University of San Carlos Review

2011 Notes and Case Updates in Land Titles and Deeds

By: Professor Emmanuel Gimarino
which had been registered under the Torrens
System by virtue of judicial or administrative
proceedings.
I.

Definition of Terms

1. Land Registration System a judicial or

administrative proceeding whereby a persons
claim of ownership over a particular land is
determined and confirmed or recognized so that
such land and the ownership thereof may be
recorded in a public registry.
Purpose of Registration: . . .[t]o quiet
o
title to land; to put a stop forever to any
question of the legality of the title, except
claims which were noted at the time of
registration, in the certificate, or which may
arise subsequent thereto. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court, or sitting in the mirador
de su casa, to avoid the possibility of
losing his land. (Legarda vs. Saleeby G.R.
8936)
2.
Title in fee simple such title in real
property as belongs to a person who has full and
unconditional ownership in fact. Analogous to
absolute title.
3.
Torrens title a government certificate
made out on a prescribed judicial form and
issued under the signature of the register of
deeds certifying that the person named is the
absolute owner of the property described therein
without limitations excepting those noted
thereon and those prescribed by law.
vis--vis Ownership
o
Ownership signifies proprietorship, dominion
or exclusive control. It is a complete title.
Whereas Title refers to the evidence of a
persons right or the extent of his interests.
vis--vis Deeds
o
It is a writing containing some contract or
agreement, and the evidence of its execution;
particularly an instrument conveying real estate
to a purchaser or donee.
4. Original Certificate of Title the first title
issued in the name of the registered owner by
the Register of Deeds covering a parcel of land

5. Transfer Certificate of Title the title issued

by the Register of Deeds in favor of a transferee
to whom ownership of a registered land is
transferred by virtue of a deed of conveyance.
6. Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title
(Sec. 41, P.D. 1529)
The owners duplicate certificate of title shall be
delivered to the registered owner or to his duly
authorized representative.
If two or more
persons are registered owners, one owners
duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole
land, or the co-owners may so desire, a
separate duplicate may be issued to each of
them in like form, but all outstanding certificates
of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever
the Register of Deeds shall register a
subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the
whole land or part thereof or any interest therein.
The Register of Deeds shall note on each
certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy
thereof was issued.
7. Transfer Certificate of Title
(Sec. 43, P.D. 1529)
The subsequent certificate pf title that may be
issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any
voluntary or involuntary instrument relating to
the same land shall be in like form entitled
Transfer Certificate of Title, and likewise be
issued in duplicate. The certificate shall show
the number of the next previous certificate
covering the same land and also the fact that it
was originally registered, giving the record
number, the number of the original certificate of
title, and the volume and page of the registration
book in which the latter is found.
The Register of Deeds shall issue an exact
duplicate of the Original as well as the
Transfer Certificate of Title. The original is
filed in the Registry of Deeds and the duplicate
is delivered to the owner.
Registered and Unregistered Lands are the
same as Titled and Untitled Lands.

Two Ways of Dealing with Lands: Voluntary

Transactions and Involuntary Transactions.
In voluntary registration, such as a sale,
mortgage, lease and the like, if the
owner's duplicate certificate be not
surrendered and presented or if no
payment of registration fees be made
within 15 days, entry in the day book of
the deed of sale does not operate to
convey and affect the land sold. In
involuntary registration, such as an
attachment, levy upon execution, lis
pendens and the like, entry thereof in
the day book is a sufficient notice to all
persons of such adverse claim. ...
(Development Bank of the Phils. Vs.
Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988)
II.

Significant Codal Provisions under the

Property Registration Decree

Sec. 3 - Status of other pre-existing land

registration system.
The system of
registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law
is hereby discontinued and all lands recorded
under said system, which are not yet covered
by Torrens title shall be considered as
unregistered lands.
All instruments affecting lands originally
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law
may be recorded under Sec. 113 of this
Decree, until the land shall be brought under
the Torrens system.
Sec. 10 General functions of Register of
Deeds. The office of the Register of Deeds
constitutes a public repository of records of
instrument affecting registered or unregistered
lands and chattel mortgages in the province or
city wherein such office is situated.
(Ministerial Function of RD) It shall be the duty
of the Register of Deeds to immediately
register an instrument presented for
registration dealing with real or personal
property which complies with all the requisites
for registration. He shall see to it that said
instrument bears the proper documentary and
science stamps and that the same are
properly cancelled. If the instrument is not
registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration
thereof and inform the presentor of such
denial in writing, stating the ground or reason
therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section
117 of this Decree.
Sec. 31 - Decree of Registration. The decree
of registration shall bind the land and quiet title
thereto, subject only to such exceptions or
liens as may be provided by law. It shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the National Government and all
branches thereof, whether mentioned by name
in the application or notice, the same being
included in the general description, To all
whom it may concern.
Sec. 32 (2008 BAR) - Review of Decree of
Registration; Innocent Purchaser for Value.
The decree of registration shall not be
reopened or revised by reason of absence,
minority or other disability of any person
adversely affected thereby, nor by any
proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments. This is subject to the [r]ight of any
person, including the government and the
branches thereof, deprived of land or of any
estate or interest therein by such adjudication
Page !2 of !48

2007 BAR
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a)

Governing Laws

P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree)

approved on June 11, 1978, codified and
incorporated the following laws related to
property registration:
Act 496, Land Registration Act
C.A. 141, Public Land Act
Act 2259, Cadastral Act
Act 1508, as amended, Chattel Mortgage Law
R.A. No. 26, Reconstitution of Original
Certificates of Title
P.D. No. 27, Emancipation Patents, Land
Reform Law
P.D. 957, Subdivision and Condominium
Protective Buyers Decree
R.A. No. 4726, Condominium Act

Bedrock Land & Property Development

Corp. is a development company engaged
in developing and selling subdivisions,
condominium units and industrial estates.
In order to replenish its inventories, it
embarked on an aggressive land banking
program. It employed scouts who roam
all over the Philippines to look for and
conduct investigations on prospective
sites for acquisition and development,
whether developed, semi-developed, or
raw land. The management of Bedrock
asks you as the company counsel to
prepare a manual containing a summary of
the pertinent laws and regulations relating
to land registration and acquisition of title
to land. The manual should include the
following items:
Supply this information.
(a)

What is the governing law?

Depending on the transaction involved, one or

more of the following will be the governing
laws relating to land registration and
acquisition of title to land are as follows:
1. P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree)
2. C.A. No. 141, as amended (Public Land
Law)
3. Civil Code of the Philippines
4. Act No. 2259 (The Cadastral Act)
5. Sec. 194, Administrative Code as
amended by Act No. 2837 and Act No.
3344 (System of Recording for
Unregistered Real Estate)
6. P.D. No. 1073 (Extending the Period for
Administrative and Judicial Legalization
of Imperfect Title)
7. Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
8. P.D. No. 957 (An Act Regulating the Sale
of Subdivisions and Condominiums)
9. R.A. 4276 (An Act Amending P.D. No.
957
Real Property Tax Code
(b)

Concept of Jure Regalia

All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly

within private ownership are presumed to belong
to the State, and unless it has been shown that
they have been reclassified as alienable or
disposable to a private person, they remain part
of the inalienable public domain. (See
Constitutional Basis (1987) - Art. XII, Sec.2)

Page !3 of !48

EXCEPTION: NATIVE TITLE to land, or private

ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of
possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial, and independent of any grant
from the Spanish Crown It might, perhaps, be
proper and sufficient to say that when, as far
back as testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of private
ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public
land. (Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and
Natural Resources, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6,
2000 citing Cario vs. Insular Government)
(c)

Torrens System of Registration

Registration does not vest title. It is merely a

procedure to establish evidence of title over
realty. The Torrens system is a system for the
registration of title to land only, and not a system
established for the acquisition of land.
Registration merely confirms and thereafter
protects the title already possessed by the
owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of
third parties. The registration does not give the
owner any better title than he has. He does not
obtain title by virtue of the certificate.
He
secures his certificate by virtue of the fact that
he has a fee simple title. (Legarda vs. Saleeby,
31 Phil 590)
Registration under the Torrens system does not
create nor vest title if title was based on a forged
deed. (Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban 516
SCRA 343)
The system merely confirms ownership and
does not create it. Certainly, it cannot be used
to divest the lawful owner of his title for the
purpose of transferring it to another who has not
acquired it by any of the modes allowed or
recognized by law. It cannot be used to protect
a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be
used as a shield for the commission of fraud;
neither does it permit one to enrich himself at
the expense of another. Where such an illegal
transfer is made, as in the case at bar, the law
presumes that no registration has been made
and so retains title in the real owner of the land.
(Heirs of Doronio vs. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No.
169454, Dec. 27, 2007)

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
Estate of Gonzales et.al. vs. Heirs of Perez
November 5, 2009
A parcel of land was registered under the
name of the municipality and subdivided into
Lots A, B and C. Occupying Lots A and C
were Gibo and Noynoy and their respective
families. The Municipal Council passed a
resolution authorizing the sale thru public
bidding of Lots A and C wherein Gibo emerged
as the highest bidder. Thus, the Municipality
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in his favor.
Pursuant to the Administrative Code, the Deed
was forwarded to the Provincial Governor for
approval. However, the latter did not act upon
said Deed.
Gibo allowed Noynoy and his family to
continue occupying Lot C. Subsequently, he
sold Lot C to Noynoy, as embodied in a Deed
of Absolute Sale, which was however not
notarized.
At such time when both Gibo and Noynoy
were already deceased, the municipality, thru
its Mayor, executed a Deed of Absolute
Transfer over Lots A and C in favor of the
Estate of Gibo. Consequently, TCTs were
issued over both lots in the name of Gibos
estate.
On the other hand, the heirs of Noynoy
executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition over
Lot C. As a result, new titles were also issued.
The heirs of Noynoy demanded from the heirs
of Gibo for the reconveyance of Lot C. The
latter heirs however resisted contending that
the prior Deed of Sale executed by Gibo in
favor of Noynoy was not valid as Gibo was not
yet the owner thereof. It was only when a TCT
was issued covering Lot C, by virtue of the
Deed of Absolute Transfer, that Gibo became
the owner thereof.
DECISION:
The heirs of Gibo are not
correct. The ownership of a thing sold is
acquired by the vendee from the moment it
is delivered to him. A thing sold shall be
understood as delivered when it is placed
in the control and possession of the
vendee. In this case, Gibo took control and
possession of Lot C immediately after his
bid was accepted by the Municipal
Government.
In fact, Gibo permitted
Noynoy and his family to stay thereon. This
only shows that upon perfection of the
contract of sale between the Municipality
and Gibo, the latter acquired ownership of
Page !4 of !48

The failure on the part of the administrative

authorities to do their part in the issuance of the
decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing
party from ownership of the land. The ultimate
goal of our land registration system is geared
towards the final and definitive determination of
real ownership in the country, and the imposition
of an additional burden on the owner after the
judgment in the land registration case had
attained finality would simply frustrate such goal.
(Republic vs. Nillas, Jan, 23, 2007)

GENERAL RULE: Aliens are not qualified to

own lands
Constitutional Basis: Art. XII, Section 7 Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands
of the public domain.
2009 BAR
In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua
Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel
of land in Binondo. Chua died in 1990,
leaving behind his wife and three
children, one of whom, Julian, is a
naturalized Filipino citizen. Six years
after Chuas death, the heirs executed an
extrajudicial settlement of estate, and the
parcel of land was allocated to Julian. In
2007, Luciano filed suit to recover the
land he sold to Chua, alleging that the
sale was void because it contravened the
Constitution which prohibits the sale of
private lands to aliens. Julian moved to
dismiss the suit on grounds of pari
delicto, laches and acquisitive
prescription. Decide the case with
reasons.

II. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

(a) Who May Apply? (2008 BAR) (OPRA)
(1)
Those who by themselves or thru their
predecessors-in-interest have been in Open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
and occupation of alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain under a bona fide
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by Prescription under the
provisions of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands or abandoned river beds by Right
of accession or accretion under the existing
laws,
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land
in Any other manner provided for by law. (Sec.
14, P.D. 1529)

The petition of Luciano must be dismissed.

On the basis of their capacity to acquire or

hold lands of the public domain, who may
acquire private lands?

Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto,

the petitioner cannot have the sale annulled
and recover the lot Luciano himself has sold.
While the vendee was an alien at the time of
the sale, the land has since become the
property, of respondent Julian, a naturalized
Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally
qualified to own. As such the defect is
already cured.

(1) Filipino citizens

(2) Filipino corporations and associations
as defined in Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution; and by exception:
(3) A l i e n s , b u t o n l y b y h e r e d i t a r y
succession; and
(4) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his citizenship under the
terms of Section 8.
** Filipino citizens can both acquire or
otherwise hold lands of the public domain.
Filipino corporations cannot acquire lands of the
public domain by they can hold such lands by
modes other than acquisition, such as lease.

Laches also militates against petitioner's

cause. Luciano sold the disputed lot in 1972
and instituted the action to annul the sale
only in the year 2007. By his long inaction of
inexcusable neglect, he should be held
barred from asserting his claim to the
litigated property.

Respondent, therefore, must be declared to

be the rightful owner of the property.
(De Castro vs. Teng Queen Tan, G.R. No.
L-31956, April 30, 1984)

Re: Acquisition of Lands by Aliens

Page !5 of !48

he shall be entitled to be a transferee of

additional urban or rural land for business or
other purposes which when added to those
already owned by him shall not exceed the
maximum areas herein authorized.

EXCEPTIONS
1.

Art. XII, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution:

Hereditary Succession

2. P.D. 713 (American Parity Rights May 27,

1975): The Law allowing Americans who were
formerly Filipino Citizens, Americans who
became Permanent Residents of the
Philippines, and Americans who have resided in
the Philippines continuously for at least twenty
years and who in good faith had acquired private
residential lands for family dwelling purposes in
the Philipppines prior to July 3, 1974, to continue
holding such lands and transfer ownership over
the same to qualified persons or entities
3. B.P. 185 - An Act to Implement Sec. 15 of Art.
XIV of the Constitution and for Other Purposes
(March 16, 1982): Any natural-born citizen of the
Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship and who has the legal capacity to
enter into a contract under Philippine laws may
be a transferee of a private land up to a
maximum area of one thousand square meters,
in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the
case of rural land, to be used by him as his
residence.
4. R.A. 8179 An Act to Further Liberalize
Foreign Investments, Amending for the Purpose
R.A. No. 7042 (Foreign Investments Act), and
for other purposes
SEC. 5. The Foreign Investment Act is further
amended by inserting a new section designated
as Section 10 to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Other Rights of natural Born
Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article
XII, Section 8 of the Constitution.

A transferee under this Act may acquire not

more than two (2) lots which should be
situated in different municipalities or cities
anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That
the Total land area thereof shall not exceed
five thousand (5,000) square meters in the
case of urban land or three (3) hectares in
the case of rural land for use by him for
business or other purposes. A transferee
who has already acquired urban land shall
be disqualified form acquiring rural land and
vice versa.
5.

R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and

Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Aug. 29, 2003)

Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine

citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights. . .
6. P.D. No. 471 (May 24, 1974) Fixing a
Maximum Period for the Duration of Leases of
Private Lands to Aliens
Section 1. The maximum period allowable for
the duration of leases of private lands to aliens
or alien-owned corporations, associations, or
entities not qualified to acquire private lands in
the Philippines shall be twenty-five years,
renewable for another period of twenty-five
years upon mutual agreement of both lessor and
lessee.

- Any natural born citizen who has lost his

Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine Laws may be a transferee of a
private land up to maximum area of five
thousand (5,000) square meters in the case
of urban land or three (3) hectares in the
case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes. In the case of
married couples, one of them may avail of
the privilege herein granted: Provided, That
If both shall avail of the same, the total are
acquired shall not exceed the maximum
herein fixed.
In case the transferee already owns urban
or rural land for business or other purposes,

Page !6 of !48

acquisitive prescription is baseless when the

land involved is a registered land.

2003 BAR
In 1970, Spouses dela Cruz, the Filipinos,
bought a parcel of unregistered land in the
Philippines, on which they built a house
which became their residence. In 1986,
they migrated to Canada and became
Canadian citizens.
Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed
by the Republic, for the registration of the
aforesaid land in their names. Should the
application of the spouses be granted over
the Republics opposition?
Yes, the application should be granted. As a
rule, the Constitution prohibits aliens from
owning private lands in the Philippines. This
rule, however, does not apply to the spouses
Juan and Juana dela Cruz because at the time
they acquired ownership over the land, albeit
imperfect, they were still Filipino citizens. The
application for registration is a mere
confirmation of the imperfect title which the
spouses have already acquired before they
became Canadian citizens. (Republic vs. CA,
235 SCRA 567)

Appellants claim of acquisitive prescription is

likewise baseless. Under Article 1126 of the Civil
Code, prescription of ownership of lands
registered under the Land Registration Act shall
be governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act
No. 496 provides that no title to registered land
in derogation of that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by adverse possession.
Consequently, proof of possession by the
defendants is both immaterial and
inconsequential.
Vda. de Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
351 SCRA 12
The owner of the land registered under the
Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription.

Ong vs. Republic,

3/12/2008, G.R. 175746
The law speaks of possession and occupation.
Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law
is not to make one synonymous with the other.
Possession is broader than occupation because
it includes constructive possession.
When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it
seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with
the words Open, Continuous, Exclusive and
Notorious (OCEN), the word occupation serves
to highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction.
Feliciano vs. Zaldivar
September 26, 2006
Respondents claim that they had been
occupying the subject lot since 1947 openly,
publicly, adversely and continuously or for over
41 years is unavailing. In a long line of cases,
the Court has consistently ruled that lands
covered by a title cannot be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. A claim of

Page !7 of !48

2008 BAR
(Prescription)
Anthony bought a piece of untitled
agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn,
acquired the property by forging Carlos
signature in a deed of sale over the
property. Carlo had been in possession of
the property for 8 years, declared it for tax
purposes, and religiously paid all taxes
due on the property. Anthony is not aware
of the defect in Berts title, but has not
been in actual physical possession of the
property from the time he bought it from
Bert, who had never been in possession.
Anthony has since then been in
possession of the property for one year.
Can Anthony acquire ownership of the
property by acquisitive prescription? How
many more years does he have to possess
it to acquire ownership?
Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of the
property thru acquisitive prescription. In the
present case, Anthony is a buyer/possessor in
good faith because he was not aware of the
defect on Berts title. As such, Anthony can
acquire ownership and other real rights over
immovable property through open, continuous
possession of ten years. Anthony needs nine
years of possession in addition to his one year
of possession in good faith.
(Accretion)
The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who
are neighbors, lie along the banks of
Marikina River. At certain times of the year,
the river would swell and as the water
recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are
deposited on Jessicas and Jennys
properties.
This pattern of the river
swelling, receding and depositing soil and
other materials being deposited on the
neighbors properties have gone on for
many years. Knowing this pattern, Jessica
constructed a concrete barrier about 2
meters from her property line and
extending towards the river, so that when
the water recedes, soil and other materials
are trapped within this barrier.
After
several years, the area between Jessicas
property line to the concrete barrier was
completely filled with soil, effectively
increasing Jessicas property by 2 meters.
Jennys property, where no barrier was
constructed, also increased by one meter

(b)

Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title

or Incomplete Title
(Sec. 48[b] of the Public Land Act)
(Sec. 14[1] of P.D. No. 1529)

P.D. 1529 [Registered Lands] versus C.A. 141

[Unregistered Lands]: Under P.D. 1529, there
already exists a title which the court need only
confirm while the Public Land Act [C.A. 141]
works under the presumption that the land
applied for still pertains to the State, and the
occupants and possessors merely claim an
interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect
title or continuous, open and notorious
possession thereof. (Limcoma Multipurpose
Cooperative vs. Republic 527 SCRA 233)
Requisites for an Application for Registration
under this Rule
(1) The applicant must be a Filipino citizen
(2) He must have, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, possessed and
occupied an alienable and disposable
agricultural portion of the public domain;
(3) Such possession and occupation must
have been open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious and in the concept of owner,
since June 12, 1945; and
(4) The application must be filed with the
proper court.
Re: Disqualification of private corporations
or associations from acquiring alienable
lands of the public domain
Article XII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution: xxx
Private corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof, by purchase,
homestead, or grant.
Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co.
G.R. No. 73002
Where at the time the corporation acquired the
land, its predecessors-in-interest had been in

Page !8 of !48

possession and occupation thereof in the

manner and for the period prescribed by law as
to entitle him to registration in his name, then the
proscription against corporations acquiring
alienable lands of the public domain except
through lease does not apply for the land was no
longer public land but private property.
Canete vs. Genuino Ice Comp.,
542 SCRA 206, 1/22/2008
One who acquires land under the Friar Lands
Act, as well as his successors-in-interest may
not claim successional rights to purchase by
reason of occupation from the time immemorial,
as this contravenes the historical fact that friar
lands were bought by the Government of the
Philippine Islands, pursuant to Act of Congress
of the United States, approved on July 1, 1902,
not from the individual persons but from certain
companies, a society and a religious order.
Reckoning time when land has been declared as
alienable and disposable for purposes of
complying with Sec. 48[b] of the Public Land Act

Did the enactment of the Property

Registration Decree and the amendatory
P.D. No. 1073 preclude the application for
registration of alienable lands of the public
domain, possession over which
commenced only after June 12, 1945?
No. Even if the possession of alienable lands
of the public domain commenced only after 12
June 1945, application for registration of said
property is still possible by virtue of Section 14
(2) of the Property Registration Decree which
speaks of prescription.
. . . It is well-settled that properties classified
as alienable and disposable land may be
converted into private property by reason of
open, continuous and exclusive possession of
at least 30 years. Such property now falls
within the contemplation of private lands
under Section 14(2), over which title by
prescription can be acquired. Hence, because
of Section 14(2) of P.D. 1529, those who are in
possession of alienable and disposable land,
and whose possession has been
characterized as open, continuous and
exclusive for 30 years or more, may have the
right to register their title to such land despite
the fact that their possession of the land
commenced only after 12 June 1945.
(Buenaventura vs. Republic 517 SCRA 271;
Limcoma Multipurpose Cooperative vs.
Republic 527 SCRA 233)

Republic vs. Naguit

January 17, 2005
The more reasonable interpretation of Section
14(1) is that it merely requires the property
sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the application for
registration of title is filed. If the State, at the
time the application is made, has not yet
deemed it proper to release the property for
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that
the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property; hence, the need to preserve
its ownership in the State irrespective of the
length of adverse possession even if in good
faith. However, if the property has already been
classified as alienable and disposable, as it is in
this case, then there is already an intention on
the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive
prerogative over the property.
Republic vs. Herbieto
May 26, 2005

Page !9 of !48

Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended,

now requires adverse possession of the land
since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In the present
Petition, the subject lots became alienable and
disposable only on 25 June 1963.
Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic
April 29, 2009
Thus, neither Herbieto nor its principal discipular
ruling in Buenaventura has any precedental
value with respect to Section 14(1). On the
other hand, the ration of Naguit is embedded in
Section 14(1), since it precisely involved
situation wherein the applicant had been in
exclusive possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership prior to June 12, 1945. The Courts
interpretation of Section 14(1) therein was
decisive to the resolution of the case. Any doubt
as to which between Naguit or Herbieto provides
the final word of the Court on Section 14(1) is
now settled in favor of Naguit.
There must be an express declaration by the
State that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth, or that the
property has been converted into patrimonial.
Without such express declaration, the property,
even if classified as alienable or disposable,
remains property of the public dominion,
pursuant to Article 420(2), and thus incapable of
acquisition by prescription. Such declaration
shall be in the form of a law duly enacted by
Congress or a Presidential Proclamation in
cases where the President is duly authorized by
law.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. 155450, August 6, 2008
When the land registration court issued a
decision for the issuance of a decree which was
the basis of an original certificate of title to the
land, the court had already made a
determination that the land was agricultural and
that the applicant had proven that he was in
open and exclusive possession of the subject
land for the prescribed number of years.
Leonardo-De Castro vs. Mayor Jose Yap
G.R. No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008
Except for lands already covered by existing
titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064.
Such unclassified lands are considered public
forest under P.D. No. 705.

If we accept the position of private claimants, the

Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 would
have automatically made all lands in the
Philippines, except those already classified as
timber or mineral land, alienable and disposable
lands. That would take these lands out of State
ownership and worse, would be utterly
inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the
long-entrenched Regalian doctrine.
Non-Registrable Properties
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Republic,
543 SCRA 453 Feb. 4, 2008;
A certificate of title is void when it covers
property of public domain classified as forest or
timber or mineral land; any title issued covering
non-disposable lots even in the hands of an
alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be
cancelled.
2007 BAR Question
Bedrock Land & Property Development
Corp. is a development company engaged
in developing and selling subdivisions,
condominium units and industrial estates.
In order to replenish its inventories, it
embarked on an aggressive land banking
program. It employed scouts who roam
all over the Philippines to look for and
conduct investigations on prospective
sites for acquisition and development,
whether developed, semi-developed, or
raw land. The management of Bedrock
asks you as the company counsel to
prepare a manual containing a summary of
the pertinent laws and regulations relating
to land registration and acquisition of title
to land. The manual should include the
following items:
Supply this information.
(b) What properties are not registrable?
With respect to land banking program of
Bedrock, the following properties may not be
registered under the Torrens System with any
Register of Deeds: (a) inalienable lands of the
public domain; and (b) those prohibited under
the Constitution (such as national parks,
mineral lands, forest or timber lands and
agricultural lands not classified as alienable
and disposable).

Page !10 of !48

Take note of the distinction of the two Chavez

cases.
Both involved the sale of reclaimed
lands to private corporations. In the first Chavez
case, the sale was nullified while in the latter
Chavez case, the sale was upheld
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority
July 9, 2002
The ownership of lands reclaimed from
foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the
Regalian doctrine which holds that the State
owns all lands and waters of the public domain. .
. . Foreshore lands became inalienable as
natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed
by the government and classified as agricultural
lands of the public domain. . . These lands
remained sui generis, as the only alienable or
disposable lands of the public domain the
government could not sell to private parties.
Since then and until now, the only way the
government can sell to private parties
government reclaimed lands of the public
domain is for the legislature to pass a law
authorizing such sale.
xxx
The reclaimed lands being sold or leased by
PEA are not private lands, in the same manner
that DENR, when it disposes of private lands but
alienable lands of the public domain. Only when
qualified private parties acquire these lands will
the lands become private lands. In the hands of
the government agency tasked and authorized
to dispose of alienable lands of the public
domain, these lands are still public, not private
lands.
Chavez vs. National Housing Authority
August 15, 2007
The NHA is a government agency not tasked to
dispose of public lands under its charterThe
Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA
is an end-user agency authorized by law to
administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The
moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the
special patents are transferred to the NHA by
the Register of Deeds, they are automatically
converted to patrimonial properties of the State
which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private
corporations, 60% of which are owned by
Filipinos.
The reason is obvious:
if the
reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial

land once transferred to NHA, then it would be

useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot
legally transfer or alienate lands of public
domain. More importantly, it cannot attain its
avowed purposes and goals since it can only
transfer patrimonial lands to qualified
beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise
funds for the SMDRP.
From the foregoing considerations, we
find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been
declared alienable and disposable land of the
public domain; and in the hands of NHA, it has
been reclassified as patrimonial property.
Certificate of Alienability
DENR Secretary vs. Yap,
G.R. 167707, 10/8/2008
The Executive Department, thru the President,
has the exclusive prerogative to classify or
reclassify public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest.
Since 1919,
courts no longer had the authority, whether
express or implied, to determine the
classification of lands of the public domain.
Republic vs. Mendoza,
519 SCRA 203
It cannot be gainsaid that the prerogative of
classifying public lands pertains to administrative
agencies which have been specially tasked by
statues to do so and that the courts will not
interfere on matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of government and/or quasijudicial agencies entrusted with the regulation of
activities coming under their special technical
knowledge and training. It should be stressed
that the function of administering and disposing
of lands of the public domain in the manner
prescribed by law is not entrusted to the courts
but to executive officials. And as such, courts
should refrain from looking into the underlying
reasons or grounds which impelled the
classification and declaration . . . and its
subsequent release as alienable and disposable
land.
Republic vs. Sarmiento,
418 SCRA 250, 3/13/2007
Reliance on the notation of surveyor-geodetic
engineer that this survey is inside the alienable
and disposable area to prove that the lot is
alienable is insufficient and does not constitute

Page 11
! of !48

controvertible evidence to overcome the

presumption that it remains part of the
inalienable public domain.

Republic vs. Dela Paz

G.R. No. 171631, November 15, 2010
To support their contention that the land
subject of the application for registration is
alienable, Dela Paz, et.al. presented survey
Plan Ccn-00-000084 prepared by Geodetic
Engineer Arnaldo C. Torres with the following
annotation:
This survey is inside L.C. Map
No. 2623 Proj. No. 27-B
clasified as alienable/
disposable by the Bureau of
Forest Development, Quezon
City on Jan. 03, 1968.
They further presented evidence of specific
acts of ownership showing open, notorious,
continuous and adverse possession and
occupation in the concept of an owner of the
subject land such as (a) several tax
declarations, dated 1949, 1966, 1974, 1979,
1980, 1985, 1991, 1994 and 2000, issued in
the name of their predecessors-in-interest and
(b) a tax clearance issued by the City
Treasurer's Office showing that they are up to
date in their payment of real property taxes.
Supported by the above documents, can
the subject land be classified as alienable
and disposable?
NO. To prove that the land subject of an
application for registration is alienable, an
applicant must establish the existence of a
positive act of the government, such as a
presidential proclamation or an executive
order, an administrative action, investigation
reports of Bureau of Lands investigators, and
a legislative act or statute. The applicant may
also secure a certification from the
Government that the lands applied for are
alienable and disposable. In the case at bar,
while the Advance Plan bearing the notation
was certified by the Lands Management
Services of the DENR, the certification refers
only to the technical correctness of the survey
plotted in the said plan and has nothing to do
whatsoever with the nature and character of
the property surveyed.
The applicant bears the burden of proving the
status of the land. In this connection, he must
present a certificate of land classification
status issued by the Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), or
the Provincial Environment and Natural
Resources Office (PENRO) of the DENR. He
must also prove that the DENR Secretary had
Page !12 of !48

(c)

Ordinary Registration Proceedings

Publication; Opposition; Default

Heirs of Regalado vs, Republic
516 SCRA 38
If what is sought to be registered are sublots of a
bigger lot, the publication must contain the
technical descriptions of the smaller lots since
the adjoining owners of the mother lot are not
the adjoining owners of the smaller lots.
Specific Evidence of Ownership
Recto vs. Republic
440 SCRA 79
The belated declaration of the lot for tax
purposes does not necessarily mean that
possession by the previous owners thereof did
not commence in 1945 or earlier. As long as the
testimony supporting possession for the required
period is credible, the court will grant the petition
for registration.
xxx
A duly certified blue print copy of the tracing
cloth with the technical description is sufficient
compliance and the submission of the survey
plan on tracing cloth may be dispensed with.
Azana vs. Lumbo
518 SCRA 707
Non-declaration of property for tax purposes
does not necessarily negate ownership.

As a rule, tax declarations or realty tax

payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner, for no one in his right mind would be
paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or constructive possession.
They
constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property. The voluntary
declaration of a piece of property for taxation
purposes manifests not only ones sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property and
announces his adverse claim against the State
and all other interested parties, but also the
intention to contribute needed revenues to the
Government. Such an act strengthens ones
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
Hearing; Judgment; Decree of Registration
Republic vs, San Lorenzo
513 SCRA 294
The duty and the power to set the hearing date
lie with the land registration court. After an
applicant has filed his application, the law
requires the issuance of a court order setting the
initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing
is a court document. The notice of initial hearing
is a court document. The notice of initial hearing
is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is
mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA. This
involves a process to which the party applicant
absolutely has no participation.
x x x
Respondent should not be faulted if the initial
hearing that was conducted on September 23,
1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth
under Sec. 23 of P.D. 1529, and (b) that
respondent might have substantially complied
with the requirement thereunder relating to the
registration of the subject land.

Republic vs. Barandiaran

538 SCRA 1
It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of
ownership for tax purposes are not
incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only
become evidence of ownership acquired by
prescription when accompanied by proof of
actual possession of the property.
Republic vs, Sta, Ana Burgos 523 SCRA 309;
Buenaventura vs. Republic 517 SCRA 271

Page !13 of !48

When an adjacent owner did not appear in

the hearing of the application for
registration of land due to actual or
extrinsic fraud by the applicant, and a
decision granting a portion of the adjacent
owners land to the applicant became final,
what are the adjacent owners remedies?
A: As the case involves actual and extrinsic
fraud, his remedy is a petition for relief under
Rule 38, provided that no decree has yet been
issued by the Land Registration Authority. If a
Decree has been issued, the remedy would be
a petition for review under Sec. 32 of P.D.
1529.
The requisites for a petition for review are: (a)
a person/owner is deprived of ownership of a
land; (b) deprivation is through extrinsic fraud;
(c) that the petition for review is filed within
one year from the issuance of the decree of
registration and; (d) there is no innocent
purchaser for value. If one year has elapsed,
then an action for reconveyance is the proper
remedy.
The requisites for an action for
reconveyance are: (a) a person/owner is
deprived of ownership of a land; (b)
deprivation is through extrinsic fraud; and (c)
there is no innocent purchaser for value.

years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39) xxx refers

to civil actions and is not applicable to special
proceedings, such as a land registration case.
This is so because a party in a civil action must
immediately enforce a judgment that is secured
as against the adverse party, and his failure to
act to enforce the same within a reasonable time
as provided in the Rules makes the decision
unenforceable against the losing party.
In
special proceedings, the purpose is to establish
a status, condition or fact; in land registration
proceedings, the ownership by a person of a
parcel of land is sought to be established. After
the ownership has been proved and confirmed
by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to
enforce said ownership is necessary, except
when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party
desires to oust him therefrom.
Factor vs. Mariel, Jr.
G.R. 161037, 2/4/2008
A writ of possession may be issued only
pursuant to a decree of registration in original
land registration proceedings not only against
the person who has been defeated in a
registration case but also against anyone
adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the proceedings up to the
issuance of the decree.

Republic vs. Nillas

512 SCRA 286, 1/23/2007

Heirs of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy

528 SCRA 522

The peculiar procedure provided in the Property

Registration Law from the time decisions in land
registration case became final is complete in
itself and does not need to be filled in the
judgment does not have to be executed by
motion or enforced by action within the purview
of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

A previous final and executory judgment

awarding the lot in favor of a party bars the
losing party from later filing an application for
registration of title covering the same lot.

Ting vs. Heirs of Lirio

518 SCRA 336
There is no provision in the Land Registration
Act xxx regarding the execution of a judgment in
a civil action, except the proceedings to place
the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of
possession. The decision in a land registration
case, unless the adverse or losing party is in
possession, becomes final without any further
action, upon the expiration of the period for
perfecting an appeal.
xxx [t]he provision in the Rules of Court to the
effect that judgment may be enforced within 5
years by motion, and after 5 years but within 10

Jurisdiction of Cadastral Courts

The power to dispose of the lands placed under
the administration of the Philippine Homesite
and Housing Corporation [PHHC] is lodged in
said body.
There is no provision of law
authorizing courts to review decisions of
respondent PHHC and to take cognizance of
actions to annul awards of sale of any other
action made by it pursuant to the authority
granted it by law, unless a prayer for nullification
of title is in the Complaint.
Manotok Realty, Inc. vs.
CLT Realty Development. Corp.
G.R. No. 123346, Dec. 14, 2007

Page !14 of !48

Such jurisdiction is limited to the necessary

correction of technical errors in the description of
the lands, provided such corrections do not
impair the substantial rights of the registered
owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot operate
to deprive a registered owner of his title. (Id. at
561) It was further clarified in Timbol v. Diaz (44
Phil 587 (1923)) that the limited jurisdiction of
the cadastral court over such lands even
extends to the determination of which one of
the several conflicting registered titles shall
prevail[, as such] power would seem to be
necessary for a complete settlement of the title
to the land, the express purpose of cadastral
proceedings, and must therefore be considered
to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such
proceedings.
When an Original Certificate of Title takes effect
The original certificate of title is issued on the
date the decree of registration is transcribed.
What stands as the certificate of title is the
transcript of the decree or registration made by
the registrar of deeds in the registry. (Manotok
Realty vs. CLT Realty)
Entry of the Decree versus
Entry of the Certificate of Title
Entry of the Decree is made by the chief clerk
of the land registration and the entry of the
certificate of title is made by the register of
deeds. A certificate of title is issued in
pursuance of the decree of registration. What
is actually issued by the Register of Deeds is
the certificate of title itself, not the decree of
registration, as he is precisely the recipient
from the land registration office of the decree
for transcription to the certificate as well as the
transcriber no less.
It is only after the
transcription of the decree by the register of
deeds that the certificate of title is to take
effect. Situation: Given that what is
acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994
indicates that it was received for transcription
by the Register of Deeds on 3 May 1917, it is
that date that is the date of registration since
that was when he was able to transcribe the
decree in the registration book. (Manotok
Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty)

III. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Key Concepts of the Torrens System

(a)

Best Evidence of Ownership

A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence

of ownership of the land described therein. (Lee
Tek Sheng vs. CA 292 SCRA 544)
Sps. Abad vs. Fil-Homes Realty
and Development Corp.
G.R. No. 189239, Nov. 24, 2010
A and B, co-owners of two registered lots
situated in Paraaque, filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against Sps. Abad before the
MeTC.
A and B alleged that Sps. Abad,
through tolerance, had occupied the subject
lots since 1980 but ignored their repeated
demands to vacate them.
During the
pendency of the case, Paraaque City filed
expropriation proceedings covering the lots
before the RTC of Paraaque with the
intention of establishing a socialized housing
project therein for distribution to the occupants
including Sps. Abad. A writ of possession was
consequently issued and a Certificate of Turnover given to the City.
Sps. Abad contend that A and B can no longer
assert a better right of possession since the
lots are subject of expropriation proceedings
and that they are entitled to continue staying
there since the City Ordinance authorizing the
expropriation designated them as one of the
beneficiaries.
Rule on Sps. Abads contention.
The mere issuance of a writ of possession in
the expropriation proceedings does not
transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the
City. Such issuance is only the first stage in
expropriation. On the claim that they have
been named beneficiaries of the lots, Sps.
Abad cannot 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.

(b)

Constructive Notice

Page !15 of !48

A Torrens title binds the whole world. (People vs.

Reyes 175 SCRA 597)
The issuance of a torrens certificate of title is
constructive notice to the whole world that the
person in whose name it is issued has become
the owner of the lot described therein. (Borbe vs.
Calalo 535 SCRA 89)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
(Jacob vs. CA 224 SCRA 189)
(c)

Curtain Principle
Unregistered Claims

A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered

on the title. (Republic vs. Umali 171 SCRA 647)

Every person dealing with registered land may

safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of
title issued therefore and the law will in no way
oblige him to go behind the certificate to
determine the condition of the property. Stated
differently, an innocent purchaser for value,
relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected.
(Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals 343 SCRA 637)
(g)
Not Subject to Collateral Attack
A certificate of title shall not be the subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified
or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law. (Vda. de Retuerto vs. Barz
372 SCRA 712)

All claims and liens of whatever character

existing against the land prior to the issuance of
certificate of title are barred, if not noted on said
certificate. (Id.)
The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of
Title and the subsequent purchaser for value
and in good faith of registered land shall hold the
certificate, free from all liens and encumbrances,
except those noted in said certificate and those
specified by law. (Secs. 44 and 46, P.D. 1529)
(d)

Indefeasibility

A Torrens certificate of title serves as evidence

of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of
the person whose name appears therein.
(Ortegas vs. Hidalgo 198 SCRA 635)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens
certificate becomes incontrovertible or
indefeasible after one year from the entry of the
decree of registration. (Heirs of Santiago vs.
Heirs of Santiago 404 SCRA 193)
A certificate of title cannot be defeated by
adverse, open and notorious possession by third
persons. (DOro Land Realty & Devt Corp. vs.
Claunan 516 SCRA 681)
(e)

Imprescriptible

No title to registered land in derogation of the

title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Rivera vs.
Court of Appeals 244 SCRA 218)
(f)

Integrity of Titles
Insurance Principle

Page !16 of !48

Manotok vs. Heirs of Barque

GR No. 162335, Dec. 18, 2008
The heirs of Barque filed a petition with the
LRA for administrative reconstitution of the
original of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name
of Homer Barque, being among the records
destroyed in the fire that gutted the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Learning of the Barques petition, the
Manotoks filed their opposition claiming that
the lot covered by the Barque title formed part
of the land covered by their reconstituted title
TCT No. RT-22481 [372302].

The Torrens system was not designed to shield

and protect one who had committed fraud or
misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad
faith. (Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr. 181 SCRA 431)

Atty. B, reconstituting officer of the LRA,

denied the petition, declaring that said title
appear to duplicate the Manotok title and that
the submitted plan was a spurious document.
The Barques appealed to the LRA, which
reversed Atty. B. The LRA however noted that
only the RTC could cancel the Manotok title as
a Torrens title. The Barques elevated the
matter to the Court of Appeals, which ruled
viz.:
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City is hereby directed to cancel
TCT No. RT-22481 (Manotoks title) and the
LRA is hereby directed to reconstitute
forthwith the Barques valid, genuine and
existing Certificate of Title No. T-210177.
Was the Court of Appeals correct in
rendering the above decision?
No. The cancellation of the Manotok title
cannot arise incidentally from the
administrative proceeding for reconstitution of
the Barque title even if the evidence from that
proceeding revealed the Manotok title as fake.
Nor could it have emerged incidentally in the
appellate review of the LRAs administrative
proceeding.
The Court of Appeals does not have original
jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to
otherwise adjudicate questions over
ownership of property. Its exclusive original
jurisdiction is determined by law, particularly
by B.P. 129. Section 9 of that law restricts the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals to special civil actions and to actions
for annulment of judgments of the regional trial
court.

(h)

Fraudulent Registration

Page !17 of !48

2005 BAR
Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his
vehicle an envelope containing TCT No.
65432 over a lot registered in Cesars
name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesars
signature on a Deed of Sale in Rods favor.
Rod registered the said document with the
Register of Deeds, and obtained a new title
in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to
Don, a buyer in good faith and for value,
who also registered the lot in his name.
a)

Did Rod acquire title to the land?

No, Rod did not acquire title to the land. The

inscription in the registry, to be effective, must
be made in good faith. The defense of
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not
extend to a transferee who takes the
certificate of title with notice of a flaw. A holder
in bad faith of a certificate of title is not entitled
to the protection of the law, for the law cannot
be used as a shield for frauds. (Samonte v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104223, July 12,
2001)

The Torrens system only protects a title holder in

good faith and cannot be used as shield for
fraud and chicanery. (Philippine Commercial &
Industrial Bank vs. Villalva 48 SCRA 31)
The person in whose name the land is
fraudulently registered holds it as a mere
trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true
owner. (Caro vs. CA 180 SCRA 401)
(i)

Forgery

A fraudulent or forged document of sale may

become the root 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 or the
name indicated by the forger. (Reyes vs. Borbon
50 Phil. 791)

In the case at bar, Rod only forged Cesars

signature on the -Deed of Sale. It is very
apparent that there was bad faith on the part
of Rod from the very beginning. As such, he is
not entitled to the protection of the Land
Registration Act.
b)

Discuss the rights of Don, if any,

over the property.

It is a well-known rule in this jurisdiction that

persons dealing with registered land have the
legal right to rely on the face of the Torrens
Certificate of Title and to dispense with the
need to inquire further, except when the party
concerned has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry. (Naawan
Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 128573, January 13, 2003)
In the given problem, the property was already
registered in the name of Rod when he bought
the same from the latter. Thus, Don could be
considered as a buyer in good faith and for
value. However, since Rod did not actually sell
any property to him, Don has no right to retain
ownership over the property. He has only the
right to recover the purchase price plus
damages.

Page !18 of !48

1999 BAR
Spouses X and Y mortgaged a piece of
registered land to A, delivering as well the
OCT to the latter, but they continued to
possess and cultivate the land, giving 1/2
of each harvest to A in partial payment of
their loan to the latter, A, however, without
the knowledge of X and Y, forged a deed of
sale of the aforesaid land in favor of
himself, got a TCT in his name, and then
sold the land to B, who bought the land
relying on As title, and who thereafter also
got a TCT in his name. It was only then that
the spouses X and Y learned that their land
had been titled in Bs name. May said
spouses file an action for reconveyance of
the land in question against B? Reason.
The action of X and Y against B for
reconveyance of the land will not prosper
because B has acquired a clean title to the
property being an innocent purchaser for
value. A forged deed is an absolute nullity and
conveys no title. The fact that the forged deed
was registered and a certificate of title was
issued in his name, did not operate to vest
upon an ownership over the property of X and
Y. The registration of the forged deed will not
cure the infirmity. However, once the title to
the land is registered in the name of the forger
and title to the land thereafter falls into the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value, the
latter acquires a clean title thereto. A buyer of
a registered land is not indicates on its face in
quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right
which may subsequently defeat his right
thereto. This is the mirror principle of the
Torrens system which makes it possible for a
forged deed to be the root of a good title.
Besides, it appears that spouses X and Y are
guilty of contributory negligence when they
delivered this OCT to the mortgagee without
annotating the mortgage thereon. Between
them and the innocent purchaser for value,
they should bear the loss.

Alternative Answer:
If the buyer B, who relied on the teller As title,
was not aware of the adverse possession of
the land by the spouses X and Y, then the
latter cannot recover the property from B. B
has in his favor the presumption of good faith
which can only be overthrown by adequate
proof of bad faith. However, nobody buys land
without seeing the property, hence, B could
not have been unaware of such adverse

The doctrine 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. (Torres vs. CA 186 SCRA 672)
(j)

Loss

As between two innocent persons, the one who

made it possible for the wrong to be done should
be the one to bear the resulting loss. (Traders
Royal Bank vs. CA 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of whom are in
good faith and both innocent of any negligence,
the law must protect and prefer the lawful holder
of registered title over the transfer of a vendor
bereft of any transmissible rights. (Torres vs.
Court of Appeals 186 SCRA 672)
(k)

Presumption: Regular and Valid

A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued

regularly and legally, unless contradicted and
overcomed by clear, convincing, strong and
irrefutable proof.
More than merely
preponderant evidence is required. (Ramos vs.
Rodriguez 244 SCRA 418)
(l)

Double Titles

Where two certificates of title include the same

land, the certificate of title that is earlier in date
prevails. (Garcia vs. CA 95 SCRA 380)
(m)

Priority of Rights

Prior tempura potior jure. He who is first in

time is preferred in right. (Santiago vs. CA 186
SCRA 672)
(n)

Reliance on the Title

Mirror Principle (1999, 2005 BAR)

. . .[u]nder the Torrens System of Registration,

the minimum requirement for one to be a good
faith buyer for value is that the vendee at least
sees the owner's duplicate copy of the title and
relies upon the same. The private respondent,
presumably knowledgeable on the aforesaid
workings of the Torrens System, did not take
heed of this and nevertheless went through with
the sale with undue haste. The unexplained
eagerness of INC to buy this valuable piece of
land in Quezon City without even being
presented with the owner's copy of the titles

Page !19 of !48

casts very serious doubt on the rightfulness of

its position as vendee in the transaction. (Islamic
Directorate of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 117897, May 14, 1997)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right
to rely on the correctness of the title. He is not
required to explore further than what the Torrens
title on its face indicates, in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently
defeat his right thereto. (Nazareno vs. Court of
Appeals 343 SCRA 637).
When a person deals with registered land
through someone who is not the registered
owner, he is expected to look behind the
certificate of title and examine all the factual
circumstances, in order to determine if the
vendor has the capacity to transfer of any
interest in the land. (Chua vs. Soriano 521
SCRA 68, 4/13/2007)
EXCEPTION: This principle does not apply
when the party has actual knowledge of facts
and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry
or when the purchaser has knowledge of a
defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of
sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent
man to inquire into the status of the title of the
property in litigation. One who falls within the
exception can neither be denominated an
innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in
good faith. (Domingo vs. Roces 401 SCRA 197)
(o)

Titles derived from a void title

If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent

certificates of title derived therefrom are also
void because of the truism that the spring
cannot rise higher than its source. This truism is
in accord with the Latin maxim Nemo potest
plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse habet.
No one can transfer a greater right to another
than he himself has. (Mathay vs. Court of
Appeals 295 SCRA 556)
IV. REMEDIES
Tapuroc vs. Vda. de Mende
512 SCRA 97, 1/22/2007
Invoking the invalidity of an original certificate of
title as an affirmative defense in an answer and
the prayer for the declaration of its nullity is a
collateral attack on a certificate of title is not
allowed.

Vda. de Recinto vs. Inciong

77 SCRA 196
The mere possession of a certificate of title
under the Torrens system does not necessarily
make the possessor a true owner of all the
property described therein for he does not by
virtue of said certificate alone become the owner
of the land illegally included. It is evident from
the records that the petitioner owns the portion
in question and therefore the area should be
conveyed to her. The remedy of the land owner
whose property has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in anothers name is,
after one year from the date of the decree, not to
set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree
as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court
of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has
passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, for damages.
Martinez vs. Court of Appeals
542 SCRA 604, 1/28/2008
A certificate of title issued on the basis of a free
patent procured through fraud or in violation of
the law may be cancelled as such title is not
cloaked with indefeasibility. The principle of
indefeasibility of title is unavailing where fraud
attended the issuance of the free patents and
titles.
Remedies Available to the Losing Party in a
Registration Case
(1)
(2)
(3)

Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration

under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court
Petition for Relief from Judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
Appeal to the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court, in the same manner as
in ordinary actions

Remedies under the Property Registration

Decree available to the aggrieved party in
cases of fraudulent registration
(1) Petition for review of Decree (Sec. 32)
(2) Action for Reconveyance (Secs. 53 and
96)
(3) Action for Damages (Section 32)
(4) Claim against the Assurance Fund (Sec.
95)

Page !20 of !48

2009 BAR
Before migrating to Canada in 1992, the
spouses Teodoro and Anita entrusted all
their legal papers and documents to their
nephew, Atty. Tan. Taking advantage of the
situation, Atty. Tan forged a deed of sale,
making it appear that he had bought the
couples property in Quezon City. In 2000,
he succeeded in obtaining a TCT over the
property in his name. Subsequently, Atty.
Tan sold the same property to Luis, who
built an auto repair shop on the property.
In 2004, Luis registered the deed of
conveyance, and title over the property
was transferred in his name.

In 2006, the spouses Teodoro and Anita

came to the Philippines for a visit and
discovered what had happened to their
property. They immediately hire you as
lawyer. What action or actions will you
institute in order to vindicate their rights?
Explain fully.
If the property has passed into the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy
is an action for damages. It is a familiar
doctrine that a forged or fraudulent document
may become the root of a valid title, if the
property has already been transferred from
the name of the owner to that of the forger.
Where there is nothing in the certificate of title
to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership
of the property, or any encumbrance thereon,
the purchaser is not required to explore
further than what the Torrens Title upon its
face indicates in quest for any hidden defects
or inchoate right that may subsequently
defeat his right thereto.
Luis may be
considered an innocent purchaser for value
operating under the presumption that he
acted in good faith and since the disputed
property is already registered in his name, the
only remedy is to file a case for damages
against Atty. Tan.

Other Remedies Available

(1)

(2)
(3)

Action for cancellation or reversion

instituted by the government through
the Solicitor General (Sec. 101 of the
Public Land Act)
Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47,
Rules of Court)
Criminal Prosecution under the RPC

2003 BAR
Louie, before leaving the country to train
as a chef in a five-star hotel in New York,
USA, entrusted to his firstdegree cousin
Dewey an application for registration,
under the Land Registration Act, of a
parcel of land located in Bacolod City. A
y e a r l a t e r, L o u i e r e t u r n e d t o t h e
Philippines and discovered that Dewey
registered the land and obtained an
Original Certificate of Title over the
property in his name. Compounding the
matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an
innocent purchaser for value.
Louie
promptly filed an action for reconveyance
of the parcel of land against Huey. Is the
action pursued by Louie the proper
remedy?
An action for reconveyance against Huey is
not the proper remedy, because Huey is an
innocent purchaser for value. The proper
recourse is for Louie to go after Dewey for
damages by reason of the fraudulent
registration and subsequent sale of the land.
If Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim
against the Assurance Fund. (Heirs of Lopez
vs. De Castro 324 SCRA 591 [2000])

Petition for Review

Heirs of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy
528 SCRA 522
When the petition for review of decree is filed
after the expiration of one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree of registration, the
certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears thereon.
The
certificate of title that was issued attained the
status of indefeasibility one year after its
issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat
title previously issued by subsequently filing an
application for registration.
Ingusan vs. Heirs of Reyes
513 SCRA 315
When an original certificate of title is secured
fraudulently and in breach of trust, a direct
attack on the title is a petition for review of
decree of registration.

Page !21 of !48

Reconveyance
Heirs of Labanon vs. Heirs of Labanon
530 SCRA 97, 8/14/2007
P.D. 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any
remedy to recover the property fraudulently
registered in the name of another. It merely
precludes the reopening of the registration
proceedings for titles covered under the Torrens
system, but does not foreclose other remedies
for the reconveyance of the property to its
rightful owner.
Heirs of Dumaliang vs. Serban
516 SCRA 343
The real owner has the right to sue for
reconveyance (an action in personam) of a
property. The action is imperscriptible if the land
wrongfully registered is still in the name of the
person who caused the registration.
Gasataya vs. Mabasa 2/16/ 2007
Reconveyance is available not only to the legal
owner of a property but also to the person with a
better right than the person under whose name
said property was erroneously registered.

Antonio vs. Santos

538 SCRA 1
Note should be taken of the established
doctrine that an action for reconveyance
resulting from fraud prescribes four (4) years
from the discovery of the fraud.
Such
discovery is deemed to have taken place upon
the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property.
Registration of real property is
considered constructive notice to all persons,
thus, the four-year period shall be counted
therefrom.
Pedrano vs. Heirs of Pedrano
Dec. 4, 2007
An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of
land based on implied or constructive trust, as
we have already explained in this case,
prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference
being the date of registration of the deed or
the date of the issuance of the certificate of
title of the property; however, where no OCT
has yet been issued despite an order from the
court to title the lots, the date from whence the
prescriptive period could be reckoned is
unknown and it could not be determined if
indeed the period had already lapsed or not.
Reconciling the above-cases:
. . . the action for reconveyance prescribes in
four years involved causes of action all
accruing prior to the effectivity of the new Civil
Code. Before August 30, 1950, the old Code
of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) governed
prescription. It provided in Section 43 thereof
that civil actions other than for the recovery of
real properly can only be brought within the
following period after the right of action
accrues: Within four years: . . .An action for
relief on the ground of fraud, but the right of
action in such case shall not be deemed to
have accrued until the discovery of the fraud.
In contrast, under the present Civil Code, just
as an implied or constructive trust is an
offspring of the law (Art. 1456, Civil Code), so
is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the
true owner.
In this context, and vis--vis
prescription, Article 1144 of the Civil Code is
applicable, i.e., that an action upon an
obligation created by law must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of
action accrues. (Amerol vs. Bagumbayan)
Consequently
An action for reconveyance based on an
Page !22 of !48

Heirs of Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.

August 10, 2007
An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten
years, the reckoning point of which is the date of
registration of the deed or the date of issuance
of the certificate of title over the property. If the
person claiming to be the owner of the property
is in actual possession thereof, the right is to
seek reconveyance which in effect seeks to
quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.

A squatter has no right of possession that may

be prejudiced by his eviction. Unless there are
intervening rights of third persons which may be
affected or prejudiced by a decision ordering the
return of lots to the registered owner, the
equitable defense of laches will not apply as
against the latter.
Although a registered owner may lose his right
to recover possession of his registered property
be reason of laches, the equitable defense is
unavailing to one who has not shown any color
of title to the property such as a squatter.

Republic vs. Nillas

512 SCRA 286

Feliciano vs. Zaldivar

September 26, 2006

If the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property,

remains in possession of the property, the
prescriptive period to recover title and
possession of the property does not run against
him in such case, an action for reconveyance,
if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a
suit for quieting of title, an action that is
imprescriptible

As registered owners of the lots in question, the

private respondents have a right to eject any
person illegally occupying their property. This
right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed
that they were aware of the petitioners
occupation of the property, and regardless of the
length of that possession, the lawful owners
have a right to demand the return of their
property at any time as long as the possession
was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.
This right is never barred by laches.

Reversion
Estate of the late Yujuico vs. Republic
537 SCRA 513
Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of
public land instituted by the Government was
already covered by Rule 47 and the same
should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the
Regional Trial Court.
Actions of Reversion versus
Actions for Declaration of Nullity
of Free Patents and Certificates of Title
The distinction between ordinary civil actions
for declaration of nullity of free patents and
certificates of title from actions of reversion
lies in the allegation as to the character of
ownership of the realty whose title is sought to
be nullified. (Banguilian vs. Court of Appeals,
4/27/2007)

Laches
DOro Land Realty & Development
Corporation vs. Claunan 516 SCRA 681

Page !23 of !48

1998 BAR
In 1965, Renren brought from
Robyn a parcel of registered land
evidenced by a duly executed deed
of sale. The owner presented the
deed of sale and the owners
certificate of title to the Register of
Deeds. The entry was made in the
day book and corresponding fees
were paid as evidenced by official
receipt. However, no transfer of
certificate of title was issued to
Renren because the original
certificate of title in Robyns name
was temporarily misplaced after fire
partly gutted the Office of the
Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the
land had been possessed by
Robyns distant cousin, Mikaelo,
openly, adversely and continuously
in the concept of an owner since
1960. It was only in April 1998 that
Renren sued Mikaelo to recover
possession.
Mikaelo invoked a.)
acquisitive prescription and b.)
laches, asking that he be declared
owner of the land. Decide the case
by evaluating these defenses.

V. SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
(i.) Voluntary Dealings
Registration Requirements
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Compliance with the essential

requisites of a contract
Observance of the formal
requirements of public instruments
Performance of the jurisdictional
requisites for registration
In addition, special laws require the
submission of supporting documents
fo r ce rta i n tr a n sa cti o n s b e fo re
registration is allowed

a.)
Renrens action to recover
possession of the land will prosper. In
1965, after buying the land from
Robyn, he submitted the Deed of Sale
to the Registry of Deeds for
registration together with the owners
duplicate copy of the title and paid the
corresponding registration fees.
Under Sec. 56 of P.D. No. 1529, the
Deed of Sale to Renren is considered
registered from the time the sale was
entered in the Primary Entry Book.
For all legal intents and purposes,
Renren is considered the registered
owner of the land. After all, it was not
his fault that the Registry of Deeds
could not issue the corresponding
certificate of title.
Mikaelos defense of prescription
cannot be sustained. A Torrens title is
imprescriptible. No title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the
registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.
(Sec. 47, P.D. 1529)
The right to recover possession of
Page !24 of !48

2010 BAR
A executed a Deed of Donation in favor of
B, a bachelor, covering a parcel of land
valued at P1 million. B was, however, out of
the country at the time. For the donation to
be valid,

DBP vs. RD of Nueva Ecija 162 SCRA 450,

Autocorp. Group vs. CA, Sept. 4, 2004
Entry alone produces the effect of registration.

1. B may e-mail A accepting the donation.

2. The donation may be accepted by Bs
father with whom he lives.
3. B can accept the donation anytime
convenient to him.
4. Bs mother who has a general power of
attorney may accept the donation for
him.
5. None of the above is sufficient to make
Bs acceptance valid
No. 5 - Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney
are necessary in the following cases: xxx (5)
To enter into any contract by which the
ownership of an immovable is transmitted or
acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable
consideration; xxx (12) To create or convey
real rights over immovable property;
2010 BAR
X was the owner of an unregistered parcel
of land in Cabanatuan City. As she was
abroad, she advised her sister Y via
overseas call to sell the land and sign a
contract of sale on her behalf.
Y thus sold the land to B1 on March 31,
2001 and executed a deed of absolute sale
on behalf of X. B1 fully paid the purchase
price.
B2, unaware of the sale of the land to B1,
signified to Y his interest to buy it but
asked Y for her authority from X. Without
informing X that she had sold the land to
B1, Y sought X for a written authority to
sell.
X e-mailed Y an authority to sell the land. Y
thereafter sold the land on May 1, 2001 to
B2 on monthly installment basis for two
years, the first installment to be paid at the
end of May 2001.
Who between B1 and B2 has a better right
over the land? Explain.
B2. Art. 1874 of the New Civil Code provides
that when sale of a piece of land or any
interest therein is made through an agent, the
Page !25 of !48

NHA vs. Basa, Jr.

GR No. 149121, April 20, 2010
Spouses Basa obtained a loan from NHA,
secured by a real estate mortgage over their
properties covered by TCT Nos. 287008 and
285413, all located in Quezon City. Due to
non-payment despite demand, NHA
extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage
and after notice and publication, these were
sold at public auction to NHA emerged as the
highest bidder. On April 16, 1991, the sheriffs
certificate of sale was registered and
annotated only on the owners duplicate
copies of the titles, since the titles in the
custody of the Register of Deeds were among
those burned down in the fire that gutted
the City Hall of Quezon City.
On April 16, 1992, the redemption period
expired, without respondents having
redeemed the properties.
The Affidavit of
Consolidation of Ownership was duly inscribed
by the Register of Deeds on the certificates of
title in the hand of NHA and the latter
subsequently filed a petition for the issuance
of a Writ of Possession before RTC Branch 1.
Before the RTC could resolve the petition,
spouses Basa filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene and Petition in Intervention
contending that they were still entitled to
redeem the mortgaged property since the oneyear redemption period had not yet lapsed.
They cited Bernardez v. Reyes and Bass v. De
la Rama where the Supreme Court held that
an instrument is deemed registered only upon
actual inscription on the certificate of title in
the custody of the civil registrar. Since the
sheriffs certificate was only inscribed on the
owners duplicate certificate of title, and not on
the certificate of title in the possession of the
Register of Deeds, then there was no effective
registration and the one-year redemption
period had not even begun to run.

Ballesteros vs. Abion, Feb. 9, 2006

The Primary Entry of a Void Contract does not
produce the effect of registration.
Sps. Abrigo vs. de Vera, 6/21/2004
Registration must be done in the proper registry
in order to bind the land.
Santos vs. Lumbao,
519 SCRA 408
The failure of a contracting party to have a
document registered does not affect its validity
and enforceability as between the contracting
parties for registration serves chiefly to bind third
persons not parties to a contract that a
transaction involving the property has been
entered into.

As presiding judge of the RTC, would you

allow spouses Basa to redeem the
mortgaged properties?
No, spouses Basa lost their opportunity to
redeem the properties in question. It was not
NHAs fault that the certificate of sale was not
annotated on the transfer certificates of title
which were supposed to be in the custody of
t h e R e g i s t r a r, s i n c e t h e s a m e w e r e
burned. The current doctrine that entry in the
primary book produces the effect of
registration can be applied in the situation
obtaining in that case since the registrant
Page !26 of !48

2002 BAR
In 1948, Windas husband sold in favor of
Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10hectare property belonging to their
conjugal partnership, without Windas
knowledge, much less consent. In 1950,
Winda learned of the sale, after her
husbands 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.
Windas claim is not tenable. The rule of
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that
after one year from the date of issue of the
decree of registration, or if the land has fallen
into the hands of a purchaser for value, the
title 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 recover ownership and possession
of the land.
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.
Sale

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 (Esguerra
vs. Trinidad 518 SCRA 186 3/12/2007)

RE: Sales of Real Property

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.

Page !27 of !48

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.

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.

Sy vs. Capistrano, Jr.

G.R. No. 154450, July 28, 2008
Notable likewise is that the owners 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 latters authority to look for a
buyer of the property. On the other hand, the
Jamilars were able to acquire a new owners
duplicate copy thereof by filing an affidavit of
loss and a petition for the issuance of another
owners 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 owners 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.
Caveat Emptor Principle:
(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
5. Put up signs that said lot is being purchased,
leased or encumbered
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, Jan. 26, 2007)
Domingo vs. Roces
401 SCRA 197

Page !28 of !48

2008 BAR
Juliet offered to sell her house and lot to
Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase the
property, Dehlma went to the Register of
D e e d s t o v e r i f y J u l i e t s t i t l e . S h e
discovered that while the property was
registered in Juliets 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 Dehlmas name.
Dehlma
immediately took possession over the
house and lot and the movables therein.
Thereafter, Dehlma went to the Assessors
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 Sheriffs 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 Juliets 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 goo
d 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 Dehlmas name.
Act 3344 is
applicable exclusively to instruments resulting

Pascual vs. Coronel

527 SCRA 474
A registered owner with title has a better right to
possess the land as opposed to a vendee with
an unregistered sale.
Barstowe vs. Republic
519 SCRA 148
The Republic may not go after innocent
purchasers of lots of a subdivision owner (who is
guilty of securing titles fraudulently) who looked
into TCTs of developer and found nothing to
raise doubts as to their validity and authenticity.
Antonio vs. Santos
538 SCRA 1
When two certificates of title are issued to
different persons covering the same land in
whole or in part, the earlier 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.
Amodia Vda. de Melencion vs.
Court of Appeals 534 SCRA 62
The registration under the Art. 1544 of the New
Civil Code 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. If a parcel of land is registered under the
Land Registration Act and has a torrens
certificate of title and is sold and the sale is
registered not under Land Registration Act but
under Act 3344, such sale is not considered
registered as the term is used under Article 1544
of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land
does not convert the land into unregistered land.
Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.
533 SCRA 351
Knowledge gained by first buyer of second sale
cannot defeat first buyers rights, except where
the second buyer registers in good faith the
second sale ahead of the first. It is essential to
merit the protection of Art. 1544 of the New Civil
Code that the second realty buyer must act in
good faith in registering his deed of sale.

Page !29 of !48

Tanglao vs. Parungao

535 SCRA 123
Indefeasibility of title does not extend to
transferees who take the certificate of title in bad
faith.
xxx
The act of registration by the second buyer must
be coupled with good faith and no knowledge of
any defect or lack of title of the vendor or that he
is not aware of facts which should put him upon
inquiry and investigation as must be necessary
to acquaint him with defects in the title.
2001 BAR
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?
(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.

absence thereof, that they be legally authorized

for the purpose. (Art. 2085, NCC)
How Foreclosed:
1.

JUDICIAL Foreclosure governed by Rule

68 of the Rules of Court
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL governed by Act 3135, as
amended by Act 411
Bank of Commerce vs. Sps. Flores
GR No. 174006, December 8, 2010
A mortgage given to secure advancements is a
continuing security and is not discharged by
repayment of the amount named in the
mortgage until the full amounts of the
advancements are paid.
Respondents full
payment of the loans annotated on the title of
the property shall not effect the release of the
mortgage because, by the express terms of the
mortgage, it was meant to secure all future
debts of the spouses and such debts had been
obtained and remain unpaid. Unless full
payment is made by the spouses of all the
amounts that they have incurred from petitioner
bank, the property is burdened by the mortgage.
Erea vs. Querrer-Kauffman
492 SCRA 298, 6/22/2006
The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
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. It does not apply to a situation
where the title is still in the name of the rightful
owner and the mortgagor is a different person
pretending to be the owner.

Real Estate Mortgage

Requisites:
1. Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a
principal obligation.
2. The mortgagor is the absolute owner of the
thing mortgaged.
3. The persons constituting the mortgage have
the free disposal of their property, and in the

Page !30 of !48

2001 BAR
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
f o r e c los e d t he m or t ga ge .
A t t he
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?
Metrobanks 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.

The ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of

possession does not become discretionary
simply because the Register of Deeds had
elevated in consulta to the Land Registration
Authority the question whether the Torrens title
should be issued in favor of a buyer whose
Affidavit of Consolidation was registered in the
RD, or in favor of the assignee of mortgage who
claimed to have redeemed the property.
(ii) Involuntary Dealings
Adverse Claim
Essential Requisites
i. The claimant must have an interest in the
land adverse to the registered owner
ii. The right or interest must arise subsequent
to the original registration of the land
iii. The registration of such interest or right is
not otherwise provided by P.D. 1529
iv. The claim must be in writing, signed and
sworn to by the adverse claimant, and must
comply with formal requirements
An attorneys lien may be annotated on the
delinquent clients 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 attorneys fees consists of a
share in the property recovered by the client,
such interest may be the basis of an adverse
claim.
Sajonas vs. CA
258 SCRA 79
Cancellation of an adverse claim is still
necessary even after the lapse of thirty days to
render it ineffective.

Heirs of Espiritu vs. Landrito

520 SCRA 385
Registration of a foreclosure sale (where debtors
were not given opportunity to settle their debt at
the correct amount without iniquitous interest)
cannot transfer any rights over mortgaged
property even after the expiration of 1 year
from registration of sale.
San Fernando Rural Bank Inc. vs. Pampanga
Omnibus Devt Corp.
April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 566

Page !31 of !48

1998 BAR
Sec. 70 of P.D. 1529, concerning adverse
claims on registered land, provides a 30day 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?

parties dealing with said property that someone

is claiming an interest on the same or better
right than the registered owner thereof.

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.
Rodriguez vs. CA
495 SCRA 490 7/20/2006
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

Page !32 of !48

Filinvest Devt. Corp. vs. Golden Haven

Memorial Park, Inc.
G.R. Nos. 187824, November 17, 2010
An inherited parcel of land covered by TCT
67462 RT-1 was judicially partitioned into 13
lots and distributed as follows: a) Lots 1 and
12 to X; b) Lot 2 to Y; and (c) Lot 6 to Z. The
other lots were distributed to the other heirs.
On March 6, 1989 X, Y and Z executed an
agreement to sell Lots 1, 2, 6 and 12 in favor
of Golden Haven Memorial Park, Inc. (GHM),
payable in three installments. GHM paid the
first installment upon execution of the
contract. On August 4, 1989, GHM caused to
be annotated a Notice of Adverse Claim on
TCT 67462 RT-1 directed against sublot 6,
covered by the mother title, TCT 67462 RT-1.
Sometime in August of 1989, Filinvest applied
for the transfer in its name of the titles over
Lots 2, 4, and 5 but the Register of Deeds
declined its application. Upon inquiry, Filinvest
learned that Lot 8, covered by the same
mother title, had been sold to Household
Development Corporation (HDC), a sister
company of GHM, and that HDC held the
owners duplicate copy of that title. Filinvest
immediately filed against HDC a petition for
the surrender and cancellation of the coowners duplicate copy of TCT 67462 RT-1
alleging that it bought Lots 1, 2, 6, and 12 of
the property from their respective owners as
shown by three deeds of absolute sale in its
favor.
Who has a better right to the subject lot in
this case, GHM or Filinvest?
GHM. Filinvest was on notice that GHM had
caused to be annotated on TCT 67462 RT-1
as early as August 4, 1989 a notice of adverse
claim covering Lot 6. This notwithstanding,
Filinvest still proceeded to subsequently buy
Lots 1, 2, 6, and 12. The annotation of an
adverse claim is intended to protect the
claimants 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.

Lis Pendens
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

2001 BAR
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 Carmens name.
Carmen failed to pay the last 3 installments
and Mario filed an action for collection,
damages and attorneys fees against her.
Upon filing of the complaint, he caused a
notice of lis pendens to be annotated on
Carmens 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
attorneys 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.

Viewmaster Construction Corp.

vs. Maulit 326 SCRA 490, 7/20/2006
It is an announcement to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation and serves
as a warning that one who acquires an interest
therein does so at his own risk, or that he
gambles on the result of the litigation over said
property.
Generally a notice of Lis Pendens covers
actions pending before the regular courts
however, cases involving real property pending
before administrative agencies such as the
HLURB, SEC and the DARAB which are
endowed with quasi-judicial functions have been

Page !33 of !48

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
an equitable estate, interest or right in specific
real property or to enforce any lien, charge or
encumbrance against it.

2002 BAR
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?
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
Sanchos 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 possessors belief
Page !34 of !48

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Levies on Execution
a. Registration of the Levy on Execution
b. Registration of the Certificate on Sale
c. Sheriffs Final Deed of Sale
d. Petition for Issuance of a New Certificate of
Title pursuant to Sec. 75 of P.D. 1529
Pineda vs. Arcalas
538 SCRA 596
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 claimants actual, open,
continuous and notorious possession of the
disputed property at the time the levy or
attachment is registered.
Writ of Attachment
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 claimants actual, open,
continuous and notorious possession of the
disputed property at the time the levy or
attachment is registered.

Cayton vs. Zoennix Trading Corp.

G.R. 169541, Oct. 9, 2009
Sps. Scofield secured a mortgage over their
parcel of land in favor of The Bank.
Meanwhile, a levy on attachment was
annotated on their title, in favor of The Trading
Company, which filed a case against the
spouses. Thereafter, Sps. Scofield sold the
property to Sps. Burrows by virtue of a Deed
of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage. The
latter spouses however failed to register this
Deed because the owners title was with The
Bank. In the meantime, a decision was
rendered in favor of The Trading Company.
On the other hand, Sps. Burrows defaulted in
the payment of the amortization to The Bank,
thus the property was extra-judicially
foreclosed and sold at public auction with Sps.
Burrows emerging as the highest bidder. Thus,
Sps. Burrows filed an action to quiet their title
against The Trading Company contending that
by virtue of the Deed of Sale with Assumption
of Mortgage, all rights, interests and
participation over the property had been
transferred by Sps. Scofield in their favor.
Hence, The Trading Company had no more
right of redemption.
DECISION: True, Sps. Burrows are
successors-in-interest of Sps. Scofield.
However their supposed right or title over
the property as evidenced by the Deed of
Absolute Sale is unregistered and as such,
cannot affect third persons. Such Deed
shall not take effect as a conveyance or
bind the land but shall operate only as a
contract between the parties therein and as
authority of the Register of Deeds to
register the sale and transfer title.
Registration is the operative act to convey
the land insofar as third persons are
concerned. The unregistered sale of the
house and lot by Sps. Scofield cannot
prejudice the right of redemption granted
by law in favor of The Trading Company
which has a levy on attachment duly
recorded in its favor.
The Trading Company has acquired by
operation of law the right of redemption
over the foreclosed property by virtue of
the court decision in its favor and against
the registered owners, Sps. Scofield. The
writ of attachment entitles the attaching
creditor to exercise the right to redeem the
foreclosed property.
Page !35 of !48

(iii) Common Registration Problems

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.
Opposition Filed By Lawyers
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)
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)
Carryover of Encumbrances
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)

Taguinod vs. Court of Appeals

533 SCRA 403
The rights of a homestead patentee are superior
to that of a tenant under the Agrarian Reform
Law.

Justalero vs. Gonzales

517 SCRA 341
Where the predecessor of a free patent
applicant did not avail of any legal remedy to
assail a decision adverse to him, his successors
are bound thereby.
Heirs of Jugalbot vs. CA
518 SCRA 202, 3/12/2007
The landowner is denied due process where the
Department of Agrarian Reform took the
property without sending notice of the impending
land reform coverage to the proper party.
Tanenglian vs. Lorenzo, 3/28/2008;
Padua vs. CA 517 SCRA 232, 3/2/2007
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board [DARAB] Regional Adjudicator oversteps
the boundaries of his jurisdiction when he makes
a declaration that certain properties are
ancestral lands and proceeds to award the same
to the claimants-jurisdiction over the delineation
and recognition of the same is explicitly
conferred on the National Commission on
Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous
People.
DARAB acts without jurisdiction in
entertaining a collateral attack on a partys TCT.

VI. PATENTS; GOVERNMENT AWARDS

Acquisition of land through agrarian reform
requires full payment of amortization before a
farmer-beneficiary may be issued a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award or Emancipation Paten,
which, in turn, can become the basis for the
issuance in his name of an original or a transfer
certificate of title.

Page !36 of !48

Republic Act No. 10023

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTAL LANDS
Section 1. Qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen
who is an actual occupant of a residential land
may apply for a Free Patent Title under this
Act: Provided; That in highly urbanized cities,
the land should not exceed two hundred (200)
square meters; in other cities, it should not
exceed five hundred (500) square meters; in
first class and second class municipalities, it
should not exceed seven hundred fifty (750)
square meters; and in all other municipalities,
it should not exceed one thousand (1,000)
square meters; Provided, further, That the land
applied for is not needed for public service
and/or public use.
Section 2. Coverage. - This Act shall cover all
lands that are zoned as residential areas,
including townsites as defined under the
Public Land Act; Provided, That none of the
provisions of Presidential Decree No. 705
shall be violated.
Zoned residential areas located inside a
delisted military reservation or abandoned
military camp, and those of local government
units (LGUs) or townsites which preceded
Republic Act No. 7586 or the National
Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS)
law, shall also be covered by this Act.
Section 3. Application. - The application on
the land applied for shall be supported by a
map based on an actual survey conducted by
a licensed geodetic engineer and approved by
the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and a technical description
of the land applied for together with supporting
affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who
are residing in the barangay of the city or
municipality where the land is located,
attesting to the truth of the facts contained in
the application to the effect that the applicant
thereof has, either by himself or through his
predecessor-in-interest, actually resided on
and continuously possessed and occupied,
under a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership, the land applied for at least ten
(10) years and has complied with the
requirements prescribed in Section 1 hereof.
Section 4. Special Patents. - Notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary and
subject to private rights, if any, public land
actually occupied and used for public schools,
municipal halls, public plazas or parks and
other government institutions for public use or

VII. PETITIONS AND ACTIONS

AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Surrender of Witheld Duplicate Certificate
(Sec. 107, P.D. 1529)
Ligon vs. Court of Appeals,
June 1, 1995
Summary reliefs such as an action to compel the
surrender of owners duplicate certificate of title
to the Register of Deeds could only be filed with
and granted by the Regional Trial Court sitting
as a land registration court if there was
unanimity among the parties or there was no
adverse claim or serious objection on the part of
any party-in-interest, otherwise, if the
Lanas title is the subject of a subsisting
mortgage, does the order of the court
directing the surrender of the title to Lois
affect the rights of Clark, as mortgagee?
No, because 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 mortgage
subsists notwithstanding a change in
ownership; in short, 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 upon
which it is imposed, whoever the possessor
may be, to the fulfillment of the obligation for
whose security it was constituted.
It is
inseparable from the property mortgaged as it
is a right in rem, a lien on the property
whoever its owner may be. (Ligon vs. Court of
Appeals)
case became contentious and controversial it
should be threshed out in an ordinary action or
in the case where the incident properly
belonged.

Toledo Banaga vs. Court of Appeals

January 28, 1999
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

Page !37 of !48

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.
Amendment and Alteration of Certificates
(Sec. 108, P.D. 1529)
Oliva vs. Republic
April 27, 2007

Notice and Replacement of Lost or Destroyed

original of Torrens Title (Sec. 109, P.D. 1529)
Feliciano vs. Zaldivar
September 26, 2006
The CFI which granted respondent Aurelios
petition for the issuance of a new owners
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 did not
acquire jurisdiction to issue such order. It has
been consistently ruled that "when the owners
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 that rendered the decision
had no jurisdiction. xxx
The appellate courts reliance on the joint
affidavit of confirmation of sale purportedly
executed by Remegia and her uncle, Narciso
Labuntog, is not proper. In the first place,
respondent Aurelio cannot rely on the joint
affidavit of confirmation of sale to prove that they
had validly acquired the subject lot because, by
itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring
ownership.
Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Titles
(Sec. 110, P.D. 1529)

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. . .
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.

Page !38 of !48

Alonso vs. Cebu Country Club

G.R. No. 188471, April 20, 2010
In a case docketed as G.R. No. 130876,
the Supreme Court resolved the action for
declaration of nullity and non-existence of
deed/title, the cancellation of certificates of
title, and the recovery of property filed by
Alonso against Cebu Country Club, as
follows:

Where the original copy of the title in the files of

the Register of Deeds is lost or destroyed,
transactions may be accepted for entry and
provisional registration, pending reconstitution of
the original. (LRC Circular No. 3, Dec. 1988)
Republic vs. Versoza
March 28, 2008

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition

for review. However, we SET ASIDE
the decision of the Court of Appeals
and that of the RTC, Cebu City,
Branch 08.

It is not the ministerial function of the Register of

Deeds to record a right or an interest that was
not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate of
title the responsibility is lodged by law to the
proper court.

IN LIEU THEREOF, we DISMISS the

complaint and counterclaim of the
parties in Civil Cases No. CEB 12926
of the trial court. We declare that Lot
No. 727 D-2 of the Banilad Friar
Lands Estate covered by Original
Certificate of Title Nos. 251, 232, and
253 legally belongs to the
Government of the Philippines.

Heirs of Venturanza vs. Republic

528 SCRA 238

At the such time, the subject land was

covered by TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) a reconstituted title - in the name of Cebu
Country Club.
The above Decision
became final and executory in 2003.
In late 2004, the Government filed in the
RTC a motion for the issuance of a writ of
execution.
The resolution of the
said motion was suspended in deference
to the on-going hearings being conducted
by the Committee on Natural Resources of
the House of Representatives on a
proposed bill to confirm the TCTs and
reconstituted titles covering the Banilad
Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. R.A. No.
9943 was ultimately enacted, effective
July 27, 2007, which provides, among
others, viz.:

A court has no jurisdiction to order the

reconstitution of title over land which was never
registered. . . A land may be considered as not
having been originally registered if there is no
decree number, original certificate of title
number or LRC record.
Pascua vs. Republic
February 13, 2008
R.A. 26 presupposes that the property whose
title is sought to be reconstituted has already
been brought under the provisions of the Torrens
System.

Section 1. 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,
notwithstanding the lack of signatures
and/or approval of the then Secretary
of Interior (later Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources)
and/or the then Chief of the Bureau of
Public Lands (later Director of Public
Page !39 of !48

Manotok vs. Heirs of Barque

GR No. 162335, Dec. 18, 2008
The heirs of Barque filed a petition with the
LRA for administrative reconstitution of the
original of TCT No. 210177 issued in the name
of Homer Barque, being among the records
destroyed in the fire that gutted the Office of
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.
Learning of the Barques petition, the
Manotoks filed their opposition claiming that
the lot covered by the Barque title formed part
of the land covered by their reconstituted title
TCT No. RT-22481 [372302].
Atty. B, reconstituting officer of the LRA,
denied the petition for reconstitution of the
Barque title. On appeal, the LRA reversed
Atty. B and ruled, among others, viz.:
It therefore becomes evident that the
existence, validity, authenticity and
effectivity of TCT No. 210177 was
established indubitably and irrefutably by
the petitioners.
Under such
circumstances, the reconstitution thereof
should be given due course and the same
is mandatory. . .
.
Was the LRA correct in ordering the
reconstitution of the Barque title?
No. Administrative reconstitution
of Torrens titles is intended for noncontroversial cases, or especially where the
subject property is not covered by an existing
title in favor of a person other than the
applicant. Such an implication is consonant
with the rule that the reconstitution
proceedings are not the venue for confirmation
or adjudication of title, but merely a means by
which a previously adjudicated title whose
original has been lost or destroyed may be
reissued to its owner.
The provisions pertaining to administrative
reconstitution in Rep. Act No. 26 or 6732 do
not empower the LRA to exercise jurisdiction
over a petition for reconstitution, where the
property is already covered by a Torrens title.
After all, the LRA in such case is powerless to
void the previous title or to diminish its legal
effect. Even assuming that the previously
issued title is obviously fraudulent or attended
by flaws and as such cannot be countenanced
by the legal system, the corrective recourse
lies with the courts, and not with the LRA.

Caero vs. University of the Philippines

437 SCRA 630
(citing Alabang Devt Corp vs. Valenzuela)
Upon examination of the subject petition for
reconstitution, the Court notes that some
essential data required in Sec. 12 and 13 of R.A.
26 have been omitted: the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements,
which do not belong to the owner of the land,
and the names and addresses of the owners of
such buildings or improvements, and the names
and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the
adjoining properties and of all persons who may
have any interest in the property. Neither do
these data appear in the Notice of Hearing, such
that no adjoining owner, occupant or possessor
was ever served a copy thereof by registered
mail or otherwise.
xxx
[s]aid defects have not invested the Court with
the authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the
case because the manner or mode of obtaining
jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute which is
mandatory has not been strictly followed,
thereby rendering all proceedings utterly null
and void. We hold that the mere Notice that "all
interested parties are hereby cited to appear and
show cause if any they have why said petition
should not be granted" is not sufficient for the
law must be interpreted strictly; it must be
applied rigorously, with exactness and precision.
Republic vs. Sanchez
July 17, 2006
Respondents are correct in saying that the
service of notice of the petition for reconstitution
filed under RA 26 to the occupants of the
property, owners of the adjoining properties, and
all persons who may have any interest in the
property is not required if the petition is based
on the owner's duplicate certificate of title or on
that of the co-owner's, mortgagee's, or
lessee's. . .
Reconstitution involving Sections 12 and 13 of
RA 26], notices to adjoining owners and to the
actual occupants of the land are mandatory and
jurisdictional. But in petitions for reconstitution
falling under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 where,
as in the present case, the source is the owner's
duplicate copy, notices to adjoining owners and

If a petition for administrative reconstitution is

Page !40 of !48

to actual occupants of the land are not required.

When the law is clear, the mandate of the courts
is simply to apply it, not to interpret or to
speculate on it.
In sum, RA 26 separates petitions for
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of
title into two main groups with two different
requirements and procedures. Sources
enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b),
and 4(a) of RA 26 are lumped under one group
(Group A); and sources enumerated in Sections
2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) are
placed together under another group (Group B).
For Group A, the requirements for judicial
reconstitution are set forth in Section 10 in
relation to Section 9 of RA 26; while for Group B,
the requirements are in Sections 12 and 13 of
the same law.
Reconstituted Titles:
Extrajudicial -vs- Judicial
Reconstituted titles shall have the same
validity and legal effects as to 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 for the following reason: The
nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate of
Title of a registered land is similar to that of a
second Owners 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, 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. (Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs.
Republic 519 SCRA 238)

Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic

519 SCRA 148
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 exparte and without notice.
The reconstituted
certificates of title do not share the same
indefeasible character of the original certificates
of title xxx
Estoppel in Actions for Cancellation of Title
Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic
519 SCRA 238,
Republic vs. Mendoza 519 SCRA 203
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 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
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.
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.
Estate of the Late Yujuico vs. Republic
537 SCRA 513
An action to recover lands of the public domain
is imprescriptible. Such right however can be
barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D.
1529 which recognizes the rights of innocent
purchasers for value above the interests of the
government. While it may be true that estoppel
does not operate against the State or its agents,
deviations have been allowed; 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; Subject to
its limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel
may be invoked against public authorities as
well as against private individuals. xxx
The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be
invoked against public authorities when the lot is
alienated to innocent purchasers for value and
the government did not undertake any act to

Page !41 of !48

contest the title for an unreasonable length of

time.

2000 BAR
In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted
a Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural
land with an area of 30 hectares, located in
General Santos City.
He presented the
Free Patent to the Register of Deeds, and
he was issued a corresponding Original
Certificate of Title No. 375. Subsequently,
Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of
sale was submitted to the Register of
Deeds and on the basis thereof, OCT No.
375 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 4576 was issued in the name of
Eddie. In 1986, the Director of Lands filed
a complaint for annulment of OCT No. 375
and TCT No. 4576 on the ground that
Nestor obtained the Free Patent thru fraud.
Eddie filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that he was an innocent purchaser
for value and in good faith and as such, he
has acquired a title to the property which is
valid, unassailable and indefeasible.
Decide the motion.
The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint
for annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No.
4576 should be denied for the following
reasons:
1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
innocent purchaser for value nor can he
interpose the defense of indefeasibility of
his title, because his TCT is rooted on a
void title. Under Sec. 91 of C.A. No. 141,
as amended, otherwise known as the
Public Land Act, statements of material
facts in the application for public land
must be under oath. Sec. 91 of the same
act provides that such statements shall
be considered as essential conditions
and parts of the concession, title or
permit issued, any false statement
therein, or omission of facts shall ipso
facto produce the cancellation of the
concession. The patent issued to Nestor
in this case is void ab initio not only
because it was obtained by fraud but also
because it covers 30 hectares which is
far beyond the maximum of 24 hectares
provided by the free patent law.
The government can seek annulment of the
original and transfer certificates of title and the
reversion of the land to the state. Eddies
defense is untenable. The protection afforded
by the Torrens System to an innocent
purchaser for value can be availed of only if
the land has been titled thru judicial
proceedings where the issue of fraud
Page !42 of !48

VIII. DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LAND

Applicable Provision
Section 113, P.D. 1529
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 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.
IX. REGISTRATION OF CHATTEL
MORTGAGES
Chattel Mortgage vis--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--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.

Page !43 of !48

2003 BAR
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 Xs
house and lot.
Learning of the
proceedings conducted by the bank, Z is
now demanding that the bank reconvey to
him Xs house or pay Xs loan to him plus
interests. Is Zs demand against the bank
valid and sustainable? Why?
Suggested Answer
No, Zs 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
No, Zs demand against the bank is not valid.
His demand that the bank reconvey to him Xs
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

X. CONSULTA
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)
XI. P.D. 957, Subdivision and Condominium
Protective Buyers Decree and
R.A. No. 4726, Condominium Act
Jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1344)
(a) unsound real estate practices
(b) claims involving refund any other
claims filed by a subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker
or salesman
(c) cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations
filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium units, against the owner,
etc.
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 buyers consent, the
mortgage foreclosure sale and the
condominium certificate of title issued

Page !44 of !48

(f)

(g)
(h)

to the highest bidder at the said

foreclosure sale
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
For incidental claims for damages.
(Fajardo vs. Bautista, May 10, 1994)
Between homeowners association and
their members (R.A. 8763)

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 latters 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:

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 Dons 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.
1)

by subdivision laws, exclusive jurisdiction over

the case rests with the HLURB and not the RTC.
Realty Exchange Venture Corp.
vs. Sendino, G.R. No. 109703;
HLURB possesses adjudicatory powers which
include the power to hear and decide cases of
unsound real estate business practices and
cases of specific performance. In the exercise
of its powers and functions, the HLURB must
determine must interpret and apply contracts,
determine the rights of the parties under these
contracts and award damages whenever
appropriate.
Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
Nov. 17, 2004, G.R. No. 148333
It should be stressed however, that, only when
there is a showing that the property subject of
the controversy is a subdivision lot or
condominium that the exercise of adjudicative
authority of the HLURB comes into play.
xxx
The mere relationship between the parties, i.e.,
that of being subdivision owner/developer and
subdivision lot buyer, does not automatically
vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. For the action to
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
HLURB, the decisive element is the nature of
the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P.D.
No. 1344.

Dulos Realty and Development Corp. vs.

Court of Appeals, Nov. 28, 2001
Where plaintiffs seek the specific performance of
alleged contractual and statutory obligations of
the defendant, e.g. the execution of contracts of
sale in favor of the plaintiffs and the introduction
in the disputed property of the facilities required

Page !45 of !48

2009 BAR

The Ifugao Arms is a condominium project in

Baguio City. A strong earthquake occurred
which left huge cracks in the outer walls of the
building. As a result, a number of
condominium units were rendered unfit for
use. May Edwin, owner of one of the
condominium units affected, legally sue for
partition by sale of the whole project? Explain.
(4%)
Yes. Under Section 8 of the Condominium
Law; When several persons own
condominiums in a condominium project, an
action maybe brought by one or more such
persons for partition by sale of the entire
project as if the owners of all the
condominiums in such project were co-owners
of the entire project in the same proportion as
their interests in the common areas, provided
that the damage to the project has rendered
1/2 or more of the units untenantable and that
the condo owners holding in aggregate more
than 50% interest in the common areas are
opposed to the repair or restoration of the
project.

Multinational Village Homeowners

Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Oct. 17, 1991
The Association has admitted in its answer to
the complaint of the Corporation that the latter is
the owner of the disputed road. The Association
insists however, that the said road forms part of
the Village and is reserved for the exclusive use
of the residents.
Such a submission surely
cannot have the effect of transferring the
controversy to the HLURB as the complaint is
not among the cases subject to its exclusive
jurisdiction under Section 1 of P.D. 957, as
amended. The matter is clearly resoluble by the
courts of justice under the provisions of the Civil
Code.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
Kakilla vs. Faraon
October 18, 2004
What is plain is that the parties are acting only
as ordinary sellers and buyers of a specific lot, a
portion of a big tract of land co-owned by certain
heirs. Neither are there undertakings specified
in the contract that respondents shall develop
the land, like providing for the subdivision
concrete roads and sidewalks, street lights,
curbs and gutters, underground drainage
system, independent water system, landscaping,
developed park and 24-hour security guard
service. Even the rights and obligations of the
sellers and buyers of a subdivision lot are not
provided in the agreement. All these provisions
are usually contained in a standard contract
involving a sale of a subdivision lot. Moreover,
although the receipts of payment delivered to
petitioners by respondents bear the name
Faraon Village Subdivision, the same does not
automatically convert the ordinary and isolated
sale of real property into a sale of subdivision
lot. Clearly the HLURB has no jurisdiction over
the case.

Page !46 of !48

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 in
accordance with the approved plans and
specifications within the time 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,
DEVLANDs 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 owner-developer to develop the
subdivision according to the approved plans
and within the time limit for complying with the
same.
b.) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the
circumstances.
Under the same section of the Decree, Bernie
may, at his option, be reimbursed the total
amount paid including amortization interests
but excluding delinquency interests at the
legal rate. He may also ask the HLURB 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
Page !47 of !48

Page !48 of !48