Baranda vs.

Gustillo
Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Facts:

A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo involving a parcel of land known
as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by OCT No. 6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.
The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the names of petitioners Baranda and Hitalia.

The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao refused to
honor on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No. 4517.
The Court found out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently acquired by Perez, Gotera and Susana.

Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition which was questioned by Perez and others so a motion for
reconsideration was filed.

Another case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) for the execution of judgement in the
resolutions issued by the courts.

In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case (GR. NO. 00827) involving the same properties. (NOTE: This
time three cases na ang involve excluding the case at bar.)

The petitioners prayed that an order be released to cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and
once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To cancel No.T25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.

In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the order
declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners.

However, by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was
annotated in the new certificate of title.

This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the new
certificates.

Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

Issue: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens
certificate of title.
Held:
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "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. ... 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 reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree."
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration or
where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by
the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. ... ."
The function of ROD is ministerial in nature
The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the
like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion
for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the
certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land.

In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument presented to him,
he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the National
Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and
unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean
exactly what it says. The statute concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens
certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for construction.

HELD: Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deeds stand that the notice of lis pendens
cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the case in the Court of Appeals. The function of the Register of Deeds
with reference to the registration of deeds, encumbrances, instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. The acting register
of deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motionfor reconsideration of the Judges Order directing him to cancel the
notice of lis pendens. Sec. 10 of PD 1529 states that: 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.
If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and in form the presentor or such denial in
writing, stating the ground and reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sec
117 of this decree. On the other hand, Sec 117 of PD 117 states that: When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard
to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented
to him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with
reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of
Deeds, or by the party in interest through the Register of Deeds.

Where several co-owners duplicate of certificates of titles are issued, a voluntary instrument cannot be registered without surrendering all the
copies to the Register of Deeds so that every copy of thereof would contain identical entries of the transactions affecting the land covered.

FACTS:
Petitioners Aurelio and Francis Balbin presented to the Ilocos Sur register of deeds a duplicate copy of the registered owners certificate of title and a
deed of donation inter-vivos, requesting that the latter be annotated on the title. The registered owner Cornelio Balbin appears to have donated intervivos 2/3 portion of the land. The register of deeds denied the requested annotation for being legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law. It
appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on the OCT are three separate sales earlier executed by Cornelio Balbin in
favor of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and Juana Gabayan, who each received their co-owners duplicate CTs. Mainly because these 3 co-owners
copies of CTs had not been presented by petitioners, the register of deeds refused to make the requested annotation. Petitioners referred the matter to
the Commissioner of Land Registration, who upheld the action of the Register of Deeds in a resolution.

ISSUE:
W/N the refusal of the Register of Deeds to make the annotation is proper

HELD:

YES. There being several copies of the same title in existence, their integrity may be affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is
annotated on one copy and not on the others. If different copies were permitted to carry different annotations, the whole system of Torrens registration
would cease to be available.
Since the property subject of donation is also presumed conjugal, that is, property of donor Cornelio and his deceased wife Nemesia Mina, there
should first be a liquidation of the partnership before the surviving spouse may make such a conveyance. Assuming the conjugal nature of the
property, the donation bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of registration, namely, the fact that 2/3 portion of the property which
Cornelio donated was more than his share, not to say more than what remained of such share after he had sold portions of the same land to 3 other
parties.
Pending the resolution of a separate case, wherein Cornelios civil status, character of land and validity of conveyances are in issue, the registration may
await the outcome of said case and parties may protect their rights by filing the proper notices of lis pendens.

NOBLEJAS VS. TEEHANKEE

Noblejas was the commissioner of land registration. Under RA 1151, he is entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments, and privileges as those of a Judge of CFI. He approved a subdivision plan covering certain areas that
are in excess of those covered by the title

The Secretary of Justice, Teehankee, sent a letter to Noblejas, requiring himto explain.

Noblejas answered, arguing that since he has a rank equivalent to that of a Judge, he could only be suspended and
investigated in the same manner as an ordinary Judge, under the Judiciary Act. He claims that he may be
investigated only by the Supreme Court

Nevertheless, he was suspended by the Executive Secretary (ES)

Noblejas filed this case claiming the lack of jurisdiction of the ES and his abuse of discretion.
ISSUE: Whether the Commissioner of Land Registratoin may only be investigated by the Supreme Court (in view of
his having a rank equivalent to a judge)?
SC: NO. If the law had really intended to include the general grant of rank and privileges equivalent to Judges, the
right to be investigated and be suspended or removed only by the Supreme Court, then such grant of
privileges would be unconstitutional, since it would violate the doctrine of separation of powers
because it would charge the Supreme Court with an administrative function of supervisory control over executive
officials, simultaneously reducing pro tanto ,the control of the Chief Executive over such officials.
There is no inherent power in the Executive or Legislative to charge the Judiciary with administrative functions
except when reasonable incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties. The judiciary cannot give decisions which are
merely advisory, nor can it exercise or participate in the exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or
administrative. The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to
perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial functions.
As such, RA 1151 while conferring the same privileges as those of a judge, did not include and was not intended to
include, the right to demand investigation by the Supreme Court, and to be suspended or removed only upon the
Courts recommendation. Said rights would be violative of the Constitution.
The suspension of Noblejas by the ES valid. Also, the resolution of the consulta by a Register of Deeds is NOT
a judicial function, but an administrative process. It is conclusive and binding only upon the Register of Deeds, NOT
the parties themselves. Even if the resolution is appealable, it does not automatically mean that they are judicial in
character. Still, the resolution of the consultas are but a minimal portion of the administrative or executive functions.