of course the
sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or deficiency in area. Courts
must consider a host of other factors.
In the instant case, the deed of sale is not one of a unit price contract. The parties
agreed on the purchase price of P40,000.00 for a predetermined area of 4,000
sq m, more or less, bounded on the North by Lot No. 11903, on the East by Lot
No. 11908, on the South by Lot Nos. 11858 & 11912, and on the West by Lot
No. 11910. In a contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
stated in the contract must control over any other statement, with respect to
the area contained within its boundaries.
It is to be noted that the records reveal that when the parties made an ocular
inspection, petitioner specifically pointed to that portion of the lot, which she
preferred to purchase, since there were mango trees planted and a deep well
thereon. After the sale, respondents delivered and segregated the area of
4,000 sq m in favor of petitioner by fencing off the area of 10,475 sq m
belonging to them.
Clearly, the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference
in quantity. The difference in the area is obviously sizeable and too substantial
to be overlooked. It is not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be
deemed included in the deed of sale.
Atty G’s comments: This is between the area stated in the contract
versus the boundary. The 10,000 square meter difference compared to
the 4000 sq m is substantial to be considered in the” more or
less”phrase. Although the instrument specifically provides the lot
numbers, when they checked the lot numbers they cannot find lot
11919 anymore, the SC cannot anymore tell the difference of the
specific lot numbers so the SC went to the ocular inspection providing
the entire form.
Agatep vs Rodriguez
ISSUE: WON Reconveyance should be granted
HELD: NO. Reconveyance should not be granted. The Court finds no error in
the determination by the trial and appellate courts of the question of whether
or not PNB was a mortgagee, buyer and, later on, seller in good faith as this
would bear upon the ultimate issue of whether petitioner is entitled to
reconveyance.
1. In any case, the Court finds no error in the findings of both the RTC and
the CA that PNB is indeed an innocent mortgagee for value. Then the
lots were mortgaged to PNB by Lim, the titles thereto were in the latter's
name, and they showed neither vice nor infirmity. In accepting the
mortgage, PNB was not required to make any further investigation of
the titles to the properties being given as security, and could rely
entirely on what was stated in the aforesaid title.
2. Petitioner also contends that PNB did not acquire ownership over the
disputed lot because the said property was not delivered to it. Petitioner
asserts that the execution of a public document does not constitute
sufficient delivery to PNB, considering that the subject property is in the
adverse possession, under claim of ownership, of petitioner.
The Court finds petitioner's arguments untenable. The Court's ruling in
Manuel R. Dulay Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals is instructive, to wit:
Paragraph 1, Article 1498 of the New Civil Code provides that the mere
execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to the
delivery of the property. Therefore, prior physical delivery or possession is
not legally required since the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed
equivalent to delivery.
Thus, the execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of PNB, after the
expiration of the redemption period, is deemed equivalent to
delivery.
3. It bears to reiterate the undisputed fact, in the instant case, that Lim
mortgaged the subject property to PNB prior to selling the same to
petitioner. Settled is the rule that a mortgage is an accessory contract
intended to secure the performance of the principal obligation.
It adheres to the property regardless of who its owner may
subsequently be. Thus, all subsequent purchasers must respect the
mortgage whether the transfer to them be with or without the consent of
the mortgagee, for such mortgage until discharged follows the property.
contract which was executed between PNB and Lim prior to the sale of the
subject property by the latter to her husband.
The fact remains, however, that the mortgage was registered and
annotated on the certificate of title covering the subject property. It is
settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole
world.
Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined
every instrument of record affecting the title. In the present case, since
the mortgage contract was registered, petitioner may not claim lack
of knowledge thereof as a valid defense. The subsequent sale of the
property to petitioner's husband cannot defeat the rights of PNB as the
mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the auction sale whose
rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.
5. Lastly, an action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property,
wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. From the
foregoing discussions, the Court finds no sufficient reason to depart from
the findings of the RTC and the CA that there was no wrongful registration
of the property.
F. Caveat Emptor Principle
The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the
supposed title of the vendor and one who buys without checking the
vendor’s title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
HOW TO CONDUCT DUE DILIGENCE VERIFICATION OF TITLE:
1. Verify the origin, history, authenticity and validity of the title with the
Register of Deeds and Land Registration Authority
2. Engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer
to verify the boundary, metes and bounds of the lot subject of
said title based on the technical description in the said title and
the approved survey plan in the Land Management Bureau
3. Conduct an actual ocular inspection
4. Inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with
respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question
Page 6 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
5. Put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased or
encumbered
a portion of it but the entire land.
6. Undertake such other measures to make the general public aware
that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease or encumbrance
by the parties (Domingo Realty Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
1. Conduct a history of the tax declaration which is available in the
• MIRROR PRINCIPLE: Where there is nothing on the certificate of title
to indicate cloud or vice in ownership or encumbrance, the
purchaser is not required to explore further than the Torrens title.
estate tax, there should be a history and it shall also be consistent.
Sy vs Capistrano
Doctrine: A person who deals with registered land through
someone who is not the registered owner is expected to look
beyond the certificate of title and examine all the factual
circumstances thereof in order to determine if the vendor has the
capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He has the duty to
ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing and
the latter's legal authority to convey.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners and the Jamilar spouses are innocent
purchasers for value
Ruling: No, they are not innocent purchasers for value. In finding that the Jamilar
spouses were not innocent purchasers for value of the subject property, the CA
properly held that they should have known that the signatures of Scott and
Capistrano were forgeries due to the patent variance of the signatures in the
two deeds of sale shown to them by Scott, when Scott presented to them the
deeds of sale, one allegedly executed by Capistrano in her favor covering his
property; and the other allegedly executed by Scott in favor of Capistrano over
her property, the P40,000.00 consideration for which ostensibly constituted
her initial and partial payment for the sale of Capistrano’s property to her.
The CA also correctly found the Gilturas not innocent purchasers for value,
because they failed to check the veracity of the allegation of Jamilar that he
acquired the property from Capistrano.
In ruling that Sy was not an innocent purchaser for value, we share the
observation of the appellate court that Sy knew that the title to the property
was still in the name of Capistrano, but failed to verify the claim of the Jamilar
spouses regarding the transfer of ownership of the property by asking for the
copies of the deeds of absolute sale between Capistrano and Scott, and
between Scott and Jamilar. Sy should have likewise inquired why the Gilturas
had to affix their conformity to the contract to sell by asking for a copy of the
deed of sale between the Jamilars and the Gilturas. Had Sy done so, he would
have learned that the Jamilars claimed that they purchased the property from
Capistrano and not from Scott.
Notable likewise is that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496 in the
name of Capistrano had always been in his possession since he gave Scott
only a photocopy thereof pursuant to the latter’s authority to look for a buyer
of the property. On the other hand, the Jamilars were able to acquire a new
owner’s duplicate copy thereof by filing an affidavit of loss and a petition for
the issuance of another owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496. The
minimum requirement of a good faith buyer is that the vendee of the real
property should at least see the owner’s duplicate copy of the title. A person
who deals with registered land through someone who is not the registered
owner is expected to look beyond the certificate of title and examine all the
factual circumstances thereof in order to determine if the vendor has the
capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He has the duty to ascertain the
identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter’s legal authority
to convey.
Atty. G’s Comments: This is one instance where you look beyond the
certificate of title because its represented by someone else and not
the registered owner. What kind of title was presented? Just a
photocopy. The minimum requirement of good faith according to SC,
the vendee should at least have an owner’s duplicate of the title and
not a mere photocopy.
the property, Dehlma went to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet’s title. She
Vendee must at least SEE the owner’s duplicate copy, so you must do further inquiry. The price was low.
Domingo Realty vs CA
One who deals with property registered under the Torrens system
need not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He
is charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are
annotated on the title.
Issues: Whether or not the adjudged property should be adjudicated to Acero
Ruling: No, it should not the adjudged to Acero. The court does not have the
power to make or alter contracts in order to save him from the adverse
stipulations in the Compromise Agreement.
Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a contract
involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably
prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and
the accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title.
It is advisable that such parties:
(1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of
the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority;
(2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify
the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on
the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in
the Land Management Bureau;
(3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot;
(4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the
true and legal ownership of the lot in question;
(5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and
(6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said
lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.
Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor
David Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be
owned by another.
Atty G’s comments: There were two verification survey conducted,
which of the two was considered by SC as the more reliable one? The
determination by the Bureau of Lands because it was a finding of an
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
administrative agency. It found out that they weren’t only encroaching
The SC suggested some guidelines how to conduct due diligence. And
In addition to those guidelines, it is also very important for you to:
Assessor’s office. Thats one way of determining whether the
property is valid or not.
2. Its useful to verify to the local treasurer’s office the payment of real
Because tax declarations are secondary source to prove
ownership.
Locsin vs Hizon
NO, Court ruled that the title of Bolos, and all others descending from it are null
and void. Respondents should surrender the property to petitioner.
Court in this case said that an innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the
property of another without notice that some other person has a right to or
interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or
before receiving any notice of another person’s claim. As such, a defective title
may be a source of a completely legal and valid title, provided that innocent
purchasers in good faith jud.
Complimenting this is the doctrine that every person dealing with registered
land may safely rely on the correctness of the title and is not obliged to go
beyond it.
In Domingo Realty v. CA, the Court emphasized the need for prospective parties
to a contract involving titled lands to exercise the diligence of a reasonably
prudent person in ensuring the legality of the title, and the accuracy of it, by
undertaking precautionary measures such as verifying with the Reg. of Deeds
and LRA, engaging the services of a geodetic engineer, conducting ocular
inspection, inquiring from the adjoining lot owners, putting up signs that said
lot is to be purchased, and undertaking measure to make the public aware
thereof.
In the case at bar, Bolos’ certificate was concededly free from liens. However, si
Carlos and Sps. Guevara wala sila ni perform sa necessary steps to make sure
nga legal and valid jud ang title.
Carlos is not an innocent purchaser for value.
The Court is of the view that Bernardo negotiated with Bolos as an agent. This is
bolstered by the fact that he was the one who arranged for the sale and
eventual registration. Consistent with the rule that the principal is chargeable
and bound by the knowledge of, or notice to, his agent received in that
capacity, any information available and known to Bernardo is deemed similarly
available to Carlos, including the fact that Bernardo knew Bolos never acquired
possession over the lot.
Having knowledge of the foregoing facts, Bernardo and Carlos should have
investigated the reason behind the arrangement. They should have pressed to
inquire the status of the property to avoid litigation. Instead, they took
inconsistent positions when they argued for the validity of the transfer.
The Sps. Guevara are not innocent purchasers for value.
As regards the transfer of the property from Carlos to Sps. Guevara, the
existence is highly suspicious. There is no evidence to support that the sale was
a bona fide transaction. What they offered instead were self-serving
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence.
Furthermore, the transfer of the property was only effective 15 days after Locsin
demanded surrender of the property from Carlos.
RTC — favored Hizon. No forgery and innocent purchasers in good faith
CA — there was forgery but apply mirror principle
SC said if there is anything that excites or arouses suspicion, the buyer must go beyond the title
Juliet offered to sell her house and lot to Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase
discovered that while the property was registered in Juliet’s name under the
Land Registration Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1529, it was mortgaged to
Elaine to secure a debt of P=80,000.00. Wanting to buy the property, Dehlma
told Juliet to redeem the property from Elaine, and gave her an advance
payment to be used for purposes of releasing the mortgage on the property.
When the mortgage was released, Juliet executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
over the property which was duly registered with the Registry of Deeds, and
a new TCT was issued in Dehlma’s name. Dehlma immediately took
possession over the house and lot and the movables therein. Thereafter,
Dehlma went to the Assessor’s Office to get a new tax declaration under her
name. She was surprised to find out that the property was already declared
for tax purposes in the name of XYZ Bank which had foreclosed the
mortgage on the property before it was sold to her. XYZ Bank was also the
purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the property. At that time, the property
was still unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the Sheriff ’s Deed of
Conveyance in the day book of the Register of Deeds under Act 3344 and
obtained a tax declaration in its name.
Was Dehlma a purchaser in good faith?
Yes, Dehlma is a purchaser in good faith. Before Dehlma brought the property,
she went to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliet’s title. When she discovered
that the property was mortgaged to Elaine, she gave an advance payment so
that Juliet could release the mortgage. It was only after the mortgage was
released and free from the claims of other persons that Dehlma bought the
property. Thus, she is a purchaser in good faith. (Mathay vs. C.A., G.R. No.
115788)
Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank has a better right to the house and
lot?
Between Dehlma and XYZ Bank, Dehlma has a better right to the house and
lot. After the release of the mortgage, the Deed of Absolute Sale was
registered and a new title was issued in Dehlma’s name. Act 3344 is
applicable exclusively to instruments resulting from agreement of parties
thereto and does not apply to deeds of a sheriff conveying to a purchaser
unregistered lands sold to him under execution. (Williams vs. Suner, 49 Phil
534)
Page 7 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS attorney’s fees consists of a share in the property recovered by the
client, such interest may be the basis of an adverse claim.

A. Attachments (Sec. 69)

Section 69. Attachments — An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order or process LEGAL REQUISITES OF AN ADVERSE CLAIM

issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve any lien, status, right, or 1. There must be a claim on the land

attachment upon registered land, shall be filed and registered in the Registry of 2. Claim must be adverse to the registered owner

Deeds for the province or the city in which the land lies, and, in addition to the
particulars required in such papers for registration, shall contain a reference to the
number of the certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners
thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or lien is not claimed on all the
land in any certificate of title a description sufficiently accurate for identification of
the land or interest intended to be affected. A restraining order, injunction or
mandamus issued by the court shall be entered and registered on the certificate of
3. Claim must have a reason subsequent to the original registration —
meaning if the basis of the adverse claim happened BEFORE the
title was issued this is no longer a valid case for adverse claim. It
should be subsequent because registration is proceeding in rem so
if you have any objection by that time they should have raised it
during the application for registration

title affected, free of charge. 4. No other remedy is provided for under the property registration
decree to register the interest or the right of the party

❖ Attachment — is the legal process of seizing another’s property in

accordance with a writ or judicial order for the purpose of securing REGISTRATION COURT MAY DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF ADVERSE CLAIM

satisfaction of a judgement yet to be rendered.

An adverse claim may be cancelled only after the claim is adjudged
invalid and unmeritorious by the court while passing upon a case
NATURE OF ATTACHMENT
where the land involved is subject of the interest or right being
secured by the adverse claim.

• Legal process of seizing another’s property in accordance with a writ

or judicial order for the purpose of securing satisfaction of a
judgment yet to be rendered
ADVERSE CLAIM NOT IPSO JURE CANCELLED AFTER 30 DAYS; HEARING
• Writ of attachment is used primarily to seize the debtor’s property to NECESSARY.

seize the debtor’s property in order to secure the debt or claim of RD cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse claim. There must be a court
the creditor in the event that a judgment is rendered
hearing for the purpose. The reason for this is to afford the adverse
• Jurisprudence: a party who delivers a notice of attachment to the RD claimant an opportunity to be heard, providing a venue where the
and pays the corresponding fees has a right to presume that the propriety of his claimed interest can be established or revoked, all for
official would perform his duty properly
the purpose of determining at least the existence of any encumbrance
• In involuntary registration, entry thereof in the day book is sufficient on the title arising from such adverse claim.

notice to all persons of such adverse claim. The notice of course has
to be annotated at the back of the corresponding original certificate
of title, but this is an official duty of the RD which may be presumed
to have been regularly performed
Cancellation of an adverse claim is still necessary even after the
• DBP v. Acting RD: current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone
produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered
is a voluntary or involuntary one, so long as the registrant has
complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and
annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty
incumbent solely on the RD
Ruling: Yes.
• Section 69 states that an attachment or any writ, order or process
intended to create or preserve any lien upon registered land shall be
filed and registered in the RD and shall contain a reference to the
number of the certificate of title to be affected, the registered owner
thereof and a description of the land or interest therein.
cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a
B. Adverse Claims (Sec. 70)
Section 70. Adverse Claim — Whoever claims any part or interest in registered
land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original
registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the
same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest,
and how or under who acquired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title
of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the
land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s
residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement
shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The
adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of
registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be
cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest:
Provided, however, That after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the
same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in
the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the
adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the
validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgement as may be just and
equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof
shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall
find that the adverse claim this registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in
an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in
its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse
claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
PURPOSE
period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of
• Purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the title of the disputed
land is to apprise third persons that there is a controversy over the
ownership of the land and to preserve and protect the right of the
adverse claimant during the pendency of the controversy
Section 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
• Notice to third persons that any transaction regarding the disputed
land is subject to the outcome of the dispute
Atty G’s comments: An adverse claim not ipso facto cancelled after 30
FORMAL REQUISITES OF AN ADVERSE CLAIM
1. The adverse claimant must state the following in writing
of thirty days to render it ineffective.
Sajonas vs CA
lapse of thirty days to render it ineffective.
Issues: Was the adverse claim inscribed in the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
N-109417 still in force when private respondent caused the notice of levy on
execution to be registered and annotated in the said title, considering that
more than thirty days had already lapsed since it was annotated?
The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the adverse claim
is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will remain
annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if the adverse
claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its
useless ceremony.
The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the validity of the adverse
claim is to be threshed out is to afford the adverse claimant an opportunity to
be heard, providing a venue where the propriety of his claimed interest can be
established or revoked, all for the purpose of determining at last the existence
of any encumbrance on the title arising from such adverse claim.
1. Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest
of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such
interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or
Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a
warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is
claiming an interest on the same or a better right than that of the
registered owner thereof. 

Such notice is registered by filing a sworn statement with the Register of
Deeds of the province where the property is located, setting forth the basis
of the claimed right together with other dates pertinent thereto. The
registration of an adverse claim is expressly recognized under Section 70 of
P.D. No. 1529.
2. While it is the act of registration which is the operative act which conveys or
affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned, it is likewise true, that
the subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of Title cannot
prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the
certificate of title previous to the sale.
3. The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the adverse
claim is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription
will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if
the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said
cancellation would be a useless ceremony.
4. Notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on the
certificate of title in favor of the petitioners. This can be deduced from
days; hearing necessary. Register of deeds cannot unilaterally cancel
the adverse claim. There must be a court hearing for the purpose.
Cancellation of an adverse claim is still necessary even after the lapse

a) his alleged right or interest

The 30 days rule is only for filing a complaint with the office of the
b) how and under whom such alleged right or interest is acquired Register of Deeds NOT before the regular courts. It is supposed to be
c) the description of the land in which the right or interest is just a preliminary step before you file a regular complaint in court. The
claimed; and
reason behind this is that under Sec 110 of Act 496 which is the
d) the number of certificate of title
provision of adverse claim, there is no limit as to the effectivity of an
2. The statement must be signed and sworn to before a notary public adverse claim. So in PD 1529 the framers sought to it that there
or other officer authorized to administer oath; and
should be a limits since it has been abused, because by mere affidavit
you can already question and burden the registered owner. PD1529
3. The claimant should state his residence or the place to which all wanted to put a stop to this and gave a limit of only 30 days but only
notices may be served upon him *Non-compliance with the above for the filing in the ROD and not in the regular court.

requisites renders the adverse claim non-registrable and ineffective

An attorney’s lien may be annotated on the delinquent client’s title only

after it has become judicially settled and the execution thereof
ordered by the court. Where the interest of a lawyer by way of

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. Page 8 of 30

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Rodriguez vs CA
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designated to
protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where
the registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided
by the Land Registration Act, and such serves as a notice and
warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is
claiming an interest on the same or better right than the registered
owner thereof.
Issue: Whether respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim on the property should
prevail over the levy on execution issued by another court in satisfaction of a
judgment against respondents Calingo?
Ruling: No. In the case at bar, the reason given for the non-registration of the
deed of sale with assumption of mortgage was that the owner’s duplicate copy
of the certificate of title was in the possession of HMDF. It was not shown,
however, that either respondents Barrameda or respondents Calingo exerted
any effort to retrieve the owner’s duplicate copy from the HMDF for the
purpose of registering the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage.
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest
of a person over a piece of property where the registration of such interest
or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real
property. Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is clear:
Sec. 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original
registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for
registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth his alleged
right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number
of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered
owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by respondents
Calingo and Barrameda is a registrable instrument. In order to bind third
parties, it must be registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was
not shown in this case that there was justifiable reason why the deed could not
be registered. Hence, the remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for
registration.
Atty G’s comments: The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure
designated to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real
property where the registration of such interest or right is not
otherwise provided by the Land Registration Act, and such serves as
a notice and warning to third parties dealing with said property that
someone is claiming an interest on the same or better right than the
registered owner thereof. In case at bar, the deed of sale with
assumption of mortgage was a registrable instrument and therefore
should have been registered to bind third parties like herein
petitioners.
Golden Haven Memorial Park vs Filinvest
Issue: Which of the two real estate developers acted in good faith?
Ruling: GHM was in good faith.
The annotation of an adverse claim is intended to protect the claimant's
interest in the property. The notice is a warning to third parties dealing
with the property that someone claims an interest in it or asserts a better
right than the registered owner. Such notice constitutes, by operation of
law, notice to the whole world.
Here, although the notice of adverse claim pertained to only one lot and Filinvest
wanted to acquire interest in some other lots under the same title, the notice
served as warning to it that one of the owners was engaged in double selling.
Filinvest was on notice that GHM had annotated on the mother title, as early as
August 4, 1989 a notice of adverse claim covering Lot 6. This notwithstanding,
Filinvest still proceeded to buy Lots 1, 2, 6, and 12. The notice is a warning to
third parties dealing with the property that someone claims an interest in it or
asserts a better right than the registered owner. Such notice constitutes, by
operation of law, notice to the whole world. Here, although the notice of
adverse claim pertained to only one lot and Filinvest wanted to acquire interest
in some other lots under the same title, the notice served as warning to it that
one of the owners was engaged in double selling.
One who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry
and investigation cannot claim that he has acquired title to the property in
good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest in it.
The Court upholds the validity of the contracts between GHM and its sellers. As
the trial court aptly observed, GHM entered into valid contracts with its sellers
but the latter simply and knowingly refused without just cause to honor their
obligations. The sellers apparently had a sudden change of heart when they
found out that Filinvest was willing to pay more. \
Atty G’s comments: take note in this case, in RTC it said that the
adverse claim was actually confined to one lot it didn’t cover the entire
lot subject of the transaction between the sellers and Filinvest but CA
reversed RTC ruling and said when you buy a property you should not
limit yourself only to the four corners of the title. CA may have
stretched the application of the adverse claim. Atty G personally
doesn’t agree with this case ruling.
TAX DELINQUENCY SALE REQUIRES PERSONAL NOTICE TO TAXPAYER
Martinez vs Garcia
Issue: Whether or not the adverse claim annotated by Garcia prior to the
inscription of the levy by Petitioners should prevail.
Ruling: Petition was dismissed.
The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the
interest of a person over a piece of real property, where the registration
of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land
Registration Act or Act No. 496 (now P.D. No. 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with said
property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right
than that of the registered owner thereof.
The levy does not make the judgment creditor the owner of the property levied
upon. He merely obtains a lien. Such levy on execution is subject and
subordinate to all valid claims and liens existing against the property at the
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
time the execution lien attached, such as real estate mortgages. Respondent
Garcia's adverse claim, which refers to the deed of mortgage executed by
respondent Brua in his favor, was annotated on respondent Brua's title
registered with the Registry of Deeds of Rizal on June 23, 1980. The adverse
claim was already existing when the Notice of Levy on Execution, as well as the
Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner, was inscribed and, hence, the adverse
claim is sufficient to constitute constructive notice to petitioner regarding the
subject property. When petitioner registered her Notice of Levy on Execution
on the title of the subject property, she was charged with the knowledge that
the subject property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered
by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof.
Atty G’s comments: This is not a very important case haha
Sec. 70 of P.D. 1529, concerning adverse claims on registered land, provides
a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date
of its registration. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a
contract to sell was registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the
BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the 30-day period, a
notice of levy on execution in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was
also registered to enforce a final judgment for money against the
registered owner. Then, on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal
cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-
owner the agreed purchase price in full and registers the corresponding
deed of sale. Because the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to
the new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the
JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but the latter claims
that his lien is superior because it was annotated after the adverse claim of
the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper?
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim duly annotated at the back of the
title under Sec. 70 of P.D. 1529 is good only for 30 days, cancellation thereof
is still necessary to render it ineffective. Otherwise, the inscription thereon
will remain annotated as a lien on the property. While the life of the adverse
claim is 30 days under P.D. 1529, it continues to be effective until it is
cancelled by formal petition filed with the court.
The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified under Section 108 of P.D.
1529, considering that the levy on execution cannot be enforced against the
buyer whose adverse claim against the registered owner was recorded ahead
of the notice of levy on execution.
C. Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land
Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land and Application of New
Certificate Upon Expiration of Redemption Period (Sec. 74-75)
Sec. 74. Enforcement of liens on registered land. — Whenever registered land
is sold on execution, or taken or sold for taxes or for any assessment or to enforce a
lien of any character, or for any costs and charges incident to such liens, any
execution or copy of execution, any officer’s return, or any deed, demand, certificate,
or affidavit, or any other instruments made in the course of the proceedings to
enforce such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall be filled with the
Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies and registered in the
registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper certificates of title in
each case as lien or encumbrance.
Sec. 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption
period — Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption
after registered land has been sold on execution taken or sold for the enforcement
of a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or
anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate
of title to him. Before the entry of anew certificate of title, the registered owner may
pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annual such proceedings.
REGISTRATION OF DEEDS RELATING TO EXECUTION AND TAX DELINQUENCY
SALES
Whenever registered land is sold on execution, or taken or sold for
taxes or for assessment or to enforce a lien of any character, or for
any costs and charges incident to such liens, any execution or copy of
execution, any officer’s return, or any deed, demand, certificate, or
affidavit, or other instrument made in the course of such proceedings
to enforce such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall be filed
with the RD of the province or city where the land lies and registered
in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper
certificate of title in case as lien or encumbrance
The following incidents on registered land in the nature of involuntary
dealings shall be registered to be effective—
• Continuance, dissolution or discharge of attachments
• Orders and decisions of the court
• Deed of sale, officer’s return, order of execution, and other
instruments
Notice of sale to the delinquent land owners and to the public in general
is essential and indispensable requirement of law, the non-fulfillment
of which, vitiates the sale
ENTRY OF NEW CERTIFICATE
In case registered land which has been sold on execution for the
enforcement of any lien, except a mortgage lien, has not been
redeemed for a period allowed by law, the purchaser at such sale or
anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the issuance of a
new certificate of title to him.
But before the entry of such new certificate, the registered owner may
pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul the
proceedings.
Page 9 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Padilla, Jr. vs Phil. Producer’s Cooperative
G.R. No. 141256, July 2005
Issue:
(1) whether or not respondent's right to have new titles issued in itsname is now
barred by prescription
(2) whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling
petitioner's certificates of title and new ones issued in its name.
Held: Petitioner is correct in assailing as improper respondent's filing of a mere
motion for the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a
result of petitioner's refusal to surrender his owner's duplicate TCTs.
The proper remedy is a separate cadastral action initiated via petition.
The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely
move, for the issuance of new titles.
The reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a
registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent
or mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment
obligation.
The petition can be filed in the same case to prevent multiplicity of suits.
ATTY G’s comments:
duplicates of the certificates of title despite the final and executory judgment
Steps leading to issuance of title pursuant to levy on execution:
against him — respondent, on the other hand, cannot simply disregard proper
1. Levy on execution (issued by court; annotated)
procedure for the issuance to it of new certificates of title. There was a law on
2. Certificate of sale (result of auction sale; right of highest bidder is still
inchoate because there is right of redemption available to judgment
debtor to redeem property within 12 months; take note that at this
stage, ROD is already mandated to notify the registered owner to
surrender the duplicate’s copy for the purpose of registration; even
if ROD fails to comply with required notification, the validity of the
involuntary transaction presented for registration is valid because
entry in the primary entry book is sufficient to comply with the
requirement)
3. Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale (after lapse of redemption period; highest
bidder is considered to have absolute title over property)
other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use
4. File petition in court for issuance of new certificate of title (pursuant
to Sec 75 of PD 1529)
proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgement, shall have any effect upon
Reyes vs Tang Soat Ing
ISSUE
1. WON the execution sale of the subject property is void – Valid!
2. Proceeding from the validity of the execution sale and the consolidation of
Reyes’ ownership over the subject property, whether Sec. 107 of PD 1529
contemplates the filing of a separate cadastral case before the RTC acting
as a land registration court – Yes!
HELD: Petition is partially impressed with merit.
Contrary to the CA's holding, the burden of evidence to prove lack of
compliance with Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court rests on the party
claiming lack thereof i.e., respondents. Respondents made no attempt to meet
this burden of evidence, simply maintaining lack of notice of the entire
proceedings before the trial court. We cannot subscribe to respondents'
belated posturing. The disputable presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed was not overcome by respondents. The documents on
record lead us to the inevitable conclusion that respondents had constructive,
if not actual, notice of the execution proceedings from the issuance of the Writ
of Execution, the levy on the subject property, its subjection to execution sale,
up to and until the proceedings in the RTC relating to the issuance of a new
certificate of title over the subject property.
In this case, the purpose of giving notice through posting and publication under
Section 15 (c) of the same rule — to let the public know of the sale to the end
that the best price or a better bid may be made possible to minimize prejudice
to the judgment debtor — was realized.
Another thing militates against respondents' claim of lack of knowledge of the
encumbrance on their property — the separate registrations of: (1) the Notice
of Levy; (2) the Certificate of Sale. In this jurisdiction, we adhere to the doctrine
that registration in a public registry works as constructive notice to the whole
world
At the very least, respondents' attack on the validity of the execution
proceedings, culminating in the execution sale of the subject property, is
barred by laches.
The records bear out that Sheriff Legaspi served a copy of the Writ of Execution
on respondents, and followed up thereon. With no action forthcoming from
respondents, who are ostensibly evading payment of their judgment debt, the
Sheriff correctly levied on the subject property. For more than 5 years from the
execution sale thereof, with respondents not exercising their right of
redemption, up to the filing of a Motion, and subsequently, a Petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title over the property in Reyes' name,
respondents made no effort to settle their judgment debt, much less, to
ascertain the status of the execution proceedings against them and the levy
on, and consequent sale of, their property. Truly significant is the fact that 8
years had lapsed, from the time respondents received a copy of the Writ of
Execution in October 1998 until they, through their new counsel, filed the
Opposition and Motion in May 2006, before respondents were prodded into
action.
The facts of this case demonstrate respondents' stubborn refusal to comply with
the judgment against them by claiming lack of notice of the execution
proceedings. We reiterate that this claim is belied by the evidence on record
and cannot invalidate the enforcement and execution of a final and executory
judgment of this Court. On the whole, respondents' silence and inaction for 8
years from the time the subject property was validly levied upon by the RTC,
bars them from claiming invalidity of the execution proceedings.
Notwithstanding the validity of the execution sale and Reyes' consolidation of
ownership over the subject property upon the lapse of the redemption period,
we hold that Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 contemplates the
filing of a separate and original action before the RTC, acting as a land
registration court.
That a succeeding registration of property in another's name, after its original
registration, contemplates a separate original action is reinforced by our ruling
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
in Padilla v. Philippine Producers' Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc.:"In
implementing the involuntary transfer of title of real property levied and sold on
execution, is it enough for the executing party to file a motion with the court
which rendered judgment, or does he need to file a separate action with the
Regional Trial Court?" we unequivocally declared, thus: Petitioner is correct in
assailing as improper respondent's filing of a mere motion for the cancellation
of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a result of petitioner's refusal to
surrender his owner's duplicate TCTs. Indeed, this called for a separate
cadastral action initiated via petition.
Respondent alleges that it resorted to filing the contested motion because it
could not obtain new certificates of title, considering that petitioner refused to
surrender his owner's duplicate TCTs. This contention is incorrect. The proper
course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move,
for the issuance of new titles.
It is clear that PD 1529 provides the solution to respondent's quandary. The
reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a
registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent
or mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment
obligation.
While we certainly will not condone any attempt by petitioner to frustrate the
ends of justice — the only way to describe his refusal to surrender his owner's
the matter and respondent should have followed it.
In any event, respondent can still file the proper petition with the
cadastral court for the issuance of new titles in its name. Plainly,
Reyes must institute a separate cadastral action initiated via petition.
D. Lis Pendens (sec. 76)
Sec. 76. Notice of lis pendens. — No action to recover possession of real estate, or
to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or
or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgement, and no
registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a
memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the
court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof,
together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate
description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been
filed and registered.
Sec 77 Cancellation of lis pendens. — Before final judgment, a notice of lis
pendens may be canceled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the
notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to
protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be
canceled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused
the registration thereof.
At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant, or other disposition of the
action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land and/or
buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens
has been registered as provided in the preceding section, the notice of lis pendens
shall be deemed canceled upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court
in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal
thereof.
NATURE AND PURPOSE OF LIS PENDENS
• Lis pendens literally means a pending suit
• Doctrine that refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court
acquires over a property involved in a suit, pending the continuance
of the action, until final judgment
• May involve actions that deal not only with title or possession of a
property but also with the use and occupation of a property
• The litigation must directly involve a specific property which is
necessarily affected by the judgment
THE PURPOSE OF LIS PENDENS
o To protect the rights of the party causing the registration of the lis
pendens
o To advise third persons who purchase or contract on the subject
property that they do so at their peril and subject to the result of the
pending litigation
The notice of lis pendens is a notice to the whole world that a particular
real property is in litigation. The inscription serves as a warning that
one who acquires interest over litigated property does so at his own
risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over the property.
A purchaser who buys registered land with full notice of the fact that it
is in litigation between the vendor and third party stands in the shoes
of his vendor and his title is subject to the incidents and results of the
pending litigation.
REQUISITES OF A VALID LIS PENDENS
i. There must be an action or proceeding affecting the title of real
property on the possession thereof
ii. The court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
property
iii. That the property is sufficiently described in the complaint
EFFECT OF SUCH NOTICE
1. It keeps the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the
court until the entry of final judgment so as to prevent the defeat
of the latter by successive alienations
P a g e 10 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

2. It binds the purchaser of the land subject of the litigation to the can be distinguished and readily identi0ed. In this case, we agree with
judgment or decree that will be promulgated thereon whether petitioner that there was substantial compliance with this requirement.
such purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not

(2) Yes. The Complaint shows that the loan obtained by Allen Roxas (one of the
defendants in civil case) from First Metro was guaranteed by petitioner for
It is not correct to speak of it as part of the doctrine of notice, the two distinct considerations: (a) to enable it to purchase 50 percent of the
purchaser pendent elite is affected not by notice but because the law stocks that the said defendant may acquire in State Investment and (b) to
doesn’t allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, co-develop with the defendants the Quezon City and the Las Piñas
rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the other party.
properties of the corporation. In other words, the co-development of the
said properties is a separate undertaking that did not arise from
WHEN ANNOTATION IS PROPER
petitioner's acquisition of the defendant's shares in the corporation. To
As a general rule, the only instances in which a notice of lis pendens repeat, the co-development is not merely auxiliary or incidental to the
may be availed of are as follows:
purchase of the shares; it is a distinct considerations for Viewmaster's
1. Action to recover possession of real property
guaranty.
2. Action to quiet title thereto
The purposes of lis pendens is
3. Action to remove cloud thereon
(1) to protect the rights of the party causing the registration thereof and
4. Action for partition
(2) to advise third persons who purchase or contract on the subject property
5. Any other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the that they do so at their peril and subject to the result of the pending
title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings litigation.
thereon One who deals with property subject of a notice of lis pendens cannot acquire
Additionally, this Court has held that resorting to lis pendens is not better rights than those of his predecessors-in-interest.
necessarily confined to cases that involve title to or possession of real The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and
property. necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the
This annotation also applies to suits seeking to establish a right to, or litigation within the power of the court until the judgment or decree shall
an equitable estate or interest in, a specific real property; or to enforce have been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the
a lien, a charge or an encumbrance against it.
litigation, its judgment or decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of
execution. Purchasers pendente lite of the property subject of the litigation
WHEN ANNOTATION IS NOT PROPER
after the notice of lis pendens is inscribed in the Office of the Register of
Deeds are bound by the judgment against their predecessors. . . . ." Without a
1. Preliminary attachments
notice of lis pendens, a third party who acquires the property after relying only
2. Proceedings for the probates of wills
on the Certificate of Title would be deemed a purchaser in good faith. Against
3. Levies on execution
such third party, the supposed rights of petitioner cannot be enforced,
4. Proceedings for the administration of estate of deceased persons
because the former is not bound by the property owner's undertakings not
5. Proceedings in which the only subject is the recovery of a money annotated in the TCT.
judgment

• By express provision of law, the doctrine of lis pendens does not Atty G’s comments: When it is a personal action like specific
apply to attachments, levies of execution, or to proceedings for the performance normally it does not pre detach of the ownership or
probate of wills, or for administration of the estate of deceased possession of property. The property should be the list mota (subject
persons in the Court of First Instance. Also, it is held generally that proper) of the litigation. But SC expanded the interpretation of the
the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceeding in notice of lis pendens, it includes also all suits that seeks to establish a
which the only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment, right to or an interest to the property for the enforcement of a lien, an
though the title or right of possession to property be incidentally encumbrance or a charge against him and it is under the 2nd category
affected.
where it was applied directly.

• It is essential that the property be directly affected, as where the relief Generally a notice of Lis Pendens covers actions pending before the
sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of possession, or regular courts however, cases involving real property pending before
the enforcement of a lien, or an adjudication between conflicting administrative agencies such as the HLURB, SEC and the DARAB
claims of title, possession, or the right of possession to specific which are endowed with quasi-judicial functions have been
property, or requiring its transfer or sale.
recognized as proper basis for the annotation of a Lis Pendens.
Availability of lis pendens is not confined to cases involving the title to
or possession of real property. It applies to suits brought to “establish
PRINCIPLE OF PRIMUS TEMPORE, POTIOR JURE; EFFECT OF LIS PENDENS
an equitable estate, interest or right in specific real property or to
• The principle of primus tempore, potior jure gains greater significance enforce any lien, charge or encumbrance against it.

in the law on double sale of immovable property

• Reliance on the principle of constructive notice operates only such

upon the registration of the notice of lis pendens
Atlantic Erectors Inc vs Herbal Cove Realty
• More fundamentally, a notice of lis pendens is only a warning to the ISSUE: Whether or not the annotation of lis pendens is proper
prospective purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular property HELD: No.
is in litigation and that he should keep his hands off the same, By express provision of law, the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to
unless he intends to gamble on the results of the litigation
attachments, levies of execution, or to proceedings for the probate of
wills, or for administration of the estate of deceased persons in the Court
CANCELLATION OF LIS PENDENS
of First Instance. Also, it is held generally that the doctrine of lis pendens has
• Ordinarily a notice which has been filed in a proper case cannot be no application to a proceeding in which the only object sought is the
cancelled while the action is pending and undetermined, except in recovery of a money judgment, though the title or right of possession to
cases expressly provided for by statute
property be incidentally affected.
• It may be cancelled upon order by the court or upon action by the RD It is essential that the property be directly affected, as where the relief sought in
at the instance of the party who caused the registration of the notice
the action or suit includes the recovery of possession, or the enforcement of a
• While the trial court has inherent power to cancel a notice of lis lien, or an adjudication between conflicting claims of title, possession, or the
pendens, such power is exercised under express provisions of law
right of possession to specific property, or requiring its transfer or sale" 

o If the annotation was for the purpose of molesting the title of the Even if a party initially avails itself of a notice of lis pendens upon the filing of a
adverse party
case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the case turns out to be a
o When the annotation isn’t necessary to protect the title of the purely personal action.
party who caused it to be recorded
Thus, when a complaint or an action is determined by the courts to be in
personam, the rationale for or purpose of the notice of lis pendens ceases to
exist. To be sure, this Court has expressly and categorically declared that the
Viewmaster Construction vs Maulit, et. al annotation of a notice of lis pendens on titles to properties is not proper
It is an announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in in cases wherein the proceedings instituted are actions in personam.
litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest therein A careful examination of petitioner's Complaint, as well as the reliefs it seeks,
does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over reveals that no such lien or interest over the property was ever alleged. The
said property. Complaint merely asked for the payment of construction services and
Generally a notice of Lis Pendens covers actions pending before the regular materials plus damages, without mentioning — much less asserting — a lien or
courts however, cases involving real property pending before administrative an encumbrance over the property. Verily, it was a purely personal action and a
agencies such as the HLURB, SEC and the DARAB which are endowed with simple collection case. It did not contain any material averment of any
quasi-judicial functions have been recognized as proper basis for the enforceable right, interest or lien in connection with the subject property.
annotation of a Lis Pendens. Even assuming that petitioner had sufficiently alleged such lien or encumbrance
Availability of lis pendens is not confined to cases involving the title to or in its Complaint, the annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens would still be
possession of real property. It applies to suits brought to “establish an unjustified, because a complaint for collection and damages is not the proper
equitable estate, interest or right in specific real property or to enforce any lien, mode for the enforcement of a contractor's lien.
charge or encumbrance against it.” Article 2242 finds application when there is a concurrence of credits, i.e., when
ISSUE: the same specific property of the debtor is subjected to the claims of several
creditors and the value of such property of the debtor is insufficient to pay in
(1) Whether or not the property was not particularly described full all the creditors.
(2) Whether or not a notice of lis pendens is proper
HELD: Atty G’s comments: In comparison to Viewmaster’s case we were
taught that a notice of lis pendens covers all the cases that seeks to
(1) Yes. A copy of the TCT was attached to and made an integral part of both
enforce a right of lien. It is what Atlantic Erectors is doing here, enforce
documents. Consequently, the notice of lis pendens submitted for
a lien. Art.2242 of civil code applies on it when it comes to preference
registration, taken as a whole, leaves no doubt as to the identity of the
of creditors, when there’s several creditors and they want to be
property, the technical description of which appears on the attached TCT.
preferred than that’s the rule but it doesn’t have anything to do about
We stress that the main purpose of the requirement that the notice should
the lien. The proper remedy should be an insolvency proceedings and
contain a technical description of the property is to ensure that the same
not in the case for collection of money.

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. P a g e 11 o f 3 0

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Homeowners Savings vs Delgado
ISSUE: Whether or not HSLB is a mortgagee and a purchaser in good faith
HELD: No. Decision of CA sustained.
Civil Law: Who is a Purchaser in good faith
The rights of the parties to the present case are defined not by the
determination of whether or not HSLB is a mortgagee in good faith, but of
whether or not HSLB is a purchaser in good faith. And, HSLB is not such a
purchaser. A purchaser in good faith is defined as one who buys a property
without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, the property
and pays full and fair price at the time of purchase or before he has notice of
the claim or interest of other persons in the property.
In the case at bar, HSLB utterly failed to take the necessary precautions. At the
time the subject property was mortgaged, there was yet no annotated Notice
ofLis Pendens. However, at the time HSLB purchased the subject property, the
Notice ofLis Pendenswas already annotated on the title. When a prospective
buyer is faced with facts and circumstances as to arouse his suspicion, he must
take precautionary steps to qualify as a purchaser in good faith.
Lis pendens is a Latin term which literally means, a pending suit or a pending
litigation while a notice oflispendensis an announcement to the whole world
that a real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that anyone who
acquires an interest over the property does so at his/her own risk, or that he/
she gambles on the result of the litigation over the property.It is a warning to
prospective buyers to take precautions and investigate the pending litigation.
The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is to protect the rights of the registrant
while the case is pending resolution or decision. With the notice of lis pendens
duly recorded and remaining uncancelled, the registrant could rest secure that
he/she will not lose the property or any part thereof during litigation.
Indeed, at the time HSLB bought the subject property, HSLB had actual
knowledge of the annotated Notice of Lis Pendens. Instead of heeding the
same, HSLB continued with the purchase knowing the legal repercussions a
notice of lis pendens details.
Casim vs RD of Las Pinas
ISSUE: Whether the RTC of Las Piñas City, Branch 253 has jurisdiction in an
original action to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the subject
title as an incident in a previous case
HELD: Lis pendens which literally means pending suit refers to the jurisdiction,
power or control which a court acquires over the property involved in a suit,
pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded
upon public policy and necessity,  lis pendens  is intended to keep the
properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is
terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a
particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he
gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.
A notice of lis pendens, once duly registered, may be cancelled by the trial court
before which the action involving the property is pending. This power is said to
be inherent in the trial court and is exercised only under express provisions of
law.  Accordingly, Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
authorizes the trial court to cancel a notice of lis pendens where it is properly
shown that the purpose of its annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or
that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be
annotated. Be that as it may, the power to cancel a notice of lis pendens is
exercised only under exceptional circumstances, such as: where such
circumstances are imputable to the party who caused the annotation; where
the litigation was unduly prolonged to the prejudice of the other party
because of several continuances procured by petitioner; where the case which
is the basis for the lis pendens notation was dismissed for non prosequitur on
the part of the plaintiff; or where judgment was rendered against the party
who caused such a notation. In such instances, said notice is deemed  ipso
facto cancelled.
From the available records, it appears that the subject notice of lis pendens
had been recorded at the instance of Bruneo F. Casim (Bruneo) in relation to
Civil Case No. 2137 one for annulment of sale and recovery of real property
which he filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 against the spouses
Jesus and Margarita Casim, predecessors-in-interest and stockholders of
petitioner corporation. That case involved the property subject of the present
case, then covered by TCT No. 30459. At the close of the trial on the merits
therein, the RTC of Makati rendered a decision adverse to Bruneo and
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.  Aggrieved, Bruneo lodged an
appeal with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54204, which
reversed and set aside the trial court's decision. Expectedly, the spouses Jesus
and Margarita Casim elevated the case to the Supreme Court, docketed as
G.R. No. 151957, but their appeal was dismissed for being filed out of time.
A necessary incident of registering a notice of lis pendens is that the property
covered thereby is effectively placed, until the litigation attains finality, under
the power and control of the court having jurisdiction over the case to which
the notice relates.  In this sense, parties dealing with the given property are
charged with the knowledge of the existence of the action and are deemed to
take the property subject to the outcome of the litigation. It is also in this sense
that the power possessed by a trial court to cancel the notice of lis pendens is
said to be inherent as the same is merely ancillary to the main action.
Clearly, the action for cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in this case must
have been filed not before the court a quo via an original action but rather,
before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 as an incident of the annulment case
in relation to which its registration was sought. Thus, it is the latter court that
has jurisdiction over the main case referred to in the notice and it is that same
court which exercises power and control over the real property subject of the
notice.
But even so, the petition could no longer be expected to pursue before the
proper forum inasmuch as the decision rendered in the annulment case has
already attained finality before both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court on the appellate level, unless of course there exists substantial and
genuine claims against the parties relative to the main case subject of the
notice of lis pendens. There is none in this case. It is thus well to note that the
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
precautionary notice that has been registered relative to the annulment case
then pending before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 has served its purpose.
With the finality of the decision therein on appeal, the notice has already been
rendered functus officio. The rights of the parties, as well as of their successors-
in-interest, petitioner included, in relation to the subject property, are hence to
be decided according the said final decision.
Lastly, petitioner tends to make an issue out of the fact that while the original TCT
on file with the Register of Deeds does contain the annotations and notice
referred to in this petition, its owner's duplicate copy of the title nevertheless
does not reflect the same non-chronological inscriptions. From this, petitioner
submits its puerile argument that the said annotations appearing on the
original copy of the TCT are all a forgery, and goes on to assert the
indefeasibility of its Torrens title as well as its supposed status as an innocent
purchaser for value in good faith. Yet we decline to rule on these assumptions
principally because they raise matters that call for factual determination which
certainly are beyond the competence of the Court to dispose of in this petition.
Atty G’s comments: A very important ruling is that when an RTC in the
exercise of its general jurisdiction cancels a notice of lis pendens
pending before another court, according to SC the notice of lis
pendens is under the control of the court that has taken a cognizance
of the main case. This is because a notice of lis pendens is only an
ancillary remedy. So another regular court cannot exercise jurisdiction
to have the notice of lis pendens cancelled except the court hearing
the main case.
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million payable in five (5)
equal installments. The sale was registered and title was issued in
Carmen’s name. Carmen failed to pay the last 3 installments and Mario
filed an action for collection, damages and attorney’s fees against her.
Upon filing of the complaint, he caused a notice of lis pendens to be
annotated on Carmen’s title. Is the notice of lis pendens proper or not?
Why?
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the reason that the case filed by
Mario against Carmen is only for collection, damages and attorney’s fee.
Annotation of lis pendens can only be done in cases involving recovery of
possession of real property, or to quiet title or to remove cloud thereon, or
for partition or any other proceeding affecting title to the land or the use or
occupation thereof. The action filed by Mario does not fall on any one of
these.
Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a parcel of land. Sancho sold the
property to Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for annulment of the sale
and reconveyance of the property based on the fact that the sale included
his one-half pro indiviso share. Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens
annotated on the title covering the property. After trial, the court declared
Bart the owner of the property and ordered the cancellation of the notice
of lis pendens. The notice of lis pendens could not be cancelled
immediately because the title over the property was with a bank to which
the property had been mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the case.
While the appeal was pending and with the notice of lis pendens still
uncancelled, Bart sold the property to Carlos, who immediately caused
the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as well as the issuance of a
new title in his name. Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b)
transferee pendente lite?
Suggested Answer
Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis pendens was still annotated at
the back of the title at the time he bought the land from Bart. The
uncancelled notice of lis pendens operates as a constructive notice of its
contents as well as interests, legal or equitable, included therein. All persons
are charged with the knowledge of what it contains.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an adverse claim remains effective
and binding notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from its inscription in
the registry. This ruling is even more applicable in a lis pendens.
Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as Sancho’s share in the co-
ownership in the land is concerned because the land was transferred to him
during the pendency of the appeal.
Alternative Answer
Carlos is a purchaser in good faith.
A possessor in good faith has been defined as “one who is unaware that there
exists a flaw which invalidates his acquisition of the thing”. Good faith
consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from whom he received the
thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. In the case in
question, while Carlos bought the subject property from Bart while a notice
of lis pendens was still annotated thereon, there was also an existing court
order cancelling the same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered as being
“aware of a flaw which invalidates the acquisition of the thing” since the
alleged flaw, the notice of lis pendens was already being ordered cancelled at
the time of the purchase. On this ground alone, Carlos can already be
considered a buyer in good faith. (Po Lam vs. Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA
86).
If your answer is (a), how can the right of Pacifico as co-owner be
protected? Explain.
Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by pursuing his appeal, asking the
Court of Appeals to order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on the title of
Carlos; and by invoking the right of redemption of Bart’s share under Article
1620 of the New Civil Code.
Alternative Answer
To protect his right over the subject property, Pacifico should have timely filed
an action for reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis pendens.
E. Levies on Execution
a. Registration of the Levy on Execution
b. Registration of the Certificate on Sale
c. Sheriff’s Final Deed of Sale
Page 12 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
d. Petition for Issuance of a New Certificate of Title pursuant to Sec. 75
of P.D. 1529
not enough as a succeeding step had to be taken, which was the registration
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
what validly transfers or conveys a persons interest in real property is the
The Court held that a registered writ of attachment is a proceeding in
rem. It is against a particular property, enforceable against the whole
world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very
dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. An exception to the
preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has
actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and
notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or
attachment is registered.
a prior unregistered sale. This result is a necessary consequence of the fact that
COMMON REGISTRATION PROBLEMS
under the fundamental principle that registration is the operative act which
CAUTIONARY NOTICE
Under the Spanish Mortgage Law, this was a procedure intended to
maintain the right of priority of the interested party while he goes
about correcting the defect of his document. The Spanish Mortgage
Law as a system of registration has been discontinued as of June 11,
1978 by Sec. 3 of P.D. 1529.
of the attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the
OPPOSITION FILED BY LAWYERS
the owners debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under
A mere opposition from a lawyer or a third person who claims an
adverse interest in the property involved in a transaction is not
sufficient to justify the Register of Deeds in denying the registration of
a voluntary instrument. (LRC Consulta No. 259)
nature of a real lien when petitioner had his purchase recorded. The effect of
Litigious matters are to be decided, and the appropriate relief granted,
not by the Register of Deeds, but by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(LRC Consulta No. 57)
the date of the recording of his title in the register, and the right of ownership
CARRYOVER OF ENCUMBRANCES
of petitioner.
Sec. 59 of P.D. 1529 provides: “If at the time of any transfer, subsisting
encumbrances or annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried
over and stated in the new certificate except so far as they may be simultaneously
released or discharged.
— Exception: Upon a proper foreclosure of a prior mortgage, all
liens subordinate to the mortgage are likewise foreclosed, and
the purchaser at public auction acquires the title free from the
subordinate liens. (PNB vs. ICB 199 SCRA 500)
Pineda vs Arcalas
A levy on execution registered takes preference over a prior
unregistered sale – a registered lien is entitled to preferential
consideration. An exception to the preference given to a registered
lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the
claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of
the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is
registered.
Issue: Whether the portion bought by Pineda can be exempted from the
registered notice of levy.
Held: No. The doctrine is well settled that a levy on execution duly registered
takes preference over a prior unregistered sale. A registered lien is entitled to
preferential consideration. Here, Arcalas’ lien was registered and annotated at
the back of the title of the subject property and accordingly amounted to a
constructive notice thereof to all persons. A registered writ of attachment was a
superior lien over that of an unregistered deed of sale because an attachment
is a proceeding in rem.
Discussion: As between a registered levy and an unregistered Deed of Absolute
Sale, the levy would prevail.
Before a purchaser of land causes the registration of the transfer of the
subject property in her favor, third persons cannot be bound thereby.
Insofar as third persons are concerned, what validly transfers or conveys a
person's interest in real property is the registration of the deed.
As the deed of sale was unrecorded, it operates merely as a contract between
the parties, namely Victoria Tolentino as seller and Pineda as buyer, which may
be enforceable against Victoria Tolentino through a separate and independent
action. On the other hand, Arcalas's lien was registered and annotated at the
back of the title of the subject property and accordingly amounted to a
constructive notice thereof to all persons, whether or not party to the original
case filed before the Quezon City RTC.
IOW, the doctrine is well settled that a levy on execution duly registered
takes preference over a prior unregistered sale. A registered lien is
entitled to preferential consideration.
Valdeviesco vs Damalerio
ISSUE: Whether or not a registered writ of attachment on the land is a superior
lien over that of an earlier unregistered deed of sale?
HELD: We agree with the respondents.
The law applicable to the facts of this case is Section 51 of P.D. No. 1529. Said
Section provides:
Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. - An owner of
registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge, or otherwise deal with
the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds,
mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no
deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting
to convey or affect registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind
the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies.
It should also be observed that, at the time of the attachment of the property on
23 April 1996, the spouses Uy were still the registered owners of said property.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
Under the cited law, the execution of the deed of sale in favor of petitioner was
of the sale from the spouses Uy to him. Insofar as third persons are concerned,
registration of the deed. Thus, when petitioner bought the property on 05
December 1995, it was, at that point, no more than a private transaction
between him and the spouses Uy. It needed to be registered before it could
bind third parties, including respondents. When the registration finally took
place on 06 June 1996, it was already too late because, by then, the levy in
favor of respondents, pursuant to the preliminary attachment ordered by the
General Santos City RTC, had already been annotated on the title.
The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes preference over
the property involved was duly covered by the Torrens system which works
gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
The preference created by the levy on attachment is not diminished even by the
subsequent registration of the prior sale. This is so because an attachment is a
proceeding in rem. It is against the particular property, enforceable against the
whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached
property which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution
property attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay
execution issued on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the
attachment discharged or vacated in some manner provided by law.
Thus, in the registry, the attachment in favor of respondents appeared in the
the notation of said lien was to subject and subordinate the right of petitioner,
as purchaser, to the lien. Petitioner acquired ownership of the land only from
which he inscribed was not absolute but a limited right, subject to a prior
registered lien of respondents, a right which is preferred and superior to that
The appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution are hereby
affirmed.
REGISTRATION OF JUDGEMENTS, ORDERS; PARTITIONS
(SEC. 78-92)
Surrender of Owner’s Duplicate (Sec. 107, PD 1529)
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is
necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument
which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a
voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the
holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest
may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a
new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the
duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason
the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may
order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title
in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
REMEDY WHERE DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE IS WITHHELD
• In case the person in possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate
refuses or fails to surrender the same to the RD so that any
involuntary or voluntary instrument may be registered and a
certificate issued, the party in interest may file a petition in court to
compel the surrender of the same to the RD.
• The court after hearing may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate and direct the entry of a new
certificate or memorandum upon such surrender
• If the person withholding the certificate is not amenable to the
process of the court, or if for any reason the certificate cannot be
delivered, the court may order the annulment of said certificate and
the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof
• Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
PETITION TO SURRENDER TITLE MAY BE FILED AS AN INCIDENT IN
AN ACTION AFFECTING SAID TITLE
• Where the court in an action for specific performance, upheld the sale
to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to comply with the terms
and conditions to the sale, it was proper for the plaintiff to ask the
court to compel the defendant to surrender the duplicate certificate
of title to the RD for the registration of the sale, this being a
necessary incident in the main case
• Section 107 doesn’t preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein the relief stated under said section, specially if the
certificate of title to be surrendered is intimately connected with the
subject matter of the principal action
• Where the title is subject to a mortgage, the order of the court cannot
in any way prejudice the rights of the mortgagee since any lien
annotated in the certificate is incorporated or carried over to the new
transfer certificate of title to whoever it is issued
AUTHORITY OF COURT TO ORDER THE SURRENDER OWNER’S DUPLICATE
CERTIFICATE
• In order that the court may order the registered owner to surrender his
owner’s duplicate, it has to determine upon the evidence presented
by the parties whether the registered owner had been lawfully
divested of his title thereto
P a g e 13 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
• That of course requires and involves of the determination of the
question of title to the registered property
real estate on the basis of the last assessment for the municipal
• Section 107 doesn’t constitute a reopening of the decree entered as a
result of proceedings in rem for the confirmation of imperfect title
under said act, it cannot be deemed to contravene the purpose or
aim of the Torrens system
Assurance Fund is created for the purpose of paying any damages
Toledo Banaga vs CA
1. One who redeems in vain a property of another acquires notice that
there could be a controversy.
 Land Registration Act, whether such injustice arises from the fraud or
At the time of the sale, petitioner Tan was buying a property not registered
in the seller's name. This is clear from the deed of absolute sale which even
mentioned that the Certificates of Title is still in the name of private
respondent. It is settled that a party dealing with a registered land need
not go beyond the Certificate of Title tpao determine the true owner
thereof so as to guard or protect her interest. She has only to look and
rely on the entries in the Certificate of Title. By looking at the title, however,
petitioner Tan cannot feign ignorance that the property is registered in
private respondent's name and not in the name of the person selling to her.
Such fact alone should have at least prompted, if not impelled her to
investigate deeper into the title of her seller — petitioner Banaga, more so
when such effort would not have entailed additional hardship, and would
have been quite easy, as the titles still carried the two notices of lis pendens.
2. A transferee pendente lite stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor and
must respect any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against
the transferor. 
 the Assurance fund be the registered owner, and as to holders of
Her interest is subject to the incidents or results of the pending suit, and her
Certificates of Title will, in that respect, afford her no special protection. To
repeat, at the time of the sale, the person from whom petitioner Tan bought
the property is neither the registered owner nor was the former authorized
by the latter to sell the same. She knew she was not dealing with the
registered owner or a representative of the latter. One who buys property
with full knowledge of the flaws and defects in the title of his vendor is
enough proof of his bad faith and cannot claim that he acquired title in
good faith as against the owner or of an interest therein. When she
nonetheless proceeded to buy the lot, petitioner Tan gambled on the result
of litigation. She is bound by the outcome of her indifference with no one to
blame except herself if she loses her claim as against one who has a
superior right or interest over the property. Being a buyer in bad faith,
petitioner Tan cannot acquire a better right than her predecessor in interest,
for she merely stepped into the shoes of the latter.
3. Possession is a necessary incident of ownership. The adjudication of
ownership to private respondent includes the delivery of possession since
the defeated parties in this case has not shown by what right to retain
possession of the land independently of their claim of ownership which was
rejected.
Abad vs Filholmes Realty
As a general rule, ejectment proceedings, due to its summary nature, are not
suspended or their resolution held in abeyance despite the pendency of a civil
action regarding ownership.
In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the
expropriation proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the
City. Such issuance was only the first stage in expropriation. There is even no
evidence that judicial deposit had been made in favor of respondents prior to
the City's possession of the lots.
Respecting petitioners' claim that they have been named beneficiaries of the
lots, the city ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings
does not state so. 13 Petitioners cannot thus claim any right over the lots on
the basis of the ordinance. Even if the lots are eventually transferred to the City,
it is non sequitur for petitioners to claim that they are automatically entitled to
be beneficiaries thereof. For certain requirements must be met and complied
with before they can be considered to be beneficiaries.
ASSURANCE FUND
CHAPTER 7 (SEC. 93–102)
Claims against Assurance Fund (Sec. 95)
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without
negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate
or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the operation
of the Torrens system of arising after original registration of land, through fraud or
in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or misdescription in any certificate
of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book, and who by the
provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of
any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or
interest therein, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the
recovery of damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
REQUISITES:
1. Person suffers LOSS/DAMAGE/DEPRIVATION of any ESTATE or
INTEREST IN LAND
2. On account of BRINGING LAND UNDER the operation of the
TORRENS SYSTEM arising AFTER original registration
against the Treasurer of the Philippines as custodian of the
3. Thru FRAUD, ERROR, OMISSION, MISTAKE OR MISDESCRIPTION
in a certificate of title or entry or memorandum in the registration
book
title but nevertheless pointed out that there are circumstances in
4. WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE on his part [he protected his interests]
this case which should have put the Cues on guard and prompted
5. He is BARRED OR PRECLUDED from bringing an ACTION FOR THE
RECOVERY of such land or estate or interest therein
Issue:
WHAT CONSTITUTES ASSURANCE FUND?
2) Whether or not can they claim from the Assurance Fund
Upon the original registration of land under the Land Registration Act,
and also upon the entry of a certificate showing title as registered
owners in heirs of devisees, there is required to be paid to the register
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
of deeds one-tenth of one per centum of the assessed value of the
taxation. This constitutes what is known Assurance Fund.
PURPOSE:
which may result from an improper or illegal registration. It is intended
to relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a
certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land, and
from any injustice which may arise to them by operations under the
error of someone connected with the registry office or some third
person dealing with the land.
CLAIMS AGAINST THE ASSURANCE FUND
• Section 95 provides a remedy where a person who sustains loss or
damage or is deprived of any estate or interest in land in
consequence of the operations of the Torrens system of registration,
without negligence on his part, may bring an action for the recovery
of damages to be paid out of the Assurance fund
• Public policy demands that those unjustly deprived of their rights over
real property by reason of the operation of our registration laws be
afforded remedies
• According to the principles of the Torrens system, it is a condition sine
que non that the person who brings an action for damages against
transfer certificates of title that they be innocent purchasers in good
faith and for value
• There must also be a showing of loss or damage or deprivation of any
land or interest thereon by the operation of PD1529
• Where plaintiff is solely responsible for the plight in which it finds
itself, the Director of Lands and the National Treasurer are exempt
from any liability
DBP vs Bautista
Recovery could be had from the Assurance Fund only upon a
showing that there be no negligence on the part of the party
sustaining any loss or damage or being deprived of any land or
interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act.
Issue:
1) Whether or not trial court is correct in dismissing the petition of DBP and can
they recover the sum of money from Bautista
2) Whether or not DBP can claim against the Assurance Fund
Held: The Court after examining the proofs, found that that she had never been
placed within the jurisdiction of the Nueva Ecija Court; asthe action there was
one to annul the title, it was an action strictly inpersonam, if that was the case
as it was, the judgment there could not in any way bind Lourdes who had not
acquiesced in said decision in any way for what only happened is that as to the
mortgage,the Bank foreclosed, and then sold unto Conrada and when the title
had been annulled, the Bank took it upon itself to reimbursed Conrada; stated
otherwise, the annulment of Lourdes' title was a proceeding ex-parte as far as
she was concerned and could not bind her at all.
The decision of trial court must be affirmed, the fundamental due process
requirement having been disregarded, appellee Bautista could not in any wise
be made to suffer, whether directly or indirectly, from the effects of such
decision. After appellant bank had acquired her title by such extrajudicial
foreclosure sale and thus, through its own act, seen to it that her obligation had
been satisfied, it could not thereafter, seek to revive the same on the allegation
that the title in question was subsequently nullified. If it were otherwise, then
the cardinal requirement that no party should be made to suffer in person or
property without being given a hearing would be brushed aside.
They could not likewise claim from the Assurance Fund. Assurance Fund allows
recovery only upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part of the
party sustaining any loss or damage or being deprived of any land or interest
therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act. This certainly is not the
case here, plaintiff-appellant being solely responsible for the plight in which it
now finds itself. Accordingly, the Director of Lands and the National Treasurer
of the Philippines are likewise exempt from any liability.
In the suit before the lower court, the Director of Lands and the National
Treasurer of the Philippines were likewise made defendants by
appellant bank because of its belief that if no right existed as against
appellee Bautista, recovery could be had from the Assurance Fund.
Such a belief finds no support in the applicable, law, which allows
recovery only upon a showing that there be no negligence on the part
of the party sustaining any loss or damage or being deprived of any
land or interest therein by the operation of the Land Registration Act.
This certainly is not the case here, plaintiff-appellant being solely
responsible for the light in which it now finds itself. Accordingly, the
Director of Lands and the National Treasurer of the Philippines are
likewise exempt from any liability.
Torres vs CA
The trial court also dismissed the Cues' third party complaint
Assurance Fund after finding them negligent in protecting their
interest. The trial court recognized the principle that a person
dealing with registered lands need not go beyond the certificate of
them to investigate the property being mortgaged to them.
1) Whether or not CA was correct and that Mota’s foreclosure bound Torres
Held: No. The court ruled that Torres correctly pointed out that his properties
were sold on execution, and not on foreclosure sale, and hence, the purchaser
thereof was bound by his notice of adverse claim and lispendens annotated at
P a g e 14 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
the back of Fernandez' TCT. And even if the court grant Mota the status of an
innocent mortgagee, the doctrine relied upon by the appellate court that a
forged instrument may become the root of a valid title, cannot be applied
where the owner still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering the
same interest in a realty.
The doctrine would apply rather when, as in the cases for example of De la Cruz
v. Fabie, 35 Phil. 144 [1916], Fule v. De Legare, No. L- 17951, February 28, 1963,
7 SCRA 351, and Republic v. Umali, G.R. No. 80687, April 10, 1989, the forger
thru insidious means obtains the owner's duplicate certificate of title, converts
it in his name, and subsequently sells or otherwise encumbers it to an innocent
holder for value, for in such a case the new certificate is binding upon the
owner (Sec. 55, Act 496; Sec. 53, P.D. No. 1529). If the owner holds a valid and
existing certificate of title, his would be indefeasible as against the whole
world, and not that of the innocent holder's. "Prior tempore potior jure”
The trial court also dismissed the Cues' third party complaint against the
Treasurer of the Philippines as custodian of the Assurance Fund after finding
them negligent in protecting their interest. The trial court recognized the
principle that a person dealing with registered lands need not go beyond the
certificate of title but nevertheless pointed out that there are circumstances in
this case which should have put the Cues on guard and prompted them to
investigate the property being mortgaged to them, such that the registered
title does not yield any information as to the amount of rentals due from the
building, much less on who is collecting them, or who is recognized by the
tenants as their landlord. Any prospective buyer or mortgagee of such a
property, if prudent and in good faith, is normally expected to inquire into all
these and related facts and circumstances.
Remedy of buyer from a person who pretended to be owner of
registered land after procuring a false claim of loss of owner’s
duplicate in court, is against the latter of the Assurance fund. “We
likewise take note of the manifestation of the Office of the Solicitor
General that the Cues failed to contest the ruling of the trial court
negating the liability of the Assurance Fund. For these reasons, We
hold that the Cues' remedy merely is to go against Francisco
Fernandez or rather his estate since record shows that he died
sometime in 1983”
REGISTRATION OF PATENTS
CHAPTER 8 (SEC. 103)
Certificates of Titles Pursuant to Patents (Sec. 103)
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever public land is
by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be
brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the
official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf
of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds
of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like other
deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other
cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate issued to the grantee. The deed,
grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee
shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a
contract between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to
the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be
the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree,
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or
city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After
due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to
be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
SCOPE OF SECTION 103
• The instruments mentioned in this section whereby public lands are
alienated, granted or conveyed are instruments transferring
ownership and not just mere documents of lease or transferring
mere possession
Held:
• Provision directs the issuance to the grantee of an owner’s duplicate
certificate
The issue on good faith was not the actual issue. Basis of RTC was one the
• After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, the land
shall be deemed registered land for all intents and purposes under
the Property Registration Decree
2. Purchaser in good faith — NO. Pagarigan fraudulently secured his free
• Public land patents when duly registered are veritable Torrens title
subject to no encumbrances except those stated therein, and those
specified by the statute.
even before Yap and V bought the land. When they bought the property,
• They become private property which can no longer be the subject of
subsequent disposition by the Director of Lands
title.
• Where disposable public land is granted by the government by virtue
of a public land patent, the patent is recorded and the
corresponding certificate of title is issued to the grantee, thereafter,
the land is automatically brought within the operation of PD1529,
entitled to all the safeguards of a veritable Torrens title. Upon the
expiration of 1 year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall
become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a
registration proceeding
Under Act No. 1120, which governs the administration and disposition of friar
• A certificate of title issued pursuant to a patent has the force and
effect of a torrens title issued through judicial registration
proceedings
Natural Resources (mutatis mutandis). The approval by the Secretary of
• But a land registration court which has validly acquired jurisdiction
over a parcel of land for registration of title cannot be divested of
said jurisdiction by a subsequent administrative act consisting in the
issuance by the Director of Lands of a homestead patent covering
the same parcel of land.
title to the land in question. Having none, he could not transmit anything to his
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
To Whom Granted Requirements
Home-stead Any Filipino citizen over - does not own more than 24 hectares of
Patent 18 years or head of a land in the Phils. or has not had the
family benefit of any gratuitous allotment of
more than 24 hectares
- must have resided continuously for at
least 1 year in the municipality where
the land is situated
- must have cultivated at least 1/5 of the
land applied for
Free Patent Any natural born Filipino - does not own more than 12 hectares of
land
- has continuously occupied and
cultivated, either by himself or his
predecessor-in- interest tract/s of
agricultural public land subject to
disposition
Sales Patent Filipinos of lawful age or - to have at least 1/5 of the land broken
those not of legal age and cultivated within 5 years from the
but who is a head of the date of the award
family may purchase - s h a l l h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d a c t u a l
public agricultural land o c c u p a n c y, c u l t i v a t i o n a n d
of not more than 12 improvement of at least 1/5 of the
hectares land until the date of such final
payment
Special Non-Christian Filipinos - DILG Secretary shall certify that the
Patent under Sec. 84 of the majority of the non-Christian
Public Land Act inhabitants of any given reservation
have advanced sufficiently in
civilization
Yap vs Republic
Facts: Dela Cruz applied free patent — since he could not wait for approval of
her application, she executed a deed of waiver/quitclaim in favor of Pagarigan.
Pagarigan filed his own free patent and it was issued to him. He then mortgaged
it to Banco Davao. Banco Davao foreclosed it and sold to public auction. Sale
was duly annotated in the title.
Land was occupied by Valparaiso and Malalis, who filed a formal protest alleging
the recall of the free patent, an auction for reversion, and caused the
annotation of lis pendent against Pagarigan. They also filed an action for
cancellation of free patent of Pagarigan’s title. Pagarigan ordered the
demolition of the houses.
Office of Sec of DENR cancelled the free patent for FRAUD and that Pagarigan
never occupied the land and he merely misrepresented.
Banco Davao sold the property to Yap and Villamor and issued TCT.
Department of Transportation and Communication filed a complaint for
expropriation and that the just compensation should be in favor of Yap and
Villamor and deemed them purchaser in Good faith.
Respondent (RD of DENR) filed for cancellation of free patent, nullification of title
and reversion.
RTC: Dismissed. Held that land was sold to third person in good faith. It must ne
shown that they were part of the fraud.
CA: Reversed RTC. Fraud by Pagarigan is in his FPA. Neither the bank nor
Ua[ and Villamor were innocent purchasers in good faith.
Yap asserts that she purchase property in good faith for nothing appears in the
OCT. Lis pendent was not offered in court and the expropriation case
adjudged them as good faith and alleged res judicata.
1. Res Judicata — NO. RTC falsely appreciated the decision in the expo case.
indefeasibility of a torrens title. “Innocent purchaser” were mere obiter
dictum.
patent in investigation conducted by DENR. He was not innocent
purchaser because there was notice of lis pendens already annotated
it was still in the name of Pagarigan since the bank did not consolidate the
Alonzo vs CCC
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is a real-party-in- interest.
Held: No. The petitioner is not a proper party to assail the questioned orders.
lands, the purchase by an actual and bona fide settler or occupant of any
portion of friar land shall be "agreed upon between the purchaser and the
Director of Lands, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale. Here,
the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the deed of sale was
void. Consequently, petitioner Francisco's father did not have any registrable
sole heir, petitioner Francisco Alonso or the latter's heirs.
The law expressly declares as valid "all existing Transfer Certificates of Title and
Reconstituted Certificates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds of Cebu
Province and/or Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad Friar Lands
Estate," and recognizes the registered owners as absolute owners. To benefit
from R.A. No. 9443, therefore, a person must hold as a condition precedent
P a g e 15 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
a duly issued Transfer Certificate of Title or a Reconstituted Certificate of
Title.
The petitioners could not benefit from R.A. No. 9443 because of their non-
compliance with the express condition of holding any Transfer Certificate
of Title or Reconstituted Certificate of Title respecting Lot 727-D-2 or any
portion thereof.
The appropriate recourse for the petitioners, if they persist in the belief that the
TCT of Cebu Country Club should be nullified, is to compel the OSG through
the special civil action for mandamus to commence the action to annul on the
ground that Cebu Country Club had obtained its title to Lot 7217- D-2 through
fraud. Yet, that recourse is no longer availing, for the decision in G.R. No.
130876 explicitly found and declared that the reconstituted title of Cebu
Country Club had not been obtained through fraud.
Discussion: In a reconstituted title (administrative reconstituted title), the only
basis is the owner’s duplicate copy. So there is no need for CCC to show a
mode of transfer in its favor. After all, when they applied for the reconstitution,
their only basis is the owner’s duplicate copy of the title (RA 9443).
Egao vs CA
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners validly transferred their ownership to
Marfori to resolve the rights of the respondents over the land in dispute?
Held: The SC holds that based on the adduced evidence, the Egaos sold the lot
to Marfori within the 5-year restriction period provided by law on Free Patent
based on the Deed of Sale entered into by the parties.
Although the petitioners denied the validity of the Deed of Sale the court held
that it was notarized and a notarial document has in its favor the presumption
of regularity.
When the land was sold to the respondents, they know that the OCT is still
registered under the name of the petitioners. Thus, they are not considered
to be innocent purchaser as contrary to the ruling of the CA.
Where a purchaser neglects to make the necessary inquiries and closes his eyes
to facts which should put a reasonable man on his guard as to the possibility of
the existence of a defect in his vendor's title, and relying on the belief that
there was no defect in the title of the vendor, purchases the property without
making any further investigation, he cannot claim that he is a purchaser in
good faith for value.  retention limits set forth in the law, taking into account ecological,
A private individual cannot bring an action for reversion or any action which
would have an effect of canceling a free patent and the certificate of title
issued on the basis thereof since the land covered will form part again of the
public domain.
Sec. 124 of the Public Land Act provides that deeds of sale of patented lands,
perfected within the prohibited five (5) year period are null and void thus the
Egaos have no title to pass to Marfori and nobody can dispose that which does
not belong to him.
The respondents are not innocent purchasers for value with no standing to
question the rights of the petitioners over the land and to file an action to quiet
the title. The petitioners remained to be the registered owners and entitled to
remain in physical possession of the disputed property.
Respondents are ordered to deliver the OCT to the petitioners without prejudice
to an action for reversion of the land to be instituted by the Solicitor General
for the State.
Issuance of Free Patents to Residential Lands (RA
10023)
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTIAL
LANDS (RA 10023)
the outstanding owner's duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may
THINGS TO REMEMBER
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
- This is an important piece of legislation;
- A free patent covers only agricultural lands, not residential lands.
But because there is a need to expedite the titling of residential
size lots, this law was passed;
• In case the person in possession of the owner’s duplicate certificate
- Importance of this law: There is no restriction (CA 141). the only
limitation is the area. For urban areas, maximum area is 200 sq
meters only. For rural, 1000 sq m. Under the free patent law, the
period that is required is similar to Sec. 14 of PD 1549 which is
June 12, 1945 but under the residential free patent law it is only for
10 years. You can sell it anytime.
withholding the duplicate certificate and direct the entry of a new
CERTIFICATION OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION
PATENT
CHAPTER 9 (SEC. 104—105)
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFERS (SEC. 105)
Section 104. Provisional Register of Documents. The Department of Agrarian
Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special registry book to be
known as the "Provisional Register of Documents issued under PD-27" which shall
be kept and maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country. Said
Registry Book shall be a register of:
a. All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27; and
b. All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer such as
adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous Certificates of
Land Transfer.
Section 105. Certificates of Land Transfer Emancipation Patents. The
Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27 issue in duplicate, a
Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under "Operation Land Transfer",
the original of which shall be kept by the tenant- farmer and the duplicate, in the
Registry of Deeds.
After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of
title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover previously titled or
untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned
Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in case
of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the
corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the
owner's duplicate of the title to be canceled.
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine
his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds accordingly.

In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a
Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds
shall affect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the
Department of Agrarian Reform.
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with
the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration or related
documents.
AGRARIAN REFORM PROVISION IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Article 13, Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular
farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of
the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking
into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention
limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State
shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM OF 1998 (RA 6657)
RA 6657 OR COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988
• Agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and
regular farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till, or in case of other farm workers, to
receive a just share on the fruits thereof
• To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the priorities and
developmental, and equity considerations and subject to the
payment of just compensation
• The State shall respect the right of small landowners, and shall
provide for voluntary land-sharing
PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
CHAPTER X (SECTIONS 107-110)
Surrender of Withheld Duplicate Certificate (Sec. 107)
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is
necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument
which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a
voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the
holder to surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest
may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a
new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the
duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason
order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title
in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
REMEDY WHERE DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE IS WITHHELD
refuses or fails to surrender the same to the RD so that any
involuntary or voluntary instrument may be registered and a
certificate issued, the party in interest may file a petition in court to
compel the surrender of the same to the RD
• The court after hearing may order the registered owner or any person
certificate or memorandum upon such surrender
• If the person withholding the certificate is not amenable to the
process of the court, or if for any reason the certificate cannot be
delivered, the court may order the annulment of said certificate and
the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof
• Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a
memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate
PETITION TO SURRENDER TITLE MAY BE FILED AS AN INCIDENT IN AN
ACTION AFFECTING SAID TITLE
• Where the court in an action for specific performance, upheld the sale
to the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to comply with the terms
and conditions to the sale, it was proper for the plaintiff to ask the
court to compel the defendant to surrender the duplicate certificate
of title to the RD for the registration of the sale, this being a
necessary incident in the main case
• Section 107 doesn’t preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein the relief stated under said section, specially if the
certificate of title to be surrendered is intimately connected with the
subject matter of the principal action
• Where the title is subject to a mortgage, the order of the court cannot
in any way prejudice the rights of the mortgagee since any lien
annotated in the certificate is incorporated or carried over to the new
transfer certificate of title to whoever it is issued
P a g e 16 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
AUTHORITY OF COURT TO ORDER THE SURRENDER OWNER’S DUPLICATE
CERTIFICATE
of title. To require the surrender of the Owner’s Duplicate Copy (ODC) is
• In order that the court may order the registered owner to surrender his
owner’s duplicate, it has to determine upon the evidence presented
by the parties whether the registered owner had been lawfully
divested of his title thereto
• That of course requires and involves of the determination of the
question of title to the registered property
court directing the surrender of the title to Lois affect the rights of Clark,
• Section 107 doesn’t constitute a reopening of the decree entered as a
result of proceedings in rem for the confirmation of imperfect title
under said act, it cannot be deemed to contravene the purpose or
aim of the Torrens system
mortgage subsists notwithstanding a change in ownership; in short, the
INSTANCES WHERE THE SURRENDER OF THE ODC MAY BE DISPENSED WITH
upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment
1. The registered owner is a party of the case;
of the obligation for whose security it was constituted. It is inseparable from
2. There’s already a final and executory decision of the court;
the property mortgaged as it is a right in rem, a lien on the property whoever
3. There’s already an order of the issuance of Certificate of Title in favor
of the prevailing parties.
Ligon vs. CA
(G. R No. 107751, June 1, 1995)
Issue: Whether or not a separate petition for the surrender of owner's copy be
filed.
Held: No.
Under our land registration law, no voluntary instrument shall be registered by
the Register of Deeds unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented
together with such instrument, except in some cases or upon order of the
court for cause shown. In case the person in possession of the duplicate
certificates refuses or fails to surrender the same to the Register of Deeds so
that a voluntary document may be registered and a new certificate issued.
Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, registration proceedings have been
simplified by conferring upon the regional trial courts the authority to act not
only on applications for original registration but also over all petitions filed
after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
Even while Sec. 107 of P.D. 1529 speaks of a petition which can be filed by one
who wants to compel another to surrender the certificates of title to the RD,
this does not preclude a party to a pending case to include as incident
therein the relief stated under Sec. 107, especially if the subject
certificates of title to be surrendered are intimately connected with the
subject matter of the principal action. This principle is based on expediency
and in accordance with the policy against multiplicity of suits.
Any lien annotated on the previous certificates of title which subsists should be
incorporated in or carried over to the new transfer certificates of title.
Discussion: Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition which can be
filed by one who wants to compel another to surrender the certificates of title
to the RD, this does not preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein, the relief stated under section, especially if the subject
certificate of title to be surrendered is intimately connected with the subject
matter of the principal action. This principle is based on expediency and in
accordance with the policy against multiplicity of suits.
Parties are not precluded to include as a relief in the case.
No need to file in another case.
Toledo Banaga vs. Court of Appeals
(G. R. No. 127941, January 28, 1999)
Exception to Sec. 107
Petitioners contend that the execution of the final and executory decision —
which is to issue titles in the name of private respondent — cannot be
compelled by mandamus because of the "formality" that the registered owner
first surrenders her duplicate Certificates of Title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of
P.D. No. 1529 bears no merit. . . To file another action just to compel the
registered owner, herein petitioner Tan, to surrender her titles constitute
violation of, if not disrespect to, the orders of the highest tribunal. Otherwise, if
execution cannot be had just because the losing party will not surrender her
titles, the entire proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts, expenses and
time of the parties, would be rendered nugatory. It is revolting to conscience to
allow petitioners to further avert the satisfaction of their obligation because of
sheer literal adherence to technicality, or formality of surrender of the
duplicate titles. The surrender of the duplicate is implied from the executory
decision since petitioners themselves were parties thereto. Besides, as part of
the execution process, it is a ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to
comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in
the name of a certain person, especially when the decision had attained
finality, as in this case.
Issue: Whether the remedy of private respondent to secure the titles in his name
is by consulta to the LRC and not through contempt.
Held: No. Private respondent's remedy is not a direct or independent civil action
for cancellation of petitioner Tan's titles. The surrender of the duplicate is
implied from the executory decision since petitioners themselves were
parties thereto. Besides, as part of the execution process, it is a ministerial
function of the RD to comply with the decision of the court to issue a title and
register a property in the name of a certain person, especially when the
decision had attained finality, as in this case. Moreover, it is axiomatic that
where a decision on the merits is rendered and the same has become final and
executory, as in this case, the action on procedural matters or issues becomes
moot and academic.
Thus, the so-called consulta to the Commissioner of Land Registration, which is
not applicable herein, was only a naive and belated effort resorted to by
petitioners in order to delay execution.
In addition, the enforcement of a final and executory judgment is likewise a
ministerial function of the courts and does not call for the exercise of discretion.
Being a ministerial duty, a writ of mandamus lies to compel its performance.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
Discussion: This is the exception to the rule of surrender of duplicate certificate
preposterous. The surrender of the Owner’s Duplicate Copy is already
considered implied in the final and executor judgment of the court.
Lana’s title is the subject of a subsisting mortgage, does the order of the
as mortgagee?
No, any lien annotated on the certificate of title, like the existing mortgage, is
carried over to the new transfer certificate of title to whoever it is issued. The
personality of the owner is disregarded. Pursuant to Art. 2126 of the Civil
Code, a real estate mortgage directly and immediately subjects the property
its owner may be. (Ligon vs CA)
Amendment and Alteration of Certificates (Sec. 108)
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure,
alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry
of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same
be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A
registered owner of other person having an interest in registered property, or, in
proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered
interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate
appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not
appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or
error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any
duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been
changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that
the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will
thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has
been dissolved has not convened the same within three years after its dissolution;
or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the
petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation
of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate,
or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond
if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not
be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of
registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall
impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in
good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the
owner's duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as
provided in the preceding section.
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision
of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original
case in which the decree or registration was entered.
WHERE TO FILE PETITION
• All petitions or motions after original registration shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was
entered
• This provision doesn’t require that it be under oath
• Provision was adopted with an intelligent purpose in view—to allow
such petitions and motions to be filed and disposed of elsewhere
would eventually lead to confusion and render it difficult to trace the
origin of the entries in the registry
GROUNDS FOR THE AMENDMENT OR ALTERATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE
a. when registered interests of any description, whether vested,
contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased;
b. when new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear
upon the certificate;
c. when any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a
certificate or any memorandum thereon or on any duplicate
certificate;
d. when the name of any person on the certificate has been changed;
e. when the registered owner has been married, or, registered as
married, the marriage has been terminated and no right or interest
of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected;
f. when a corporation, which owned registered land and has been
dissolved, has not conveyed the same within three years after its
dissolution; and
g. when there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of
title
NO TIME LIMIT TO FILE PETITION
• No limitation or period is fixed for filing a petition to annotate a deed
of sale at the back of a certificate of title
• If any person claims that a person registered a deed of sale can no
longer do so, because the deed was executed more than 10 years
before, such objection must be raised in an ordinary civil action
• Where there is no question as to the existence and validity of the
deed of sale, the registration of the sale and issuance of a TCT are
ministerial duties of the RD
Oliva vs. Republic
(G. R. No. 163118, April 27, 2007)
Since the property in this case was originally alienable land of the public domain,
the application for free patent contained the condition that a forty-meter legal
easement from the banks on each side of any river or stream found on the land
shall be demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland. . .
P a g e 17 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
In this case, the trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban, Cebu City
is an urban area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof because they already know them.
A municipal jurisdiction, whether designated as chartered city or provincial
capital, is considered as urban in its entirety if it has a population density of at
least 1,000 persons per square kilometer. The City of Cebu was created on
October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Act No. 58. It is a highly urbanized
city classified as entirely urban. Thus, all its barangays, including Talamban, are
considered urban.
Conformably with the foregoing considerations, the reduction of
the legal easement of forty meters to three meters now is in order.
Issue: Is the applicable legal easement forty or three meters?
Held: Three meters. The trial court properly took judicial notice that Talamban,
Cebu City is an urban area. The DENR promulgated A.O. No. 99-21 which
provided that when administratively titled lands are to be subdivided,
consolidated or consolidated-subdivided, the strip of three (3) meters which
falls within urban areas shall be demarcated. Since the property in this case
was originally alienable land of the public domain, the application for free
patent contained the condition that a forty-meter legal easement from the
banks on each side of any river or stream found on the land shall be
demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland. However, after the
property was administratively titled, it underwent several surveys for purposes
of subdivision, consolidation, or consolidation-subdivision as evidenced by
TCT No. 5455. Thus, presently only three meters is required to be demarcated
and preserved as permanent timberland.
Urban — 3 meters
Agricultural — 20 meters
Forest — 40 meters
Republic vs. Galeno
(G. R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017)
Facts: Galeno filed for petition for correction of area. Alleged that she and her
co-owners had land resurveyed for purpose of partition when they discovered
the discrepancy of the area from 20,948 sq m to 21,298 sq m. She sought to
correct the area to avoid further confusion and claimed to have notified
adjoining owners.
RTC allowed presentation of respondent’s evidence ex parte. RTC then ranted
the petition finding that respondent was able ti substantiate the allegations in
her petition to warrant a correct ion of the area of the subject.
Republic then claimed that the adjoining owners had not been notified, stressing
that such notice isa jurisdictional requirement. RTC denied.
CA affirmed RTC that respondent was able to prove.
Issue: WOM CA erred in upholding RTC decision
Held: A scrutiny of the evidence marked and formally offered by respondent
before the court a quo shows that the former failed to prove that there was
sufficient basis to allow the correction of the area of the subject property in
OCT No. 46417 from 20,948 square meters to 21,248 square meters.
Respondent offered in evidence the following documents: (a) the Certification
issued by a certain Althea C. Acevedo, Chief Engineer of the Technical Services
Section of the DENR in Iloilo City, which states that the true and correct area is
21,928 square meters; (b) the technical description of Lot No. 2285, a copy of
which was certified by Ameto Caballero (Caballero), Chief of the Surveys
Division, while another copy was certified correct by Acevedo; and (c) the
approved subdivision plan.
Unfortunately, the foregoing documentary evidence are not sufficient to warrant
the correction prayed for. The Court cannot accord probative weight upon
them in view of the fact that the public officers who issued the same did not
testify in court to prove the facts stated therein.
Public documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules
on Evidence as follows:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public of cers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and
testaments; and
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law
to be entered therein.
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to in
Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x.
Section 23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
"Sec. 23.Public documents as evidence. — Documents consisting of entries in
public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are
evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their
execution and of the date of the latter."
The CENRO and Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, certifications [do]
not fall within the class of public documents contemplated in the first
sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect "entries
in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer," such
as entries made by the Civil Registrar in the books of registries, or by a ship
captain in the ship's logbook. The certifications are not the certified copies
or authenticated reproductions of original official records in the legal
custody of a government office. The certifications are not even records of
public documents.
As such, sans the testimonies of Acevedo, Caballero, and the other public
officers who issued respondent's documentary evidence to con rm the veracity
of its contents, the same are bereft of probative value and cannot, by their
mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein. At best, they may be considered
only as prima facie evidence of their due execution and date of issuance but
do not constitute prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
Case law states that the "absence of opposition from government agencies is of
no controlling significance because the State cannot be estopped by the
omission, mistake or error of its officials or agents. Neither is the Republic
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
barred from assailing the decision granting the petition for reconstitution [or
correction of title, as in this case] if, on the basis of the law and the evidence on
record, such petition has no merit.” Moreover, "in civil cases, the party having
the burden of proof must produce a preponderance of evidence thereon, with
plaintiff having to rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the
weakness of the defendant’s.
Principle: Enumerated amendment of certificate of title may be availed of pursuant to Section 108
Where there it involves status of person, citizenship or substantial, does not involve inside Section 108
but in another proceeding.
Court order directing from married to widower, we demanded from the applicant present show
payment of estate taxes to avoid payment of real estate tax.
Moment we annotate that, the property will be sold, it will be transferred without estate tax. SO we
deny until payment of estate tax.
- SC said denial made by the Register of Deeds are merely speculative. Goes against.
- No longer ask for payment of the estate tax.
Paz vs Republic
(G. R. No. 157367, NOV. 23, 2011)
Issue: Whether or not the petition under Sec. 108 of PD 1529 is proper.
Held: No. Petitioner was in reality seeking the reconveyance of the property
covered by OCT No. 684, not the cancellation of a certificate of title as
contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, his petition did not fall
under any of the situations covered by Section 108.
Discussion: The requirements for the court to acquire jurisdiction are payment
of the docket fees (initiatory pleading) and the service of summons. What Paz
tried to do in this case was make it appear that it was a continuation of the
original registration case, when in fact, it was still an initiatory pleading. This
was so he could do away from paying the docket fees.
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates provides in categorical
terms the instances upon which alterations may be made:
a) When registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent,
expectant or inchoate, have terminated and ceased;
b) When new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon
the certificate;
c) When any error, omission or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any
memorandum thereon or on any duplicate certificate;
d) When the name of any person on the certificate has been changed;
e) When the registered owner has been married, or registered as married, the
marriage has been terminated and no right or interest of heirs or creditors
will thereby be affected;
f) When a corporation, which owned registered land and has been dissolved,
has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; and
g) When there is reasonable ground for the amendment or alteration of title.
In the case at bar, it was found by the court that in reality, the petitioner is
seeking the reconveyance of the property to him. This particular act does not
fall within the permissible instances provided for the cancellation and
amendment of certificate of titles. Hence, the petition which was premised on
the applicability of Sec. 108, does not find application. Hence, the petition was
rightfully denied.
Argued: He does not have to pay docket fees because its is not an initiatory hearing but only a
continuation of the land registration case.
SC: NO! It is a scheme that he only wants to own. He only wants to file a reconveyance case and not a
petition for correction of the title.
Cabanez vs Solano
(G. R. No. 200180, June 6, 2016)
In the present case, it is now apparent that before the trial court can alter the
description of the civil status of respondent in the transfer certificates of title in
question, it will have to receive evidence of and determine respondent's civil
status. This requires a full dress trial rendering the summary proceedings
envisaged in Section 108 of PD 1529 inadequate. E
It is settled that a land registration case is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction in
rem cannot be acquired unless there be constructive seizure of the land
through publication and service of notice. However, as found by the CA,
respondent failed to comply with the said requirements. In all cases where the
authority of the courts to proceed is conferred by a statute, and when the
manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, it must be strictly complied with,
or the proceedings will be utterly void. It is wrong for the CA to rule in its
Amended Decision that publication is not a jurisdictional requirement for the
RTC to take cognizance of respondent's petition.
The appellate court's reliance on the case of Chan v. Court of Appeals is
misplaced. In the said case, this Court considered the notice to the Register of
Deeds as substantial compliance with the notice and publication requirements
of the law simply because in the petition for correction led by the petitioner
therein, only the said petitioner and the Register of Deeds had an interest in
the correction of titles sought for. This Court ruled that there is therefore no
necessity to notify other parties who had no interest to protect in the said
petition.
This is not true, however, in the present case. As discussed above, on the bases
of petitioner's serious objection and adverse claim, it is apparent that he has
an interest to protect. Thus, the ruling in Chan finds no application in the
instant case.
Section 108 — Covers on clerical errors and not controversial issues
One of the instances enumerated if the person is married or single and
gets remarried by including the wife or husband.
Notice and Replacement of Lost Duplicate Certificate
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of
loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall
be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a
P a g e 18 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person allegedly lost owner's duplicate was, in fact, not lost but was in her custody.
applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any Therefore, the RTC's compliance with Section 109 of P.D. 1529 was irrelevant.
instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by
the registered owner or other person in interest and registered. We have consistently held that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has
not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, then the
reconstituted certificate is void because the court failed to acquire jurisdiction
Section 109 is the applicable law in petitions for the issuance of new over the subject matter — the allegedly lost owner's duplicate. The correct
owner’s duplicate certificate which are lost or stolen or destroyed
remedy for the registered owner against an uncooperative possessor is to
RA 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or destroyed compel the surrender of the owner's duplicate title through an action for
original certificates of title on file with the RD
replevin.
By dismissing Tan's petition for annulment of judgment solely based on a
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
technicality and on an irrelevant consideration, the CA acted with grave abuse
a. The registered owner or other person in interest shall send notice, of discretion. The outright dismissal was also made at the expense of the
under oath, of the loss or destruction of the owner’s duplicate substantial justice and of the general public who have a right to rely on the
certificate of title to the RD of the province or city where the land integrity of our Torrens system. This amounted to an evasion of its positive duty
lies as soon as the loss or destruction is discovered;
to uphold the integrity of our Torrens system and to a virtual refusal of its duty
b. The corresponding petition for the replacement of the loss or to determine and strike down decisions rendered without jurisdiction.
destroyed owner’s duplicate certificate shall then be filed in court GRANT Petition for Certiorari. RTC ruling is set aside, and the case is remanded
and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration back to the CA to proceed hearing the case and decide on the factual issues
was entered;
raised by petitioner.
c. The petition shall state under oath the facts and circumstance
surrounding such loss or destruction;

d. The court shall set the petition for hearing, after due notice to the RD Gocheco vs. Estacio
and all other interested parties as shown in the memorandum of (G. R. No. L-15183, Oct. 30, 1962)
encumbrances noted in the original or transfer certificate of title on
file in the office of the RD;
Notice of the hearing of a petition for the issuance of an owner's duplicate copy
e. After due notice and hearing, the court may direct the issuance of a of a certificate of title need not be published if the complete record of the
new duplicate certificate which shall contain a memorandum of the original of the certificate of title is intact in the Register of Deeds. Likewise,
fact that it is issued in place of the lost or destroyed certificate and there is no need to first secure the appointment of a legal representative of the
estate and the declaration of the lawful heirs of the decedent if the petition,
shall in all respects be entitled to the same faith and credit as the which does not seek the distribution of the estate comes under the provisions
original duplicate.
of Section 109 of Act No. 496.
In view of the existence of the complete record in the register of Deeds of
PETITION, WHERE FILED
Zamboanga del Sur, of the original of the certificate of title in question and of
A petition for replacement shall be filed with the RTC of the place where the fact that the present petition is not one for reconstitution as provided by
the land lies and this is true even if the title was issued pursuant to a Republic Act No. 26, there is no necessity for publishing notice of the hearing
public land patent registered in accordance with Section 103 of this thereof. And the petition, coming as it does, under the provisions of Section
decree
109, aforequoted, there is likewise no need to first secure the appointment of a
legal representative of the estate and the declaration of the lawful heirs of the
Things to Remember:
deceased Paulino P. Gocheco. The petition does not at all seek the distribution
- There is no requirement for publication of the petition for of the decedent's estate. The owner's duplicate copy to be issued will be only
replacement of lost or destroyed certificate.
an owner's duplicate copy of O.C.T. No. O-1385 and the petitioner is a person
- If the owner’s duplicate certificate of title was never lost or in interest as he is a legal heir, according to his uncontroverted verified
destroyed, a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate petition.
copy is unwarranted, as in fact, the court has no jurisdiction over The oppositors have no personality to intervene and their grounds of
the petition, and any issuance pursuant to such is null and void.
intervention, namely, that they have been in public, continuous, peaceful,
- Petition shall be filed with the RTC of the place where the land lies.
adverse and lawful possession of the property is immaterial, impertinent and
of no consequence, in the present proceeding. Their claim of ownership or
possession of the property can be properly instituted in a separate,
Coombs vs. Castañeda independent and ordinary civil action.
(G. R. No. 192353)
In the present case, petitioner Coombs' Petition for Annulment of Judgment was
grounded on lack of jurisdiction. Based on our review of the records, she Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original Torrens
annexed to her petition the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 and the Title (Sec. 110)
RTC Decision — which sufficiently support the petition's cause of action. A copy
of the TCT alleged to have been missing supports the claim that the same was Section 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title.
never lost. In the same vein, a copy of the RTC Decision, in conjunction with Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of
supporting jurisprudence, supports petitioner Coombs' averment that said Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles
decision was rendered without jurisdiction. Her allegations coupled with the shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
appropriate supporting documents give rise to a prima facie case that the RTC Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure
did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter in LRC Case No. 04-035. relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in
said Act is hereby abrogated.
As we ruled in Tan Po Chu v. Court of Appeals, if allegations of this nature turned
Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to the
out to be true, the RTC Decision would be void and the Court of Appeals
Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Commissioner
would have been duty-bound to strike it down. Thus, the appellate court erred
of Land Registration. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a
when it brushed aside this duty and dismissed the case outright based on a
certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the
strict interpretation of technical rules. Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such
order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials.

Tan Po Chu vs. CA Note: The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes the restoration
(G. R. No. 184348, April 4, 20161) in its original form and condition of a lost or destroyed original or
When the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in transfer certificate of title on file in the office of the RD.

the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void Purpose: To have the title reproduced in exactly the same way it was at
because the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter — the the time of its loss or destruction.

allegedly lost owner's duplicate. The correct remedy for the registered owner
against an uncooperative possessor is to compel the surrender of the owner's PROOF REQUIRED FOR RECONSTITUTION

duplicate title through an action for replevin.

a. That the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed;

A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It has been held to b. That the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper
be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or to warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title;

ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its ugly head. It may be attacked at
c. That the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an
any time.
interest therein;

If Tan's allegation were true, then the RTC's judgment would be void and the CA d. That the certificate of title was in force at the was lost or destroyed;
would have been duty-bound to strike it down. and

_______________________ e. That the description, area and boundaries of the property are
This Court cannot ignore the implications if the petitioner's allegations — that she substantially the same and those contained in the lost or destroyed
has the original owner's duplicate TCT of the subject lot and that the SEC certificate of title.

revoked FiberTech's registration in 2003 — are true. There will currently exist
two owner's duplicate TCTs over the same property possessed by two SOURCES OF RECONSTITUTION FOR OCT (SEC. 2, RA 26)

contending factions in an intra-corporate dispute of a defunct corporation. This

anomalous situation can potentially bring considerable harm to the general Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the
public and to the integrity of our Torrens system. This Court, therefore, cannot sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following
simply leave the parties as they were. order:

a. The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

The CA committed a grave error when it brushed aside Tan's argument that the
RTC rendered its decision without jurisdiction. It ruled that the replacement of b. The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate
a lost duplicate certificate is a proceeding in rem, directed against the whole of title;

world; therefore, the RTC acquired jurisdiction when it complied with the c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
notice and hearing requirements under Section 109 of P.D. 1529. register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

The CA completely missed the point because Tan did not assail the RTC's d. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the
jurisdiction by alleging noncompliance with the requirements of notice and case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was
hearing; she questioned the RTC's jurisdiction over the res by claiming that the issued;

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. P a g e 19 o f 3 0

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, show that they are not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies
the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, are put on notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra careful.
leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document (Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic 519 SCRA 238)

showing that its original had been registered; and

f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient Note: PD 1529 discontinued administrative reconstitution which was
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate provided under RA 26.

of title.
However, administrative reconstitution was reinstated by RA 6732 to
address the problem of the Quezon City fire. This does not apply only
SOURCES OF RECONSTITUTION FOR TCT (SEC. 3, RA 26)
to the Quezon City incident, but also where at least 10% of the
Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the records of a city is destroyed, or at least 500 titles, the administrator
sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following will declare that the city/province where the RD is located may avail of
order:
RA 6732.

a. The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

b. The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate Saint Mary Crusade vs. Rief
of title;
(G. R. No. 176508, Jan. 12, 2015)
c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
Petitioner had no factual and legal bases for reconstitution due to its failure to
prove the existence and validity of the certificate of title sought to be
d. The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of reconstituted. No duplicate or certified copy of OCT No. 1609 was presented
deeds, containing the description of the property, or an and thereby, it disobeyed Section 2 and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26, the
authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been provisions that expressly listed the acceptable bases for judicial reconstitution
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer of an existing Torrens title.
certificate of title was issued;

—————————————
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property,
the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, This court was faced with substantially the same situation in Director of Lands v.
leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document Court of Appeals. In that case, the petition for reconstitution, as in the present
showing that its original had been registered; and
case, was filed under Section 3(a) of RA 26 based on an alleged owner's
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient duplicate certificate of title. However, the Director of Lands, in an adverse
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate Report, challenged the authenticity of the purported duplicate certificate of
of title.
title. The trial court denied reconstitution but the Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's ruling. Upon further review, we reversed the Court of Appeals
and dismissed the reconstitution petition.
TWO TYPES OF RECONSTITUTION
Consequently, we applied Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and held that for non-
1. Administrative Reconstitution — a proceeding in rem; once compliance with these provisions, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
issue, anybody who has a claim or interest has 2 years to inform over the petition for reconstitution.
the court if his claim; such claim was not carried over the Therefore, it is Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 which applies to LRC
reconstituted title issued
Case No. Q-96-8296. Hence, in addition to its posting and publication, the
2. Ex Parte reconstitution — a proceeding not in rem; court has notice of hearing of LRC Case No. Q-96-8296 should also have been served
discretion whether or not it is proper to re-annotate a previously through mail on the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who
existing annotation at the back of title
may have any interest in the property.
Further, in the case at bar, the jurisdiction or authority of the Court of First
WHERE TO FILE PETITION; CONTENTS
Instance is conferred upon it by Republic Act 26 entitled "An Act providing a
Shall be filed by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or
interest in the property with the proper RTC where the same is based destroyed," approved on September 25, 1946. The Act specifically provides
on sources enumerated earlier
the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed
Contents shall be as followed—
before the court can act on the petition and grant to the petitioner the remedy
1. That the owner’s duplicate had been lost or destroyed
sought for. These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for
2. That no co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, lessee’s, duplicate had been reconstitution must allege the jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must
issued or, if any had been issued, the same had been lost or also be published and posted in particular places and the same sent to
destroyed
specified persons. Specifically, the requirements and procedure are set forth in
detail under Sections 12 and 13 of the.
3. The location, area and boundaries of the property

4. The nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if For non-compliance with the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation
any, which don’t belong to the owner of the land, and the names to Section 12 of RA 26, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC
and addresses of the owners of such buildings or improvements
Case No. Q-96-8296. The proceedings in that case were thus a nullity and the
28 October 1996 Order was void.
5. The names and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining
properties and all persons who may have any interest in the
property
Republic vs. Sanchez
6. A detailed description of the encumbrances if any, affecting the (G. R. No. 146081, July 17, 2006)
property
In the instant case, the change in the number of the certificate of title sought to
7. A statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the be reconstituted from TI12/79 to TCT No. 42449 rendered at once the
property have been presented for registration, or if there be any, authenticity or genuineness of respondent's certificate of title under suspicion
the registration thereof hasn’t been accomplished
or cloud of doubt. And since respondent alleges that the technical
descriptions under both certificates of title are identical and the same, x x x, We
REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE BY PUBLICATION, POSTING AND MAILING
hold that the instant petition for judicial reconstitution falls squarely under
1. To be published twice, at the expense of the petitioner, in Section 3(f), Republic Act No. 26, because the Director of Lands claims that the
successive issues of the Official Gazette
respondent's duplicate of the Certificate of Title No. TI12/79 or TCT No. 42449
are [sic] both fake and fictitious.
2. To be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of
the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land Consequently, we applied Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and held that for non-
is situated
compliance with these provisions, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
3. Copy of the notice to be sent by registered mail or otherwise, at over the petition for reconstitution.
the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein Therefore, it is Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 which applies to LRC
whose address is known, within 30 days prior the date of hearing
Case No. QI96I8296. Hence, in addition to its posting and publication, the
The jurisdiction of the court is hedged in the forewalls of the petition notice of hearing of LRC Case No. QI96I8296 should also have been served
and the published notice of hearing which define the subject matter of through mail on the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who
the petition.
may have any interest in the property.
Further, in the case at bar, the jurisdiction or authority of the Court of First
COMPLIANCE WITH JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS IS MANDATORY
Instance is conferred upon it by Republic Act 26 entitled "An Act providing a
special procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or
• The court doesn’t acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition
destroyed," approved on September 25, 1946. The Act specifically provides
• It is not enough that there is publication in the OG only for there is a the special requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed
posting requirement also. Failure to comply will nullify the before the court can act on the petition and grant to the petitioner the remedy
proceedings.
sought for. These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for
reconstitution must allege the jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must
RECONSTITUTED TITLES: EXTRAJUDICIAL -VS- JUDICIAL
also be published and posted in particular places and the same sent to
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and legal effects as to specified persons. Specifically, the requirements and procedure are set forth in
the originals thereof unless the reconstitution was made detail under Sections 12 and 13.
extrajudicially. In contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost
certificate of title which is in rem, the administrative reconstitution is
essentially ex-parte and without notice. The reconstituted certificates Heirs of Venturanza vs. Republic
of title do not share the same indefeasible character of the original (G. R. No. 149122, July 27, 2007)
certificates of title for the following reason: The nature of a
Land Registration Act is not applicable considering that the land covered by TCT
reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title of a registered land is similar No. 2574 had never been within the operation of the Land Registration Act
to that of a second Owner’s Duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title. Both because of the irregularities attending the issuance of the reconstituted title.
are issued, after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the
registered owner that the original of the said TCT, respectively, was lost Aside from the fact that no court could have ever acquired jurisdiction to order
and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted for the reconstitution of Mora's title over the property which has never been
that purpose. Both, therefore, are subsequent copies of the originals originally registered, the judgment in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R did not operate as
thereof. A cursory examination of these subsequent copies would

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. Page 20 of 30

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
res judicata which would bar the Republic's action because there was no
identity of cause of action between CA-G.R. No. 20681-R and the instant case.
A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void and
can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found. Thus, we have
ruled that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public
domain classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on
non-disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for
value, shall be cancelled.
———
The petitioners relied on a mistaken presumption that the reconstituted title
becomes indefeasible upon achieving finality after a year allegedly as what is
mandate under PD 1529. However, the provisions that they relied merely refers
to original decrees of registration and not including titles which underwent
reconstitution.
Furthermore, it is clear that the land subject in dispute was originally part
timberland. Thus, it could not have been registered in the name of petitioners
or their predecessors-in-interest for the simple reason that under the
Constitution, timberlands, which are part of the public domain, cannot be
alienated.
Republic vs. Lorenzo
(G. R. No. 172338, Dec. 10, 2012)
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the RTC’S
Order of reconstitution of OCT No. 3980?
Held: The petition is impressed with merit.
CIVIL LAW: reconstitution of title
The relevant law that governs the reconstitution of a lost or destroyed Torrens
certificate of title is Republic Act No. 26. Section 2 of said statute enumerates
the following as valid sources for judicial reconstitution of title:
Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:  registered the same, way before the titles of Servando were declared null by
(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;  the RTC.
(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of
title;  Presidential Decree No. 1529, an original owner of registered land may seek
(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;  remedy is without prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for value with
(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the
case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was
issued;  interest in such property, and pays a full and fair price for the same at the time
(e) A document, on file in the Registry of Deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased
or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing
that its original had been registered; and  valid title when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes. A deed of sale
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of
title. 
As borne out by the records of this case, Lorenzo et al. were unable to present
any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) above. Thus, the only
documentary evidence the respondents were able to present as possible
sources for the reconstitution of OCT No. 3980 are those that they believed to
fall under the class of “any other document” described in paragraph (f).
As correctly pointed out by Republic, we had emphasized in Republic v. Holazo
that the term “any other document” in paragraph (f) refers to reliable
documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations and that the
documents referred to in Section 2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence
of the preceding documents in the list. Therefore, the party praying for the
reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such
documents and failed to find them before presentation of “other documents”
as evidence in substitution is allowed.
Furthermore, in a more recent case, this Court enumerated what should be
shown before an order for reconstitution can validly issue, namely: (a) that the
certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that the documents
presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of
the lost or destroyed certificate of title; (c) that the petitioner is the registered
owner of the property or had an interest therein; (d) that the certificate of title
was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and (e) that the description,
area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same and those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
In the case at bar, Lorenzo, et al. were unable to discharge the burden of proof
prescribed by law and jurisprudence for the reconstitution of lost or destroyed
Torrens certificate of title.
Likewise, the deed of sale purportedly between Antonia Pascua, as seller, and
Pedro Fontanilla, as buyer, which involves OCT No. 3980 cannot be relied
upon as basis for reconstitution of Torrens certificate of title. An examination of
the deed of sale would reveal that the number of the OCT allegedly covering
the subject parcel of land is clearly indicated, however, the date when said
OCT was issued does not appear in the document. This circumstance is fatal to
Lorenzo et al.’s cause as we have reiterated inRepublic v. El Gobierno de las
Islas Filipinas that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning
the number of the certificate of title and the date when the certificate of title
was issued, does not warrant the granting of a petition for reconstitution.
Petition for reconstitution is DENIED.
Estoppel in Action for Cancellation of Title
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the
mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. However, like all general
rules, this is also subject to exceptions, viz:
acquaint themselves with the defects in the titles of Servando. This Court
“Estoppel against the public are little favored. They should not be
invoked except in rare and unusual circumstances and may not be
invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective operation of
a policy adopted to protect the public. They must be applied with
circumspection and should be applied only in those special cases
where the interests of justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously
with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby
thing; and subject to limitations . . ., the doctrine of equitable estoppel
may be invoked against public authorities as well as against private
individuals.”
Barstowe Phils. Vs. Republic
(G. R. No. 133110, Mar, 28, 2007)
Though estoppel by laches may lie against the Republic when
titles to the subdivision lots are already in the names of the
respective innocent purchasers for value from BPC, it may not be
used by BPC to defeat the titles of the Republic as regards the
subdivision lots which remain unsold and the titles to which are still
in the name of BPC. It must be recalled that BPC is not a purchaser
in good faith. Estoppel, being an equitable principle, may only be
invoked by one who comes to court with clean hands.
Issue: Who between BPC and the Republic has a better title over the subject
lots?
Held: Ultimately, this Court is called upon to determine which party now has
superior title to the subject lots: the Republic, BPC, the intervenors Abesamis,
Nicolas-Agbulos, and spouses Santiago, or Servando’s heirs? BPC, the
intervenors Abesamis, Nicolas-Agbulos, spouses Santiago, and Servando’s
heirs derived their title to the subject lots from Servando’s TCTs No. 200629
and 200630. This Court then is compelled to look into the validity, authenticity,
and existence of these two TCTs.
However, there is an absolute dearth of information and proof as to how
Servando acquired ownership and came into possession of the subject lots.
Relying on the findings of the LRA, it was established that TCTs No. 200629 and
200630 were forged and spurious, their reconstitution was also attended with
grave irregularities.
BPC was unable to attack the authenticity and validity of the titles of the Republic
to the subject lots, and could only interpose the defense that it was a buyer in
good faith. It points out that it purchased the subject lots from Servando and
Under Section 55 of the Land Registration Act, as amended by Section 53 of
the annulment of a transfer thereof on the ground of fraud. However, such a
a certificate of title.A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the
property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or
of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
person in the property.
It has been consistently ruled that a forged deed can legally be the root of a
executed by an impostor without the authority of the owner of the land sold is
a nullity, and registration will not validate what otherwise is an invalid
document.
However, where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of
the true owner to the forger and, while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser, the vendee had the right to rely
upon what appeared in the certificate and, in the absence of anything to excite
suspicion, was under no obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate.
Now the question is whether BPC qualifies as an innocent purchaser for value
which acquired valid titles to the subject lots, despite the fact that the titles of
its predecessor-in-interest were found to be forged and spurious.
This Court finds in the negative.
BPC cannot really claim that it was a purchaser in good faith which relied upon
the face of Servando’s titles. It should be recalled that the Quezon City Register
of Deeds caught fire on 11 June 1988.
Presumably, the original copies of TCTs were burnt in the said fire. Servando’s
heirs sought the administrative reconstitution of the TCTs.If BPC bought the
subject lots after TCTs were destroyed when the Quezon City Register of
Deeds burned down, but before the said certificates were reconstituted, then
on the face of what titles did BPC rely on before deciding to proceed with the
purchase of the subject lots? There was no showing that there were surviving
owner’s duplicate copies of TCTs.
Without the original copies and owner’s duplicate copies of TCTs, BPC had to
rely on the reconstituted certificates.
Under section 7 of Republic Act No. 26,"Reconstituted titles shall have the same
validity and legal effect as the originals thereof" unless the reconstitution was
made extra judicially.
In this case, TCTs were reconstituted administratively, hence, extra judicially. In
contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which isin rem,
the administrative reconstitution is essentially ex-parte and without notice.
The reconstituted certificates of title do not share the same indefeasible
character of the original certificates of title for the following reason
The nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate Of Title of
registered land is similar to that of a second Owner's Duplicate
Transfer Certificate Of Title. Both are issued, after the proper
proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that
the original of the said TCT or the original of the Owner’s Duplicate
TCT, respectively, was lost and could not be located or found
despite diligent efforts exerted for that purpose. Both, therefore,
are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A cursory
examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are
not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put on
notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra-careful.
The fact that the TCTs were reconstituted should have alerted BPC and its
officers to conduct an inquiry or investigation as might be necessary to
cannot declare BPC an innocent purchaser for value, and it acquired no better
titles to the subject lots than its predecessors-in-interest, Servando and
Antonio.
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or
errors of its officials or agents. However, like all general rules, this is also
subject to exceptions, viz:
P a ge 21 o f 3 0
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
"Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should not be
invoked except in rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be
invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective
operation of policy adopted to protect the public. They must be
applied with circumspection and should be applied only in those
special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it.
Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to deal
dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an
ignoble part ordo a shabby thing; and subject to limitations x x x
the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public
authorities as well as against private individuals."
Significantly, the other private respondents – Spouses Santos, Spouses
Calaguian, Dela Fuente and Madaya – bought such "expanded" lots in good
faith, relying on the clean certificates of St. Jude, which had no notice of any
flaw in them either. It is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable
principle of estoppel by laches against the government to avoid an injustice to
the innocent purchasers for value.
Judicially reconstituted titles are superior to administratively
reconstituted titles.
In the interest of justice and equity, neither may the titleholder be made to bear
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and legal effect as the
originals thereof unless the reconstitution was made extrajudicially. In
contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which
is in rem, the administrative reconstitution is essentially ex-parte and
without notice. The reconstituted certificates of title do not share the
same indefeasible character of the original certificates of title.
except claims that were noted in the certificate at the time of the
It is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of estoppel
by laches against the government to avoid an injustice to the innocent
purchasers for value.
petitioner from questioning private respondents titles to the
Republic vs CA and Santos
(G, R. No. 116111, Jan, 21, 1999)
In the case at bar, for nearly twenty years (starting from the
issuance of St. Jude's titles in 1966 up to the filing of the
Complaint in 1985), petitioner failed to correct and recover the
alleged increase in the land area of St. Jude. Its prolonged inaction
strongly militates against its cause, as it is tantamount to laches,
which means "the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due
diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence
or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Issue: Whether or not the government is estopped from questioning the
approved subdivision plan which expanded the areas covered by the transfer
certificates of title in question;
OR
(1) the applicability of estoppel against the State and
(2) the Torrens system
Held:
First Issue: Estoppel Against the Government
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or
error of its officials or agents. However, like all general rules, this is also subject
to exceptions:
The government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or
capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or
do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations x x x, the doctrine of
equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as
well as against private individuals.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the government, in its effort to recover ill-gotten
wealth, tried to skirt the application of estoppel against it by invoking a specific
constitutional provision. The Court countered:
We agree with the statement that the State is immune from
estoppel, but this concept is understood to refer to acts and
mistakes of its officials especially those which are irregular which
peculiar circumstances are absent in the case at bar.
In the case at bar, for nearly twenty years (starting from the issuance of St. Judes
titles in 1966 up to the filing of the Complaint in 1985), petitioner failed to
correct and recover the alleged increase in the land area of St. Jude.
Its prolonged inaction strongly militates against its cause, as it is tantamount to
laches, which means the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could
or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right
within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to
assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
Florencio Quintos, the owner of the 9,146 square-meter Quintos Village
adjoining the northern portion of St. Judes property (the portion allegedly
expanded), even attested on August 16, 1973 that there [was] no overlapping
of boundaries as per my approved plan (LRC) PSD 147766 dated September
8, 1971. That there was no actual damage to third persons caused by the
resurvey and the subdivision.
The other private respondents -- Spouses Santos, Spouses Calaguian, Dela
Fuente and Madaya -- bought such expanded lots in good faith, relying on
the clean certificates of St. Jude, which had no notice of any flaw in them
either. It is only fair and reasonable to apply the equitable principle of
estoppel by laches against the government to avoid an injusticeto the
innocent purchasers for value.
Likewise time-settled is the doctrine that where innocent third persons, relying
on the correctness of the certificate of title, acquire rights over the property,
courts cannot disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the
certificate.
This would be contrary to the very purpose of the law, which is to stabilize land
titles. Verily, all persons dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law or the courts
do not oblige them to go behind the certificate in order to investigate again
the true condition of the property.
Petitioner never presented proof that the private respondents who had bought
their lots from St. Jude were buyers in bad faith. Consequently, their claim of
good faith prevails.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
Furthermore, it should be stressed that the total area of forty thousand six
hundred twenty-three (40,623) square meters indicated on St. Judes original
title (TCT No. 22660) was not an exact area. Such figure was followed by the
phrase more or less. This plainly means that the land area indicated was not
precise.
The discrepancy in the figures could have been caused by the inadvertence or
the negligence of the surveyors. There is no proof, though, that the land area
indicated was intentionally and fraudulently increased. The property originally
registered was the same property that was subdivided.

It is well-settled that what defines a piece of titled property is not the numerical
date indicated as the area of the land, but the boundaries or metes and
bounds of the property specified in its technical description as enclosing it and
showing its limits.
Petitioner miserably failed to prove any fraud, either on the part of Private
Respondent St. Jude or on the part of land registration officials who had
approved the subdivision plan and issued the questioned TCTs.
Second Issue: The Torrens System
the unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the States agents, in the
absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest damage to third
persons.
First, the real purpose of the Torrens system is to quite title to land
to put a stop forever to any question as to the legality of the title,
registration or that may arise subsequent thereto.
Second, as we discussed earlier, estoppel by laches now bars
subdivision lots.
Third, it was never proven that Private Respondent St. Jude was a
party to the fraud that led to the increase in the area of the
property after its subdivision.
Finally, because petitioner even failed to give sufficient proof of any error that
might have been committed by its agent who had surveyed the property, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their functions must be
respected. Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system, which petitioner
purportedly aims to protect by filing this case, shall forever be sullied by the
ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are ordinarily
presumed to have regularly performed their duties.
We cannot, therefore, adhere to the petitioner’s submission that, in filing this suit,
it seeks to preserve the integrity of the Torrens system. To the contrary, it is
rather evident from our foregoing discussion that petitioner’s action derogates
the very integrity of the system.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision is
AFFIRMED.
SCHEDULE OF FEES, SPECIAL FUND
CHAPTER 11, SEC. 111
Section 111. Fees payable. The fees payable to the Clerk of Court, the Sheriff, the
Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Commission shall be as follows…
Note: DMD TAAS KAAYO. I don’t want to put it. And wala siya sa pertinent laws na gi
ingon ni Atty so I don't think it’s important. Hehe :D
FORMS USED IN LAND REGISTRATION AND CONVEYANCE
CHAPTER 12, SEC. 112
Section 112. Forms in conveyancing. The Commissioner of Land Registration
shall prepare convenient blank forms as may be necessary to help facilitate the
proceedings in land registration and shall take charge of the printing of land title
forms.
Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other
voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed
in accordance with law in the form of public instruments shall be registerable:
Provided, that, every such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons
executing the same in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign
thereon, and shall acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the person or
persons executing the same before a notary public or other public officer authorized
by law to take acknowledgment. Where the instrument so acknowledged consists of
two or more pages including the page whereon acknowledgment is written, each
page of the copy which is to be registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, or if
registration is not contemplated, each page of the copy to be kept by the notary
public, except the page where the signatures already appear at the foot of the
instrument, shall be signed on the left margin thereof by the person or persons
executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the ages sealed with the
notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be stated in the
acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale, transfer,
mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof shall
likewise be set forth in said acknowledgment.
Quilala vs Alcantara
(G. R, No. 132681, December 3, 2001
Facts: On February 20, 1981, Catalina Quilala (donor) executed a "Donation of
Real Property Inter Vivos" in favor of Violeta Quilala (donee) over a parcel of
land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila and registered in her name. The "Donation of
Real Property Inter Vivos" consists of two pages.
The first page contains the deed of donation itself, and is signed on the bottom
portion by Catalina Quilala and Violeta Quilala, and two instrumental
witnesses.
The second page contains the Acknowledgment, which states merely that
Catalina Quilala personally appeared before the notary public and
acknowledged that the donation was her free and voluntary act and deed.
There appear on the left-hand margin of the second page the signatures of
Catalina Quilala and one of the witnesses, and on the right-hand margin the
signatures of Violeta Quilala and the other witness.
Page 22 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
On November 7, 1983, Catalina Quilala died. Violeta Quilala likewise died on
May 22, 1984. Petitioner Ricky Quilala alleges that he is the surviving son of
Violeta Quilala. Meanwhile, respondents Gliceria Alcantara, Leonora Alcantara,
Ines Reyes and Juan Reyes, claiming to be Catalina's only surviving relatives
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity instituted an action for the
declaration of nullity of the donation inter vivos, and for the cancellation of the
TCT in the name of Violeta Quilala.
The trial court rendered a decision declaring null and void the deed of donation
of real property inter vivos executed by Catalina Quilala in favor of Violeta
Quilala. The trial court found that since it was acknowledged before a notary
public only by the donor, Catalina, there was no acceptance by Violeta of the
donation in a public instrument. The decision was affirmed by the CA
Issue: Whether or not the donation executed by Catalina in favor of Violeta is
valid; Whether or not the signing on the wrong side of the page of the
document invalidates it
Held: Valid even if the acknowledgment was only signed by the donor. Below
the terms and stipulations of the donation, the donor, donee and their
witnesses affixed their signature. However, the Acknowledgment appearing on
the second page mentioned only the donor, Catalina Quilala. Thus, the trial
court ruled that for Violeta's failure to acknowledge her acceptance before the
notary public, the same was set forth merely on a private instrument, i.e., the
first page of the instrument.
We disagree. As provided for in Section 112, paragraph 2 of PD No. 1529, the
second page of the deed of donation, on which the Acknowledgment
appears, was signed by the donor and one witness on the left-hand margin.
The donee and the other witness signed on the right hand margin.
Surely, the requirement that the contracting parties and their witnesses should
sign on the left-hand margin of the instrument is not absolute. The
intendment of the law merely is to ensure that each and every page of the
instrument is authenticated by the parties. The requirement is designed to
avoid the falsification of the contract after the same has already been duly
executed by the parties.
Hence, a contracting party affixes his signature on each page of the instrument
to certify that he is agreeing to everything that is written thereon at the time of
signing.
Simply put, the specification of the location of the signature is merely
directory. The fact that one of the parties signs on the wrong side of the page
does not invalidate the document.
In the same vein, the lack of an acknowledgment by the donee before the notary
public does not also render the donation null and void. The instrument
should be treated in its entirety. It cannot be considered a private
document in part and a public document in another part.
The fact that it was acknowledged before a notary public converts the deed of
donation in its entirety a public instrument. The fact that the donee was not
mentioned by the notary public in the acknowledgment is of no moment.
To be sure, it is the conveyance that should be acknowledged as a free and
voluntary act. In any event, the donee signed on the second page, which
contains the Acknowledgment only. Her acceptance, which is explicitly set
forth on the first page of the notarized deed of donation, was made in a public
instrument.
DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS
CHAPTER 13, SEC. 113
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands. No
deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument affecting land not
registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between the parties
thereto, unless such instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein
prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies.
(a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary Entry Book
and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book shall contain, among other
particulars, the entry number, the names of the parties, the nature of the document,
the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. The recording of the deed
and other instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be effected by any of
annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same
shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book.
(b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the Register
of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument in the manner provided herein. In
case the Register of Deeds refuses its administration to record, said official shall
advise the party in interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and
the latter may appeal the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration in
accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be understood
that any recording made under this section shall be without prejudice to a third
party with a better right.
(c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall endorse among
other things, upon the original of the recorded instruments, the file number and
the date as well as the hour and minute when the document was received for
recording as shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or person
in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with appropriate annotation, certifying
that he has recorded the instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be
furnished the provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other
instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to unregistered
lands, if made in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be admissible to record
under this section.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section, he
shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for similar services for the
registration of deeds or instruments concerning registered lands.
REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS DEALING WITH UNREGISTERED LAND
REGISTRATION OF CHATTEL MORTGAGES
All instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish
Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 until the land shall
have been brought under the operation of the Torrens system
recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
RECORDING OF MINISTERIAL OFFICERS
• Opening paragraph in substance declares that no instrument or deed
affecting rights to real property not registered under the Torrens
system shall be valid except as between the persons thereto, until
such instrument or deed shall have been registered in the manner
prescribed therein
• This provision cannot be interpreted to include conveyances made by
ministerial officers, such as sheriff’s deeds
• It contemplates only instruments as may be created through
agreement between parties
RECORDING SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A THIRD PERSON WITH
BETTER RIGHT RECORDING OF RD MINISTERIAL
• RD doesn’t exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power in the
registration of sheriff’s deeds or certificates of sale
• If the RD refuses to register the instrument, he shall advise the party in
interest in writing of the grounds for his refusal, and the latter may
elevate the matter to the Administrator en consulta
HOW RECORDING IS EFFECTED
• The RD shall keep a primary entry book and a registration book
• The primary entry book shall contain an entry number, names of
parties, nature of the document, and the date, hour and minute it 

was presented
• The recording shall be effected by annotating on the registration book
after the same shall have been entered in the primary entry 

book
• After recording, the RD shall endorse on the original of the 

instrument the file number and the date as well as the hour and
minute when the instrument is received, returning to the registrant
the duplicate of the instrument with a certification that he has
recorded the same.
Radiowealth vs. Palileo
(G. R, No. 83432, May 20, 1991)
Facts: Defendant spouses Castro sold to plaintiff-appellee Palileo (private
respondent herein), a parcel of unregistered coconut land situated in Surigao
del Norte. The sale is evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh.
“E”). The deed was not registered in the Registry of Property for unregistered
lands. Since the execution of the deed of sale, appellee Palileo exercised acts
of ownership over the land through his mother as administratrix or overseer.
Appellee has continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land from 1971
until the present.
A judgment was rendered against defendant Castro by the then CFI to pay
herein defendant-appellant Radiowealth Finance Company (petitioner herein).
Upon the finality of the judgment, a writ of execution was issued. Pursuant to
said writ, defendant provincial Sheriff levied upon and finally sold at public
auction the subject land that defendant Enrique Castro had earlier sold to
appellee Palileo. A certificate of sale was executed by the Provincial Sheriff in
favor of defendant- appellant Radiowealth Finance Company, being the only
bidder. After the period of redemption has (sic) expired, a deed of final sale
was also executed by the same Provincial Sheriff. Both the certificate of sale
and the deed of final sale were registered with the RD.
Learning of what happened to the land, private respondent Palileo filed an
action for quieting of title over the same. After a trial on the merits, the court a
quo rendered a decision in his favor. On appeal, the decision of the trial court
was affirmed. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: Who, as between two buyers of unregistered land, is the rightful owner—
the first buyer in a prior sale that was unrecorded, or the second buyer who
purchased the land in an execution sale whose transfer was registered in the
RD
Held: PALILEO HAS THE SUPERIOR RIGHT OVER THE LAND.
There is no doubt that had the property in question been a registered land, this
case would have been decided in favor of petitioner since it was petitioner that
had its claim first recorded in the RD.
It must be stressed however that this case deals with a parcel of unregistered
land and a different set of rules applies. We affirm the decision of the CA.
Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is
“without prejudice to a third party with a better right”. The aforequoted phrase
has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in
one’s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was
not anymore the owner  of the land having previously sold the same to
somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
Applying this principle, the CA correctly held that the execution sale of the
unregistered land in favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no
longer belonged to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution
sale.
NOTES: Findings of fact of the CA are conclusive on this Court and will not be
disturbed unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The finding of the CA that
the property in question was already sold to private respondent by its previous
owner before the execution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale. Said deed of
sale is notarized and is presumed authentic. There is no substantive proof to
support petitioner’s allegation that the document is fictitious or simulated. With
this in mind, We see no reason to reject the conclusion of the CA that private
respondent was not a mere administrator of the property. That he exercised
acts of ownership through his mother also remains undisputed.
CHAPTER 14, SEC. 114-116
Section 114. Recording of chattel mortgages. A chattel mortgage shall be
mortgagor resides as well as where the property is situated or ordinarily kept.
Page 23 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
Section 115. Manner of recording chattel mortgages. Every Register of Deeds
shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book for chattel mortgages; shall
certify on each mortgage filed for record, as well as on its duplicate, the date, hour,
and minute when the same was by him received; and shall record in such books
any chattel mortgage, assignment or discharge thereof, and any other instrument
relating to a recorded mortgage, and all such instruments shall be presented to him
in duplicate, the original to be filed and the duplicate to be returned to the person
concerned.
The recording of a mortgage shall be effected by making an entry, which shall be
given a correlative number, setting forth the names of the mortgagee and the
mortgagor, the sum or obligation guaranteed, date of the instrument, name of the
notary before whom it was sworn to or acknowledged, and a note that the property
mortgaged, as well as the terms and conditions of the mortgage, is mentioned in
detail in the instrument filed, giving the proper file number thereof. The recording
of other instruments relating to a recorded mortgage shall be effected by way of
annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same
shall have been entered in the primary Entry Book.
The Register of Deeds shall also certify the officer's return of sale upon any mortgage,
making reference upon the record of such officer's return to the volume and page
of the record of the mortgage, and a reference of such return on the record of the
mortgage itself, and give a certified copy thereof, when requested, upon payment
of the legal fees for such copy thereof, when requested, upon payment of the legal
fees for such copy and certify upon each mortgage officer's return of sale or
discharge of mortgage, and upon any other instrument relating to such a recorded
mortgage, both on the original and in the duplicate, the date, hour, and minute
when the same is received for record and record such certificate index of
mortgagors and mortgagees, which record and index shall be open to public
inspection.
Duly certified copies of such records and of filed instruments shall be receivable as
evidence in any court.
Section 116. Fees for chattel mortgages, etc. The register of Deeds shall collect the
following fees for services rendered by him under this section:
1. Entry fee. For entry or presentation of any document in the Primary Entry Book,
five pesos. Supporting papers presented together with the principal document
need not be charged any entry or presentation fee unless the party in interest
desires that they be likewise entered.
2. Chattel Mortgage. For filing and recording each chattel mortgage, including the
necessary certificates and affidavits, the fees established in the following
schedule shall be collected:
(a) Six thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage does not
exceed six thousand pesos, seven pesos for the first five hundred pesos, or
fractional part thereof, and three pesos for each additional five hundred
pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(b) Thirty thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage is more
than six thousand pesos but does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, forty-
eight pesos for the initial amount not exceeding eight thousand pesos, and
eight pesos for each additional two thousand pesos or fractional part
thereof.
(c) One hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage
is more than thirty thousand pesos but does not exceed one hundred
thousand pesos, one hundred fifty pesos for the initial amount not
exceeding thirty-five thousand pesos, and fourteen pesos for each
additional five thousand pesos of fractional part thereof.
(d) Five hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage
is more than one hundred thousand pesos but does not exceed five
hundred thousand pesos, three hundred fifty-two pesos for the initial
amount not exceeding one hundred ten thousand pesos and twenty pesos
for each additional ten thousand pesos or fractional part thereof.
(e) More than five hundred thousand pesos. When the amount of the mortgage
is more than five hundred thousand pesos, one thousand one hundred
sixty-two pesos for the initial amount not exceeding five hundred twenty
thousand pesos, and thirty pesos for each additional twenty thousand
pesos or fractional part thereof: Provided, however, that registration of the
mortgage in the province where the property is situated shall be sufficient
registration and provided, further, that if the mortgage is to be registered in
more than one city or province, the Register of Deeds of the city or province
where the instrument is first presented for registration shall collect the full
amount of the fees due in accordance with the schedule prescribed above,
and the Register of Deeds of the other city of province where the same
instrument is also to be registered shall collect only a sum equivalent to
twenty per centum of the amount of fees due and paid in the first city of
province, but in no case shall the fees payable in any Registry be less than
the minimum fixed in this schedule.
3. Conveyance of mortgaged property, etc. For recording each instrument of sale,
conveyance, or transfer of the property which is subject of a recorded mortgage,
or of the assignment of mortgage credit, the fees established in the preceding
schedule shall be collected on the bases of ten per centum of the amount of the
mortgage or unpaid balance thereof, provided, that the latter is stated in the
instrument.
4. Notice of attachment. For recording each notice of attachment, including the
necessary index and annotations, eight pesos.
5. Release of mortgage. For recording such release of mortgage, including the
necessary index and references, the fees established in the schedule under
paragraph (b) above shall be collected on the basis of five per centum of the
amount of the mortgage.
6. Release of attachment. For recording each release of attachment, including the
proper annotations, five pesos.
7. Sheriff's return of sale. For recording each sheriff's return of sale, including the
index and references, seven pesos.
8. Power of attorney, appointment of guardian, administrator or trustee. For
recording a power of attorney, appointment of judicial guardian, administrator,
or trustee, or any other instrument in which a person is given power to act in
behalf of another in connection with a mortgage, ten pesos.
9. No specific fee. For recording each instrument or order relating to a recorded
mortgage, including the necessary index and references, for which no specific
fee is provided above, five pesos.
10.Certified copy. For certified copies of records, such fees as are allowed by law for
copies kept by the Register of Deeds.
11.Certification. For issuing a certificate relative to, or showing the existence or non-
existence of an entry in the registration book, or a document on file, for each
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
such certificate containing not more than two hundred words, five pesos; if it
exceeds that number, an additional fee of one peso shall be collected for every
one hundred words or fractional part thereof, in excess of the first two hundred
words.
12.Research Fee. For services rendered in attending to requests for references to, or
researches on any document on file in the Registry, there shall be collected a fee
of two pesos per document.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE VIS-À-VIS PLEDGE
By a chattel mortgage, personal property is recorded in the Chattel
Mortgage Register as a security for the performance of the obligation.
If the movable, instead of being recorded, is delivered to the creditor
or a third person, the contract is a pledge and not a chattel mortgage.
CHATTEL MORTGAGE VIS-À-VIS REVISED MOTOR VEHICLES LAW
The Revised Motor Vehicles Law is a special legislation enacted to
“amend and compile the laws relative to motor vehicles” whereas the
Chattel Mortgage Law is a general law covering mortgages of all kinds
of personal property.
The mortgage of any motor vehicle in order to affect third persons
should not only be registered in the Chattel Mortgage Registry, but the
same should also be recorded in the Motor Vehicles Office. The failure
of the mortgagee to report the mortgage executed in his favor has the
effect of making said mortgage ineffective against a purchaser in good
faith who registers his purchase in the Motor Vehicles Office. The
recording provisions of the Revised Motor Vehicles Law are merely
complementary to those of the Chattel Mortgage Law. Thus, as
between a chattel mortgagee, whose mortgage is not recorded in the
Motor Vehicles Office, and an innocent purchaser for value of a car
who registers the car in his name, the latter is entitled to preference.
Sabitsana vs. Muertigue
(G. R. No. 181359, Aug 5, 2013)
Facts: Petitioner Clemencio Sabitsana was the counsel of the respondent,
Juanito Muertegui. The dispute involved a parcel of land bought by Juanito by
virtue of an unnotarized deed of sale from Alberto Garcia. Juanito’s father and
his brother Domingo, took actual possession of the land. Later on, Garcia sold
the same land to the petitioner this time, through a notarized deed of sale.
When the respondents’ father passed away, the heirs applied for the registration
and coverage of the lot under Public Land Act or CA No. 141. Petitioner
opposed the application, claiming he was the true owner of the lot.
Respondent filed for quieting of title and preliminary injunction against
petitioners Clemencio and his wife, Rosario, claiming that they bought the land
in bad faith and are exercising possession and ownership of the same, which
acts thus constitute a cloud over the title.
Issue: Who between petitioners and respondent has a better right to the
disputed lot?
Held: Respondent has a better right to the lot.
What applies in this case is Act No. 3344 as amended, which provides for the
system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate. The said act
expressly declares that any registration made shall be without prejudice to a
third party with a better right.
The sale to respondent Juanito was executed via an unnotarized deed of sale
ten years earlier than that of the sale to petitioners, though this was made via a
notarized document. Thus, Juanito who was the first buyer has a better right to
the lot, while the subsequent sale to petitioners is null and void, because when
it was made, the seller Garcia was no longer the owner of the lot.
The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter anything, since
the sale between him and Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or
the requirement of a public document under the Civil Code is only for
convenience, and not for validity or enforceability. And because it remained
valid as between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell
the lot to petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased.
Nor can petitioners’ registration of their purchase have any effect on Juanito’s
rights. The mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any right
over the land if the vendor was no longer the owner of the land, having
previously sold the same to another even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land
registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually
has.
X constructed a house on a lot which he was leasing from Y. Later, X
executed a chattel mortgage over said house in favor of Z as security for a
loan obtained from the latter. Still later, X acquired ownership of the land
where his house was constructed, after which he mortgaged both house
and land in favor of a bank, which mortgage was annotated on the
Torrens Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay his loan to the bank, the
latter, being the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale, foreclosed the
mortgage and acquired X’s house and lot. Learning of the proceedings
conducted by the bank, Z is now demanding that the bank reconvey to
him X’s house or pay X’s loan to him plus interests. Is Z’s demand against
the bank valid and sustainable? Why?
Suggested Answer
No, Z’s demand is not valid. A building is immovable or real property whether
it is erected by the owner of the land, by a usufructuary, or by a lessee. It may
be treated as a movable by the parties to a chattel mortgage but such is
binding only between them and not on third parties. (Evangelista vs. Alto
Surety Co., Inc. 103 Phil 401). In this case, since the bank is not a party to the
chattel mortgage, it is not bound by it. As far as the bank is concerned, the
chattel mortgage does not exist. Moreover, the chattel mortgage is void
because it was not registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not bind the
Bank because it was not annotated on the title of the land mortgaged to the
bank. Z cannot demand that the Bank pay him the loan Z extended to X,
because the Bank was not privy to such loan transaction.
Another Suggested Answer
Page 24 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
No, Z’s demand against the bank is not valid. His demand that the bank
reconvey to him X’s house presupposes that he has a real right over the
house. All that Z has is a personal right against X for damages for breach of
the contract of loan.
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented land, as movable property is
void insofar as third persons, such as the bank, are concerned. On the other
hand, the Bank already had a real right over the house and lot when the
mortgage was annotated at the back of the Torrens Title. The bank later
became the owner in the foreclosure sale.
Z cannot ask the bank to pay for X’s loan plus interest. There is no privity of
contract between Z and the bank.
Alternative Answer
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank is an innocent mortgagee in
good faith or a mortgagee in bad faith. In the former case, Z’s demand is not
valid. In the latter case, Z’s demand against the bank is valid and sustainable.
Under the Torrens system of land registration, every person dealing with
registered land may rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and the
law will not in any way oblige him to look behind or beyond the certificate in
order to determine the condition of the title. He is not bound by anything
not annotated or reflected in the certificate. If he proceeds to buy the land or
accept it as a collateral relying on the certificate, he is considered a buyer or a
mortgagee in good faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a clean title to
the land and the house.
However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee. Unlike private individuals, a
bank is expected to exercise greater care and prudence in its dealings. The
ascertainment of the condition of a property offered as collateral for a loan
must be a standard and indispensable part of its operation. The bank should
have conducted further inquiry regarding the house standing on the land
considering that it was already standing there before X acquired title to the
land. The bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in good faith. On this
ground, Z’s demand against the Bank is valid and sustainable.
CONSULTAS (SECTION 117)
Section 117. Procedure. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the
proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed,
mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party
in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with
reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the
Commissioner of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in
interest thru the Register of Deeds. Where the instrument is denied registration, the
Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the
defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he
is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from
the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of
the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the
certificate of title which shall be canceled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds
after final resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by
petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records
certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or
ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds,
provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or
order of the Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals
within the period and in manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.
MATTERS SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COURTS FOR DETERMINATION
• The powers of the RD are generally regarded as ministerial only and
said officer has no power to pass upon the legality of an order
issued by a court of justice
submitted to the RD. They will also submit a license to sell coming
• Whether the document presented for registration is invalid, frivolous
or intended to harass, is not the duty of the RD to decide but a court
of competent jurisdiction
Definition (Sec 2, RA 4726)
• The question of whether or not a conveyance was made to defraud
creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination of
the proper court
consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or
It is clear that the afore-quoted procedure applies only when the
instrument is already presented for registration and: (1) the Register of
Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or
other instrument presented to him for registration; or (2) where any
party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register
of Deeds with reference to any such instrument; and (3) when the
registration is denied. None of these situations is present in this case.
(St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. vs. Office of the Registry of Deeds,
G.R. No. 174290, Jan. 20, 2009/St. Mary of the Woods School, Inc. vs.
Office of the Registry of Deeds, G.R. No. 176116, Jan. 20, 2009)
other pertinent laws.
Almirol vs Register of Deeds of Quezon City, supra.
Digest above…
Smith Bell & Co. vs. RD of Leyte G. R. No. 24736, Jan 29, 1926
Although in some matters, the registrar may have some quasi-judicial power, yet
a suit to quiet a title or to ascertain and determine an interest in real property is
a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts. The title, if any, which
Smith, Bell & Co. has in the fourth parcel of land by the sheriff's deed was
acquired by and through a judicial proceeding, and it has a legal right to have
that title settled and determined in the courts, and under the provisions of
section 1 of Act No. 2837, without a registration of its sheriff's deed, it would in
legal effect be deprived of that right. In the registering of the sheriff's deed,
care should be taken to recite the actual facts, the source and chain of title, so
as to protect the rights of Smith, Bell & Co., and it should be done so as not to
prejudice, injure or impair any rights which Cristina Martinez may have
acquired in the land by her deed, thus leaving the respective rights of each
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
party to be settled and determined upon proper pleadings in a judicial
proceeding.
FINAL PROVISIONS
THE CONDOMINIUM ACT (RA 4726)
PD 957 – the National housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction
to regulate the real estate trade and business xxx.
JURISDICTION OF THE HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD (SEC. 1,
P.D. NO. 1344)
1. Unsound real estate practices
2. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by a subdivision
lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker, or salesman
3. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner.
SUMMARY OF CASES OR ACTIONS OVER WHICH THE HLURB HAS
JURISDICTION
a. For a determination of the rights of parties under a contract to sell a
subdivision lot
b. For the delivery of title against the subdivision owner
c. For the refund of reservation fees for the purchase of a subdivision
lot
d. For specific performance filed by a lot buyer against the seller of a
subdivision lot
e. For the annulment of the mortgage constituted by the project owner
without the buyer’s consent, the mortgage foreclosure sale and the
condominium certificate of title issued to the highest bidder at the
said foreclosure sale
f. For the collection of the balance of the unpaid purchase price of a
subdivision lot filed by the developer of a subdivision against the lot
buyer; and
g. For incidental claims for damages. (Fajardo vs. Bautista, May 10,
1994)
h. Between homeowner’s association and their members (R.A. 8763)
Discussion: It is an indispensable requirement that all incorporators of
a condominium corporation must be shareholders thereof. To be a
shareholder, one must necessarily be an owner of a condominium
unit. (p. 834, Agcaoili)
Atty G: An owner or developer may convert a property into a
condominium project by executing a legal document called Master
Deed. The Master Deed is the act that creates the condominium. It is
submitted in the Office of the Register of Deeds and it is annotated
prior to the issuance of the corresponding Condominium Certificate of
Title. They will have to secure a clearance from the HLURB and they
have to submit a plan including the brochures regarding warranties
prior to the HLURB granting them a license to sell.
Same with subdivisions: In subd, the lot that is considered to be a
subd project under P.D. 957, there must also be a deed that will be
from HLURB.
Sec. 2 (RA 4726) — A condominium is an interest in real property
commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or
indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas
of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate
interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common
areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas,
may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose
(hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the
holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or
shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the
appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas.
The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in
real property recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and
Warranties and Representations
Sec 19 (PD 957) Advertisements. — Advertisements that may be
made by the owner or developer through newspaper, radio, television,
leaflets, circulars or any other form about the subdivision or the
condominium or its operations or activities must reflect the real facts
and must be presented in such manner that will not tend to mislead or
deceive the public.
BPI vs ALS Management Corp.
(G. R. No. 751821, April 14, 2004) — cited San Miguel Properties vs.
BF Homes (G. R. No. 109343, August 5, 2015)
Facts: ALS bought a condominium unit from BPI. Despite the stipulation in the
Deed of Sale that ALS, as vendee should shoulder the expenses for the
registration of the Deed of Sale and issuance of the Certificate of Title, BPI
advanced such amount and shouldered such expenses. Now, ALS refuses to
Page 25 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
pay BPI the amount advanced by the latter based on Sec. 25 of PD 957 which
provides that no fee shall be required from buyers except that for registration
of deed of sale but BPI has jacked up or increased the amount by including
amounts that should not be collected from buyers of condo units. Hence, BPI
filed a case for collection of sum of money before the RTC of Makati.ALS also
filed a Compulsory Counterclaim alleging that BPI has not fulfilled the
specifications of the condo unit as in that of the brochures also stating that the
units are deficient and defective.
RTC: ALS must pay BPI of the amount advanced by the latter. As to the
counterclaim, BPI must fix the defect and deficiencies in the units and
reimburse ALS of the amounts spent by it due to such defects/deficiencies
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto
BPI now questions the jurisdiction of RTC to hear ALS counterclaim for the first
time before the Supreme Court alleging that the jurisdiction lies with the
HLURB.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not there was a breach in the warranties provided in the
brochure?
HELD:
1. No, ALS’ counterclaim being one of “specific performance and damages” falls
under the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by Sec. 1 of PD No. 1344.
The jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated in Section 1 of PD No.
1344 is exclusive. Thus, we have ruled that the board has sole jurisdiction in
a complaint of specific performance for the delivery of a certificate of title to
a buyer of a subdivision lot; for claims of refund regardless of whether the
sale is perfected or not and for determining whether there is a perfected
contract of sale.
2. Yes, petitioner BPI violated the warranties stipulated in the brochures
since it failed to deliver certain items stated therein. The brochure says
that “the particulars stated . . . as well as the details and 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 of fact”.
Petitioner claims that this general disclaimer should apply only apply to the
general concept of the project and not to apply to the features and the
amenities. However, SC rejected this contention by stating that Sec. 19 of PD
957.
Atty G.’s comments: It is important to remember that before you buy a
condo, you should insist that the items they place in the brochures
and the warranties are part of the contract and if they violate such, the
aggrieved party has remedies. It is very clear that the HLURB has the
exclusive jurisdiction, the SC enumerated the different grounds for
said agency to have jurisdiction: (1) unsound real estate business
practices, (2) claims involving refund, (3) cases involving specific
performance. Always remember Sec. 19 of PD 957 (on
advertisements).
In cases of incomplete development, it is the developer who is the
Redemption of Mortgaged Amortization
SEC 25. (PD 957) Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall
deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the
lot or unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the
deed of sale in the Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the
issuance of such title. In the event a mortgage over the lot or unit is
outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to the buyer, the
owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the corresponding
portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that the
title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the
buyer in accordance herewith.
amortizations due to failure of petitioners to furnish them copy of the contract
De Vera vs. Court of Appeals
(G. R. 132869, Oct 18, 2001)
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case
(2) Who has a better right over the condominium unit in question?
RULING:
(1)  No, the HLURB has jurisdiction.
The regular courts have no jurisdiction over the case since the proper venue
is with the HLURB. Petitioner is partly to blame for filing it with the regular
courts and since the respondents also filed their counterclaims in the
lower court, then they are estopped.
(2) The petitioner De Vera has better right.
The mortgage in favor of the FUNDERS did not bind petitioner in as much
as it is not registered with the NHA contrary to the mandate of Sec. 18 of
PD 957. QPSCDI also violated its contract with petitioner by its failure to
remit the latter’s payment.
In, Sec 25 of PD 957, it is clear that upon full payment, the seller is duty-
bound to deliver the title of the unit to the buyer. Even with a valid
mortgage over the lot, the seller is still bound to redeem said
mortgage without any cost to the buyer apart from the balance of the
purchase price and registration fees. It has been established that
respondent QPSDCI had been negligent in failing to remit petitioner's
payments to ASIATRUST. If QPSDCI had not been negligent, then even the
possibility of charges, liens or penalties would not have arisen. Therefore,
as between QPSDCI and petitioner, the former should be held liable for
any charge, lien or penalty that may arise.
However, it was error for the trial court to remedy the situation in the form of
an award for damages because, as discussed earlier, the basis for the
same does not appear indubitable.
Part of the confusion lies in the deficiency of the trial court's decision. It had
found that petitioner had superior right to the unit over the FUNDERS and
the mortgage in favor of the FUNDERS was contrary to Condominium
laws. Therefore, the proper remedy was to annul the mortgage
foreclosure sale and the CCT issued in favor of ASIATRUST, and not merely
decree an award for damages.
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
These remedies were clearly within those sought for in petitioner's
complaint. The trial court should have also ordered QPSDCI to credit
petitioner's payments to his outstanding balance and deliver to petitioner
a clean CCT upon full payment of the purchase price as mandated by Sec.
25 of PD 957.
Atty G’s comments: The rule is when it comes to a condominium
project, it is not supposed to mortgage the unit without the approval
of the HLURB. The moment a mortgage is constituted on a
condominium, it starts first with the lot, with the title to the land. The
moment we issue the corresponding condominium title, the mortgage
constituted on the lot will be carried over to the condominium
certificate of titles. So every time somebody buys a condominium unit,
under the law, the developer is under obligation to cause the release
of the mortgage. So the title should be issued to him, it must be clean
and the developer must pay for the mortgage constituted.
So in this case, De Vera was not bound by the mortgage constituted on
the property and even if there was a valid mortgage, assuming the
approval of the HLURB, the seller or developer is mandated under the
law to redeem the real estate mortgage and deliver the title or unit to
him as soon as it is paid in full without any additional charge in the
registration fee or outstanding balance. So this PD 957 really provided
protection both to condominium and subdivision buyers.
Suspension of Monthly Amortization
OPTION TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OR DEMAND FOR REIMBURSEMENT GIVEN
TO BUYER.
In case the developer of a subdivision or condominium fails in its
obligation under Section 20 of P.D. No, 957, Section 23 of the law
gives the buyer the option to demand reimbursement of the total
amount paid, or to wait for further development of the subdivision,
and when the buyer opts for the latter alternative, he may suspend
payment of installments until such time that the owner or developer
had fulfilled its obligation to him.
Law provides two remedies in case of incomplete development of the
subdivision project:
(1) reimbursement of the total amount paid, including amortization
interest but excluding delinquency interests, with interest thereon
at the legal rate; or
(2) for the buyer to suspend amortization payments until the completion
of the project
These remedies are available to the prospective buyer to give effect to
the law’s intent to protect the buyers from abusive owners/developers
of subdivisions.
one at fault, as it would then have violated its promise to the
prospective buyers to provide the necessary facilities in the
subdivision. The aggrieved party, therefore, is the prospective buyer
because of the non-fulfillment of the developer’s commitment. As
such, it is but logical that the option is given to the prospective buyer,
not to the developer.
Gold Loop Properties Inc vs. CA
(G. R. No. 122088, January 26, 2001)
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents may suspend payment of their monthly
to sell.
RULING: Yes, Private respondents may suspend their payment.
Private respondents were indeed justified in suspending payment of their
monthly amortizations. The failure of petitioners to give them a copy of the
Contract to Sell sued upon, despite repeated demands therefor, and
notwithstanding the private respondents' payment of P878,366.35 for the
subject condominium unit was a valid ground for private respondents to
suspend their payments.
And contrary to petitioners stance, records disclose that they were the ones who
did fraudulent acts against private respondents by entering into a Contract to
Sell with the latter and accepting their downpayment of P878,366.35,
withholding a copy thereof for no valid reason at all, and then threatening
them with rescission and forfeiture, when private respondents only suspended
payment of the balance of the purchase price while waiting for their copy of
the Contract to Sell.
The private respondents are entitled to a copy of the contract to sell, otherwise
they would not be informed of their rights and obligations under the
contract. When the Sadhwanis parted with P878,366.35 or more than one
third of the purchase price for the condominium unit, the contract to sell, or
what it represents is concrete proof of the purchase and sale of the
condominium unit.
The Court hereby DENIES the petition for review on certiorari, for lack of merit.
The Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the order
for delivery of a copy of the contract to sell to private respondents and to
accept payment of the balance of the purchase price and deliver title over the
condominium unit to the private respondents upon full payment of the
balance of the purchase price.
Atty G’ comments: In this case, as you have noticed, the developer
Gold Loop always refused to give a copy to the respondents of the
Contract to Sell because at the back of their minds, they already have
an intention to rescind the contract because of the default in the
payments by the spouses.
That’s why if you enter into contracts like this, you should insist for a
copy as a matter of fact you can ask that the contract to sell be
annotated in the cert of title or in the condominium cert of title. So,
this is a valid ground to suspend the payment of the monthly
amortizations. The spouses Sadhwani in this case were saved
because they have in fact defaulted in their payments and they were
Page 26 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
able to use this defense and they were also aided by a lawyer to guide
them.
filed by buyers of subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner,
Alteration of Plans
Sec. 22. (PD 957) Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or
alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other
form of subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan
and/or represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority
and the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners
association, or in the absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in the
subdivision
G.O.A.L Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
(G. R. No. 118822, July 28, 1997)
ISSUES: Whether or not the construction of the floor is illegal.
RULING: Yes, it is illegal.
The written approval of the National Housing Authority alone is not sufficient. It
must be coupled with the written conformity or consent of the duly organized
homeowners association or the majority of the lot buyers. Failing in this, the
construction of the fifth floor is violative of the decree (Sec. 22 of PD 957)
invoked. The Court of Appeals simply applied the law, and correctly so.
As required by Sec. 22 of P.D. 957 which provides — Sec. 22. Alteration of Plans. —
No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces,
infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision
development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or
represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and
the written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners
association, or in the absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in
the subdivision.
The provision is clear. The written approval of the National Housing Authority
alone is not sufficient. It must be coupled with the written conformity or
consent of the duly organized homeowners association or the majority of the
lot buyers. Failing in this, the construction of the fifth floor is violative of the
decree invoked.
Atty G’s comments: If the developer has a claim from the buyer, does
the HLURB have jurisdiction? Again, there are grounds for the HLURB
to have jurisdiction (3 grounds as cited in Dela Cruz case). Applying
this to the case, when there are claims by the developer to buyer or
when the developer asks for rescission, the HLURB has no jurisdiction
so the one who has the jurisdiction are the regular courts.
in accordance with the approved plans and specifications within the time
SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM PROTECTIVE BUYER’S
DECREE (PD 957)
Jurisdiction of the HLURB
According to P.D. No. 1344, the National Housing Authority (now the
HLURB) shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
the following nature:
a) Unsound real estate business practices;
owner-developer to develop the subdivision according to the approved plans
b) Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot
or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
dealer, broker or salesman; and
b.) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the circumstances.
c) Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
excluding delinquency interests at the legal rate. He may also ask the HLURB
Ortigas vs. CA (G. R. No. 129822, June 20, 2012)
ISSUE: Does the HLURB have jurisdiction over the case?
RULING: No, the HLURB does not have jurisdiction. P.D. No. 957 provides that a
subdivision owner shall refers to the registered owner of the land subject of a
subdivision or a condominium project. Also, a subdivision developer shall
mean the person who develops or improves the subdivision project or
condominium project for and in behalf of the owner thereof.
The law clearly defines who is considered a subdivision owner or developer, and
the petitioners are neither. They are merely owners of a number of lots within
the subdivision owned and developed by Pasig Properties, Inc. But even if
petitioners were subdivision owners or developers, this would not bar them
from seeking redress from the courts.
The rule is well settled that the jurisdiction of the court or agency is determined
by the allegations in the complaint. It cannot be made to depend on the
defenses made by the defendant in his Answer or Motion to Dismiss.
Therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case contrary to respondents’
contention that the jurisdiction is with the HLURB.
The jurisdiction lies with the RTC. Not every case involving buyers and sellers of
subdivision lots or condominium units can be filed with the HLURB.    Its
jurisdiction is limited to those cases filed by the buyer or owner of a
subdivision lot or condominium unit and based on any of the causes of action
enumerated in Section 1 of P.D. 1344.
Ortigas maintains that the HLURB has jurisdiction over the complaint since a land
developer's failure to comply with its statutory obligation to provide open
spaces constitutes unsound real estate business practice that Presidential
Decree (P.D.) 1344 prohibits.    Executive Order 648 empowers the HLURB to
hear and decide claims of unsound real estate business practices against land
developers. Ultimately, whether or not the HLURB has the authority to hear
and decide a case is determined by the nature of the cause of action, the
subject matter or property involved, and the parties.  Register of Deeds, unless the owner's duplicate certificate is
Section 1 of P.D. 1344 vests in the HLURB the exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and decide the following cases:
(a) unsound real estate business practices;
(b) claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,
broker, or salesman; and
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
(c) cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations
developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
Unlike paragraphs (b) and (c) above, paragraph (a) does not state which party
can file a claim against an unsound real estate business practice.    But, in the
context of the evident objective of Section 1, it is implicit that the “unsound
real estate business practice” would, like the offended party in
paragraphs (b) and (c), be the buyers of lands involved in
development. The policy of the law is to curb unscrupulous practices in real
estate trade and business that prejudice buyers.
Obviously, the City had not bought a lot in the subject area from Ortigas which
would give it a right to seek HLURB intervention in enforcing a local ordinance
that regulates the use of private land within its jurisdiction in the interest of the
general welfare.  It has the right to bring such kind of action but only before a
court of general jurisdiction such as the RTC.
2005 BAR. Don was the owner of an agricultural land with no access to a
public road. He had been passing through the land of Ernie with the
latter’s acquiescence for over 20 years. Subsequently, Don subdivided his
property into 20 residential lots and sold them to different persons. Ernie
blocked the pathway and refused to let the buyers pass through his land.
a.) What are the rights of the lot buyers, if any? Explain.
The lot buyers have the right to:
1)  ask for a constitution of legal easement of right of way;
2) require Don to provide for a right of way. Under Sec. 29 of PD 957, the
owner or developer of a subdivision without access to any existing road
must secure a right of way;
3) formally complain to the HLURB regarding Don’s failure to comply with
PD 957 specifically,
i. failure to provide a right of way
ii. failure to convert the land from agricultural to residential under
agrarian law
iii. failure to secure a license to sell
4) commence criminal prosecution for violation of the penal provisions of
PD 957, Sec. 39
2005 BAR Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from
DEVLAND. After having faithfully paid the installment for 48 months,
Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed to develop the subdivision
frame in the plan. He thus wrote a letter to DEVLAND informing it that
he was stopping payment. Consequently, DEVLAND cancelled the sale
and wrote Bernie, informing him that his payments are forfeited in its
favor.
a.) Was the action of DEVLAND proper? Explain.
Assuming that the land is a residential subdivision project under P .D. No. 957,
DEVLAND’s action is not proper because under Section 23 of said Decree,
no installment payment shall be forfeited to the owner or developer when the
buyer, after due notice, desists from further payment due to the failure of the
and within the time limit for complying with the same.
Under the same section of the Decree, Bernie may, at his option, be
reimbursed the total amount paid including amortization interests but
to apply penal sanctions against DEVLAND consisting of payment of
administrative fine of not more than P20,000.00 and/or imprisonment for
not more than 20 years.
c.) Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed the subdivision but Bernie
failed to pay further installments after 4 years due to business reverses.
Discuss the rights and obligations of the parties.
Under R.A. No. 6552 (Maceda Law), DEVLAND has the right to cancel the
contract but it has to refund Bernie the cash surrender value of the payments
on the property equivalent to 50% of the total payments made.
Bernie has the right to pay, without additional interest, the unpaid installments
within the grace period granted him by R.A. 6552 equivalent to one-month
for every year of installment payments, or four months in this case. After the
lapse of four months, DEVLAND cancel the contract after thirty days from
and after Bernie receives a notice of cancellation or demand for rescission of
the contract by notarial act (Sec. 4, R.A. 6552). Bernie also has the right to
sell or assign his rights before the cancellation of the contract (Sec. 5).
PERTINENT LAWS AND PROVISIONS
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS
Section 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment,
instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all
persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new
certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the
presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided
for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any
voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive
authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a
new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or
memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all
Page 27 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the
in good faith.
registration thereof.

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant, or other
his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud disposition of the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the
without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for plaintiff in and to the land and/or buildings involved, in any case in
value of a certificate of title. After the entry of the decree of registration which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens has been registered as
on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration provided in the preceding section, the notice of lis pendens shall be
procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, deemed canceled upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of
or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the
manner of disposal thereof.

Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any

transfer, subsisting encumbrances or annotations appear in the REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENTS; ORDERS; PARTITIONS
registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new
certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be simultaneously Section 78. Judgment for Plaintiff. Whenever in any action to recover
released or discharged.
possession or ownership of real estate or any interest therein affecting
registered land judgment is entered for the plaintiff, such judgment
Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power of attorney, shall be entitled to registration on presentation of a certificate of the
convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the same shall be entry thereof from the clerk of court where the action is pending to the
registered with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, who
land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney shall be shall enter a memorandum upon the certificate of title of the land to
registered in like manner.
which such judgment relates. If the judgment does not apply to all the
land described in the certificate of title, the certificate of the clerk of
the court where the action is pending and the memorandum entered
INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS by the Register of Deeds shall contain a description of the land
affected by the judgment.

Section 69. Attachments. An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order

or process issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve
any lien, status, right, or attachment upon registered land, shall be
filed and registered in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city in
which the land lies, and, in addition to the particulars required in such
papers for registration, shall contain a reference to the number of the
certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners
thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or lien is not
claimed on all the land in any certificate of title a description
sufficiently accurate for identification of the land or interest intended to
be affected. A restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by the
court shall be entered and registered on the certificate of title affected,
free of charge.
suitable process.
Section 79. Judgment adjudicating ownership. When in any action
to recover the ownership of real estate or an interest therein execution
has been issued in favor of the plaintiff, the latter shall be entitled to
the entry of a new certificate of title and to the cancellation of the
original certificate and owner's duplicate of the former registered
owner. If the registered owner neglects or refuses within a reasonable
time after request of the plaintiff to produce his duplicate certificate in
order that the same may be canceled, the court shall, on application
and after notice, enter an order to the owner to produce his certificate
at the time and place designated, and may enforce the order by

Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in
registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to
the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made
in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing
setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom
acquired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the
registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description
of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
case the person required to execute any deed or other instrument
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse
claimant's residence, and a place at which all notices may be served
upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an
adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be
effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After
Section 80. Execution of deed by virtue of judgment. Every court
rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land
shall, upon petition of said plaintiff, order and parties before it to
execute for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give
effect to the judgment, and shall require the registered owner to
deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to the Register of
Deeds to be canceled or to have a memorandum annotated upon it. In
necessary to give effect to the judgment is absent from the
Philippines, or is a minor, or insane, or for any reason not amenable to
the process of the court rendering the judgment, said court may
appoint a suitable person as trustee to execute such instrument
which, when executed, shall be entitled to registration.

the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be

canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in
interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse
claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same
claimant.
Section 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. Upon the expiration of the
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a
petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the
cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy
hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and
shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse
claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be
ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing,
Section 86. Extrajudicial settlement of estate. When a deed of
extrajudicial settlement has been duly registered, the Register of
Deeds shall annotate on the proper title the two-year lien mentioned in
two-year period and presentation of a verified petition by the
registered heirs, devisees or legatees or any other party in interest that
no claim or claims of any creditor, heir or other person exist, the
Register of Deeds shall cancel the two-year lien noted on the title
without the necessity of a court order. The verified petition shall be
entered in the Primary Entry Book and a memorandum thereof made
on the title.

shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may
fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor
more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of
thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with
the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
Register of Deeds. The proof may consist of the certification of the
Section 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of
redemption period. Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by
law for redemption after registered land has been sold on execution
No deed of extrajudicial settlement or affidavit of adjudication shall be
registered unless the fact of extrajudicial settlement or adjudication is
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation in the province and proof thereof is filed with the
publisher, printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor,
business or advertising manager of the newspaper concerned, or a
copy of each week's issue of the newspaper wherein the publication
appeared.

taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a

mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under
him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate of title to
him.
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever
Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may
pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such
proceedings.
of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument
Section 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of
real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title
thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court
directly affecting the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or
the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate
or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as
against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum
or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the
court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the
institution thereof, together with a reference to the number of the
certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected
and the registered owner thereof, shall have been filed and registered.
the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the
Section 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. Before final judgment, a
notice of lis pendens may be canceled upon order of the court, after
proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the
party who caused it to be registered. It may also be canceled by the
ASSURANCE FUND
public land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to
any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation
of alienation, grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government
to cause such instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like
other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be
entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's duplicate
issued to the grantee. The deed, grant, patent or instrument of
conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect
as a conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract
between the Government and the grantee and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the act of
registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the
land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be made in
land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After
due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall
be deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this
Decree. 


(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. Page 28 of 30

L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT,
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY
Section 104. Provisional Register of Documents. The Department of
Agrarian Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special
registry book to be known as the "Provisional Register of Documents
issued under PD-27" which shall be kept and maintained in every
Registry of Deeds throughout the country. Said Registry Book shall be
a register of:
offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances
a. All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27;
and
No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure
b. All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer
such as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of
erroneous Certificates of Land Transfer.
Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be
PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts.
Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens system.
officials.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after
original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all
questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court
through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration
Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders,
and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land
registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days
from the filing or issuance thereof.
unregistered land, executed in accordance with law in the form of
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is
necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary
instrument which divests the title of the registered owner against his
consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by
reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in
court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The
court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person
withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct
the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If
the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the
process of the court, or if not any reason the outstanding owner's
duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the
annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of
title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall
contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding
duplicate.
land, the number thereof shall likewise be set forth in said
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure,
alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book
after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and
the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of
the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner of other person
having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the
Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that
the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent,
expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate
have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any
duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate
has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if
registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no
right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a
corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has
not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon
any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine
the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the
entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a
memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such
terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it
may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be
construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree
of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court
which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a
certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without
his or their written consent. Where the owner's duplicate certificate is
not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the
preceding section.
instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour and
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any
other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed
and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was
entered.
annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In
case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due
notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his
behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land
lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate
is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for
the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any
instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction
may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and
registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact
(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo.
that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all
respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate,
and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this
decree.
Section 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens
title. Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the
affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted
judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act
relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate
prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated.
given to the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated
and to the Commissioner of Land Registration. No order or judgment
ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final
until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and
by the Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such order or
judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such
FORMS USED IN LAND REGISTRATION AND CONVEYANCING
Section 112. Forms in conveyancing. The Commissioner of Land
Registration shall prepare convenient blank forms as may be
necessary to help facilitate the proceedings in land registration and
shall take charge of the printing of land title forms.
Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney
and other voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or
public instruments shall be registerable: Provided, that, every such
instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the
same in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign
thereon, and shall acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the
person or persons executing the same before a notary public or other
public officer authorized by law to take acknowledgment. Where the
instrument so acknowledged consists of two or more pages including
the page whereon acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy
which is to be registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, or if
registration is not contemplated, each page of the copy to be kept by
the notary public, except the page where the signatures already
appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left margin
thereof by the person or persons executing the instrument and their
witnesses, and all the ages sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact
as well as the number of pages shall be stated in the
acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a
sale, transfer, mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of
acknowledgment.
DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered
lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary
instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall
be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such
instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed
in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the
land lies.
(a)The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary
Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book shall
contain, among other particulars, the entry number, the names of
the parties, the nature of the document, the date, hour and minute
it was presented and received. The recording of the deed and other
instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be effected by any
of annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration
Book, after the same shall have been entered in the Primary Entry
Book.
(b)If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law,
the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument in the
manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds refuses its
administration to record, said official shall advise the party in
interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and the
latter may appeal the matter to the Commissioner of Land
Registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of
this Decree. It shall be understood that any recording made under
this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better
right.
(c)After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall
endorse among other things, upon the original of the recorded
minute when the document was received for recording as shown in
the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or person in
interest the duplicate of the instrument, with appropriate
reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city
assessor as required by existing law.
(d)Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim
and other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings with
respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient in law,
shall likewise be admissible to record under this section.
(e)For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this
section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for
similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments
concerning registered lands.
Page 29 of 30
L A N D T I T L E S F I N A L S ( 2 0 17 ) A t t y. G i m a r i n o

CONSULTAS
Section 117. Procedure. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to
him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with
the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of
Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest
thru the Register of Deeds.

Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall

notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is
not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the
documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within
five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the
Commissioner of Land Registration.

The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending

consulta on the certificate of title which shall be canceled motu
proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision
thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.

The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and

the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing,
shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum
to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive
and binding upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in
interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the
Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of
Appeals within the period and in manner provided in Republic Act No.
5434.

__________________________________

Sec 52.

Sec 53.

Sec 59 — carryover of encumbrances; Mortgages and leases;

Procedure of foreclosure of mortgage

Sec 64 — Power of attorney; contract of agency; trust as a voluntary

transaction

Involuntary dealings

Sec 69 — attachments;

Sec 70 — adverse claim;

Sec 75 — application for a new certificate of title upon the expiration of

redemption period

Sec 76 — notice of lis pendens

Sec 78 & 79 — giving effect to a decision promulgated to the court

involving ownership of realty; 78 — mere annotation; 79 — issue a title

Sec 80 & Sec 10 Rule 39 Rules of Court — party cannot execute a

deed of absolute sale

Sec 86 — extrajudicial settlement of estate

Assurance Fund

Sec 103 — certificate of titles issued pursuant to administrative patent;

after the registration and issuance, such land shall be deemed
registered land

Sec 104 — land reform transaction (agra)

Petitions and actions after original registration

Sec. 2 PD 1529

Sec 107 — Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates

Sec 108 — Amendment and alteration of certificates; remedy in case to

alter the title

Sec 109 — petition for replacement for a lost duplicate certificate

Sec. 110 — Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title;

judicial reconstitution of title is allowed — exception falls in ra 6742

Forms

Sec 112 — Forms in conveyancing

Dealings with unregistered land

Sec 113 — Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands.

Sec 117 — consulta

(SandeeSuan) Failure is a bruise, not a tattoo. Page 30 of 30