Atty.

Peraltas LTD Case Gist

Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)

I. CONCEPT OF TORRENS SYSTEM The real purpose of that system is to quiet title to land; to put a stop
1. What is Torrens title? forever to any question of the legality of the title, except claims which
-a certification issued by registration under the Torrens system which were noted at the time of registration, in the certificate, or which may
establishes and certifies the ownership of an absolute, indefeasible and arise subsequent thereto. Legarda v Saleeby
imprescriptible title to the parcel of land to quiet claims to that land
sought to be registered. Upon the other hand, the main purpose of the Torrens System is to
avoid possible conflicts of title in and to real estate, and to facilitate
2. Probative Value of Torrens Title transactions relative thereto giving the public the right to rely upon the
"Every decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, face of Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the of inquiring
subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section. It shall be further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts
conclusive upon and against all persons, including the Insular and circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious man to make
Government, and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name such further inquiry.
in the application, notice, or citation, or included in the general Capitol Subdivison v Province of Negros Occidental
description 'to all whom it may concern.' Such decree shall not be opened
by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person Benefits of Torrens system
affected thereby, nor by any proceedings in any court for reversing "The following summary of benefits of the system of registration of titles,
judgments or decrees; subject, however, to the right of any person made by Sir Robert Torrens, has been fully justified in its use:
deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein by decree of
registration obtained by fraud to file in the Court of Land Registration a "First. It has substituted security for insecurity.
petition for review within one year . . ." Grey Alba v Dela Cruz
"Second. It has reduced the cost of conveyances from pounds to
3. Type of Torrens Title shillings, and the time occupied from months to days.
a. Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
b. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) "Third. It has exchanged brevity and clearness for obscurity and
verbiage.
4. Mode of Acquiring Title (READ PAVLEA)
a. Acquisitive Prescription "Fourth. It has so simplified ordinary dealings that he who has mastered
b. Accession the 'three R's' can transact his own conveyancing.
c. Public Grant
d. Devises or Descent "Fifth. It affords protection against fraud.
e. VoLuntary transfer (VL)
f. Eminent domain "Sixth. It has restored to their just value many estates, held under good
g. Reclamation holding titles, but depreciated in consequence of some blur or technical
h. Emancipation patent defect, and has barred the reoccurrence of any similar faults." Grey
I. Accretion Alba v Dela Cruz
Purpose of the Torrens Title

1
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Cruz v Secretary, Separate Opinion of Justice Puno, Summary
The development of the Regalian Doctrine may be gleaned on a number
of rulings held by the Supreme Court, and also on the Constitutions
ratified by the people and laws enacted by the legislature.
Chronologically, the Laws of the Indies, Ley Hipocetaria, or the Mortgage
Law of 1893, Public Land Act (CA 141), Land Registration Act (act 496),
Cadastral Act (Act 2259) and Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) are
the laws which imbibed the concept of the Jura Regalia. On the other
hand, the 1987 Constitution has continuously imbibed itself of the jura
regalia by adopting, amending, and improving that doctrine from Sec. 1,
Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution and Section 8, Article XIV of the
1973 Constitution. Parenthetically, in the case of Valenton v Murciano,
the Court, speaking through Justice Willard, opined that "[w]hile the
State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he
proves a possession for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always
insisted that he must make that proof before the proper administrative
officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did that the State
remained the absolute owner."
II. THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Article XIII, 1987 Constitution
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries,
forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources
are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other
natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development,
and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or
associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such
terms and conditions as may provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of waterpower, beneficial use may be the measure and limit
of the grant.
The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
priority to subsistence fishermen and fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays,
and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-
scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth and
general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
Recognition of Native Title
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. Certainly in case like this, if there is
doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the
benefit of the doubt. Carino v Insular Government
Proof of Possession
in the instant cases evidence for the respondents themselves tend to
show that only portions of the entire area applied for are cultivated. A
mere casual cultivation of portions of the land by the claimant does not
2
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
constitute possession under claim of ownership. In that sense, possession
is not exclusive and notorious so as to give rise to a presumptive grant
from the State. The possession of public land however long the period
thereof may have extended, never confers title thereto upon the
possessor because the statute of limitations with regard to public land
does not operate against the State, unless the occupant can prove
possession and occupation of the same under claim of ownership for the
required number of years to constitute a grant from the State. 3
Applicants, therefore, have failed to submit convincing proof actual,
peaceful and adverse possession in the concept of owners of the entire
area in question during the period required by law.
Republic v Vera
Power of Reclassification of Public Land
As provided for under Sec. 6 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, which was
lifted from Act No. 2874, the classification or reclassification of public
lands into alienable or disposable, mineral or forest lands is now a
prerogative of the Executive Department of the government and not of
the courts. With these rules, there should be no more room for doubt
that it is not the court which determines the classification of lands of the
public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive
Branch of the Government, through the Office of the President.
Bureau of Forestry v CA
A Positive Act from the Government to declassify public lands
Our adherence to the Regalian doctrine subjects all agricultural, timber,
and mineral lands to the dominion of the State. 11 Thus, before any land
may be declassified from the forest group and converted into alienable or
disposable land for agricultural or other purposes, there must be a
positive act from the government. Even rules on the confirmation of
imperfect titles do not apply unless and until the land classified as forest
land is released in an official proclamation to that effect so that it may
form part of the disposable agricultural lands of the public domain.
Sunbeam Convenience v CA
Watershed Reservation as a Natural Resource
Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions prohibited the alienation of all
natural resources except agricultural lands of the public domain. The
1987 Constitution readopted this policy. Indeed, all lands of the public
domain as well as all natural resources enumerated in the Philippine
Constitution belong to the State.
The term "natural resource" includes "not only timber, gas, oil coal,
minerals, lakes, and submerged lands, but also, features which supply a
human need and contribute to the health, welfare, and benefit of a
community, and are essential to the well-being thereof and proper
enjoyment of property devoted to park and recreational purposes."
Edna Collado v CA
Rationale behind the Constitutional Ban on Acquisition of Public Lands
In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional
limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of
alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban,
individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of
the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more
alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as
his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership
of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the
corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the
constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of
the public domain.
The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to
transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public
domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded
by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of
the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional
intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually
decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective
3
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or
sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would
seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban.
Chavez v PEA
Indefeasibility of Title
Therefore, under Section 101 of Commonwealth Act No. 141,[49] the
State -- even after the lapse of one year -- may still bring an action for
the reversion to the public domain of land that has been fraudulently
granted to private individuals.[50] Further, this indefeasibility cannot be
a bar to an investigation by the State as to how the title has been
acquired, if the purpose of the investigation is to determine whether
fraud has in fact been committed in securing the title. Republic v
Heirs of Alejaga
Power of the President to designate a Public Land as Reservation
The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources, may designate by proclamation any
tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the use of
the Republic or any of its branches, or for quasi-public uses or
purposes.[35] Such tract or tracts of land thus reserved shall be non-
alienable and shall not be subject to sale or other disposition until again
declared alienable. Republic v Southside Homeowners Association
Inc.
Prohibition Against Corporation from acquiring any Public Land
The Court can hypothetically concede, as a matter of fact, the withdrawal
of the JUSMAG area from the ambit of Proclamation No. 423 and its
reclassification as alienable and disposable lands of the public domain.
Still, such hypothesis would not carry the day for private respondent
SHAI. The reason therefor is basic: Article XII, Section 3[52] of the 1987
Constitution forbids private corporations from acquiring any kind of
alienable land of the public domain, except through lease for a limited
period. Republic v Southside Homeowners Association Inc.
Rebuttable Presumption on Jura Regalia under the 1987 Constitution
It is true that under the Regalian Doctrine all lands of the public domain
belong to the State and all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State.[18]
However, such presumption is not conclusive. It can be rebutted by the
applicant's presentation of incontrovertible evidence showing that the
land subject of the application for registration is alienable and disposable.
Buenaventura v Republic
III. THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE
Non-impairment Clause to yield before the Police Power of the State
"The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is not meant
to be absolute. The same is understood to be subject to reasonable
legislative regulation aimed at the promotion of public health, moral,
safety and welfare. In other words, the constitutional guaranty of non-
impairment of obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the
police power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety, moral
and general welfare." Oposa v Factoran
Accordingly, the State, in the exercise of its police power in this regard,
may not be precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment
of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining leases or
agreements granted under Presidential Decree No. 463, as amended,
pursuant to Executive Order No. 211. Police power, being co-extensive
with the necessities of the case and the demands of public interest;
extends to all the vital public needs. The passage of Executive Order No.
279 which superseded Executive Order No. 211 provided legal basis for
the DENR Secretary to carry into effect the mandate of Article XII,
Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Miners Association v Factoran
IV. SOCIAL JUSTICE
Interpretation against Injustice on Social Justice and Land Reform
The Regalian doctrine which forms the basis of our land laws and, in fact,
all laws governing natural resources is a revered and long standing
principle. It must, however, be applied together with the constitutional
4
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
provisions on social justice and land reform and must be interpreted in a
way as to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice.
Every application for a concession of public land has to be viewed in the
light of its peculiar circumstances. A strict application of the Heirs of
Amunategui v. Director of Forestry (supra) ruling is warranted whenever
a portion of the public domain is in danger of ruthless exploitation,
fraudulent titling, or other questionable practices. But when an
application appears to enhance the very reasons behind the enactment of
Act 496, as amended, or the Land Registration Act, and Commonwealth
Act 141, as amended, or the Public Land Act, then their provisions should
not be made to stand in the way of their own implementation.
Director of Lands v Funtilar
V. TIME IMMEMORIAL POSSESSION
Recognition of Native Title; Exception to Jura Regalia
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. Certainly in case like this, if there is
doubt or ambiguity in the Spanish law, we ought to give the applicant the
benefit of the doubt. Carino v Insular Government
CA141 : CHAPTER VII : JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT OR
INCOMPLETE TITLES
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed,
may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit:
xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier, the
filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public
domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona
fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights
granted in sub-section (b) hereof.
VI. MINING CLAIMS
Native of Islands to be given Liberal Justice in Land Claims
Especially must it be supposed to have had in view the natives of the
islands, and to have intended to do liberal justice to them. By 16, their
occupancy of public lands is respected and made to confer rights. In
dealing with an Igorrot of the province of Benguet, it would be absurd to
expect technical niceties, and the courts below were quite justified in
their liberal mode of dealing with the evidence of possession and the
possibly rather gradual settling of the precise boundaries of the
appellees' claim. Reavis v FIanza
Valid Acquisition of a Public Land containing Mineral Resources prior the
1935 Constitution to be deemed as Private Land
The moment the locator discovered a valuable mineral deposit on the
lands located, and perfected his location in accordance with law, the
power of the United States Government to deprive him of the exclusive
right to the possession and enjoyment of the located claim was gone, the
lands had become mineral lands and they were exempted from lands that
could be granted to any other person. The reservations of public lands
5
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
cannot be made so as to include prior mineral perfected locations; and,
of course, if a valid mining location is made upon public lands afterward
included in a reservation, such inclusion or reservation does not affect
the validity of the former location. By such location and perfection, the
land located is segregated from the public domain even as against the
Government. Mcdaniel v Apacible
It is not disputed that the location of the mining claim under
consideration was perfected prior to November 15, 1935, when the
Government of the Commonwealth was inaugurated; and according to
the laws existing at that time, as construed and applied by this court in
McDaniel vs. Apacible and Cuisia (42 Phil., 749), a valid location of a
mining claim segregated the area from the public domain. Gold Creek
Mining Corporation v Rodriguez
VII. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS
RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
SEC. 9. Ancestral Lands. - For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of
each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be limited to,
lands in the actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of
the community and its members: Provided, That the Torrens System
shall be respected.
The right of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected
to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the
other principles of self-determination and autonomy, the systems of land
ownership, land use, and the modes of settling land disputes of all these
communities must be recognized and respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may
suspend the implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for
the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands: Provided, That in
the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own
laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution
and the principles enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
RA 7076 Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act
Sec. 7. Ancestral Lands. No ancestral land may be declared as a
people's small-scale mining area without the prior consent of the cultural
communities concerned: Provided, That, if ancestral lands are declared as
people's small-scale mining areas, the members of the cultural
communities therein shall be given priority in the awarding of small-scale
mining contracts.
RA 7586 National Integrated Protected Areas System
SEC. 13. Ancestral Lands and Rights Over Them. - Ancestral lands and
customary rights and interest arising shall be accorded due recognition.
The DENR shall prescribe rules and regulations to govern ancestral lands
within protected areas: Provided, That the DENR shall have no power to
evict indigenous communities from their present occupancy nor resettle
them to another area without their consent: Provided, however, That all
rules and regulations, whether adversely affecting said communities or
not, shall be subjected to notice and hearing to be participated in by
members of concern indigenous communities.
RA 7611 Palawan Strategic Environmental Plan
SEC. 11 Tribal Ancestral Lands. - These areas, traditionally occupied by
cultural minorities, comprise both land and sea areas. These shall be
treated in the same graded system of control and prohibition as in the
others abovementioned except for strong emphasis in cultural
considerations. The SEP, therefore, shall define a special kind of zonation
to fulfill the material and cultural needs of the tribes using consultative
processes and cultural mapping of the ancestral lands.
RA 7942 Mining Act of 1995
Sec. 4 .Ownership of Mineral Resources. - Mineral resources are owned
by the State and the exploration, development, utilization, and
processing thereof shall be under its full control and supervision. The
State may directly undertake such activities or it may enter into mineral
agreements with contractors.
6
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
The State shall recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous cultural
communities to their ancestral lands as provided for by the Constitution.
Section 16. Opening of Ancestral Lands for Mining Operations - No
ancestral land shall be opened for mining-operations without prior
consent of the indigenous cultural community concerned.
Section 17. Royalty Payments for Indigenous Cultural Communities - In
the event of an agreement with an indigenous cultural community
pursuant to the preceding section, the royalty payment, upon utilization
of the minerals shall be agreed upon by the parties. The said royalty shall
form part of a trust fund for the socioeconomic well-being of the
indigenous cultural community.
Section 18. Areas Open to Mining Operations - Subject to any existing
rights or reservations and prior agreements of all parties, all mineral
resources in public or private lands, including timber or forestlands as
defined in existing laws, shall be open to mineral agreements or financial
or technical assistance agreement applications. Any conflict that may
arise under this provision shall be heard and resolved by the panel of
arbitrators.
Section 19. Areas Closed to Mining Applications - Mineral agreement or
financial or technical assistance agreement applications shall not be:
a. In military and other government reservations, except upon prior
written clearance by the government agency concerned;
b. Near or under public or private buildings, cemeteries,
archeological and historic sites, bridges, highways, waterways,
railroads, reservoirs, dams or other infrastructure projects, public or
private works including plantations or valuable crops, except upon
written consent of the government agency or private entity
concerned;
c. In areas covered by valid and existing mining rights;
d. In areas expressedly prohibited by law;
e. In areas covered by small-scale miners as defined by law unless
with prior consent of the small-scale miners, in which case a royalty
payment upon the utilization of minerals shall be agreed upon by the
parties, said royalty forming a trust fund for the socioeconomic
development of the community concerned; and
f. Old growth or virgin forests, proclaimed watershed forest reserves,
wilderness areas, mangrove forests, mossy forests, national parks
provincial/municipal forests, parks, greenbelts, game refuge and bird
sanctuaries as defined by law and in areas expressly prohibited under
the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) under
Republic Act No. 7586, Department Administrative Order No. 25,
series of 1992 and other laws.
VIII. JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLES
C.A. No. 141, The Public Land Act
Sec. 47. The persons specified in the next following section are hereby
granted time, not to extend beyond December 31, 1987 within which to
take advantage of the benefit of this chapter: Provided, That this
extension shall apply only where the area applied for does not exceed
144 hectares. Provided, further, That the several periods of time
designated by the President in accordance with section forty-five of this
Act shall apply also to the lands comprised in the provisions of this
chapter, but this section shall not be construed as prohibiting any of said
persons from acting under this chapter at any time prior to the period
fixed by the President.
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed,
may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit:
7
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
(a) Those who prior to the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the prior
United States have applied for the purchase, composition or other form of
grant of lands of the public domain under the laws and royal decrees then
in force and have instituted and prosecuted the proceedings in connection
therewith, but have with or without default upon their part, or for any
other cause, not received title therefor, if such applicants or grantees and
their heirs have occupied and cultivated said lands continuously since the
filing of their applications.
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately
preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except
when prevented by war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government
grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of
this chapter.
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public
domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona
fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights
granted in sub-section (b) hereof.
Sec. 49. No person claiming title to lands of the public domain not
possession of the qualifications specified in the last preceding section
may apply for the benefits of this chapter.
Sec. 50. Any person or persons, or their legal representatives or
successors in right, claiming any lands or interest in lands under the
provisions of this chapter, must in every case present an application to
the proper Court of First Instance, praying that the validity of the alleged
title or claim be inquired into and that a certificate of title be issued to
them under the provisions of the Land Registration Act.
The application shall conform as nearly as may be in its material
allegations to the requirements of an application for registration under
the Land Registration Act, and shall be accompanied by a plan of the land
and all documents evidencing a right on the part of the applicant to the
land claimed. The application shall also state the citizenship of the
applicant and shall set forth fully the nature of the claim and when based
upon proceeding initiated under Spanish laws, it shall specify as exactly
as possible the date and form of application for purchase composition or
other form of grant, the extent of the compliance with the conditions
required by the Spanish laws and royal decrees for the acquisition of
legal title, and if not fully complied with, the reason for such
noncompliance, together with a statement of the length of time such land
or any portion thereof has been actually occupied by the claimant or his
predecessors in interest; the use made of the land, and the nature of the
enclosure, if any. The fees provided to be paid for the registration of
lands under the Land Registration Act shall be collected from applicants
under this chapter.
Sec. 51. Applications for registration under this chapter shall be heard in
the Court of First Instance in the same manner and shall be subject to
the same procedure as established in the Land Registration Act for other
applications, except that a notice of all such applications, together with a
plan of the lands claimed, shall be immediately forwarded to the Director
of Lands, who may appear as a party in such cases: Provided, That prior
to the publication for hearing, all of the papers in said case shall be
transmitted papers by the clerk to the Solicitor General or officer acting
in his stead, in order that he may, if he deems it advisable for the
interests of the Government, investigate all of the facts alleged in the
application or otherwise brought to his attention. The Solicitor-General
shall return such papers to the clerk as soon as practicable within three
months.
The final decree of the court shall in every case be the basis for the
original certificate of title in favor of the person entitled to the property
8
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
under the procedure prescribed in section forty-one of the Land
Registration Act.
Sec. 52. In cadastral proceedings, instead of an application, an answer or
claim may be filed with the same effect as in the procedure provided in
the last preceding two sections.
Sec. 53. It shall be lawful for the Director of Lands, whenever in the
opinion of the President the public interests shall require it, to cause to
be filed in the proper Court of First Instance, through the Solicitor-
General or the officer acting in his stead, a petition against the holder,
claimant, possessor, or occupant of any land who shall not have
voluntarily come in under the provisions of this chapter or of the Land
Registration Act, stating in substance that the title of such holder,
claimant, possessor, or occupant is open to discussion; or that the
boundaries of any such land which has not been brought into court as
aforesaid are open to question; or that it is advisable that the title to
such lands be settled and adjudicated, and praying that the title to any
such land or the boundaries thereof or the right to occupancy thereof be
settled and adjudicated. The judicial proceedings under this section shall
be in accordance with the laws on adjudication of title in cadastral
proceedings.
Sec. 54. If in the hearing of any application arising under this chapter the
court shall find that more than one person or claimant has an interest in
the land, such conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and
decree awarded in favor of the person or persons entitled to the land
according to the laws, but if none of said person is entitled to the land, or
if the person who might be entitled to the same lacks the qualifications
required by this Act for acquiring agricultural land of the public domain,
the decision shall be in favor of the Government.
Sec. 55. Whenever, in any proceedings under this chapter to secure
registration of an incomplete or imperfect claim of title initiated prior to
the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States, it shall
appear that had such claims been prosecuted to completion under the
laws prevailing when instituted, and under the conditions of the grant
then contemplated, the conveyance of such land to the applicant would
not have been gratuitous, but would have involved payment therefor to
the Government, then and in that event the court shall, after decreeing in
whom title should vest, further determine the amount to be paid as a
condition for the registration of the land. Such judgment shall be certified
to the Director of Lands by the clerk of the court for collection of the
amount due from the person entitled to conveyance.
Upon payment to the Director of Lands of the price specified in the
judgment, he shall so certify to the proper Court of First Instance and
said court shall forthwith order the registration of the land in favor of the
competent person entitled thereto. If said person shall fail to pay the
amount of money required by the decree within a reasonable time fixed
in the same, the court shall order the proceeding to stand dismissed and
the title to the land shall then be in the State free from any claim of the
applicant.
Sec. 56. Whenever any judgment of confirmation or other decree of the
court under this chapter shall become final, the clerk of the court
concerned shall certify that fact to the Director of Lands, with a certified
copy of the decree of confirmation or judgment of the court and the plan
and technical description of the land involved in the decree or judgment
of the court.
Sec. 57. No title or right to, or equity in, any lands of the public domain
may hereafter be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession or
occupancy, or under or by virtue of any law in effect prior to American
occupation, except as expressly provided by laws enacted after said
occupation of the Philippines by the United States.
R.A. 9176, An Act Extending The Period Until December 31, 2020 For
The Filing Of Applications For Administrative Legalization (Free Patent)
And Judicial Confirmation Of Imperfect And Incomplete Titles To
Alienable And Disposable Lands Of The Public Domain, Amending For
9
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
This Purpose Commonwealth Act Numbered 141, As Amended,
Otherwise Known As The Public Land Act
-Change the date of Sec. 45 and 47 of CA 141 to December 31, 2020
Ipso Jure Conferment of Certificate of Title to a person who has fulfilled
the Necessary Requirement laid down by Sec. 45(b), Act. No. 2874
In favor of Valentin Susi, there is, more over, the presumption juris et de
jure established in paragraph (b) of section 45 of Act No. 2874,
amending Act No. 926, that all the necessary requirements for a grant by
the Government were complied with, for he has been in actual and
physical possession, personally and through his predecessors, of an
agricultural land of the public domain openly, continuously, exclusively
and publicly since July 26, 1894, with a right to a certificate of title to
said land under the provisions of Chapter VIII of said Act. So that when
Angela Razon applied for the grant in her favor, Valentin Susi had already
acquired, by operation of law, not only a right to a grant, but a grant of
the Government, for it is not necessary that certificate of title should be
issued in order that said grant may be sanctioned by the courts, an
application therefor is sufficient, under the provisions of section 47 of Act
No. 2874. Susi v Razon
The benefits provided in the Public Land Act for applicant's immediate
predecessors in interest are or constitute a grant or concession by the
State; and before they could acquire any right under such benefits, the
applicant's immediate predecessors in interest should comply with the
condition precedent for the grant of such benefits. The condition
precedent is to apply for the registration of the land of which they had
been in possession at least since July 26, 1894. This the applicant's
immediate predecessors in interest failed to do. They did not have any
vested right in the lot amounting to tile which was transmissible to the
applicant. The only right, if it may thus be called, is their possession of
the lot which, tacked to that of their predecessors in interest, may be
availed of by a qualified person to apply for its registration but not by a
person as the applicant who is disqualified. Oh Cho v Director of
Lands (The Plaintiff is an alien, a Chinese)
1973 Constitution cannot impair vested rights on lands acquired by an
Alien or Corporation prior its enactment
Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land,
despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until
title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings
under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious question of Acme's
right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the
1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from
purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had
already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title.
The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire,
hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The
purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were
brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids
corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a
right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate
transactions then perfectly valid and proper, This Court has already held,
in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested
rights. Director of Lands v IAC and ACME
Filing of application after expiration of the period provided by law is
cured and rendered valid by a subsequent law providing an extension of
period starting from that date of expiration
The Court notes that the application of private respondents was filed on
13 February 1970, i.e., after expiration of the period provided in R.A. No.
2061.
We consider, however, that the above underscored portions of R.A. No.
6236, which was approved 19 June 1971, validated the application filed
in the interim by private respondents, and the exercise of jurisdiction by
the land registration court in respect of the subject matter of the
application. The fact that a succession of statutes had simply extended
the original time period, 15 rather than established a series of discrete
periods of time with specific beginning dates and ending dates, shows a
10
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
clear legislative intent to avoid interregnal which would have generated
doubts and difficult questions of law. In fact, R.A. No. 6236 was amended
anew by P.D. No. 1073 issued on 25 January 1977 to allow applications
to be filed on or before 31 December 1987. Republic v CA and
Paran
IX. Citizenship Requirement
A. For Natural Persons: (Alien, Citizen, Resident, Non-resident)
Section 2. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may
directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations
or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation,
water supply
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power,
beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.
xxx
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural resources by
Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned corporations
involving either technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration,
development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In
such agreements, the State shall
promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in
accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
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.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
Under Sec. 1 and Sec. 5, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, aliens are
prohibited from acquiring agricultural lands except through hereditary
succession. Nonetheless, they may be granted temporary rights such as
a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution.
Under Section 1 of Article XIII of the Constitution, "natural resources,
with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and
with respect to public agricultural lands, their alienation is limited to
Filipino citizens. But this constitutional purpose conserving agricultural
resources in the hands of Filipino citizens may easily be defeated by the
Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their agricultural lands in
favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section 5 is included
in Article XIII, and it reads as follows:
"Sec. 5. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural
land will be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
Philippines."
This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through
which agricultural resources may leak into aliens' hands. It would
certainly be futile to prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to
aliens if, after all, they may be freely so alienated upon their becoming
private agricultural lands in the hands of Filipino citizens. Undoubtedly, as
above indicated, section 5 is intended to insure the policy of
nationalization contained in section 1. Both sections must, therefore, be
read together for they have the same purpose and the same subject
11
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
matter. It must be noticed that the persons against whom the prohibition
is directed in section 5 are the very same persons who under section 1
are disqualified "to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the
Philippines." And the subject matter of both sections is the same,
namely, the non transferability of "agricultural land" to aliens. Since
"agricultural land" under section 1 includes residential lots, the same
technical meaning should be attached to "agricultural land" under section
5. It is a rule of statutory construction that "a word or phrase repeated in
a statute will bear the same meaning throughout the statute, unless a
different intention appears." (II Sutherland, Statutory Construction, p.
758.) The only difference between "agricultural land" under section 1,
and "agricultural land" under section 5, is that the former is public and
the latter private. But such difference refers to ownership and not to the
class of land. The lands are the same in both sections, and, for the
conservation of the national patrimony, what is important is the nature or
class of the property regardless of whether it is owned by the State or by
its citizens.
xxx
We conclude that, under the provisions of the Constitutions, aliens are
not allowed to acquire the ownership of urban or residential lands in the
Philippines and, as a consequence, all acquisitions made in contravention
of the prohibitions since the fundamental law became effective are null
and void per se and ab initio. As all public officials have sworn, and are
duty bound, to obey and defend the Constitution, all those who, by their
functions, are in charge of enforcing the prohibition as laid down and
interpreted in the decision in this case, should spare no efforts so that
any and all violations which may have take place should be corrected.
Krivenko v Register of Deeds
The subsequent transfer of an agricultural land by a disqualified alien to
a qualified Filipino citizen considers the flaw in the original transaction
cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.
But what is the effect of a subsequent sale by the disqualified alien
vendee to a qualified Filipino citizen? This is not a novel question.
Jurisprudence is consistent that "if land is invalidly transferred to an alien
who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw
in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the
transferee is rendered valid."
xxx
The rationale of this principle was explained in Vasquez vs. Li Seng Giap
thus:
". . . [I]f the ban on aliens from acquiring not only agricultural but also
urban lands, as construed by this Court in the Krivenko case, is to
preserve the nation's lands for future generations of Filipinos, that aim or
purpose would not be thwarted but achieved by making lawful the
acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by
naturalization." 29
Accordingly, since the disputed land is now owned by Private Respondent
Cataniag, a Filipino citizen, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be
assailed. The objective of the constitutional provision - to keep our land
in Filipino hands - has been served. Halili v CA
Except in cases of hereditary succession, aliens disqualification from
owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. He cannot seek
reimbursement for the value he had paid for the property, even if it was
the conjugal funds that were used for its purchase.
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created
and resulted by operation of law in view of petitioner's marriage to
respondent. Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary
succession, respondent's disqualification from owning lands in the
Philippines is absolute. Not even an ownership in trust is allowed.
Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of an existing statute
and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in favor of the
party who is guilty of the fraud.[13] To hold otherwise would allow
circumvention of the constitutional prohibition
12
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
xxx
Thus, in the instant case, respondent cannot seek reimbursement on the
ground of equity where it is clear that he willingly and knowingly bought
the property despite the constitutional prohibition.
Further, the distinction made between transfer of ownership as opposed
to recovery of funds is a futile exercise on respondent's part. To allow
reimbursement would in effect permit respondent to enjoy the fruits of a
property which he is not allowed to own. Muller v Muller
A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
Citizenship may be a transferee of a private land under Section 8, Art.
XII of the 1987 Constitution, subject to limitations provided by law, that
is, BP 185. He may therefore register his land under CA 141 or PD 1529.
But what should not be missed in the disposition of this case is the fact
that the Constitution itself allows private respondents to register the
contested parcels of land in their favor. Sections 7 and 8 of Article XII of
the Constitution contain the following pertinent provisions, to wit:
"Sec. 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."
"Sec. 8 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations
provided by law." (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
The law provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has
lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of a private land up to
a maximum area of 1,000 sq. m., if urban, or one (1) hectare in case of
rural land, to be used by him as his residence (BP 185).
It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a private land,
were natural born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer
and/or acquisition of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant
whether private respondents are no longer Filipino citizens at the time
they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is
important is that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens
of the Philippines, and as transferees of a private land, they could apply
for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII
of the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to
prove the requisite period and character of possession of their
predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for
registration of title must perforce be approved. Republic v CA and
Lapina
B. For Juridical Persons: (Corporations and Associations)
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or
timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain
may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be
devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands.
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. Taking into account the requirements of
conservation, ecology, and development, and subject to the requirements of
agrarian reform, the Congress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the
public domain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and the
conditions therefor.
1973 Constitution cannot impair vested rights on lands acquired by an
Alien or Corporation prior its enactment
If it is accepted ---- as it must be ---- that the land was already private
land to which the Infiels had a legally sufficient and transferable title on
13
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
October 29, 1962 when Acme acquired it from said owners, it must also
be conceded that Acme had a perfect right to make such acquisition,
there being nothing in the 1935 Constitution then in force (or, for that
matter, in the 1973 Constitution which came into effect later) prohibiting
corporations from acquiring and owning private lands.
Even on the proposition that the land remained technically "public" land,
despite immemorial possession of the Infiels and their ancestors, until
title in their favor was actually confirmed in appropriate proceedings
under the Public Land Act, there can be no serious question of Acme's
right to acquire the land at the time it did, there also being nothing in the
1935 Constitution that might be construed to prohibit corporations from
purchasing or acquiring interests in public land to which the vendor had
already acquired that type of so-called "incomplete" or "imperfect" title.
The only limitation then extant was that corporations could not acquire,
hold or lease public agricultural lands in excess of 1,024 hectares. The
purely accidental circumstance that confirmation proceedings were
brought under the aegis of the 1973 Constitution which forbids
corporations from owning lands of the public domain cannot defeat a
right already vested before that law came into effect, or invalidate
transactions then perfectly valid and proper, This Court has already held,
in analogous circumstances, that the Constitution cannot impair vested
rights. Director of Lands v IAC and ACME
The 1987 Constitution absolutely prohibits private corporation to hold
alienable lands of the public domain. They may, however, lease such
lands. This constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional limitation
on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed are of alienable
lands of the public domain.
The 1987 Constitution continues the State policy in the 1973 Constitution
banning private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of
the public domain. Like the 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution
allows private corporations to hold alienable lands of the public domain.
xxx
In actual practice, the constitutional ban strengthens the constitutional
limitation on individuals from acquiring more than the allowed area of
alienable lands of the public domain. Without the constitutional ban,
individuals who already acquired the maximum area of alienable lands of
the public domain could easily set up corporations to acquire more
alienable public lands. An individual could own as many corporations as
his means would allow him. An individual could even hide his ownership
of a corporation by putting his nominees as stockholders of the
corporation. The corporation is a convenient vehicle to circumvent the
constitutional limitation on acquisition by individuals of alienable lands of
the public domain.
The constitutional intent, under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, is to
transfer ownership of only a limited area of alienable land of the public
domain to a qualified individual. This constitutional intent is safeguarded
by the provision prohibiting corporations from acquiring alienable lands of
the public domain, since the vehicle to circumvent the constitutional
intent is removed. The available alienable public lands are gradually
decreasing in the face of an ever-growing population. The most effective
way to insure faithful adherence to this constitutional intent is to grant or
sell alienable lands of the public domain only to individuals. This, it would
seem, is the practical benefit arising from the constitutional ban.
Chavez v PEA
X. Original Registration
A. The Torrens Systems Purpose
The Torrens System was adopted to guarantee the integrity of land
titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
recognized.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed
to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles
and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is
established and recognized. If a person purchases a piece of land on the
assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the risk
14
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
of being told later that his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would
not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted,
public confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily conclusive
investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would be
that land conflicts could be even more numerous and complex than they
are now and possibly also more abrasive if not even violent. The
government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens system,
should be the first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once
the conditions laid down by the law are satisfied. As in this case.
Republic v Umali
The main purpose of Torrens System is to facilitate transactions where
the public may rely solely upon the face of Torrens title and nowhere
else.
"The main purpose of the Torrens' System is to avoid possible conflicts of
title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by giving
the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of Title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party
concerned had actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that should
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. (Pascua v.
Capuyoc, 77 SCRA 78) Pino v CA
B. Nature of Proceedings
Land registration proceeding is an in rem proceeding. A decree of the
court on an in rem proceeding creates a res judicata on the matter
binding on the whole world.
True, land registration is an in rem proceeding and, therefore, the decree
of registration is binding upon and conclusive against all persons
including the government and its branches, irrespective of whether they
were personally notified of the application for registration, and whether
they filed an answer to said application.
xxx
'In a quite impressive line of decisions, it has been well-settled that a
Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to decree again the registration
of land already decreed in an earlier land registration case and a second
decree for the same land is null and void. This is so, because when once
decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, the title to the land thus
determined is already a res judicata binding on the whole world, the
proceedings being in rem. The court has no power in a subsequent
proceeding (not based on fraud and within the statutory period) to
adjudicate the same title in favor of another person. Furthermore, the
registration of the property in the name of first registered owner in the
Registration Book is a standing notice to the world that said property is
already registered in his name. Hence, the latter applicant is chargeable
with notice that the land he applied for is already covered by a title so
that he has no right whatsoever to apply for it. To declare the later title
valid would defeat the very purpose of the Torrens system which is to
quiet title to the property and guarantee its indefeasibility. It would
undermine the faith and confidence of the people in the efficacy of the
registration law." Spouses Leburada v CA
A proceeding in rem requires constructive seizure of the land as against
all persons, including the state, who have rights to or interest in the
property.
A proceeding in rem, such as land registration proceedings, requires
constructive seizure of the land as against all persons, including the
state, who have rights to or interests in the property.34 [Director of
Lands v. Court of Appeals, 342 Phil. 239, 248 (1997).] Constructive
seizure of the land for registration is effected through publication of the
application for registration and service of notice to affected parties.35
[Republic v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 852, 868 (1996).] Consequently,
when private respondents filed their own application for registration of
the same parcel of land, strictly speaking, the Tagaytay City branch could
no longer entertain the application for registration as the res involved
had been constructively seized by the Cavite City branch of the same
court. In hindsight, this complication of two applications for registration
having been filed for one and the same tract of land could have been
15
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
avoided had Land Registration Case No. 299 been transferred to the
Tagaytay City branch of the same court where it rightfully belonged,
upon the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 3947. Heirs of Pedro Lopez v De
Castro
C. Administration of the Torrens System
i. Land Registration Authority
EO 292, Section 28. Pretermission of Holiday. - Where the day, or the
last day, for doing any act required or permitted by law falls on a regular
holiday or special day, the act may be done on the next succeeding
business day. lawphi1.net
EO 292, Section 29. Official Use of Metric System. - The metric system
of weights and measures shall be used in the Philippines for all products,
articles, goods, commodities, materials, merchandise, utilities, services,
as well as for commercial transactions like contracts, agreements, deeds
and other legal instruments publicly and officially attested, and for all
official documents. Only weights and measures of the metric system shall
be officially sealed and licensed.
EO 292, Section 30. Mandatory Nation-wide Use. - The metric system
shall be fully adopted in all agricultural, commercial, industrial, scientific
and other sectors. Persons or entities allowed under existing laws to use
the English system or other standards and weights are given until the
date to be fixed by the Metric System Board to adopt the metric system.
PD 1529, Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a
more efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands,
geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice
program of the government, there is created a commission to be known
as the Land Registration Commission under the executive supervision of
the Department of Justice.
PD 1529, Section 6. General Functions.
xxx
(2) The Land Registration Commission shall have the following functions:
(a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the
implementation of the land reform program of the government;
(b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land
registration proceedings;
(c) Be the central repository of records relative to original
registration of lands titled under the Torrens system, including
subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands.
ii. The Register of Deeds
PD 1529, Section 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy
Registers of Deeds. No person shall be appointed Register of Deeds
unless he has been admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines and
shall have been actually engaged in such practice for at least three years
or has been employed for a like period in any branch of government the
functions of which include the registration of property.
The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Provided, however, that no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of
Deeds holding office as such upon the passage of this Decree shall by
reason hereof, be removed from office or be demoted to a lower category
or scale of salary except for cause and upon compliance with due process
as provided for by law.
PD 1529, Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. The
office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records
of instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel
mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated.
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 canceled. If the instrument is not
registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the
presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor,
and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with
Section 117 of this Decree.
16
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
PD 1529, Section 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case
of vacancy, etc.
(1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a
province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the occasion
of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the Register of Deeds
to discharge his duties, said duties shall be performed by the following
officials, in the order in which they are mentioned below, unless the
Secretary of Justice designates another official to act temporarily in his
place:
(a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy Register of
Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by the second Deputy
Register of Deeds, should there be one;
(b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or second
Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or City Fiscal, or any
Assistant Fiscal designated by the Provincial or City Fiscal;
(2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of Deeds
without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the Secretary of Justice
may, in his discretion, authorize the payment of an additional
compensation to the official acting as Register of Deeds, such additional
compensation together with his actual salary not to exceed the salary
authorized for the position thus filled by him.
(3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending
establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a regular
Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the Register of Deeds of
the mother province or city shall be the ex-officio Register of Deeds for
said new province or city.
PD 1529, Section 12. Owner's Index; reports. There shall be prepared
in every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all
registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index
card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered owner which
shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name.
The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration Commission
within ten days after the month to which they pertain his monthly reports
on collections and accomplishments. He shall also submit to the
Commission at the end of December of each year, an annual inventory of
all titles and instruments in his Registry.
The nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate
and/or cancel the notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of
title is ministerial as provided under Sec. 10 and Sec. 117 of PD
1529.
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 requests 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 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. (Aparri v.
Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231; Insular Bank of Asia and
America Employees' Union [IBAAEU] v. Inciong, 132 SCRA 663)
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. According to Webster's Third
17
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
International Dictionary of the English Language ----the word shall
means "ought to, must, . . . obligation - used to express a
command or exhortation, used in laws, regulations or directives to
express what is mandatory." Hence, 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. Baranda v Gustilo
The Register of Deeds may deny registration or annotation on a
title when other duplicates of title exist and they were not
presented.
We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section 55, supra,
obviously assumes that there is only one duplicate copy of the
title in question, namely, that of the registered owner himself,
such that its production whenever a voluntary instrument is
presented constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register
of deeds to make the corresponding memorandum of registration.
In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title were in
existence, presumably issued under Section 43 * of Act 496. As
correctly observed by the Land Registration Commissioner,
petitioners' claim that the issuance of those copies was
unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its legality being
presumed until otherwise declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction. There being several copies of the same title in
existence, it is easy to see how their integrity may be adversely
affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is
annotated on one copy and not on the others. The law itself refers
to every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the
original, which means that both must contain identical entries of
the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the land
covered by the title. If this were not so, if different copies were
permitted to carry differing annotations, the whole system of
Torrens registration would cease to be reliable. Balbin v
Register of Deeds
Instances where Register of Deeds may deny registration
1. Where there are several copies of the title (co-owners duplicate)
but only one is presented with the instrument to be registered.
2. Where thee property is presumed to be conjugal but the
instrument of conveyance bears the signature of only one spouse.
3. Where there is a pending case in court where the character of the
land and validity of the conveyance are in issue.
4. Where required certificates or documents are not submitted.
D. Who May Apply?
1. Under PD 1529
Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the
proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to
land, whether personally or through their duly authorized
representatives:
(1) Those who by themselves or through 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 provision 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.
Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the
application jointly.
18
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro
may file an application for the original registration of the land, provided,
however, that should the period for redemption expire during the
pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property
consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the
applicant and may continue the proceedings.
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of
any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument
creating the trust.
Art. 457 (Alluvium) requires three elements: 1.) that the depost
be gradual and imperceptible; 2.) that it be made through the
effects of the current of the water; and 3) that the land where
accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers. Refers to
Sec. 14(3) )
The above-quoted ar(ticle requires the concurrence of three
requisites before an accretion covered by this particular provision
is said to have taken place. They are (1) that the deposit be
gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be made through the effects
of the current of the water; and (3) that the land where accretion
takes place is adjacent to the banks of rivers.
The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of
the current of the river is indispensable. This excludes from Art.
457 of the New Civil Code all deposits caused by human
intervention. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature. In the
instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever to prove that the
addition to the said property was made gradually through the
effects of the current of the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers. We
agree with the observation of the Solicitor General that it is
preposterous to believe that almost four (4) hectares of land came
into being because of the effects of the Meycauayan and Bocaue
rivers. Republic v CA and Tancinco
Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529 (Sec. 48(b) of CA 141) does not require
that the land sought to be registered is already alienable and
disposable since June 12, 1945 or earlier, it being enough that
the property is already alienable and disposable at the time the
application was made.
Petitioner suggests an interpretation that the alienable and
disposable character of the land should have already been
established since June 12, 1945 or earlier. This is not borne out by
the plain meaning of Section 14(1). "Since June 12, 1945," as
used in the provision, qualifies its antecedent phrase "under a
bonafide claim of ownership." Generally speaking, qualifying
words restrict or modify only the words or phrases to which they
are immediately associated, and not those distantly or remotely
located.[13] Ad proximum antecedents fiat relation nisi impediatur
sentencia.
Besides, we are mindful of the absurdity that would result if we
adopt petitioner's position. Absent a legislative amendment, the
rule would be, adopting the OSG's view, that all lands of the public
domain which were not declared alienable or disposable before
June 12, 1945 would not be susceptible to original registration, no
matter the length of unchallenged possession by the occupant.
Such interpretation renders paragraph (1) of Section 14 virtually
inoperative and even precludes the government from giving it
effect even as it decides to reclassify public agricultural lands as
alienable and disposable. The unreasonableness of the situation
would even be aggravated considering that before June 12, 1945,
the Philippines was not yet even considered an independent
state.
Instead, 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. Republic v CA and Naguit
Assuming that possession only commenced after June 12, 1945,
the land may still be registered under Sec. 14(2), PD 1529, so
long as its requirements are complied with.
19
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
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? It did not, considering
Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs
and authorizes the application of "those who have acquired
ownership of private lands by prescription under the provisions of
existing laws
Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership under the
Civil Code.[25] There is a consistent jurisprudential rule that
properties classified as alienable public land may be converted
into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive
possession of at least thirty (30) years.[26] With such conversion,
such property may now fall within the contemplation of "private
lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by
those who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus,
even if possession of the alienable public land commenced on a
date later than June 12, 1945, and such possession being been
open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the
right to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree. Republic v CA and Naguit
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect must prove the
following: (a) that the land forms part of the disposable and
alienable agricultural lands of the public domain; and (b) that
they have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the same under a bona fide claim of
ownership either since time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
Republic v Candy Maker
Tax receipts and tax payments receipts are mere good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner. They are not conclusive.
Third. Cruz claimed that he and his parents cultivated the property
and planted palay and vegetables, and that they had been paying
the realty taxes over the property before his parents died.
However, no tax declarations under the names of the spouses
Apolonio Cruz and/or Eladia Cruz and his siblings were presented,
or realty tax receipts evidencing payment of such
taxes. Indeed, while tax receipts and tax payment receipts
themselves do not convincingly prove title to the land,[78] these
are good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no
one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property that is not in
his actual or, at least, constructive possession.[79] While tax
receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of
ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has
a claim of title over the property, particularly when accompanied
by proof of actual possession of property.[80] The voluntary
declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only
manifests one's sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the
property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State
and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute
needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens
one's bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.[81] Republic
v Candy Maker
Evidence must be adduced that the land sought to be registered
have already been declared alienable. Assuming that the lots are
alienable, requirement on the period of possession must also be
complied with. Again, even assuming that the land sought to be
registered was merely transferred to the applicant, a proof must
be adduced proving that his predecessors-in-interest to whom he
seeks to tack his possession, acquire registrable title over them
on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
In fine, Domingo failed to adduce incontrovertible evidence[34]
showing that the lots have been declared alienable. They are thus
presumed to belong to the public domain, beyond the commerce
of man, and are not susceptible of private appropriation and
acquisitive prescription.
But even assuming arguendo that the lots are alienable, Domingo
failed to comply with the requirement on the period of possession.
20
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
While he alleged in his petition that he bought the lots from
Genoveva in 1948, he failed, as the appellate court correctly
noted, to adduce the deed of sale executed for the purpose, or to
explain the reason behind the failure and to present sufficient
evidence to prove the fact of sale.
Again, even assuming arguendo that the lots were indeed sold to
him by Genoveva, Domingo failed to adduce proof that Genoveva,
from whom he seeks to tack his possession, acquired registrable
title over them on June 12, 1945 or earlier. Domingo v
Landicho
Even if the possession of alienable lands of the public domain
commenced only after June 12, 1945, application for registration
for he said property is still possible by virtue of Sec. 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree.
It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid ruling of the Court that
even if the possession of alienable lands of the public domain
commenced only after 12 June 1945, application for registration of
the said property is still possible by virtue of Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree which speaks of prescription.
Under the Civil Code, prescription is one of the modes of acquiring
ownership.[27] Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides:
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights
through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions
laid down by law.
Also in Article 1113 of the Civil Code, it is provided that:
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible
of prescription, unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or
any of its subdivision not patrimonial in character shall not be the
object of prescription.
Likewise, Article 1137 of the Civil Code states that:
Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe
through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years,
without need of title or of good faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
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.[28] 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
Presidential Decree No. 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.[29] Buenaventura v Republic
Under Sec. 14(2), PD 1529, the applicants possession and
occupation under bonafide claim of ownership may only be
reckoned from the date the land sought to be registered becomes
alienable and disposable public land.
The aforesaid jurisprudential rule truly demonstrates that, in the
present case, while petitioners' possession over the subject
property can be reckoned only on 3 January 1968, the date when
according to evidence, the subject property became alienable and
disposable, they can still have the subject property registered in
their names by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property Registration
Decree. Buenaventura v Republic
2. Under CA 141
Sec. 48. The following-described citizens of the Philippines, occupying
lands of the public domain or claiming to own any such lands or an
interest therein, but whose titles have not been perfected or completed,
may apply to the Court of First Instance of the province where the land is
21
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
located for confirmation of their claims and the issuance of a certificate of
title therefor, under the Land Registration Act , to wit:
xxx
(b) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors in interest
have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945 or earlier, the
filing of the application for confirmation of title except when prevented by
war or force majeure. These shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall be
entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter.
(c) Members of the national cultural minorities who by themselves or
through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of lands of the public
domain suitable to agriculture, whether disposable or not, under a bona
fide claim of ownership for at least 30 years shall be entitled to the rights
granted in sub-section (b) hereof.
Considering the intent of the law, an application filed during the
interim period, that time being beyond the time frame
contemplated by law, may be entertained and subsequently
granted, by virtue of the enactment of a law extending the
application period, it being given a retroactive effect to cover
such filing.
But even bearing in mind that prescription does not run against
the State (Art. 1108 (4), Civil Code) and that the rights of the
State may not be waived by mistakes of officers entrusted with
the exercise of such rights (Lewin vs. Galang, 109 Phil. 1041
[1960]), yet, the intendment of the lawmaker to accord as much
leeway as possible to applicants for judicial confirmation of
imperfect or incomplete titles is evident from the statutory history
of section 47 of the Public Land Act. In the original text, the time
limitation was not to extend beyond December 31, 1938. An
amendment introduced by Commonwealth Act 292, section 2,
approved on June 9, 1938, extended the expiry date to December
31, 1941. Subsequently, section 1 of Republic Act No. 107,
approved on June 2, 1947, further extended the time limit to
December 31, 1957. Republic Act No. 2061, approved on June 13,
1958, again prolonged the period to December 31, 1968. Still
later, by virtue of Republic Act No. 6236, approved on June 19,
1971, the time prescribed was extended to December 31, 1967.
Again, only quite recently, on January 25, 1977, PD No. 1073
lengthened the cut-off date to December 31, 1987.
Considering the obvious intent of the law as shown by the several
extensions granted, it should be held that the extension granted
by RA No. 6236 up to December 31, 1967 retroacted to and
covered the application filed by private respondent on January 8,
1969, or during the intervening period from January 1, 1969 up to
December 31, 1976. Director of Lands v Dano
Possession over 30 years on a land sought to be registered does
not divest it of its character. In order to have a land registered
under CA 141, it must first be released and be reclassified as
alienable public land with the approval of the President of the
Philippines.
While it may be true that as ruled by the appellate court, the
private respondents could tack their possession of the land to that
of their predecessors-in-interest as a result of which they now
have more than 30 years of possession of the same, the fact
remains that the subject land has not yet been released from its
classification as a part of the military reservation zone and still
has to be reclassified as alienable public land with te approval of
the President of the Philippines as required by the Public Land Act
(Commonwealth Act No. 141) and Republic Act No. 1275.
Republic v CA
The applicant under Sec. 48(b) must prove that (a) the land is
alienable public land and (b) his possession, openly, continuously
22
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
and exclusively, must be either since time immemorial or for the
period prescribed in the Public Land Act, that is, June 12, 1945.
It is obvious from the foregoing rule that the applicant must prove
that (a) the land is alienable public land and (b) his possession, in
the concept abovestated, must be either since time immemorial,
as ruled in both Cario and Susi, or for the period prescribed in
the Public Land Act. As to the latter, this Court, in Gutierrez
Hermanos vs. Court of Appeals, 27 adopted the rule enunciated by
the Court of Appeals, per then Associate Justice Hugo E.
Gutierrez, Jr., now a distinguished member of this Court, that an
applicant for registration under Section 48 of the Public Land Act
must secure a certification from the Government that the lands
which he claims to have possessed as owner for more than thirty
(30) years are alienable and disposable. It is the burden of the
applicant to prove its positive averments. Director of Lands v
Buyco
An allegation of possession since time immemorial contemplates
a memory that is beyond reach.
In the instant case, private respondents' evidence miserably failed
to establish their imperfect title to the property in question. Their
allegation of possession since time immemorial, which was
conceded by the land registration court and the public respondent,
is patently baseless. There is an evident failure to comprehend the
meaning and import of the term immemorial. As defined,
immemorial simply means beyond the reach of memory, 33
beyond human memory, or time out of mind. 34 When referring
to possession, specifically "immemorial possession," it means
possession of which no man living has seen the beginning, and the
existence of which he has learned from his elders. 35 Such
possession was never present in the case of the private
respondents. The trial court and the public respondent based the
finding of the more than eighty (80) years of possession by the
private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest on the sole
testimony of Mrs. Gabay who was eighty-three (83) years old
when she testified in October of 1979. Thus, she must have been
born in 1896. If the asserted possession lasted for a period of
more than eighty (80) years at the time she testified, the same
must have commenced sometime in 1899, or at the time that she
was barely three (3) years old. It is quite impossible that she
could fully grasp, before coming to the age of reason, the concept
of possession of such a big tract of land and testify on the same
some eight (8) decades later. In short, therefore, she cannot be
relied upon to prove the possession by Charles Hankins of the said
property from 1899. Director of Lands v Buyco
Assessment on the payment of tax is not sufficient to prove
ownership.
In any event, even if Charles had indeed declared the property for
taxation purposes and actually paid taxes, such facts are still
insufficient to justify possession thereof, much less a claim of
ownership thereon. This Court has repeatedly held that the
declaration of ownership for purposes of assessment on the
payment of the tax is not sufficient to prove ownership. 40
An applicant tacking possession and occupation on the land
sought to be registered, to that of his predecessor-in-interest,
must prove that the latter has possessed and occupied the same
for a period sufficient to make it registrable.
To this Court's mind, private respondents failed to prove that
Charles Hankins had possessed the property - allegedly covered
by Tax Declaration No. 15853 and made the subject of both his
last will and testament and the project of partition of his estate
among his heirs - in such a manner as to remove the same from
the public domain under the Cario and Susi doctrines. Thus,
when he died on 31 May 1937, he transmitted no right
whatsoever, with respect to the said property, to his heirs. This
being the case, his possession cannot be tacked to that of the
private respondents for the latter's benefit pursuant to Section
48(b) of the Public Land Act, the alternative ground relied upon in
their application. It would have been entirely different if the
possession of Charles was open, continuous, exclusive, notorious
23
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
and under a bona fide claim of ownership as provided under
Section 48 of the Public Land Act. Even if he were an American
citizen at that time, he would have had the same civil rights as
Filipino citizens pursuant to the original ordinance appended to the
1935 Constitution. Director of Lands v Buyco
A corporation may apply for the registration of a land provided
that the same has already become private land by virtue of
possession and occupation of their predecessors-in-interest for a
period of 30 years since June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Under CA 141, the reckoning point is June 12, 1945. If the
predecessors-in-interest of Manna Properties have been in
possession of the land in question since this date, or earlier,
Manna Properties may rightfully apply for confirmation of title to
the land. Following our ruling in Director of Lands v. IAC,[12]
Manna Properties, a private corporation, may apply for judicial
confirmation of the land without need of a separate confirmation
proceeding for its predecessors-in-interest first. Republic v
Manna Properties
Unless the date and month of issuance of the tax declaration is
stated, compliance with the reckoning date of CA 141 cannot be
established.
The 1945 tax declaration must be presented considering that the
date, 12 June 1945, is material to this case. CA 141 specifically
fixes the date to 12 June 1945 or earlier. A tax declaration simply
stating that it replaces a previous tax declaration issued in 1945
does not meet this standard. It is unascertainable whether the
1945 tax declaration was issued on, before or after 12 June 1945.
Tax declarations are issued any time of the year. A tax declaration
issued in 1945 may have been issued in December 1945. Unless
the date and month of issuance in 1945 is stated, compliance with
the reckoning date in CA 141 cannot be established. Republic v
Manna Properties
The law adds the word occupation to possession to delimit the
effect of constructive possession .Possession must not be mere
fiction, Actual possession of a land consists in the manifestation
of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a party would
naturally exercise over his own property.
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, the word occupation serves to highlight
the fact that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not
be a mere fiction.[22] Actual possession of a land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature as a
party would naturally exercise over his own property.[23]
Republic v Alconaba
Republic v Herbieto (The doctrine of this case regarding the
significance of June 12, 1945 under CA 141 and PD 1529 has
already been superseded by Malabanan v Republic (GR 179887,
April 29, 2009) citing Republic v CA and Naguit as the correct
interpretation_
A mere showing of possession for 30 years or more is not
sufficient. It must be shown, too, that possession and occupation
had started on June 12, 1945 or earlier.
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended by PD No. 1073,
presently requires, for judicial confirmation of an imperfect or
incomplete title, the possession and occupation of the piece of
land by the applicants, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest, since 12 June 1945 or earlier. This
provision is in total conformity with Section 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree heretofore cited.
24
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
As the law now stands, a mere showing of possession for thirty
years or more is not sufficient. It must be shown, too, that
possession and occupation had started on June 12, 1945 or
earlier. Republic v San Lorenzo
A CENRO certificate does not indicate proof of possession. It mere
evidences the alienability of the land involved.
Second, the acceptance by the courts a quo of the CENRO
certificate of alienability and disposability as evidence of
possession since the date of said certificate is patently erroneous.
According to the CENRO certification, the subject land was
alienable and disposable public land since June 7, 1938. This
certification does not in any way indicate that the respondent and
its predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the property
as far back as 1938. Republic v San Lorenzo
To prove that the land subject of an application for registration is
alienable, the 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.
As already well-settled in jurisprudence, no public land can be
acquired by private persons without any grant, express or implied,
from the government; and it is indispensable that the person
claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired
from the State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by
law.[31] To prove that the land subject of an application for
registration is alienable, the 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 a statute.[32] The applicant may also secure a
certification from the Government that the land applied for is
alienable and disposable.[33] Republic v Munoz
3. Under IPRA
Section 12. Option to Secure Certificate of Title under
Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land Registration
Act 496. - Individual members of cultural communities, with respect to
individually-owned ancestral lands who, by themselves or through their
predecessors-in -interest, have been in continuous possession and
occupation of the same in the concept of owner since the immemorial or
for a period of not less than thirty (30) years immediately preceding the
approval of this Act and uncontested by the members of the same
ICCs/IPs shall have the option to secure title to their ancestral lands
under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 141, as amended, or the Land
Registration Act 496.
For this purpose, said individually-owned ancestral lands, which are
agricultural in character and actually used for agricultural, residential,
pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope of
eighteen percent (18%) or more, are hereby classified as alienable and
disposable agricultural lands.
The option granted under this Section shall be exercised within twenty
(20) years from the approval of this Act.
E. Forms and Contents, Dealings with Land
Section 15. Form and contents. The application for land registration shall be in
writing, signed by the application or the person duly authorized in his behalf,
and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths for the province
or city where the application was actually signed. If there is more than one
applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each.
The application shall contain a description of the land and shall state the
citizenship and civil status of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if
married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if the marriage has been legally
dissolved, when and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall also state the
full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining
owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall state the extent of the search made
to find them.
The application, shall, in form, be substantially as follows:
25
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Republic of the Philippines
Court of First Instance of _________________
The undersigned,
____________________________________________________________here
by applies (or apply) to have the land hereinafter described brought under the
operation of the Property Registration Decree, and to have the title thereto
registered and confirmed:
AND DECLARE . . . . .
1. That the applicants/s is/are the owners of the land (by virtue of
inheritance or deed of sale or conveyance and/or possession in
accordance with Section 14 of said Decree), together with the building
and improvements thereon, with the exception of the
following:___________________________________________________
_______________ which is/are the property of
_________________________ residing at
_________________________ The said land, consisting of
____________________ parcel/s is/are situated, bounded and described
as shown on the plan and technical descriptions attached hereto and
made a part hereof, with the following
exception:__________________________________________________
_________________
2. That said land at the last assessment for taxation was assessed at P
____, Philippine currency, and the buildings and other improvements at P
___________, Philippine currency.
3. That to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, there is no mortgage
or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land, nor any
other person having any interest therein, legal or equitable, or in
possession, other than as follows:
__________________________________________________________
_____________________
4. That the applicant/s has/have acquired said land in the following
manner: ________________________________
(Note: Refer to Sec. 14 of said Decree. State also whether the property is
conjugal, paraphernal or exclusive property of the applicant/s)
5. That said land is occupied by the following person:
_____________________________
______________________________________________
6. That the names in full and addresses, as far as known to the
undersigned, of the owners of all adjoining properties, of the persons
mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5, and of the persons shown on the plan
as claimants, are as follows:
__________________________________________________________
______________________________
7. That the applicant/s is/are single or married to
____________________ (Note: if marriage has been legally dissolved,
state when and how the marriage relation
terminated.)________________________________________________
_________________ _____________________
8. That the applicant's/s' full name, age, citizenship, residence, and
postal address/es is/are as follows:
__________________________________________________________
_________
9. That (Note: If the land included in the application is bounded by a
public or private way or road, there should be stated in this paragraph
whether or not the applicant claims any and what land within the limits of
the way or road and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the
way or road determined.)
________________________________________
___________________________
10. That the following documents are attached hereto and made a part
hereof: ___________________________________
________________________________
Signed at ___________________ this _____________________ day of
____________________, in the year nineteen hundred and
______________________.
_________________________
Applicant
_________________________
(Post Office Address)
26
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROVINCE (OR CITY) OF _______________
On this _______________ day of _________________________,19
________ personally appeared before me the above- named
__________________________________________________ known to
me to be the person/s who executed the foregoing application and made
oath that the statements therein are true of his/their knowledge,
information and belief.
The Residence Certificate/s ______________________ of the applicant/s
______________ was/were exhibited to me being No.
_________________ issued at ___________________ dated
____________, 19 __________.
_________________
(Notary Public, or other Officer
authorized to administer oaths)
PTD No. ______
Section 16. Non-resident applicant. If the applicant is not a resident of the
Philippines, he shall file with his application an instrument in due form
appointing an agent or representative residing in the Philippines, giving his full
name and postal address, and shall therein agree that the service of any legal
process in the proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon
his agent or representative shall be of the same legal effect as if made upon the
applicant within the Philippines. If the agent or representative dies, or leaves the
Philippines, the applicant shall forthwith make another appointment for the
substitute, and, if he fails to do so the court may dismiss the application.
Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall
be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is
situated. The applicant shall file together with the application all original
muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by
the Bureau of Lands.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the
applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and
all annexes.
Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An application may
include two or more parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided they
are situated within the same province or city. The court may at any time order
an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or by a
severance of the application.
Section 19. Amendments. Amendments to the application including joinder,
substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the court at any
stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an
increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an
additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and
notice as in an original application.
Section 20. When land applied for borders on road. If the application describes
the land as bounded by a public or private way or road, it shall state whether or
not the applicant claims any and what portion of the land within the limits of the
way or road, and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or
road determined.
Section 21. Requirement of additional facts and papers; ocular inspection. The
court may require facts to be stated in the application in addition to those
prescribed by this Decree not inconsistent therewith and may require the filing
of any additional paper. It may also conduct an ocular inspection, if necessary.
Section 22. Dealings with land pending original registration. After the filing of
the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration, the land
therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in
which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent
instruments together with a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands
in case of transfer of portions thereof and the court, after notice to the parties,
shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance
27
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
created by said instruments, or order that the decree of registration be issued in
the name of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said
instruments.
Requisite steps in brining land under the torrens system
1. Survey of land by the Land Management Bureau or a duly licensed private
surveyor;
2. Filing of application for registration by the applicant;
3. Setting of the date for the initial hearing of the application by the court;
4. Transmittal of the application and the date of initial hearing together with all
the documents or other evidences attached thereto by the Clerk of Court to the
Land Registration Authority;
5. Publication of the notice of the filing of the application and dare and place of
the hearing in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation;
6. Service by mailing of notice upon contiguous owners, occupants and those
known to have interests in the property;
7. Posting by the sheriff of the notice in a conspicuous place on the land and in
the bulletin board of the municipal building or city where the land is situated;
8. Filing of answer to the application by any person whether named in the notice
or not;
9. Hearing of the case by the court;
10. Promulgation of judgment by the court;
11. Issuance of an order for the issuance of a decree declaring the decision final
and instructing the Land Registration Authority to issue the decree of
confirmation and registration;
12. Entry of the decree of registration in the Land Registration Authority;
13. Sending the copy of the decree of registration to the corresponding Register
of Deeds; and
14. Transcription of the decree of registration in the registration book and the
issuance of the owners duplicate original certificate of title to the applicant by
the Register of Deeds, upon, payment of the prescribed fees.
Form and contents of the application for registration:
1. Full description of the land as evidenced by a survey plan duly approved by
the Director of Lands, surveyors certificate, and technical description;
2. Citizenship and civil status of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if
married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if the marriage has been legally
dissolved, when and how the marriage relation terminated;
3. Full names and addresses of all occupants of the land an those of the
adjoining owners, if known, and if not known, it shall state the extent of the
search made to find them;
4. Assessed value of the land and the buildings and improvements thereon;
5. Whether or not there are mortgages or encumbrances of any kind whatsoever
affecting the land, or any other person having any interest therein, legal or
equitable, or in possession, thereof;
6. The manner by which the applicant has acquired the land;
7. Whether or not the property is conjugal, paraphernal, or exclusive property of
the applicant;
8. Names of all occupants of the land, if any;
9. Original muniments of title and other related documents supporting
applicants claim of ownership; and
10. If the land is bounded by public or private way or road, whether or not the
applicant claims any and what portion of the land within the limits of the way or
road, and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or road
determined.
The application shall be accompanied by the following documents:
1. The original plan in tracing cloth;
2. The white or blue print copes of the plan;
3. The original and two copies of the technical descriptiongs
4. The original and two copies of the Geodetic Engineers Ceritificate
5. A certificate in triplicate of the Provincial, City or Municipal Assessor of the
assessed value of the land at its last assessment for taxation or, in the absence
thereof, that of the next preceding year.
6. All original muniments of title of the applicant which prove his ownership of
the land.
28
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
A mere statement of the act of knowledge of the names of the
occupants an adjoining owners is not sufficient but what search has
been made to find hem is necessary.
[12]
Section 15 of P.D. 1529 is explicit in requiring that in the application
for registration of land titles, the application shall also state the full
names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the
adjoining owners if known, and if not known, it shall state the extent of
the search made to find them. As early as Francisco vs. Court
of Appeals, 97 SCRA 22 [1980] we emphasized that a mere statement of
the lack of knowledge of the names of the occupants and adjoining
owners is not sufficient but what search has been made to find them is
necessary. The trial court was correct when it took notice that
respondents sister Lydia Gajo-Anonuevo admitted that she had a
conversation with petitioners cousin Elena Dumalaon about the latters
apprehension that their land may have been included in respondents
[13]
application for registration of the disputed land. Respondents omission
of this material information prevented petitioner from having his day in
court. The trial court in its decision more than amply supported its
conclusion with jurisprudence to the effect that it is fraud to knowingly
omit or conceal a fact upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a
[14]
third person. Such omission can not but be deliberate
misrepresentation constituting fraud, a basis for allowing a petition for
review of judgment under Section 38 of Act No. 496, The Land
Registration Act. Divina v CA
No plan or survey may be admitted in land registration proceedings
until approved by the Director of Lands.
We reject the contention of the private respondents that the reevaluation
and approval of the Director of the Bureau of Lands of the survey plan
are not mandatory requirements and that the lack thereof did not render
Original Certificate of Title No. 0662 void. Case law has it that it is not
the function of the Land Registration Commission to approve original
plans.41 The duty devolved upon the Director of the Bureau of Lands, as
mandated by Section 17 of P.D. No. 1529. Applicants for land registration
are required to append a survey plan to their application, duly approved
by the Bureau of Lands, thus:
xxx
No plan or survey may be admitted in land registration proceedings until
approved by the Director of Lands. The submission of the plan is a
statutory requirement of mandatory character. Unless a plan and its
technical description are duly approved by the Director of Lands, the
same are of no value. Republic v. Vda. De Neri
The law does not require that the application for registration be
amended by substituting the buyer or the person to whom the
property has been conveyed for the applicant. The only requirement of
the law are (1) that the instrument be present to the court by the
interested party together with a motion that the same be considered in
relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the
parties to the case.
The law does not require that the application for registration be amended
by substituting the "buyer" or the "person to whom the property has
been conveyed" for the applicant. Neither does it require that the "buyer"
or the "person to whom the property has been conveyed" be a party to
the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration
proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the
instrument be presented to the court by the interested party together
with a motion that the same be considered in relation with the
application; and (2) that prior notice be given to the parties to the case.
x x x (Emphasis supplied) Caoibes v Pantoja
The best evidence to identify a piece of land for registration purposes is
the original tracing cloth plan from the Bureau of Lands, but blueprint
copies and other evidence could also provided sufficient identification.
It bears stressing that the "constructive seizure of land accomplished by
posting of notices and processes upon all persons mentioned in notices
by means of publication and sending copies to said persons by registered
mail in effect gives the court jurisdiction over the lands sought to be
registered."[17]
29
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
While petitioner correctly contends that the submission in evidence of the
original tracing cloth plan is a mandatory and even a jurisdictional
requirement, this Court has recognized instances of substantial
compliance with this rule.[18] It is true that the best evidence to identify
a piece of land for registration purposes is the original tracing cloth plan
from the Bureau of Lands, but blueprint copies and other evidence could
also provide sufficient identification.[19] In the present application for
registration, respondent submitted, among other things, the following
asupporting documents: (1) a blueprint copy of the survey plan[20]
approved by the Bureau of Lands; and (2) the technical descriptions[21]
duly verified and approved by the Director of Lands. Republic v
Munoz
If survey plans is approved by the Director of Lands, and has remained
unrebutted, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed
with.
Moreover, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its
correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing
evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed
with.[24] All the evidence on record sufficiently identified the property as
the one applied for by respondent, and containing the corresponding
metes and bounds as well as area. Consequently, the original tracing
cloth plan need not be presented. Republic v Munoz
F. Publication, Opposition and Default
Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall, within five
days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of
the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than
ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land
registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
1. By publication.
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing,
the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice of initial hearing
to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the
publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to
have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so
far as known, and "to all whom it may concern". Said notice shall also
require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and
time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be
granted.
2. By mailing.
(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. The
Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven days
after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette, as
hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of the notice of initial hearing
to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address
is known.
(b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the
Provincial Governor and the Mayor. If the applicant requests to
have the line of a public way or road determined, the
Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a copy of said
notice of initial hearing to be mailed to the Secretary of Public
Highways, to the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the
municipality or city, as the case may be, in which the land lies.
(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the
Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public
Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines
and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. If the land
borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the
sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a
lake, or if it otherwise appears from the application or the
proceedings that a tenant-farmer or the national government may
have a claim adverse to that of the applicant, notice of the initial
30
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
hearing shall be given in the same manner to the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the
Director of Mines and/or the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources, as may be appropriate.
3. By posting.
The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly attested
copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by the sheriff of the
province or city, as the case may be, or by his deputy, in a conspicuous
place on each parcel of land included in the application and also in a
conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the
municipality or city in which the land or portion thereof is situated,
fourteen days at least before the date of initial hearing.
The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons and
in such manner as it may deem proper.
The notice of initial hearing shall, in form, be substantially as follows:
(Caption and Title)
NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING
To (here insert the names of all persons appearing to have an interest and the
adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom it may concern):
An application (or petition) having been filed in the above-entitled case by (full
name and address) praying for the registration and confirmation (or for the
settlement and adjudication, in case of petition in cadastral proceedings) of title
to the following described lands:
(Insert description)
You are hereby served this notice to appear before this Court at its session to be
held at _________________ on the ______________ day of
_______________, 19 ______, at _____________ o'clock in the _________
then and there to present such claims as you may have to said lands or any
portion thereof, and to submit evidence in support of such claim; and unless you
appear at said Court at the time and place aforesaid, your default will be
recorded and the title to the lands will be adjudicated and determined in
accordance with law and the evidence before the Court, and thereafter you will
forever be barred from contesting said application (or petition) or any decree
entered thereon.
Witness, the Hon. ________________________ Judge of the Court of First
Instance of _______ this _______ day of _________________, in the year
19______.
Attest:
Commissioner of Land
Registration
Section 24. Proof of publication and notice. The certification of the
Commissioner of Land Registration and of the sheriff concerned to the effect that
the notice of initial hearing, as required by law, has been complied with shall be
filed in the case before the date of initial hearing, and shall be conclusive proof
of such fact.
Section 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings. Any person
claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file an
opposition on or before the date of initial hearing, or within such further time as
may be allowed by the court. The opposition shall state all the objections to the
application and shall set forth the interest claimed by the party filing the same
and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to by him or by
some other duly authorized person.
If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a portion of the
lot and said portion is not properly delimited on the plan attached to the
application, or in case of undivided co-ownership, conflicting claims of ownership
or possession, or overlapping of boundaries, the court may require the parties to
submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Section 26. Order of default; effect. If no person appears and answers within
the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the
contrary appearing, order a default to be recorded and require the applicant to
present evidence. By the description in the notice "To all Whom It May Concern",
all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default
order.
Where an appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a default order
shall be entered against persons who did not appear and answer.
31
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
The land registration proceeding being proceeding In rem, it is not
necessary to give personal notice to the owners or claimants of the land
sought to be registered, in order to vest the courts with power or
authority over the res. Notice of hearing by proper publication in the
Official Gazette is sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction.
Besides, as early as 1910, in Grey Alba v De la Cruz, We already ruled
that land registration proceedings are proceedings in rem, not in
personam, and therefore it is not necessary to give personal notice to the
owners or claimants of the land sought to be registered, in order to vest
the courts with power or authority over the res. This, while it may be true
that no notice was sent by registered mail to petition when the judicial
reconstitution of title was sought, such failure, however, did not amount
to a jurisdictional defect. Adez Realty v CA
Although publication in the Official Gazette is sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the land registration court, publication in a news paper
of general circulation is still mandatory and imperative by virtue of due
process.
Admittedly, the above provision provides in clear and categorical terms
that publication in the Official Gazette suffices to confer jurisdiction upon
the land registration court. However, the question boils down to whether,
absent any publication in a newspaper of general circulation, the land
registration court can validly confirm and register the title of private
respondents.
We answer this query in the negative. This answer is impelled by the
demands of statutory construction and the due process rationale behind
the publication requirement.
The law used the term "shall" in prescribing the work to be done by the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latter's receipt of the court
order setting the time for initial hearing. The said word denotes an
imperative and thus indicates the mandatory character of a statute. 15
While concededly such literal mandate is not an absolute rule in statutory
construction, as its import ultimately depends upon its context in the
entire provision, we hold that in the present case the term must be
understood in its normal mandatory meaning. In Republic vs. Marasigan,
16 the Court through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that Section
23 of PD 1529 requires notice of the initial hearing by means of (1)
publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all of which must be complied
with. "If the intention of the law were otherwise, said section would not
have stressed in detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all
persons named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, include
owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of the land." Indeed, if
mailing of notices is essential, then by parity of reasoning, publication in
a newspaper of general circulation is likewise imperative since the law
included such requirement in its detailed provision.
It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem.
17 Being in rem, such proceeding requires constructive seizure of the
land as against all persons, including the state, who have rights to or
interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially
through publication. This being so, the process must strictly be complied
with. Otherwise, persons who may be interested or whose rights may be
adversely affected would be barred from contesting an application which
they had no knowledge of. As has been ruled, a party as an owner
seeking the inscription of realty in the land registration court must prove
by satisfactory and conclusive evidence not only his ownership thereof
but the identity of the same, for he is in the same situation as one who
institutes an action for recovery of realty. 18 He must prove his title
against the whole world. This task, which rests upon the applicant, can
best be achieved when all persons concerned nay, "the whole world" who
have rights to or interests in the subject property are notified and
effectively invited to come to court and show cause why the application
should not be granted. The elementary norms of due process require that
before the claimed property is taken from concerned parties and
registered in the name of the applicant, said parties must be given notice
and opportunity to oppose.
It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general circulation
should be deemed mandatory when the law already requires notice by
publication in the Official Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of
32
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
which have already been complied with in the case at hand. The reason is
due process and the reality that the Official Gazette is not as widely read
and circulated as newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation,
such that the notices published therein may not reach the interested
parties on time, if at all. Additionally, such parties may not be owners of
neighboring properties, and may in fact not own any other real estate. In
sum, the all-encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the
consequences of default orders issued against the whole world and the
objective of disseminating the notice in as wide a manner as possible
demand a mandatory construction of the requirements for publication,
mailing and posting.
Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit publication
requirement of the law. Private respondents did not proffer any excuse;
even if they had, it would not have mattered because the statute itself
allows no excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to dispense
with such mandatory requirement. Director of Lands v CA and
Abistado
Setting of hearing dates does not lie with the hands of the applicant. It
is a process exclusive to the power of the trial court. Thus, the applicant
must not be punish on matters not within his control.
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 signed by the judge and copy of the notice is mailed by the clerk of
court to the LRA [Land Registration Authority]. This involves a process to
which the party applicant absolutely has no participation.
Petitioner is correct that in land registration cases, the applicant must
strictly comply with the jurisdictional requirements. In this case, the
applicant complied with the jurisdictional requirements.
The facts reveal that Manna Properties was not at fault why the hearing
date was set beyond the 90-day maximum period. x x x.
We have held that "a party to an action has no control over the
Administrator or the Clerk of Court acting as a land court; he has no right
to meddle unduly with the business of such official in the performance of
his duties."[8] A party cannot intervene in matters within the exclusive
power of the trial court. No fault is attributable to such party if the trial
court errs on matters within its sole power. It is unfair to punish an
applicant for an act or omission over which the applicant has neither
responsibility nor control, especially if the applicant has complied with all
the requirements of the law. Republic v San Lorenzo
A publication in the newspapers of general circulation way after the
date of initial gearing is ineffective and worthless.
Indubitably, such publication of the Notice, way after the date of the
initial hearing, would already be worthless and ineffective. Whoever read
the Notice as it was published in The Freeman Banat News and had a
claim to the Subject Lots was deprived of due process for it was already
too late for him to appear before the MTC on the day of the initial hearing
to oppose respondents' application for registration, and to present his
claim and evidence in support of such claim. Worse, as the Notice itself
states, should the claimant-oppositor fail to appear before the MTC on
the date of initial hearing, he would be in default and would forever be
barred from contesting respondents' application for registration and even
the registration decree that may be issued pursuant thereto. In fact, the
MTC did issue an Order of Special Default on 03 September 1999.
The late publication of the Notice of Initial Hearing in the newspaper of
general circulation is tantamount to no publication at all, having the same
ultimate result. Owing to such defect in the publication of the Notice, the
MTC failed to constructively seize the Subject Lots and to acquire
jurisdiction over respondents' application for registration thereof.
Therefore, the MTC Judgment, dated 21 December 1999, ordering the
registration and confirmation of the title of respondents Jeremias and
David over Lots No. 8422 and 8423, respectively; as well as the MTC
Order, dated 02 February 2000, declaring its Judgment of 21 December
1999 final and executory, and directing the LRA Administrator to issue a
33
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
decree of registration for the Subject Lots, are both null and void for
having been issued by the MTC without jurisdiction. Republic v
Herbierto
G. Hearing, Judgment and Decree of Registration
Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a referee. The trial court shall see to
it that all registration-proceedings are disposed or within ninety days from the
date the case is submitted for decision,
The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any part thereof to a
referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence, and the referee shall
submit his report thereon to the Court within fifteen days after the termination
of such hearing. Hearing before a referee may be held at any convenient place
within the province or city as may be fixed by him and after reasonable notice
thereof shall have been served the parties concerned. The court may render
judgment in accordance with the report as though the facts have been found by
the judge himself: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion accept
the report, or set it aside in whole or in part, or order the case to be
recommitted for further proceedings:
Section 28. Partial judgment. In a case where only a portion of the land subject
of registration is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that
a subdivision plan showing the contested and uncontested portions approved by
the Director of Lands is previously submitted to said court.
Section 29. Judgment confirming title. All conflicting claims of ownership and
interest in the land subject of the application shall be determined by the court. If
the court, after considering the evidence and the reports of the Commissioner of
Land Registration and the Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the
oppositor has sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered
confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or portions
thereof.
Section 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of
decree. The judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes final
upon the expiration of thirty days to be counted from the data of receipt of
notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from the judgment of the court
as in ordinary civil cases.
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the court
to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this Decree to the
Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of registration and the
corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged entitled to
registration.
Section 31. Decree of registration. Every decree of registration issued by the
Commissioner shall bear the date, hour and minute of its entry, and shall be
signed by him. It shall state whether the owner is married or unmarried, and if
married, the name of the husband or wife: Provided, however, that if the land
adjudicated by the court is conjugal property, the decree shall be issued in the
name of both spouses. If the owner is under disability, it shall state the nature
of disability, and if a minor, his age. It shall contain a description of the land as
finally determined by the court, and shall set forth the estate of the owner, and
also, in such manner as to show their relative priorities, all particular estates,
mortgages, easements, liens, attachments, and other encumbrances, including
rights of tenant-farmers, if any, to which the land or owner's estate is subject,
as well as any other matters properly to be determined in pursuance of this
Decree.
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".
Adjudication of a land in land registration proceedings does not become
final until after the lapse of 1 year after the entry of the final decree of
registration by the Land Registration Authority (LRA).
Petitioners' contention is not correct. Unlike ordinary civil actions, the
adjudication of land in a cadastral or land registration proceeding does
not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the
34
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of
registration. 9 This Court, in several decisions, has held that as long as a
final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration Commission
(now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from date
of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the
decision in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control
and sound discretion of the court rendering it. 10 Gomez v CA
Land registration officials duty to render reports may extend even after
the court becomes final and may even extend even after its finality but
not beyond 1 year from the entry of the decree.
Petitioners contend that the report of respondent Silverio Perez should
have been submitted to the court a quo before its decision became final.
But were we to sustain this argument, we would be pressuring
respondent land registration officials to submit a report or study even if
haphazardly prepared just to beat the reglementary deadline for the
finality of the court decision. As said by this Court in De los Reyes vs. de
Villa: 11
"Examining section 40, we find that the decrees of registration must be
stated in convenient form for transcription upon the certificate of title and
must contain an accurate technical description of the land. This requires
technical men. Moreover, it frequently occurs that only portions of a
parcel of land included in an application are ordered registered and that
the limits of such portions can only be roughly indicated in the decision of
the court. In such cases amendments of the plans and sometimes
additional surveys become necessary before the final decree can be
entered. That can hardly be done by the court itself; the law very wisely
charges the Chief Surveyor of the General Land Registration Office with
such duties (Administrative Code, section 177)."
Thus, the duty of respondent land registration officials to render reports
is not limited to the period before the court's decision becomes final, but
may extend even after its finality but not beyond the lapse of one (1)
year from the entry of the decree. Gomez v CA
Land registration officials acts are ministerial in one aspect and judicial
in another.
Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land registration officials
to issue the decree is purely ministerial. It is ministerial in the sense that
they act under the orders of the court and the decree must be in
conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found in the
record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in
doubt upon any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the
decree, it is their duty to refer the matter to the court. They act, in this
respect, as officials of the court and not as administrative officials, and
their act is the act of the court. 12 They are specifically called upon to
"extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration
proceedings." 13 Gomez v CA
Adjudication of land under the name of the applicant constitutes, when
finals, res judicata against the whole world.
In a registration proceeding instituted for the registration of a private
land, with or without opposition, the judgment of the court confirming the
title of the applicant or oppositor, as the case may be, and ordering its
registration in his name constitutes, when final, res judicata against the
whole world.[9] It becomes final when no appeal within the reglementary
period is taken from a judgment of confirmation and registration.[10]
The land registration proceedings being in rem, the land registration
court's approval in LRC No. N-983 of spouses Diego Lirio and Flora
Atienza's application for registration of the lot settled its ownership, and
is binding on the whole world including petitioner. Ting v Heirs of
Diego Lirio
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.
Sta. Ana v. Menla, et al.[13] enunciates the raison d'etre why Section 6,
Rule 39 does not apply in land registration proceedings, viz:
35
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
THAT THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE DECISION
RENDERED IN THIS LAND REGISTRATION CASE ON NOVEMBER 28, 1931
OR TWENTY SIX YEARS AGO, HAS NOT YET BECOME FINAL AND
UNENFORCEABLE.
We fail to understand the arguments of the appellant in support of the
above assignment, except in so far as it supports his theory that after a
decision in a land registration case has become final, it may not be
enforced after the lapse of a period of 10 years, except by another
proceeding to enforce the judgment or decision. Authority for this theory
is the provision in the Rules of Court to the effect that judgment may be
enforced within 5 years by motion, and after five years but within 10
years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39.) This provision of the Rules 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. Ting v Heirs of Diego
Lirio
H. Remedies
1. New Trial or Reconsideration
Rule 37, Rules of Court
A motion for new trial may be filed on the ground that there
is/are newly discovered evidence which could not have
discovered and produced during the trial by exercise of due
diligence, sufficient and of such character as would probably
change the result.
Section 1, Rule 53 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
"Section 1. Petition. Before a final order or judgment rendered by
the Court of Appeals becomes executory, a motion for new trial
may be filed on the ground of newly discovered evidence which
could not have been discovered prior to the trial in the court below
by the exercise of due diligence and which is of such a character
as would probably change the result. The motion shall be
accompanied by affidavits showing the facts constituting the
grounds therefore and the newly discovered evidence."
In the instant case, there is no showing that Rufino Tibayan,
Petronilo Gulpo, Segunda Fabis and Demetrio Zapanta could not
have been discovered and produced during the trial. Hence their
testimonies would not constitute newly discovered evidence.
The sincerity of the petitioner in producing the two documents
after so long a time is doubtful. The case was filed on May 7, 1964
and had been pending in court for 11 years before the petitioner
discovered the said documents and filed the motion for new trial.
In fact, it was only after the denial of her second motion for
reconsideration and the oral arguments held in the appellate court
that she filed the said motion. The records do not show that the
petitioner could not have discovered the two documents prior to
the trial by use of due diligence. Moreover, granting that the two
documents can be considered as newly discovered evidence, a
new trial would only be useless and ineffective. There is no
showing that these documents would be sufficient proof to
overthrow the appellate court's findings that Hilarion Villacarlos
and his predecessors-in-interest did not possess the disputed
parcel of land for the required number of years to qualify the
petitioner for a certificate of title pursuant to Section 48 of the
36
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Public Land Law as amended. Mere tax declarations do not vest
ownership of the property in the declarant. Samson v CA1
2. Relief from Judgment; Relief from Denial of Appeal
Rule 37, Rules of Court
(Im missing NAPOCOR v CA)
Remedy of relief from judgment can only be resorted to on
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence
and prudence could not have guarded against.
Section 1, Rule 38 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other
proceedings.-When a judgment or final order is entered, or any
other proceeding is thereafter taken against a party in any court
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may
file a petition in such court and in the same case praying that the
judgment, order or proceeding be set aside.
As can clearly be gleaned from the foregoing provision, the
remedy of relief from judgment can only be resorted to on
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence.
Negligence to be excusable must be one which ordinary diligence
and prudence could not have guarded against.[14] Land Bank
v Natividad
3. Appeal
Section 33. Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and orders of the
court hearing the land registration case are appealable to the Court of
Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary
actions:
1
This case is dated 1986. Rules of Courts has already been amended.
Thus, Rule 53 then is now Sec. 37.
4. Petition for Review
Section 32. 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, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the
government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate
or interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained
by actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in
no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose
rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase "innocent purchaser for
value" or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed
to include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for
value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration
and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any
person aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue
his remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other
persons responsible for the fraud.
Petition for review must be filed within one year from the
issuance of decree of registration on the land, and upon the
ground of fraud. And it must not be in the form of a separate
action but in the form of a motion filed in the same registration
proceeding where the decree was issued.
It is settled that registration proceedings are in rem - binding
upon the whole world - and that a final decree of registration
issued therein in accordance with law is reviewable only within
one year and upon the ground of fraud. The allegations of the
complaint filed below do not make out any case of fraud justifying
the reopening of such decree. This on the one hand. On the other,
any petition to set aside the decree and reopen the registration
37
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
proceedings must be filed within one year from the issuance
thereof, not in the form of a separate action but in the form of a
motion filed in the same registration proceeding where the decree
was issued. Superior Baldoz v Serapia Papa
Review of a decree of registration requires that the petitioner
were deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original
registration case by reason of fraud.
The person(s) contemplated under Section 38 of Act 496, to be
entitled to a review of a decree of registration, are those who
were fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the
original registration case. Such is not the situation of the private
respondents here. They were not denied their day in court by
fraud, which the law provides as the sole ground for reopening of
the decree of registration. In fact they opposed the registration
but failed to substantiate their opposition. In Salomon, et al. vs.
Bocauto, et al., No. 47900, March 15, 1941, 71 Phil. 363, 365, a
petition for review of a decree of registration was, among other
grounds, properly denied for "both petitioners had notice of the
original registration proceedings, but failed to put up any claim
and to show title in themselves." Crisolo v CA
Mere allegation of fraud is not enough. There must actual and
extrinsic fraud.
Mere allegation of fraud is not enough. Specific, intentional acts to
deceive and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure
him, must be alleged and proved. There must be actual or positive
fraud as distinguished from constructive fraud to entitle one to the
reopening of a decree of registration. And it must be extrinsic and
not intrinsic fraud. (Grey Alba vs. De la Cruz, supra, 17 Phil. 49,
57). Crisolo v CA
Actual fraud and constructive fraud vis--vis extrinsic fraud and
intrinsic fraud
Fraud is of two kinds: actual or constructive. Actual or positive
fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means
of the misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. 19
Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud because of its
detrimental effect upon public interests and public or private
confidence, even though the act is not done or committed with an
actual design to commit positive fraud or injury upon other
persons. 20
Fraud may also be either extrinsic or intrinsic. Fraud is regarded
as intrinsic where the fraudulent acts pertain to an issue involved
in the original action, or where the acts constituting the fraud
were or could have been litigated therein, and is regarded as
extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from
presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon
matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in
which it is procured, so that there is not a fair submission of the
controversy. 21 Extrinsic fraud is also actual fraud, but collateral
to the transaction sued upon. 22 Heirs of Roxas v CA
Only actual fraud or extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds
for a judgment to be annulled or a decree of registration
reopened and reviewed
The distinctions are significant because only actual fraud or
extrinsic fraud has been accepted as grounds for a judgment to be
annulled or, as in this case, a decree of registration reopened and
reviewed. 23 In the oft-cited Macabingkil v. People's Homesite
Housing Corporation case, the Court drew from American
jurisprudence stating that "relief has been granted on the ground
that, by some fraud practiced directly upon the party seeking
relief against the judgment or decree, (and) that party has been
prevented from presenting all of his case to the court." 24 The
"fraud" contemplated by the law in this case (Section 32, P.D. No
1529) is actual and extrinsic, which includes an intentional
omission of fact required by law. 25 For fraud to justify a review
of a decree, it must be extrinsic or collateral, and the facts upon
which it is based have not been controverted or resolved in the
case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. 26
38
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Persons who were fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be
heard in the original registration case are entitled to a review of a
decree of registration. Heirs of Roxas v CA
The Regional Trial Court has the authority and power to hear and
determine all question arising from land registration applications
or petitions.
Section 2 of Presidential Decree (PD) 1529[7] partly provides:
Sec. 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. '
Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Philippines shall be in rem, and shall be based on the generally
accepted principles underlying the Torrens System.
Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all
applications for original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed
after original registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions.
xxx
Pursuant to the above provisions, the Regional Trial Court
(formerly Court of First Instance) has the authority to act, not
only on applications for original registration of title to land, but
also on all petitions filed after the original registration of title.
Thus, it has the authority and power to hear and determine all
questions arising from such applications or petitions.[8] Fil-
Estate v Trono
Sec. 48, PD 1529, provides that a Torrens Title cannot be
collaterally attacked. It must be done in an action expressly
instituted for the purpose of direct proceeding.
Likewise, Section 48 of PD 1529 provides:
5. Reconveyance
Sec. 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. ' A certificate
of title shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law. (Underscoring ours)
Respondents' application for registration of a parcel of land
already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack
against petitioners' title not permitted under the principle of
indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well settled that a Torrens
title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of
title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be
raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.[9] Hence,
whether or not respondents have the right to claim title over the
property in question is beyond the province of the instant
proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. It has
been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System
is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its
legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting on the 'mirador su casa' to avoid the possibility of losing his
land.[10] Fil-Estate v Trono
Where innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the
certificate of title, acquire rights over the property, courts cannot
disregard such rights and order the cancellation of the certificate.
Likewise time-settled is the doctrine that where innocent third
persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of title,
acquire rights over the property, courts cannot disregard such
rights and order the cancellation of the certificate. Such
cancellation would impair public confidence in the certificate of
title, for everyone dealing with property registered under the
Torrens System would have to inquire in every instance whether
the title has been regularly issue or nor. Estate of Yujuico v
Republic
39
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Section 96. Against whom action filed. If such action is brought to
recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any estate or
interest therein arising wholly through fraud, negligence, omission,
mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel, Register of Deeds, his
deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the performance of their
respective duties, the action shall be brought against the Register of
Deeds of the province or city where the land is situated and the National
Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought to recover for loss
or damage or for deprivation of land or of any interest therein arising
through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of person
other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other
employees of the Registry, such action shall be brought against the
Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and other person or persons,
as co-defendants. It shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in person or
by representative to appear and to defend all such suits with the aid of
the fiscal of the province or city where the land lies: Provided, however,
that nothing in this Decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of
any right of action which he may have against any person for such loss or
damage or deprivation without joining the National Treasurer as party
defendant. In every action filed against the Assurance Fund, the court
shall consider the report of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Civil Code, Art. 1456. If the property is acquired through mistake or
fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
comes.
An implied or constructive trust presupposes the existence of a
defrauded party who is the rightful owner of the disputed
property.
An implied or constructive trust presupposes the existence of a
defrauded party who is the rightful owner of the disputed
property, In the case at bar, aside from the fact that the petitioner
and its predecessor-in-interest never applied for a free patent
although the petitioner claims that it was entitled to the same, it
also did not allege the existence of any relationship, fiduciary or
otherwise, with the respondent which may justify the creation of
an implied trust. The respondent, therefore, could not have
committed fraud against the petitioner or its predecessor-in-
interest. Marcopper Mining Corporation v Garcia
Prescriptive period within which to file an action for
reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust is 10 years,
and 4 years, in cases of actual fraud.
There being no implied or constructive trust, the petitioner cannot
invoke the ten-year prescriptive period within which to file an
action for reconveyance. Thus, even assuming that the
respondent was indeed guilty of fraud in the procurement of the
free patent and the corresponding OCT in his name and that the
petitioner is the one entitled to the issuance of a patent, then
petitioner's action should have been filed within four (4) years
from the issuance of the respondent's OCT which was on October
23, 1973. Marcopper Mining Corporation v Garcia
Despite the indefeasiblity of a title, the law protects rightful
partys interest by allowing him to judicially seek reconveyance of
the property to him by reason of fraud or improper use of
technicalities, provided that the land has not been transferred to
a purchases in good faith.
While an inherently defective Torrens title may not ordinarily be
cancelled even after proof of its defect, the law nevertheless
safeguards the rightful party's interest in the titled land from fraud
and improper use of technicalities by allowing such party, in
appropriate cases, to judicially seek reconveyance to him of
whatever he has been deprived of as long as the land has not
been transferred or conveyed to a purchaser in good faith. (Pedro
Pascua, et al., vs. Mariano Gopuyoc et al., L-23197, May 31,
1977.) Municipality of Victorias v CA
40
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
The trustor has the right to enforce the trust, notwithstanding the
irrevocability of the Torrens title, and the trustee and his
successors-in-interest are bound to execute the deed of
reconveyance.
The Civil Code provides:
"Art. 1456. If the property is acquired through mistake or fraud,
the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
property comes."
Thus, it has been held that where the land is decreed in the name
of a person through fraud or mistake, such person is by operation
of law considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of
the persons from whom the property comes. The beneficiary shall
have the right to enforce the trust, notwithstanding the
irrevocability of the Torrens title and the trustee and his
successors-in-interest are bound to execute the deed of
reconveyance. (Pacheco vs. Arro, 85 Phil. 505; Escobar vs. Locsin,
74 Phil. 86). Municipality of Victorias v CA
What is an action for reconveyance?
However, an action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable
remedy granted to the rightful owner of land which has been
wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for
the purpose of compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the
land to him (Bilog, "Remedies Available to Aggrieved Parties As a
Consequence of Registration Under the Torrens System"; Property
Registration 1979; pp. 122-123). The prevailing rule in this
jurisdiction does not bar a landowner whose property was
wrongfully or erroneously registered under the Torrens System
from bringing an action, after one year from the issuance of the
decree, for the reconveyance of the property in question. Such an
action does not aim or purport to re-open the registration
proceeding and set aside the decree of registration, but only to
show that the person who secured the registration of the
questioned property is not the real owner thereof (Rodriguez v.
Toreno, 79 SCRA 357 [1977]). An ordinary civil action for
reconveyance does not seek to set aside the decree but respecting
the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review, seeks
to transfer or reconvey the land from the registered owner to the
rightful owner (Director of Lands, et al. v. Register of Deeds, et al.
92 Phil. 827 [1953]). Esconde v Barlongay
If the action is by reason of intrinsic fraud, it must be brought
within the period of one year from the issuance of decree of
registration.
Under the circumstances in the case at bar, it is apparent that
reconveyance is not the proper remedy. As earlier stated, there
was no proof of irregularity in the issuance of title, nor in the
proceedings incident thereto, nor was it established that fraud had
indeed intervened in the issuance of said title, and the period of
one year within which intrinsic fraud could be claimed had long
expired. Under similar conditions, the Court ruled that the land
should be adjudicated to the registered owner (Paterno, et al. v.
Salud, 118 Phil. 933-934 [1963]).
Esconde v Barlongay
The prescriptive period for filing of action for reconveyance does
not run against a person in possession of a land. It is
imprescriptible so long as he possesses the same.
We held that prescription cannot be invoked in an action for
reconveyance, which is, in effect, an action to quiet title against
the plaintiff therein who is in possession of the land in question.
The reason, We explained, is "that as lawful possessor and owner
of the Disputed Portion, her cause of action for reconveyance
which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to property in one's possession
is imprescriptible. Her undisturbed possession over a period of
fifty-two [52] years (48 years in this case) gave her a continuing
right to seek the aid of a Court of equity to determine the nature
of the adverse claim of a third party and the effect on her title."
Almarza v Arguelles
41
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
If ever prescription may be invoked, it may be said to have
commenced to run only from the time the possessor was made
aware of a claim adverse to his own.
We further stated that if ever prescription may be invoked, it may
be said to have commenced to run only from the time the
possessor was made aware of a claim adverse to his own. In the
case at bar, petitioner was made aware of such adverse claim only
upon service on her of the summons in Civil Case No. 11051. As
her action for reconveyance, or to quiet title was contained in her
counterclaim, the same cannot be said to have already
prescribed. Almarza v Arguelles
The action for reconveyance on the theory of trust might propser,
if at all, as against the trustees and provided that they still hold
the properties, but not as against third persons who do not
occupy the same fiduciary position.
Land Registration Act a decree of registration quiets title to the
land definitely, subject only to reopening on the ground of fraud,
upon petition of the party defrauded within a period of one year.
It seems, however, that the action is one for reconveyance, on the
theory that the original registered owners - the spouses Marcelo
Garcia and Alberta Zamora in regard to the first parcel, and
Lorenzo Mendoza in regard to the second - were the
administrators of those lands, and hence held them in a fiduciary
capacity. Even assuming that this was true, the disabilities
imposed by such relationship did not extend to the transferees of
said administrators, who acquired the land for value and claimed
adverse title in themselves. The action for reconveyance on the
theory of trust might prosper, if at all, as against the trustees and
provided they still hold the properties, but not as against third
persons who do not occupy the same fiduciary position.
Joaquin v Cojuangco
The general rule is that the prescription bars an action for
reconveyance. The exception to this rule is when the registered
owner of the land was never in possession of the disputed
property, and the party who has the better right, and is asking for
its reconveyance had always been in possession of the same.
The law thereby creates the obligation of the trustee to reconvey
the property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
Correlating Section 53, paragraph 3 of Presidential Decree No.
1529 and Article 1456 of the Civil Code with Article 1144(2) of the
Civil Code, supra, the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned
from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.
There is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in
an action for reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in
possession of the land to be reconveyed.[9]
In a series of cases,[10] this Court permitted the filing of an
action for reconveyance despite the lapse of ten years and
declared that said action, when based on fraud, is imprescriptible
as long as the land has not passed to an innocent purchaser for
value. But in all those cases including Vital vs. Anore[11] on which
the appellate court based its assailed decision, the common
factual backdrop was that the registered owners were never in
possession of the disputed property. Instead, it was the persons
with the better right or the legal owners of the land who had
always been in possession of the same. Thus, the Court allowed
the action for reconveyance to prosper in those cases despite the
lapse of more than ten years from the issuance of title to the land.
The exception was based on the theory that registration
proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud or for
enriching a person at the expense of another.[12] Saludares v
Dator
After lapse of one year, a decree of registration is no longer open
to review or attack although its issuance is attended with actual
fraud. But a party may still file an action for reconveyance as long
as the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser.
42
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
... The basic rule is that after the lapse of one (1) year, a decree
of registration is no longer open to review or attack although its
issuance is attended with actual fraud. This does not mean,
however, that the aggrieved party is without a remedy at law. If
the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for
value, an action for reconveyance is still available. The decree
becomes incontrovertible and can no longer be reviewed after one
(1) year from the date of the decree so that the only remedy of
the landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another's name is to bring an ordinary action in court
for reconveyance, which is an action in personam and is always
available as long as the property has not passed to an innocent
third party for value. If the property has passed into the hands of
an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an action for
damages. Heirs of Sanjorjo v Heirs of Quijangco
In an action for reconveyance, two facts must be alleged in the
complaint, namely, (1) that the plaintiff was the owner of the
land and (2) that the defendant had illegally disposed him of the
same. And the body of the pleading or complaint determines the
nature of an action.
An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property,
wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal
owner.[21] All that must be alleged in the complaint are two (2)
facts which, admitting them to be true, would entitle the plaintiff
to recover title to the disputed land, namely, (1) that the plaintiff
was the owner of the land and, (2) that the defendant had illegally
dispossessed him of the same.[22] The body of the pleading or
complaint determines the nature of an action, not its title or
heading.[23] In their complaint, the petitioners clearly asserted
that their predecessors-in-interest have long been the absolute
and exclusive owners of the lots in question and that they were
fraudulently deprived of ownership thereof when the private
respondents obtained free patents and certificates of title in their
names.[24] These allegations certainly measure up to the
requisite statement of facts to constitute an action for
reconveyance. Heirs of Sanjorjo v Heirs of Quijangco
Pursuant to Sec. 19(2) of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, the
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction:
a. in all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
of the property exceeds P20,000;
b. or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value exceeds
P50,000.
-Exception: actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the MetroTCs,
MuniTCs, MuniCTCs.
Being in the nature of actions for reconveyance or actions to
remove cloud on one's title, the applicable law to determine which
court has jurisdiction is Section 19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by
R.A. No. 7691, viz:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases.-- Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: x x x
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila, where such value
exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) except actions for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings,
original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;
x x x. Heirs of Concha v Spouses Lumosco
Actions for reconveyance of or cancellation of title to or to quiet
title over real property are actions that fall under the
classification of cases that involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein.
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for
reconveyance[44] of or for cancellation of title[45] to or to quiet
43
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
title[46] over real property are actions that fall under the
classification of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein."
In determining which court has jurisdiction, only the assessed
value of the property involved should be computed.
Petitioners' contention that the value of the trees cut in the
subject properties constitutes "any interest therein (in the subject
properties)" that should be computed in addition to the respective
assessed values of the subject properties is unavailing. Section
19(2) of B.P. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, is clear that the
RTC shall exercise jurisdiction "in all civil actions which involve the
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
where the assessed value of the property involved exceeds
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00)." It is true that the recovery of the value of the
trees cut from the subject properties may be included in the term
"any interest therein." However, the law is emphatic that in
determining which court has jurisdiction, it is only the assessed
value of the realty involved that should be computed.[54] In this
case, there is no dispute that the assessed values of the subject
properties as shown by their tax declarations are less than
P20,000.00. Clearly, jurisdiction over the instant cases belongs
not to the RTC but to the MTC. Heirs of Concha v Spouses
Lumosco
Issues on matters that are within the compass of special
proceedings cannot be brought and passed upon in an action for
reconveyance and damages.
On the other hand, petitioners are correct in alleging that the
issue regarding the impairment of legitime of Fortunato Doronio
must be resolved in an action for the settlement of estates of
spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. It may not be
passed upon in an action for reconveyance and damages. A
probate court, in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the best
forum to ventilate and adjudge the issue of impairment of legitime
as well as other related matters involving the settlement of
estate.[40]
An action for reconveyance with damages is a civil action, whereas
matters relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person
such as advancement of property made by the decedent, partake
of the nature of a special proceeding. Special proceedings require
the application of specific rules as provided for in the Rules of
Court.[41] Heirs of Doronio v Heirs of Doronio
When two certificates of title are issued to different persons
covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date
must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more
than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person
holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a
person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
But we agree with respondents that petitioner cannot rely on the
decision in LRC No. 142-A. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals,
even if a title had been issued to petitioner based on said decision,
his title would be of a later date than the title of respondents,
hence inefficacious and ineffective. This Court has ruled that,
when two certificates of title are issued to different persons
covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date
must prevail; and in case of successive registrations where more
than one certificate is issued over the same land, the person
holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a
person who relies on a subsequent certificate.[9] Antonio v
Santos
Prescriptive period for action for reconveyance begins to run from
the time of issuance of the original certificate of title. Registration
of real property is considered a constructive notice to all persons.
Note, however, should be taken of the established doctrine that
an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four
years from the discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed
44
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
to have taken place upon the issuance of the certificate of title
over the property. Registration of real property is considered a
constructive notice to all persons, thus, the four-year period shall
be counted therefrom.[12] It appears that OCT No. 108 was
issued to respondents by the Register of Deeds for Metro Manila
on May 20, 1977. From the time of registration of the land in the
name of respondents on May 20, 1977 to the filing of the
complaint on September 19, 1988, more than four years had
already elapsed. Hence, it cannot be denied that petitioner's
action had already prescribed. Antonio v Santos
A registration of transfer of any rights over a property, which is
declared invalid, does not vest any title. The Torren system does
not create or vets title where one does not have a rightful claim
over a real property. Thus, the decree of registration, even after
the lapse of one year, cannot attain the status of indefeasibility.
(And a reconvenyance may ensue)
As a result, the subsequent registration of the foreclosure sale
cannot transfer any rights over the mortgaged property to the
Spouses Espiritu. The registration of the foreclosure sale, herein
declared invalid, cannot vest tile over the mortgaged property.
The Torrens system does not create or vest title where one does
not have rightful claim over a real property. It only confirms and
records title already existing and vested. It does not permit one to
enrich oneself at the expense of another. Thus, the decree of
registration, even after the lapse of one year, cannot attain the
status of indefeasiblity. Heirs of Espiritu v Landrito
Exception: provided that the property had not been
transferred to an innocent purchase for value
Significantly, the records show that the property
mortgaged was purchased by the Spouses Espiritue and
had not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for
value. This means that an action for reconveyance may still
be availed of in this case. Heirs of Espiritu v Landrito
6. Action for Damages
If an action for reconveyance may no longer prosper because the
property had already been passed to an innocent purchaser for
value, the defrauded party may bring an action for damages
against those who caused the fraud. Such action prescribes in ten
years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
-If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust cannot
reach an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of the
defrauded party is to bring an action for damages against those
who caused the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of
the property. And it is now well- settled that such action
prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrent Title
over the property. Pino v CA
In order for an action for damages to prosper, the party
defrauded must be in good faith.
-We agree. Petitioner was not in good faith when he registered the
fake documents.
Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind
denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an
honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious
advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together
with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts
which render the transaction unconscientious." Ingusan v
Reyes
7. Action for Reversion
Action for Reversion distinguished from Action for Nullification of
Title
Heirs of Ambrocio Kionisala v. Heirs of Honorio Dacut[21]
distinguishes an action for reversion from an action for declaration
of nullity of free patents and certificates of title as follows:
45
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
An ordinary civil action for declaration of nullity of free patents
and certificates of title is not the same as an action for reversion.
The difference between them lies in the allegations as to the
character of ownership of the realty whose title is sought to be
nullified. In an action for reversion, the pertinent allegations in the
complaint would admit State ownership of the disputed land. xxx
On the other hand, a cause of action for declaration of nullity of
free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the
plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of
such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's
fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining
these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by
plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the
fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent
or certificate of title obtained therefor is consequently void ab
initio. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff
who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of
land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant.
Baguilan v CA
What is an action for reversion?
An action for reversion seeks to restore public land fraudulently
awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to
the mass of public domain.[17] This remedy is provided under
Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 141 (Public Land Act) which became
effective on December 1, 1936. Said law recognized the power of
the state to recover lands of public domain.
xxx
It is clear therefore that reversion suits were originally utilized to
annul titles or patents administratively issued by the Director of
the Land Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR .
Estate of Yujuico v Republic
Reversion is a proceeding by which the State seeks the return of
lands of the public domain or the improvements thereon through
the cancellation of private title erroneously or fraudulently issued
over it.[32] The one crucial element which sets it apart from all
other actions involving possession or title to property is the
positive averment in the complaint of state ownership of the
property in dispute. Figuracion v Libi
Reversion suits are proper in the following instances:
Pursuant to Section 124 of the Public Land Act, reversion suits are
proper in the following instances, to wit:
1. Alienations of land acquired under free patent or homestead
provisions in violation of Section 118, CA No. 141;
2. Conveyances made by non-Christians in violation of Section
120, CA No. 141; and
3. Alienations of lands acquired under CA No. 141 in favor of
persons not qualified under Sections 121, 122, and 123 of CA No.
141. Estate of Yujuico v Republic
An action for reversion is now covered by Rule 47 of the Rules of
Court. The two grounds for annulment are extrinsic fraud and lack
of jurisdiction, the prescriptive period of which are 4 years and
before it is barred by laches or estoppel, respectively.
When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on July
1, 1997, it incorporated Rule 47 on annulment of judgments or
final orders and resolutions of the RTCs. The two grounds for
annulment under Sec. 2, Rule 47 are extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction. If based on extrinsic fraud, the action must be filed
within four (4) years from its discovery, and if based on lack of
jurisdiction, before it is barred by laches or estoppel as provided
by Section 3, Rule 47. Thus, effective July 1, 1997, any action for
46
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
reversion of public land instituted by the Government was already
covered by Rule 47. Estate of Yujuico v Republic
An action for reversion is filed with the Court of Appeals, not with
the Regional Trial Court.
The instant Civil Case No. 01-0222 for annulment and cancellation
of Decree No. N-150912 and its derivative titles was filed on June
8, 2001 with the Paraaque City RTC. It is clear therefore that the
reversion suit was erroneously instituted in the Paraaque RTC
and should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The
proper court is the CA which is the body mandated by BP Blg. 129
and prescribed by Rule 47 to handle annulment of judgments of
RTCs. Estate of Yujuico v Republic
An action for reversion may be barred by reason of laches
or estoppel.
Assuming that the Paraaque RTC has jurisdiction over the
reversion case, still the lapse of almost three decades in filing the
instant case, the inexplicable lack of action of the Republic and the
injury this would cause constrain us to rule for petitioners. While it
may be true that estoppel does not operate against the state or its
agents,[20] deviations have been allowed.
xxx
Equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities when
as in this case, the lot was already alienated to innocent buyers
for value and the government did not undertake any act to
contest the title for an unreasonable length of time.
Republic v. Court of Appeals is reinforced by our ruling in Republic
v. Umali,[25] where, in a reversion case, we held that even if the
original grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same
through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had
become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect
the titles of innocent purchasers for value.
Considering that innocent purchaser for value Yujuico bought the
lot in 1974, and more than 27 years had elapsed before the action
for reversion was filed, then said action is now barred by laches.
While the general rule is that an action to recover lands of public
domain is imprescriptible, said right can be barred by laches or
estoppel. Section 32 of PD 1592 recognized the rights of an
innocent purchaser for value over and above the interests of the
government. Estate of Yujuico v Republic
Innocent purchasers for value encompasses even innocent
mortgagees.
Likewise protected are the rights of innocent mortgagees for
value, the PISO, Citibank, N.A., PDC, RCBC, PCIB, and DBP. Even
if the mortgagor's title was proved fraudulent and the title
declared null and void, such declaration cannot nullify the
mortgage rights of a mortgagee in good faith. Estate of
Yujuico v Republic
What is laches?
More on the issue of laches. Laches is the failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier. It
is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has
either abandoned or declined to assert it. Estate of Yujuico v
Republic
HABA TALAGA NG YUJUICO! POTEK! :)))
What should be alleged in a case for annulment of title?
In a case for annulment of title, the plaintiff must allege two
essential facts: (1) that plaintiff was the owner of the land, and
(2) that the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the
property. Absent either of these allegations, the plaintiff is
considered not the proper party to cause the cancellation of the
47
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
title of the defendant. Figuracion v Libi
The Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead is the
proper party which shall institute action for reversion.
Respondents having no real interest in the subject lot under their
Second Amended Complaint, they have no legal personality to file
the action for reversion of public land.[39] It is not merely a rule
of procedure but a requirement of law that reversion be instituted
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Section 101 of the
Public Land Act is categorical:
Section 101. All actions for the reversion to the government of
lands of the public domain or improvements thereon shall be
instituted by the Solicitor General or the officer acting in his stead,
in the proper courts, in the name of the Commonwealth [now
Republic] of the Philippines.
Figuracion v Libi
9. Cancellation of Title
What should be alleged in a case for annulment of title?
In a case for annulment of title, the plaintiff must allege two
essential facts: (1) that plaintiff was the owner of the land, and
(2) that the defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff of the
property. Absent either of these allegations, the plaintiff is
considered not the proper party to cause the cancellation of the
title of the defendant. Figuracion v Libi
Action for annulment of title should not be filed along with an
action for reconveyance where the case is not of two certificates
of titles issued to different persons.
Although respondent has the personality to ask for the annulment
of title, however, reconveyance is not proper in the case at bar
and it was error for the Court of Appeals to order petitioner to
reconvey the lot to respondent. The essence of an action for
reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as
incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the
property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a
better right. Considering that the land subject of the action
originated from a grant by the government, its cancellation is a
matter between the grantor and the grantee.[35] The ruling
nullifying the award of NHA in favor of Maranan has the effect of
nullifying the deed of sale executed between her and petitioner
andconsequently, the issuance of the certificate of title in her
name must be canceled. However, this will lead to the reversion of
the title back in the name petitioner and not to respondent who
has not yet acquired title over the property prior to the issuance
of Maranan's title. Thus, having affirmed the disqualification of
Maranan as a lot awardee and consequently canceling her title
over the lot in question, the Court of Appeals should have instead
ordered petitioner to award the lot to respondent and to proceed
with the execution of proper instruments to transfer said property
in the name of petitioner in accordance with its rules and
regulations. NHA v Pascual
10. Quieting of Title
Chapter 3. Quieting of Title, Civil Code
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in
truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may
be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such
cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon
title to real property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in
the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not
be in possession of said property.
48
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud
therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been
extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive
prescription.
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may
have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may
have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are
hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud
therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court
shall promulgated.
What is an action to quiet title?
An action for quieting of title is a remedy which may be availed of
only when by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding, which appears valid but is, in fact,
invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby
cast on the complainant's title to real property or any interest
therein.
Article 476 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or
any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may
be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
upon title to real property or any interest therein.
Further, Article 477[72] of the same Code mandates that in an
action to quiet title, the party bringing the action must have a
legal or, at least, an equitable title[73] to the real property
subject of the action and that the alleged cloud[74] on his title
must be shown to be in fact invalid. Verily, for an action to quiet
title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur,
namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable
title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and
(2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or
inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy.[75] Heirs of Diaz v Virata
An action to quiet title involves ownership of the land, with
possession as a mere attribute of ownership. The party filing such
action need not be in possession of said property. Tan v
Valdehuaza
An action to quiet title to property in the possession of the
plaintiff is imprescriptible. If at all, the period of prescriptions
begins to run against the possessor only from the time the
summons were served to him. The reason for such, being that the
undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to seek aid
of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title,
which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.
(1)The counterclaim of Felipe Faja for reconveyance to her of the
litigated property has not prescribed. It is an established rule that
an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is
imprescriptible. 10 Inasmuch as it is alleged in paragraph 3 of
Frial's complaint, that Felipa Faja has been in possession of the
property since 1945 up the present or for a period of 30 years,
her cause of action for reconveyance, which in effect seeks to
quiet her title to the property, falls within that rule. If at all, the
period of prescription began to run against Felipa Faja only from
49
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
the time she was served with copy of the complaint in 1975 giving
her notice that the property she was occupying was titled in the
name of Indalecio Frial. There is settled jurisprudence that one
who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner
thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for
the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a
continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and
determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its
effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who
is in possession. 11 No better situation can be conceived at the
moment for Us to apply this rule on equity than that of herein
petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was in possession of the
litigated property for no less than 30 years and was suddenly
confronted with a claim that the land she had been occupying and
cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third
person. We hold that in such a situation the right to quiet title to
the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of
title covering it, accrued only from the time the one in possession
was made aware of a claim adverse to his own, and it is only then
that the statutory period of prescription commences to run against
such possessor. Felipe v Faja
An action to quiet title is a quasi in rem proceeding.
Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they,
strictly speaking, in personam, but being against the person in
respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in
rem. (McDaniel v. McElvy, 108 So. 820 [1926].) The judgment in
such proceedings is conclusive only between the parties. Realty
Sales Enterprise v IAC
The statute of limitation (prescription) cannot be availed of as a
defense to an action to remove a cloud from title over property in
possession of the petitioner, the reason being, they may wait
until their possession is disturbed or their title is attacked before
they may take steps to vindicate their right.
In the same complaint, petitioners allege that recently private
respondents have disturbed their possession of the property by
surreptitiously constructing dikes. 8 The rule is that the petitioners
may wait until their possession is disturbed or their title is
attacked before they may take steps to vindicate their right. The
statute of limitation is not available as a defense to an action to
remove a cloud from title over property in possession of the
petitioners. Mamadsul v Moson
In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff must have legal or
equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the
subject matter of the action. But it does not require that the
person seeking to quiet his title is the registered owner of the
property in question.
The trial court held that in an action to quiet title the plaintiff
"must" have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject matter of the action." 9 It
interpreted legal title to mean registered ownership and equitable
title to mean beneficial ownership.
[But it] is not necessary that the person seeking to quiet his title
is the registered owner of the property in question.
In Chacon, 10 this Court considered the action to be one for
quieting of title where the plaintiffs alleged ownership and actual
possession since time immemorial of the property in question by
themselves and through their predecessors-in-interest, while
defendants secured a certificate of title over said property through
fraud, misrepresentation and deceit. Mamadsul v Moson
What is title in an action to quiet title?
Thus, "title" to property does not necessarily mean the original
transfer certificate of title. It can connote acquisitive prescription
by possession in the concept of an owner thereof. 11 Indeed, one
who has an equitable right or interest in the property may also file
50
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
an action to quiet title under the law. Mamadsul v Moson
11. Criminal Prosecution
J. Cadastral Registration Proceedings
Section 35. Cadastral Survey preparatory to filing of petition.
(a) When in the opinion of the President of the Philippines public interest
so requires that title to any unregistered lands be settled and
adjudicated, he may to this end direct and order the Director of Lands to
cause to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and the plans
and technical description thereof prepared in due form.
(b) Thereupon, the Director of Lands shall give notice to persons claiming
any interest in the lands as well as to the general public, of the day on
which such survey will begin, giving as fully and accurately as possible
the description of the lands to be surveyed. Such notice shall be punished
once in the Official Gazette, and a copy of the notice in English or the
national language shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the bulletin
board of the municipal building of the municipality in which the lands or
any portion thereof is situated. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to
the mayor of such municipality as well as to the barangay captain and
likewise to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Bayan
concerned.
(c) The Geodetic Engineers or other employees of the Bureau of Lands in
charge of the survey shall give notice reasonably in advance of the date
on which the survey of any portion of such lands is to begin, which notice
shall be posted in the bulletin board of the municipal building of the
municipality or barrio in which the lands are situated, and shall mark the
boundaries of the lands by monuments set up in proper places thereon. It
shall be lawful for such Geodetic Engineers and other employees to enter
upon the lands whenever necessary for the purposes of such survey or
the placing of monuments.
(d) It shall be the duty of every person claiming an interest in the lands
to be surveyed, or in any parcel thereof, to communicate with the
Geodetic Engineer upon his request therefor all information possessed by
such person concerning the boundary lines of any lands to which he
claims title or in which he claims any interest.
(e) Any person who shall willfully obstruct the making of any survey
undertaken by the Bureau of Lands or by a licensed Geodetic Engineer
duly authorized to conduct the survey under this Section, or shall
maliciously interfere with the placing of any monument or remove such
monument, or shall destroy or remove any notice of survey posted on the
land pursuant to law, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one
thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Section 36. Petition for registration. When the lands have been surveyed or
plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall
institute original registration proceedings by filing the necessary petition in the
Court of First Instance of the place where the land is situated against the
holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part thereof,
stating in substance that public interest requires that the title to such lands be
settled and adjudicated and praying that such titles be so settled and
adjudicated:
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by
a plan thereof, and may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full
notice to the occupants of the lands and to all persons who may claim any right
or interest therein.
Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or occupied by different
persons, the plan shall indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as
accurately as possible. The parcels shall be known as "lots" and shall on the plan
filed in the case be given separate numbers by the Director of Lands, which
numbers shall be known as "cadastral lot numbers". The lots situated within
each municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered consecutively
beginning with number "one", and only one series of numbers shall be used for
that purpose in each municipality. However in cities or townsites, a designation
of the landholdings by blocks and lot numbers may be employed instead of the
designation by cadastral lot numbers.
The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after final decision has been
entered decreasing the registration thereof, except by order of court. Future
subdivisions of any lot shall be designated by a letter or letters of the alphabet
added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the respective subdivisions
pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be known as its
51
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
"cadastral letter": Provided, however, that the subdivisions of cities or townsites
may be designated by blocks and lot numbers.
Section 37. Answer to petition in cadastral proceedings. Any claimant in
cadastral proceedings, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear before
the court by himself or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall
file an answer on or before the date of initial hearing or within such further time
as may be allowed by the court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the
claimant or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall state
whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the
spouse and the date of marriage, his nationality, residence and postal address,
and shall also contain:
(a) The age of the claimant;
(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as appearing on the
plan filed in the case by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot
numbers, as the case may be;
(c) The name of the barrio and municipality in which the lots are
situated;
(d) The names and addresses of the owners of the adjoining lots so far as
known to the claimant;
(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no
express grant of the land by the government to him or to his
predecessors-in-interest, the answer shall state the length of time he has
held such possession and the manner in which it has been acquired, and
shall also state the length of time, as far as known, during which the
predecessors, if any, held possession;
(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the land, the
answer shall fully set forth the interest claimed by him and the time and
manner of his acquisition;
(g) if the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value;
and
(h) The encumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the names of adverse
claimants, as far as known.
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the case may occur at any
convenient place within the province in which the lands are situated and shall be
conducted, and orders for default and confessions entered, in the same manner
as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall be governed by the same
rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees
awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and
such decrees shall be the basis for issuance of original certificates of title in
favor of said persons and shall have the same effect as certificates of title
granted on application for registration of land under ordinary land registration
proceedings.
A cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem
A Cadastral proceeding is a proceeding in rem and against everybody,
including the respondents herein, who are deemed included in the
general order of default entered in the case. Rodil v Benedicto
Cadastral proceedings, like ordinary registration proceedings, are
proceedings in rem, and are governed by the usual rules of practice,
procedure and evidence. A cadastral decree and a certificate of title are
issued only after the applicants prove all the requisite jurisdictional facts:
that they are entitled to the claimed lot; that all parties are heard; and
that evidence is considered. Tan Sing Pan v Republic
The right for the issuance of writ of possession is imprescriptible.
The better rule, however, is that enunciated in the case of Manlapas and
Tolentino vs. Lorente, 14 which has not yet been abandoned, that the
right of the applicant or a subsequent purchaser to ask for the issuance
of a writ of possession of the land never prescribes. Rodil v Benedicto
Publication is essential even in cadastral cases.
In Director of Lands, et al. v. Benitez, et al.,[5] the Court categorically
stated that publication is essential to establish jurisdiction in land
registration and cadastral cases, without which the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction thereon or obtain any authority to proceed therewith.
xxx
52
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Publication of course is one of the essential bases of the jurisdiction of
the court in land registration and cadastral cases, and the attempt that
was here made to incorporate lot No. 40 into the cadastral was futile.
Before a cadastral survey can be amended so as to include land in which
no publication has been made, new publication is necessary, - a step
essential to the protection of persons interested in the property which is
intended to be included. Tan Sing Pan v Republic
What is Cadastral System/proceeding? What is its purpose?
Under the Cadastral System, pursuant to initiative on the part of the
Government, titles for all the land within a stated area, are adjudicated
whether or not the people living within this district desire to have titles
issued. The purpose, as stated in section one of the Cadastral Act (No.
2259), is to serve the public interests, by requiring that the titles to any
lands "be settled and adjudicated." Tan Sing Pan v Republic
How is a cadastral proceeding conducted?
Admitting that such compulsory registration of land and such excessive
interference with private property constitutes due process of law and that
the Acts providing for the same are constitutional, a question not here
raised, yet a study of the law indicates that many precautions are taken
to guard against injustice. The proceedings are initiated by a notice of
survey. When the lands have been surveyed and plotted, the Director of
Lands, represented by the Attorney General, files a petition in court
praying that the titles to the lands named be settled and adjudicated.
Notice of the filing of the petition is then published twice in successive
issues of the Official Gazette in both the English and Spanish languages.
All persons interested are given the benefit of assistance by competent
officials and are informed of their rights. A trial is had. "All conflicting
interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees awarded in favor
of the persons entitled to the lands or the various parts thereof, and such
decrees, when final, shall be the bases of original certificates of title in
favor of said persons." (Act No. 2259, Sec. 11.) Aside from this, the
commotion caused by the survey and a trial affecting ordinarily many
people, together with the presence of strangers in the community, should
serve to put all those affected on their guard. Tan Sing Pan v
Republic
After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken:
a. Adjudication of ownership in favor of one of the claimants
b. Declaration by the Court that the decree is final and its order
for the issuance of the certificate of title by the Chief of the
Land Registration Office (LRA)
c. Issuance of decree by the Chief Surveyor of the General Land
Registration Office. (LRA)
After trial in a cadastral case, three actions are taken. The first
adjudicates ownership in favor of one of the claimants. This constitutes
the decision - the judgment - the decree of the court, and speaks in a
judicial manner. The second action is the declaration by the court that
the decree is final and its order for the issuance of the certificates of title
by the Chief of the Land Registration Office. Such order is made if within
thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the decision no appeal is
taken from the decision. This again is judicial action, although to a less
degree than the first.
The third and last action devolves upon the General Land Registration
Office. This office has been instituted "for the due effectuation and
accomplishment of the laws relative to the registration of land."
(Administrative Code of 1917, Sec. 174.) An official found in the office,
known as the chief surveyor, has as one of his duties "to prepare final
decrees in all adjudicated cases." (Administrative Code of 1917, Sec.
177.) This latter decree contains the technical description of the land and
may not be issued until a considerable time after the promulgation of the
judgment. The form of the decree used by the General Land Registration
Office concludes with the words: "Witness, the Honorable (name of the
judge), on this the (date)." The date that is used as authority for the
issuance of the decree is the date when, after hearing the evidence, the
trial court decreed the adjudication and registration of the land. Tan
Sing Pan v Republic
53
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
The judicial decree when final is the basis for the certificate of title. The
date of the judgment begins the running of the time for the
interposition of a motion for a new trial or for the perfection of an
appeal to the Supreme Court.
The judgment in a cadastral survey, including the rendition of the
decree, is a judicial act. As the law says, the judicial decree when final is
the base of the certificate of title. The issuance of the decree by the Land
Registration Office is ministerial act. The date of the judgment, or more
correctly stated, the date on which the defeated party receives a copy of
the decision, begins the running of the time for the interposition of a
motion for a new trial or for the perfection of an appeal to the Supreme
Court. The date of the title prepared by the Chief Surveyor is
unimportant, for the adjudication has taken place and all that is left to be
performed is the mere formulation of the technical description. If an
unknown individual could wait possibly years until the day before a
surveyor gets around to transcribing a technical description of a piece of
land, the defeated party could just as reasonably expect the same
consideration for his appeal. As a matter of fact, the so-called unknown is
a party just as much as the known oppositor for notice is to all the world,
and the decree binds all the world. Tan Sing Pan v Republic
The filing of an answer or claim with the cadastral court is equivalent to
an application for registration of title
As petitioners' themselves concede,[10] the filing of an answer or claim
with the cadastral court is equivalent to an application for registration of
title to real property. It is thus an action in rem[11] and the land
registration court acquires jurisdiction over the res by service of
processes in the manner prescribed by the statute. Tan Sing Pan v
Republic
K. Certificate of Title
Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment
directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within
fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner
to issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The clerk
of court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies
of the judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to
issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a
certificate stating that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor
appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be
prepared the decree of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the
corresponding original certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a
true copy of the decree of registration. The decree of registration shall be signed
by the Commissioner, entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission.
The original of the original certificate of title shall also be signed by the
Commissioner and shall be sent, together with the owner's duplicate certificate,
to the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated for
entry in his registration book.
Section 40. Entry of Original Certificate of Title. Upon receipt by the Register of
Deeds of the original and duplicate copies of the original certificate of title the
same shall be entered in his record book and shall be numbered, dated, signed
and sealed by the Register of Deeds with the seal of his office. Said certificate of
title shall take effect upon the date of entry thereof. The Register of Deeds shall
forthwith send notice by mail to the registered owner that his owner's duplicate
is ready for delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.
Section 41. Owner's duplicate certificate of title. The owner's 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
owner's duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the co-
owners 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 any 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.
Section 42. Registration Books. The original copy of the original certificate of
title shall be filed in the Registry of Deeds. The same shall be bound in
consecutive order together with similar certificates of title and shall constitute
54
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
the registration book for titled properties.
Section 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. The subsequent certificate of 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 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.
Section 44. Statutory liens affecting title. Every registered owner receiving a
certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every subsequent
purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good
faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said
certificate and any of the following encumbrances which may be subsisting,
namely:
First. Liens, claims or rights arising or existing under the laws and
Constitution of the Philippines which are not by law required to appear of
record in the Registry of Deeds in order to be valid against subsequent
purchasers or encumbrancers of record.
Second. Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within two years
immediately preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by an
innocent purchaser for value, without prejudice to the right of the
government to collect taxes payable before that period from the
delinquent taxpayer alone.
Third. Any public highway or private way established or recognized by
law, or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof, if the certificate
of title does not state that the boundaries of such highway or irrigation
canal or lateral thereof have been determined.
Fourth. Any disposition of the property or limitation on the use thereof by
virtue of, or pursuant to, Presidential Decree No. 27 or any other law or
regulations on agrarian reform.
Section 45. Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate. Every
certificate of title shall set forth the full names of all persons whose interests
make up the full ownership in the whole land, including their civil status, and the
names of their respective spouses, if married, as well as their citizenship,
residence and postal address. If the property covered belongs to the conjugal
partnership, it shall be issued in the names of both spouses.
Section 46. General incidents of registered land. Registered land shall be
subject to such burdens and incidents as may arise by operation of law. Nothing
contained in this decree shall in any way be construed to relieve registered land
or the owners thereof from any rights incident to the relation of husband and
wife, landlord and tenant, or from liability to attachment or levy on execution, or
from liability to any lien of any description established by law on the land and
the buildings thereon, or on the interest of the owner in such land or buildings,
or to change the laws of descent, or the rights of partition between co-owners,
or the right to take the same by eminent domain, or to relieve such land from
liability to be recovered by an assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankcruptcy
under the laws relative to preferences, or to change or affect in any way other
rights or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land, except as
otherwise provided in this Decree.
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title shall
not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or canceled
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
Section 49. Splitting, or consolidation of titles. A registered owner of several
distinct parcels of land embraced in and covered by a certificate of title desiring
in lieu thereof separate certificates, each containing one or more parcels, may
file a written request for that purpose with the Register of Deeds concerned, and
the latter, upon the surrender of the owner's duplicate, shall cancel it together
with its original and issue in lieu thereof separate certificates as desired. A
registered owner of several distinct parcels of land covered by separate
certificates of title desiring to have in lieu thereof a single certificate for the
55
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
whole land, or several certificates for the different parcels thereof, may also file
a written request with the Register of Deeds concerned, and the latter, upon the
surrender of the owner's duplicates, shall cancel them together with their
originals, and issue in lieu thereof one or separate certificates as desired.
The registered owner is entitled to possession of the owners duplicate
of title.
In a decided case, this Court has already held that: the owner of the land
in whose favor and in whose name said land is registered and inscribed in
the certificate of title has a more preferential right to the possession of
the owner's duplicate than one whose name does not appear in the
certificate and has yet to establish his right to the possession thereof.
Reyes v Reyes
An original certificate of title does not establish the time of the
acquisition of the property. Rather it merely confirms a pre-existing
title.
We should not overlook the fact that the title to said property was not a
transfer certificate of title, but an original one, issued in accordance with
a decree which, pursuant to law, merely confirms a pre-existing title. 14
Said original certificate of title does not establish, therefore, the time of
acquisition of the Paraaque property by the registered owner thereof.
- Ponce De Leon v Rehabilitation Finance Corp.
Only the claims and liens, except those mentioned by law as existing,
noted on the certificate of title shall be imposed and held against the
subject land of its registered owner receiving the certificate or its
subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith.
Thus, under Section 44 of P.D. 1529, every registered owner receiving a
certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and every
subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for
value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances
except those noted on the certificate and any of the encumbrances which
may be subsisting, and enumerated in the law. Under said provision,
claims and liens of whatever character, except those mentioned by law as
existing, against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are
cut off by such certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so
issued binds the whole world, including the government. National
Grains Authority v IAC
Exception: where a person obtains a certificate of title to a land
belonging to another and he has full knowledge of the rights of
the true owner.2
The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a
certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has full
knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is then considered
as guilty of fraud and he may be compelled to transfer the land to
the defrauded owner so long as the property has not passed to
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value (Angeles vs. Sania,
66 Phil. 444 [1938]). National Grains Authority v IAC
Liens, claims and encumbrances annotated on previous certificates of
title are carried over to the new transfer of certificates of title.
This is so because any lien annotated on previous certificates of title
should be incorporated in or carried over to the new transfer certificates
of title. Such lien is inseparable from the property as it is a right in rem,
a burden on the property whoever its owner may be. It subsists
notwithstanding a change in ownership; in short, the personality of the
owner is disregarded.[16] As emphasized earlier, the provision on
automatic membership was annotated in the Certificate of Title and made
a condition in the Deed of Transfer in favor of PADCOM. Consequently, it
is bound by and must comply with the covenant. Padcom v Ortigas
A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally.
We agree with the CA that OCT No. P-6176 remains valid. The issue of
the validity of title (e.g. whether or not it was issued fraudulently or in
breach of trust) can only be assailed in an action expressly instituted for
2
Knowledge is equivalent to registration. See voluntary and involuntary
dealings.
56
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
that purpose.[31] A certificate of title cannot be attacked collaterally.
Ingusan v Reyes
Certificate of Title is the best proof of ownership of land
The fact that the subject real property was registered under the Torrens
System of registration in the name of respondent MMPCI under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 301151 by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City on
June 14, 1983, makes the instant petition all the more dismissible,
considering that the best proof of ownership of a piece of land is the
Certificate of Title. Halili v CIR
A decision in a land registration proceeding decreeing a land to the
applicant need not be enforced by him for the issuance of the title. It is
not barred by prescription or laches. The obligation to promulgate and
enforce the decision lies within the duties of the LRA.
Despite the invocation by the OSG of these two cases, there
exists a more general but definite jurisprudential rule that favors
Nillas and bolsters the rulings of the lower courts. The rule is that
"neither laches nor the statute of limitations applies to a decision
in a land registration case."[12]
xxx
The provision [Section 39, PD 1529] lays down the procedure that
interposes between the rendition of the judgment and the issuance of the
certificate of title. No obligation whatsoever is imposed by Section 39 on
the prevailing applicant or oppositor even as a precondition to the
issuance of the title. The obligations provided in the Section are levied on
the land court (that is to issue an order directing the Land Registration
Commissioner to issue in turn the corresponding decree of registration),
its clerk of court (that is to transmit copies of the judgment and the order
to the Commissioner), and the Land Registration Commissioner (that is
to cause the preparation of the decree of registration and the transmittal
thereof to the Register of Deeds). All these obligations are ministerial on
the officers charged with their performance and thus generally beyond
discretion of amendment or review.
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. Neither the failure of such applicant to follow
up with said authorities can. The ultimate goal of our land registration
system is geared towards the final and definitive determination of real
property 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.
Clearly, the peculiar procedure provided in the Property Registration Law
from the time decisions in land registration cases become final is
complete in itself and does not need to be filled in. From another
perspective, 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. Republic v Nillas
1. Indefeasibility
Indefeasibility of title does not operate on titles issued over
properties of public domain classified as inalienable and not
agricultural.
It was premature for the trial court to rule on whether or not the
titles based on the patents awarded to the private respondents
have become indefeasible. It is well settled that a certificate of
title is void when it covers property of public domain classified as
forest or timber and mineral lands. Any title issued on non-
disposable lots even in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for
value, shall be cancelled. Lepanto v Dumyung
Certificate of title serves as an evidence of an indefeasible title
over a property
In Eduarte vs. Court of Appeals,[5] the Court reiterated the
hornbook principle that "a certificate of title serves as evidence of
an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein." Caraan v CA
57
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
2. Prescription
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to
registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
No person may acquire title to a registered land by prescription or
adverse possession
Defendants', now petitioners', position is untenable, the
established rule being that one cannot acquire title to a registered
land by prescription or adverse possession. Thus, in the same
case of Tuason v. Bolaos, supra, this Court reiterated this
principle when it held:
". . . Nor could title to that land in derogation of that of plaintiff,
the registered owner, be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. (Section 46, Act No. 496). Adverse, notorious and
continuous possession under claim of ownership for the period
fixed by law is ineffective against a Torrens title. (Valiente vs.
Judge of CFI of Tarlac, etc., 45 Off Gaz., Supp. 9, p. 43) and it is
likewise settled that the right to secure possession under a decree
of registration does not prescribe. (Francisco vs. Cruz, 43 Off
Gaz., 5105, 5109-5110) A recent decision of this Court on this
point is that rendered in the case of Jose Alcantara, et al. vs.
Mariano, et al., 92 Phil. 796. . . ." Urbano Javier v
Concepcion
Exception: barred by laches
". . . All of these transfer(s) from Zacarias Ciscar to his
heirs, to Roque Sanchez and to defendant Andres
Gamponia, acts which covered a period of 37 years would
all have to be undone and the respective rights and
obligations of the parties affected adjusted, unless the
defense is sustained." 25
This circumstance obtaining in the Mejia de Lucas case is
not present in the case at bar. Here, there are no
intervening rights of third persons which may be affected
or prejudiced by a decision directing the return of Lot No.
12 to plaintiffs-respondents. Hence, the equitable defense
of laches will not also apply as against the registered
owners in this case. Urbano Javier v Concepcion
Exception to the exception: possession is by
mere tolerance
To start with, the lower court found that
petitioners' possession of the subject lot was
merely at the tolerance of its former lawful
owner. In this connection, Bishop vs. Court
of Appeals[29] teaches that if the claimant's
possession of the land is merely tolerated by
its lawful owner, the latter's right to recover
possession is never barred by laches:
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
petitioner's 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. (Emphasis supplied).
Ragudo v Fabella
3. Collateral Attack
58
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Certificate of title cannot be collaterally attacked. The issue of
validity of title must be instituted in direct attack which is
expressly instituted for that purpose.
In the present petition, the Union seeks from respondent MMPCI
the recovery of the subject property. It is evident that the
objective of such claim is to nullify the title of private respondent
to the property in question, which thereby challenges the
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. This is
apparently a collateral attack which is not permitted under the
principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens Title. It is well settled that
a Torrens Title cannot be collaterally attacked. The issue on the
validity of title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can
only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose.
Hence, whether or not petitioners have the right to claim
ownership of the land in question is beyond the province of the
instant proceeding. Halili v CIR
An application for registration of a parcel of land already covered
by a Torrens title is a collateral attack
Respondents' application for registration of a parcel of land
already covered by a Torrens title is actually a collateral attack
against petitioners' title not permitted under the principle of
indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It is well settled that a Torrens
title cannot be collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of
title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued, can only be
raised in an action expressly instituted for the purpose.[9] Hence,
whether or not respondents have the right to claim title over the
property in question is beyond the province of the instant
proceeding. That should be threshed out in a proper action. It has
been invariably stated that the real purpose of the Torrens System
is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its
legality. Once a title is registered, the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting on the 'mirador su casa' to avoid the possibility of losing his
land.[10] Fil-Estate v Trono
Title over a property can be collaterally attacked, not certificate
of title. A title is the ownership which is represented by the
document, certificate of title. By certificate of title, it refers to the
document issued by the Register of Deeds.
What cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and
not the title. The certificate referred to is that document issued by
the Register of Deeds known as the Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT). By title, the law refers the ownership which is represented
by that document. Petitioner apparently confuses certificate with
title. Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens
system does not mean that ownership thereof can no longer be
disputed. Ownership is different from a certificate of title.
Erasusta v CA
When is an action an attack on a title? When is it direct? When is
it collateral?
When is an action an attack on a title? It is when the object of the
action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the
judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is
direct when the object of an action or proceeding is to annul or set
aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other
hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless
made as an incident thereof. Heirs of Diaz v Virata
L. Reconstitution of Title
PD 1529
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case
of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title, due notice
under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the
Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as
the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or
destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a
new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn
statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the
59
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it
is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects
be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall
thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
A petition for reconstitution of title does not confirm or adjudicate
ownership over the property covered by the reconstituted title. Thus, a
writ of possession may not be issued pursuant thereto.
In a land registration case, a writ of possession may be issued
only pursuant to a decree of registration in an 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." (Lucero v. Loot, G.R. No. L-16995, October 28, 1968, 25 SCRA
687; Marcelo v. Hon. Mencias, L-15609, April 29, 1960; Demorar v. Hon.
Ibaez and Paras, G.R. No. L-7595, May 21, 1955, 97 Phil. 72). It cannot
however, be issued in a petition for reconstitution of an allegedly lost or
destroyed certificate of title. Reconstitution does not confirm or
adjudicate ownership over the property covered by the reconstituted title
as in original land registration proceedings where, in the latter, a writ of
possession may be issued to place the applicant-owner in possession.
Serra v CA
What is the purpose of reconstitution of title?
The purpose of the reconstitution of any document, book or record is to
have the same reproduced, after observing the procedure prescribed by
law in the same form they were when the loss or destruction occurred.
The reconstitution of certificates of title should be made, as just stated,
in the same form and exactly as they were at the time they were lost or
destroyed, . . . (Gov't. of the Philippine Islands v. Abada, 48 O.G., p.
1872, April 1952). A person who seeks a reconstitution of a certificate of
title over a property he does not actually possess cannot, by a mere
motion for the issuance of a writ of possession, which is summary in
nature, deprive the actual occupants of possession thereof. Possession
and/or ownership of the property should be threshed out in a separate
proceeding. Serra v CA
In reconstitution of title, actual and personal notice must be served to
actual owners and possessors of the property.
Private respondents argue that the herein petitioners are bound by the
order granting reconstitution because the reconstitution proceedings was
heard after notices were sent to alleged boundary owners and the
petition was published in the Official Gazette. However, the petitioner
who were in actual possession of the properties were not notified. Notice
by publication is not sufficient as regards actual possessors of the
property. In the case of Alabang Development v. Valenzuela, No. 54094,
August 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 277, We held that in petitions for
reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the lands
involved must be duly served with actual and personal notice of the
petition. Serra v CA
A reconstituted title does not attain finality and may be attacked any
time if no such original title in facts exists or that there is an earlier
valid certificate of title in the name and in the possession of another
person/s.
Thus, if no such original title in fact exists, the reconstituted title is a
nullity and the order for its reconstitution does not become final because
the court rendering the order has not acquired jurisdiction. It may be
attacked at any time. The same rule applies if in fact there is an earlier
valid certificate of title in the name and in the possession of another
person/s.
"The Court stresses once more that lands already covered by duly issued
existing Torrens titles (which become incontrovertible upon the expiration
of one year from their issuance under Section 38 of the Land Registration
Act) cannot be the subject of petitions for reconstitution of allegedly lost
or destroyed titles filed by third parties without first securing by final
judgment the cancellation of such existing titles. . . . The courts simply
60
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
have no jurisdiction over petitions by such third parties for reconstitution
of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already covered by
duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered owners.
The very concept of stability and indefeasibility of titles covered under
the Torrens System of Registration rules out as anathema the issuance of
two certificates of title over the same land to two different holders
thereof. A fortiori, such proceedings for 'reconstitution' without actual
notice to the duly registered owners and holders of Torrens titles to the
land are null and void." (Alabang Development v. Valenzuela, supra.)
Serra v CA
The Office of Solicitor General need not be notified and heard in a
proceeding for issuance of a new duplicate certificate of title in lieu of
lost copy.
Nothing in the law, however, requires that the Office of the Solicitor
General be notified and heard in proceeding for the issuance of an
owner's duplicate certificate of title. In contrast, 23 of the same law,
involving original registration proceedings, specifically mentions the
Solicitor General as among those who must be notified of the petition.
Similarly, 36 provides that the petition for registration in cadastral
proceedings must be filed by the Solicitor General, in behalf of the
Director of Lands. Republic v CA and Yupangco
1. Judicial Reconstituion
The sources for the reconstitution of title as provided under
Section 3 of RA 26 should be made in hierarchy. Presentment of
any of the sources as enumerated, absent the existence of the
other preferred sources as enumerated, is sufficient.
When respondents filed the petition for reconstitution, they
submitted in support thereof the owner's duplicate certificate of
title, real estate tax receipts and tax declaration. Plainly, the same
should have more than sufficed as sources for the reconstitution
pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 26 which explicitly mandates that
the reconstitution shall be made following the hierarchy of sources
as enumerated by law. In addition, Section 12 of the same law
requires that the petition shall be accompanied with a plan and
technical description of the property only if the source of the
reconstitution is Section 3(f) of RA No. 26. Thus:
Section 12. ... Provided, That in case the reconstitution is to be
made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2(f) or 3(f)
of this Act, the petition shall further be accompanied with a plan
and technical description of the property duly approved by the
Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified
copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title
covering the same property.[29]
Since respondents' source of reconstitution is the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, there is no need for the reconstituting
officer to require the submission of the plan, much less deny the
petition on the ground that the submitted plan appears to be
spurious. By enumerating the hierarchy of sources to be used for
the reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give more weight
and preference to the owner's duplicate certificate of title over the
other enumerated sources. Severino Manotok v Heirs of
Barque
The reconstitution would not be a collateral attack on a title
illegally issued.
The reconstitution would not constitute a collateral attack on
petitioners' title which was irregularly and illegally issued in the
first place.[43] As pertinently held in Dolfo v. Register of Deeds
for the Province of Cavite:[44]
The rule that a title issued under the Torrens System is presumed
valid and, hence, is the best proof of ownership of a piece of land
does not apply where the certificate itself is faulty as to its
purported origin. Severino Manotok v Heirs of Barque
61
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Reconstitution under RA 26 presupposes that the property whose
title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under
the Torrens registration.
Republic Act No. 26, entitled "An Act Providing a Special Procedure
for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title Lost or
Destroyed", approved on September 25, 1946, lays down the
procedure by which previously issued but lost or destroyed
certificates of title may be reconstituted. As the title of the law
suggests, it presupposes that the property whose title is sought to
be reconstituted has already been brought under the provisions of
the Torrens System, Act 496.[10] Cabello v Republic
Petition for JUDICIAL reconstitution of title are filed on Regional
Trial Courts.
Republic Act No. 26 confers jurisdiction or authority on the Court
of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) to hear and decide
petitions for judicial reconstitution. It provides the special
requirements and procedure that must be followed before the
court can properly act, assume and acquire jurisdiction or
authority over the petition and grant the reconstitution prayed for.
Cabello v Republic
Procedure for reconstitution of title under RA 26. Procedural and
documentary requirements are mandatory.
The petition for reconstitution must allege certain specific
jurisdictional facts, the notice of hearing must be published in the
Official Gazette and posted in particular places and the same sent
or notified to specified persons.[11] Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26
set forth the contents of the petition and lay down the procedure
to be followed therefor, as follows:
SECTION 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated
in sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e) and/or 3(f) of
this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of First Instance, by
the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an
interest in the property. The petition shall state or contain, among
other things, the following: (a) that the owner's duplicate of the
certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no co-
owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or, if
any had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed; (c)
the location, area and boundaries of the property; (d) the nature
and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which do
not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses
of the owners of such buildings or improvements; (e) the names
and addresses of the occupants or persons in possession of the
property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons
who may have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed
description of the encumbrances, if any, affecting the property;
and (g) a statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting
the property have been presented for registration, or, if there be
any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet.
All the documents, or authenticated copies thereof, to be
introduced in evidence in support of the petition for reconstitution
shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That
in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in section 2(f) of 3(f) of this Act, the petition shall be
further accompanied with a plan and technical description of the
property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office, or with a certified copy of the description
taken from a prior certificate of title covering the same property.
[Emphasis supplied.]
SECTION 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed
under the preceding section, to be published, at the expense of
the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette,
and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building
and of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which
the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of
hearing. The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be
sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at the expense of the
petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is
62
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
known, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said
notice shall state, among other things, the number of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered
owner, the names of the occupants or persons in possession of
the property, the owners of the adjoining properties and all other
interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the
property, and the date on which all persons having any interest
therein must appear and file their claim or objections to the
petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the
publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the
court.
The documentary requirements and procedure are mandatory and
must be strictly complied with before the court can act on a
petition for reconstitution and grant the remedy sought.
Otherwise, the proceedings will be utterly void.[12] Cabello v
Republic
If the source of reconstitution is sec. 2 (f) of RA 26, petition must
be accompanied by a plan and technical description of the
property duly approved by the Chief of the LRA, or with a certified
copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title
covering the same property, pursuant to Sec. 12 of the same Act.
As can be seen from the foregoing text in relation to Sec. 12 of RA
26, in case the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources
enumerated in Sec. 2(f), the petition shall be further accompanied
by a plan and technical description of the property duly approved by
the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, or with a certified
copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title covering
the same property. This requirement does not exist if the source of
the reconstitution is Sec. 2(d), although as worded, it must be
shown that an original certificate of title was indeed issued pursuant
to the very decree of registration presented as basis for
reconstitution. Cabello v Republic
2. Administrative Constitution
The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for
ADMINISTRATIVE reconstitution. Its function is adjudicatory in
nature.
The LRA has the jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative
reconstitution. It has the authority to review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal the decision of the reconstituting officer.
The function is adjudicatory in nature - it can properly deliberate on
the validity of the titles submitted for reconstitution. Logically, it can
declare a title as sham or spurious, or valid on its face. Otherwise, if
it cannot make such declaration, then there would be no basis for
its decision to grant or deny the reconstitution. The findings of fact
of the LRA, when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case,
shall be binding on the Court of Appeals.[34]
In the reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to determine
from the evidence submitted which between or among the titles is
genuine and existing to enable it to decide whether to deny or
approve the petition. Without such authority, the LRA would be a
mere robotic agency clothed only with mechanical powers.
Severino Manotok v Heirs of Barque
Owners duplicate copy of the title is sufficient to approve
a petition for administrative reconstitution of a title.
Be that as it may, the fact alone that the petition for
reconstitution was approved on the same day that it was filed did
not render the approval suspect. In administrative reconstitution
of a certificate of title supported by the owner's duplicate copy of
the title, no other requisite was required under Section 6 of
Republic Act 26 unlike in judicial reconstitution under Section 12
of the same law. The Register of Deeds correctly granted the
reconstitution on the basis of private respondents owners'
duplicate copy of TCT No. 23377. Republic v CA and Guido
63
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Presentment of owners duplicate of title is sufficient for
administrative reconstitution of title, thus, deed of conveyance
is no longer necessary.
Petitioners next argue that the reconstituted title of Cebu Country
Club, Inc. had no lawful source to speak of; it was reconstituted
through extrinsic and intrinsic fraud in the absence of a deed of
conveyance in its favor. In truth, however, reconstitution was
based on the owner's duplicate of the title, hence, there was no
need for the covering deed of sale or other modes of conveyance.
Cebu Country Club, Inc. was admittedly in possession of the land
since long before the Second World War, or since 1931. Alonso
v Cebu Country Club
Absence of technical description is not a bar for administrative
reconstitution of title. The two-year period for its filing is merely
directory, and the failure to submit the same merely bars transfer
of title to a third party in a voluntary transaction.
Petitioners next question the lack of technical description inscribed
in the reconstituted title in Cebu Country Club, Inc.'s name. This is
not a bar to reconstitution of the title nor will it affect the validity
of the reconstituted title. A registered owner is given two (2)
years to file a plan of such land with the Chief of the General Land
Registration Office.[27] The two-year period is directory, not
jurisdictional. In other words, the failure to submit the technical
description within two (2) years would not invalidate the title. At
most, the failure to file such technical description within the two-
year period would bar a transfer of the title to a third party in a
voluntary transaction. Alonso v Cebu Country Club
Inexistence of clear title disallows reconstitution of title.
Reconstitution of title is merely a re-issuance of a lost certificate
of title in its original forma and condition.3
Consequently, we rule that neither Tomas N. Alonso nor his son
Francisco M. Alonso or the latter's heirs are the lawful owners of
Lot No. 727 in dispute. Neither has the respondent Cebu Country
Club, Inc. been able to establish a clear title over the contested
estate. The reconstitution of a title is simply the re-issuance of a
lost duplicate certificate of title in its original form and condition.
It does not determine or resolve the ownership of the land
covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like the
original certificate of title, by itself does not vest ownership of the
land or estate covered thereby.[38] Alonso v Cebu Country
Club
M. Voluntary Dealings
1. General Provisions
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of
registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the
same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds,
mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no
deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to
convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province
3
Reconstitution under RA 26 presupposes that the property
whose title is sought to be reconstituted has already been brought under
the Torrens registration.(See Cabello v Republic)
64
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
or city where the land lies.
Section 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage,
lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting
registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of
Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be
constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or
entering.
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No
voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the
owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases
expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause
shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary
instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a
memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new
certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon
all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good
faith.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal
and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice,
however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.
After the entry of the decree of registration on the original petition or
application, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a
forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be
null and void.
Section 54. Dealings less than ownership, how registered. No new certificate
shall be entered or issued pursuant to any instrument which does not divest the
ownership or title from the owner or from the transferee of the registered
owners. All interests in registered land less than ownership shall be registered
by filing with the Register of Deeds the instrument which creates or transfers or
claims such interests and by a brief memorandum thereof made by the Register
of Deeds upon the certificate of title, and signed by him. A similar memorandum
shall also be made on the owner's duplicate. The cancellation or extinguishment
of such interests shall be registered in the same manner.
Section 55. Grantee's name, nationality, etc., to be stated. Every deed or other
voluntary instrument presented for registration shall contain or have endorsed
upon it the full name, nationality, residence and postal address of the grantee or
other person acquiring or claiming an interest under such instrument, and every
deed shall also state whether the grantee is married or unmarried, and if
married, the name in full of the husband or wife. If the grantee is a corporation
or association, the instrument must contain a recital to show that such
corporation or association is legally qualified to acquire private lands. Any
change in the residence or postal address of such person shall be endorsed by
the Register of Deeds on the original copy of the corresponding certificate of
title, upon receiving a sworn statement of such change. All names and addresses
shall also be entered on all certificates.
Notices and processed issued in relation to registered land in pursuance of this
Decree may be served upon any person in interest by mailing the same to the
addresses given, and shall be binding, whether such person resides within or
without the Philippines, but the court may, in its discretion, require further or
other notice to be given in any case, if in its opinion the interest of justice so
requires.
Section 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies. Each Register of Deeds
shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he
shall enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of
writs and processes filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a
preliminary process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute
of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They
shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of
each instrument, when made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall
bear the same date: Provided, that the national government as well as the
65
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees
in advance in order to be entitled to entry and registration.
Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with
the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a
reference to the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to
registered land in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public
in the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable regulations as
the Register of Deeds, under the direction of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may prescribe.
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective
copies and shall be attested and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with
the file number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them.
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from
the Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.
What is the purpose of registering an instrument?
The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all
persons (section 51, Act No. 496); it is not intended by the proceedings
for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered
rights over the land, subsisting or existing at the time of the registration.
The rights of these parties, who have registered their rights, are not put
in issue when an instrument is subsequently presented for registration;
nor are its effects on other instruments previously registered put in issue
by the procedure of registration. Thus, the objections raised by
respondents-appellants that they had no knowledge of the contract of
lease, Exhibit A, before the property was mortgaged to them, or that the
same violates their contract of mortgage with the owner of the land -
these are not passed upon by the order for the registration of petitioners-
appellees' contract of lease. The objections, as well as the relative rights
of all parties who have registered their deeds, shall be decided in the
proper suit or proceeding when the opportune occasion arises; but they
are not now in issue, nor may they be adjudicated upon, simply because
petitioners-appellees have applied for the registration of their contract of
lease. Gurbax Singh v Reyes
Invalidity of contract is not an excuse for denying registration.
Registration must first be allowed, and validity or effect litigated
afterwards.
On the other hand, the supposed invalidity of the contracts of lease is no
valid objection to their registration, because invalidity is no proof of their
non-existence or a valid excuse for denying their registration. The law on
registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be
registered. How can parties affected thereby be supposed to know their
invalidity before they become aware, actually or constructively, of their
existence or of their provisions? If the purpose of registration is merely to
give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of
instruments are expected to be decided after, not before, registration. It
must follow as a necessary consequence that registration must first be
allowed, and validity or effect litigated afterwards. Gurbax Singh v
Reyes
Registration of a void contract does not validate the same.
The act of registration does not validate petitioner's otherwise void
contract. Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract,
or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of the Office of the
Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title
covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument. While it
operates as a notice of the deed, contract, or instrument to others, it
does not add to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into a valid
one as between the parties,[32] nor amounts to a declaration by the
state that the instrument is a valid and subsisting interest in the
land.[33] The registration of petitioner's void deed is not an impediment
to a declaration by the courts of its invalidity. Fudot v Cattleya
When is registration of involuntary dealing and voluntary dealing
deemed sufficient?
That ruling was superseded by the holding in the later six cases of Levin
vs. Bass, 91 Phil. 420, where a distinction was made between voluntary
and involuntary registration, such as the registration of an attachment,
66
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
levy upon execution, notice of lis pendens, and the like. In cases of
involuntary registration, an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient
notice to all persons even if the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not
presented to the register of deeds.
On the other hand, according to the said cases of Levin vs. Bass, in case
of voluntary registration of documents an innocent purchaser for value of
registered land becomes the registered owner, and, in contemplation of
law the holder of a certificate of title, the moment he presents and files a
duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day
book and at the same time he surrenders or presents the owner's
duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the
registration fees, because what remains to be done lies not within his
power to perform. The register of deeds is duty bound to perform it. (See
Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil. 196.) - Garcia v CA
Second. Petitioners contend that the aforecited case of DBP is not
apropos to the case at bar. Allegedly, in DBP, the bank not only paid the
registration fees but also presented the owner's duplicate certificate of
title. We find no merit in petitioners' posture. They fail to consider the
voluntary or involuntary nature of the instrument subject of registration.
A voluntary instrument is a willful act of the registered owner of the land
to be affected by registration,[33] while an involuntary instrument is one
pertaining to a transaction affecting lands in which the registered owner's
cooperation is not needed and which transaction may even be done
against his will.[34] For the registration of a voluntary instrument, it is
necessary not only to register the deed, instrument or assignment,
mortgage, or lease in the entry book of the register of deeds, but a
memorandum thereof must also be made on the owner's duplicate and
on its original. The mere entry by the register of deeds in the entry or
diary book, without the presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate
of title for corresponding annotation of the conveyance, does not have
the effect of a conveyance of the property.[35] On the other hand, for
the registration of an involuntary instrument, the law does not require
the presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title and considers
the annotation of such instrument upon the entry book, as sufficient to
affect the real estate to which it relates.[36] Autocorp v CA
Reason behind the difference:
The reason for the difference is obvious. In a voluntary
instrument, the registered owner of the land to be affected by
registration is presumed to be interested in registering the
instrument and would willingly surrender, present or produce his
duplicate certificate of title to the register of deeds in order to
accomplish such registration. On the other hand, as the
registration of an involuntary instrument is contrary to the interest
of the registered owner or will affect him adversely, it is but
natural that he will not willingly present or produce his duplicate
certificate or at least delay the production as long as
possible.[37] Autocorp v CA
Registration of conveyance is a constructive notice notice to the
world.
When a conveyance has been properly recorded, such record is
constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal and equitable,
included therein." "Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the
purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title.
Such presumption is irrefutable. He is charged with notice of every fact
shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an
examination of the record would have disclosed" (Legarda and Prieto vs.
Saleeby, supra, page 600). Garcia v CA
General Rule: Registration is the operative act to bind or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned.
Section 50 of Act No. 496 (now Sec. 51 of P.D. 1529), provides that the
registration of the deed is the operative act to bind or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned. But where the party has
knowledge of a prior existing interest which is unregistered at the time he
acquired a right to the same land, his knowledge of that prior
unregistered interest has the effect of registration as to him. The torrens
67
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
system cannot be used as a shield for the commission of fraud (Gustillo
v. Maravilla, 48 Phil. 442). As far as private respondent Zenaida Angeles
and her husband Justiniano are concerned, the non-registration of the
affidavit admitting their sale of a portion of 110 square meters of the
subject land to petitioners cannot be invoked as a defense because
(K)nowledge of an unregistered sale is equivalent to registration
(Winkleman v. Veluz, 43 Phil. 604). Fernandez v CA
It is clear from the foregoing that the registration of the deed is the
effectual act which binds the land insofar as third persons are concerned.
Prior registration of a lien creates a preference as the act of registration
is the operative act that conveys and affects the land.[8] Considering
that the prior sale of the subject property to the Macadangdang spouses
was not registered, it was the registered mortgage to the spouses
Martinez that was valid and effective. For sure, it was binding on Omalin
and, for that matter, even on the Macadangdang spouses, the parties to
the prior sale. Macadangdang v Martinez
Exceptions:
1. The party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is
unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his
knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of
registration as to HIM.
2. Grantor.
3. Heirs and devisees of the grantor.
Registration is not a requirement for validity of the contract as
between the parties, for the effect of registration serves chiefly to
bind third persons.[36] The principal purpose of registration is
merely to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a
transaction involving the property had been entered into. Where
the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is
unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his
knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the effect of
registration as to him.[37]
Further, the heirs of Eduardo cannot be considered third persons
for purposes of applying the rule. The conveyance shall not be
valid against any person unless registered, except (1) the grantor,
(2) his heirs and devisees, and (3) third persons having actual
notice or knowledge thereof.[38]. Heirs of Manlapat v Cruz
An unregistered instrument of conveyance merely operates as a
contract between the parties therein.
It is clear from these provisions that before a purchaser of land causes
the registration of the transfer of the subject property in her favor, third
persons, such as Arcalas, cannot be bound thereby. Insofar as third
persons are concerned, what validly transfers or conveys a person's
interest in real property is the registration of the deed. As the deed of
sale was unrecorded, it operates merely as a contract between the
parties, namely Victoria Tolentino as seller and Pineda as buyer, which
may be enforceable against Victoria Tolentino through a separate and
independent action. On the other hand, Arcalas's lien was registered and
annotated at the back of the title of the subject property and accordingly
amounted to a constructive notice thereof to all persons, whether or not
party to the original case filed before the Quezon City RTC. Pineda v
Arcalas
Payment of the respondent bank of registration fees a day after the
entry of registration on the primary entry book, does not invalidate
registration. The important fact is that entry has already been made
prior to the actions filed pursuant to/sourcing from the registration.
The objection as to the payment of the requisite fees is unavailing. There
is no question that the fees were paid, albeit belatedly. Respondent bank
presented the certificate of sale to the Office of the Register of Deeds of
Cebu City for registration on January 21, 1999 at 4:30 p.m. As the
cashier had already left, the Office could not receive the payment for
entry and registration fees, but still, the certificate of sale was entered in
the primary entry book. The following day, respondent bank paid the
requisite entry and registration fees. Given the peculiar facts of the case,
68
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
we agree with the Court of Appeals that the payment of respondent bank
must be deemed to be substantial compliance with the law; and, the
entry of the instrument the day before, should not be invalidated. In any
case, even if we consider the entry to have been made on January 22,
the important fact is that the entry in the primary entry book was done
prior to the issuance of the writ of injunction by the trial court.
Autocorp v CA
Registration of an instrument sought to be inscribed in the records of
the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the
certificate of title is a ministerial duty of the Register of Deeds
Registration is merely a specie of notice.[39] It is a ministerial act by
which an instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of the Office
of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of
title covering the land subject of the instrument. It is not a declaration by
the State that such an instrument is a valid and subsisting interest in the
land.[40] The law on registration does not require that only valid
instruments shall be registered. The purpose of registration is merely to
give notice.[41]
It is a ministerial duty on the part of the Register of Deeds to annotate
the instrument on the certificate of sale after a valid entry in the primary
entry book. Autocorp v CA
Rule in cases of double sale4 of immovable properties as provided by
Art. 1544, CC.
Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of immovables
transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good
faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer
who in good faith presents the oldest title.[13] There is no ambiguity in
the application of this law with respect to lands registered under the
Torrens system. Abrigo v De Vera
4
At least two valid sale of the same property to at least two different
persons
The subject matter of the instant petition involves registered land. Unlike
the case of unregistered land, in which an earlier instrument, be it sale or
mortgage, prevails over a latter one, and the registration of any one of
them is immaterial,[5] with respect to registered land, the rule is
different. Between two transactions concerning the same parcel of land,
the registered transaction prevails over the earlier unregistered right.[6]
The act of registration operates to convey and affect the registered land
so that a bonafide purchaser of such land acquires good title as against a
prior transferee, if such prior transfer was unrecorded.[7]
Macadangdang v Martinez
The rule on double sale only applies where the same property is validly
sold to two different persons.
In the first place, there is no double sale to speak of. Art. 1544 of the
Civil Code,[24] which provides the rule on double sale, applies only to a
situation where the same property is validly sold to different vendees. In
this case, there is only one sale to advert to, that between the spouses
Tecson and respondent. Fudot v Cattley
No voluntary instrument shall affect a REGISTERED land until its
registration. If its not registered, it is binding only between the seller
and the buyer and does not affect INNOCENT third persons.
This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529[14] which
provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument --
except a will -- purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take
effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its registration.[15] Thus, if
the sale is not registered, it is binding only between the seller and the
buyer but it does not affect innocent third persons.[16] Abrigo v De
Vera
69
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Registration of an instrument in order to bind a REGISTERED land must
be done in the proper registry. A registered land under the Torrens
system must have the instrument registered under CA 141/PD 1529,
and not under Act 33445.
Soriano v. Heirs of Magali[23] held that registration must be done in the
proper registry in order to bind the land. Since the property in dispute in
the present case was already registered under the Torrens system,
petitioners' registration of the sale under Act 3344 was not effective for
purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code.
More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of
Appeals,[24] the Court upheld the right of a party who had registered the
sale of land under the Property Registration Decree, as opposed to
another who had registered a deed of final conveyance under Act 3344.
In that case, the "priority in time" principle was not applied, because the
land was already covered by the Torrens system at the
time the conveyance was registered under Act 3344. For the same
reason, inasmuch as the registration of the sale to Respondent De Vera
under the Torrens system was done in good faith, this sale must be
upheld over the sale registered under Act 3344 to Petitioner-Spouses
Abrigo. Abrigo v De Vera
Reason:
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo[25] explained the difference in
the rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the
Torrens system in this wise:
"Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting
unregistered lands is 'without prejudice to a third party with a
better right.' The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court
to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one's favor does
not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not
anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to
5
Registration of instruments affecting UNREGISTERED lands
somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. Abrigo
v De Vera
Registration under Act. 3344 does not constitute as a constructive
notice to the whole world.
As can be gathered from the foregoing, constructive notice to the second
buyer through registration under Act 3344 does not apply if the property
is registered under the Torrens system, as in this case. Abrigo v De
Vera
Under Art. 1544, CC, the second buyer must acquire the immovable in
good faith and to register it in good faith. Mere registration of title is not
enough; good faith must concur with the registration.
"Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by
the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right
over the property. Article 1544 requires that such registration must be
coupled with good faith. Jurisprudence teaches us that '(t)he governing
principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).
Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the
first buyer's rights except where the second buyer registers in good faith
the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil Code. Such
knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights
under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the
second buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of
the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second
sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith.
This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second
buyer being able to displace the first buyer; that before the second buyer
can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good
faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer's
rights) ---- from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him
by registration, or failing registration, by delivery of possession.'"[34]
(Italics supplied) Abrigo v De Vera
Presentment of owners duplicate certificate of title with the instrument
sought to be registered is a conclusive of authority to the Register of
70
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Deeds to issue a transfer certificate or make a memorandum of
registration in accordance with the instrument.
Petitioners argue that the issuance of the TCTs violated the third
paragraph of Section 53 of P.D. No. 1529. The argument is baseless. It
must be noted that the provision speaks of forged duplicate certificate of
title and forged deed or instrument. Neither instance obtains in this case.
What the Cruzes presented before the Register of Deeds was the very
genuine owner's duplicate certificate earlier deposited by Banaag,
Eduardo's attorney-in-fact, with RBSP. Likewise, the instruments of
conveyance are authentic, not forged. Section 53 has never been clearer
on the point that as long as the owner's duplicate certificate is presented
to the Register of Deeds together with the instrument of conveyance,
such presentation serves as conclusive authority to the Register of Deeds
to issue a transfer certificate or make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with the instrument. Heirs of Manlapat v Cruz
There is no explicit requirement as to the matter of acquiring owners
duplicate of certificate of title for purposes of issuing a TCT.
Presentation of the duplicate is conclusive authority from the registered
owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a
memorandum of registration.
Further, the law on the matter, specifically P.D. No. 1529, has no explicit
requirement as to the manner of acquiring the owner's duplicate for
purposes of issuing a TCT. This led the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan
as well as the Central Bank officer, in rendering an opinion on the legal
feasibility of the process resorted to by the Cruzes. Section 53 of P.D. No.
1529 simply requires the production of the owner's duplicate certificate,
whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, and the
same shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the
Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum
of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new
certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner
and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for
value and in good faith. Heirs of Manlapat v Cruz
Under Sec. 53, PD 1529, presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of
title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
Indeed, case law is that a Torrens title is generally conclusive evidence of
ownership of the land referred to therein.[46] While it serves as evidence
of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein[47] (and TCT No. T-48521 shows, on its face, that the
owner is the respondent), when the instrument presented for registration
is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title,
the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the
assignee or the mortgagee, for that matter, acquire any right or title to
the property.[48] In such a case, the transferee or the mortgagee, based
on a forged instrument, is not even a purchaser or a mortgagee for value
protected by law. Thus, in Joaquin v. Madrid,[49] the Court had the
occasion to state:
In the first assignment of error, it is argued that since par. 2 of Sec. 55
of the Land Registration Act expressly provides that "in all cases of
registration of fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable
remedies against the parties to the fraud, without prejudice to the rights
of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title," the second
proviso in the same section "that a registration procured by the
presentation of a forged deed shall be null and void" should be
overlooked. There is no merit in this argument, which would have the
effect of deleting the last proviso. This last proviso is a limitation of the
first part of par. 2 in the sense that in order that the holder of a
certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary
instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the
instrument registered should not be forged. When the instrument
presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate
certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title,
and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title
to the property.
In the second assignment of error, it is further argued that as the
petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value, he should be protected as
against the registered owner because the latter can secure reparation
71
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
from the assurance fund. The fact is, however, that petitioner herein is
not the innocent purchaser for value protected by law. The innocent
purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land
by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a
forged deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of the
petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the
registered owners but who are not said owners.[50] Erena v Queerer-
Kauffman
Exception: Where the title of the property mortgaged or sold is in
the name mortgagor or seller, despite his title being fraudulent,
the buyers or mortgagees right will be protected.
There is, however, a situation where, despite the fact that the
mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title
being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale
arising therefrom are given effect by reason of public policy. This
is the doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that
all persons dealing with the property covered by a Torrens
Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to
go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public
interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as
evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance
thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied
upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title.[55]
Indeed, a mortgagee has a right to rely in good faith on the
certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as
security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse
suspicion, has no obligation to undertake further investigation.
Hence, even if the mortgagor is not the rightful owner of, or does
not have a valid title to, the mortgaged property, the mortgagee
in good faith is nonetheless entitled to protection.[56] This
doctrine presupposes, however, 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.
The innocent purchaser (mortgagee in this case) for value
protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a
deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged
deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of
petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be
the registered owners but who are not said owners.[57] The
doctrine of mortgagee in good faith 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.
Erena v Ferrer-Kauffman
2. Specific Provisions
a. Conveyances and Transfers
Section 57. Procedure in registration of conveyances. An owner desiring
to convey his registered land in fee simple shall execute and register a
deed of conveyance in a form sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds
shall thereafter make out in the registration book a new certificate of title
to the grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner's duplicate
certificate. The Register of Deeds shall note upon the original and
duplicate certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the
registration book in which the new certificate is registered and a
reference by number to the last preceding certificate. The original and
the owner's duplicate of the grantor's certificate shall be stamped
"canceled". The deed of conveyance shall be filled and indorsed with the
number and the place of registration of the certificate of title of the land
conveyed.
Section 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. If a
deed or conveyance is for a part only of the land described in a certificate
of title, the Register of Deeds shall not enter any transfer certificate to
the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into
which it has been subdivided and the corresponding technical
descriptions shall have been verified and approved pursuant to Section
72
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
50 of this Decree. Meanwhile, such deed may only be annotated by way
of memorandum upon the grantor's certificate of title, original and
duplicate, said memorandum to serve as a notice to third persons of the
fact that certain unsegregated portion of the land described therein has
been conveyed, and every certificate with such memorandum shall be
effectual for the purpose of showing the grantee's title to the portion
conveyed to him, pending the actual issuance of the corresponding
certificate in his name.
Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of
the plan, together with a certified copy of the technical descriptions shall
be filed with the Register of Deeds for annotation in the corresponding
certificate of title and thereupon said officer shall issue a new certificate
of title to the grantee for the portion conveyed, and at the same time
cancel the grantor's certificate partially with respect only to said portion
conveyed, or, if the grantor so desires, his certificate may be canceled
totally and a new one issued to him describing therein the remaining
portion: Provided, however, that pending approval of said plan, no further
registration or annotation of any subsequent deed or other voluntary
instrument involving the unsegregated portion conveyed shall be effected
by the Register of Deeds, except where such unsegregated portion was
purchased from the Government or any of its instrumentalities. If the
land has been subdivided into several lots, designated by numbers or
letters, the Register of Deeds may, if desired by the grantor, instead of
canceling the latter's certificate and issuing a new one to the same for
the remaining unconveyed lots, enter on said certificate and on its
owner's duplicate a memorandum of such deed of conveyance and of the
issuance of the transfer certificate to the grantee for the lot or lots thus
conveyed, and that the grantor's certificate is canceled as to such lot or
lots.
Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. 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 or certificates;
except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.
B. Mortgages and Leases
Section 60. Mortgage or lease of registered land. Mortgage and leases
shall be registered in the manner provided in Section 54 of this Decree.
The owner of registered land may mortgage or lease it by executing the
deed in a form sufficient in law. Such deed of mortgage or lease and all
instruments which assign, extend, discharge or otherwise deal with the
mortgage or lease shall be registered, and shall take effect upon the title
only from time of registration.
No mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate certificate of title shall hereafter be
issued by the Registers of Deeds, and those issued prior to the effectivity
of this Decree are hereby deemed canceled and the holders thereof shall
immediately surrender the same to the Register of Deeds concerned.
Section 61. Registration. Upon presentation for registration of the deed
of mortgage or lease together with the owner's duplicate, the Register of
Deeds shall enter upon the original of the certificate of title and also upon
the owner's duplicate certificate a memorandum thereof, the date and
time of filing and the file number assigned to the deed, and shall sign the
said memorandum. He shall also note on the deed the date and time of
filing and a reference to the volume and page of the registration book in
which it is registered.
Section 62. Discharge or cancellation. A mortgage or lease on registered
land may be discharge or canceled by means of an instrument executed
by the mortgage or lessee in a form sufficient in law, which shall be filed
with the Register of Deeds who shall make the appropriate memorandum
upon the certificate of title.
Section 63. Foreclosure of Mortgage. (a) If the mortgage was foreclosed
judicially, a certified copy of the final order of the court confirming the
sale shall be registered with the Register of Deeds. If no right of
redemption exists, the certificate of title of the mortgagor shall be
canceled, and a new certificate issued in the name of the purchaser.
Where the right of redemption exists, the certificate of title of the
mortgagor shall not be canceled, but the certificate of sale and the order
73
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
confirming the sale shall be registered by a brief memorandum thereof
made by the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title. In the event
the property is redeemed, the certificate or deed of redemption shall be
filed with the Register of Deeds, and a brief memorandum thereof shall
be made by the Register of Deeds on the certificate of title of the
mortgagor.
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale executed by the
sheriff in favor of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall be registered
with the Register of Deeds; whereupon the title of the mortgagor shall be
canceled, and a new certificate issued in the name of the purchaser.
(b) If the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, a certificate of sale
executed by the officer who conducted the sale shall be filed with the
Register of Deeds who shall make a brief memorandum thereof on the
certificate of title.
In the event of redemption by the mortgagor, the same rule provided for
in the second paragraph of this section shall apply.
In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at foreclosure sale shall file
with the Register of Deeds, either a final deed of sale executed by the
person authorized by virtue of the power of attorney embodied in the
deed of mortgage, or his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-
redemption; whereupon, the Register of Deeds shall issue a new
certificate in favor of the purchaser after the owner's duplicate of the
certificate has been previously delivered and cancelled.
Mortgage rules:
1. The owner of the mortgaged property foreclosed and sold in a
foreclosure sale has the right of redemption for a period of one
year after the registration of the sale.
2. In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale
may demand consolidation of ownership and file with the
register of deeds either a final deed of sale executed by the
person authorized by virtue of the power of attorney embodied
in the deed of mortgage or his sworn statement attesting to
the fact of non-redemption. The Register of Deeds shall
thereupon issue a new certificate in favor of the purchaser
after the owners duplicate certificate in favour of the
purchaser after the owners duplicate certificate shall have
been previously delivered and cancelled.
3. Nonetheless, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale may demande
possession of the land even during the redemption period by
posting a bond. But this bond is no longer required after the
redemption period if the property is not redeemed.
4. Upon proper application and proof of title, the issuance of the
writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of the court.
5. Not having done any of the aforementioned, the buyer at a
foreclosure sale does not obtain any perfected right of
possession over the subject property.
Now, on the issue of possession:
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, provides
that in case of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the court ***
may issue as a matter of course a writ of possession in favor of
the purchaser even during the redemption period, provided that a
proper motion has been filed, a bond is approved, and no third
person is involved.
Section 6 of the Act provides that where an extrajudicial sale is
made, "redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections
four hundred and sixty-four to four hundred and sixty-six,
inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act."
Sections 464-466 of the Code of Civil Procedure were superseded
by Sections 25-27 and Section 31 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
which in turn were replaced by Sections 29 to 31 and Section 35
of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Section 35 provides that "if no redemption be made within twelve
(12) months after the sale, the purchaser, or his assignee, is
entitled to a conveyance and the possession of property, . . . . The
possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser or last
redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually
74
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor."
To give effect to his right of possession, the purchaser must
invoke the aid of the courts and ask for a writ of possession. He
cannot simply take the law into his own hands and enter the
property without judicial authorization. 6 We have consistently
held that he need not bring a separate and independent suit for
this purpose. 7 Nevertheless, it is essential that he ask for and be
granted a writ of possession in order that he may be legally
installed in the property he has bought.
Section 63 (b) of P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, requires that in case of non-redemption, the
purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall file with the Register of Deeds
either a final deed of sale executed by the person authorized by
virtue of the power of attorney embodied in the deed of mortgage
or his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-redemption.
The Register of Deeds shall thereupon issue a new certificate in
favor of the purchaser after the owner's duplicate certificate shall
have been previously delivered and canceled.
In F. David Enterprises vs. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 8
this Court held:
It is settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the
absolute owner of the property purchased if it is not redeemed
during the period of one year after the registration of the sale. As
such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can
demand it at any time following the consolidation of ownership in
his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of
title. The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even
during the redemption period except that he has to post a bond in
accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135 as amended. No such
bond is required after the redemption period if the property is not
redeemed. Possession of the land then becomes an absolute right
of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper application and
proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a
ministerial duty of the court. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
Not having done any of these, DBP had as yet not acquired any
perfected right of possession that it could transfer to the private
respondents. And as the petitioner continued in actual possession
of the subject premises, she could undoubtedly maintain an action
for forcible entry against the private respondents when, not being
armed with a court order or a writ of possession, they simply
entered and took possession of the subject lands. Joven v CA
c. Powers of Attorney
Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power of attorney,
convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the same shall be
registered with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the
land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney shall be
registered in like manner.
d. Trusts
Section 65. Trusts in registered land. If a deed or other instrument is
filed in order to transfer registered land in trust, or upon any equitable
condition or limitation expressed therein, or to create or declare a trust
or other equitable interests in such land without transfer, the particulars
of the trust, condition, limitation or other equitable interest shall not be
entered on the certificate; but only a memorandum thereof shall be
entered by the words "in trust", or "upon condition", or other apt words,
and by a reference by number to the instrument authorizing or creating
the same. A similar memorandum shall be made upon the original
instrument creating or declaring the trust or other equitable interest with
a reference by number to the certificate of title to which it relates and to
the volume and page in the registration book in which it is registered.
Section 66. Trust with power of sale, etc., how expressed. If the
75
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
instrument creating or declaring a trust or other equitable interest
contains an express power to sell, mortgage or deal with the land in any
manner, such power shall be stated in the certificate of title by the words
"with power to sell", or "power to mortgage", or by apt words of
description in case of other powers. No instrument which transfers,
mortgages or in any way deals with registered land in trust shall be
registered, unless the enabling power thereto is expressly conferred in
the trust instrument, or unless a final judgment or order of a court of
competent jurisdiction has construed the instrument in favor of the
power, in which case a certified copy of such judgment or order may be
registered.
Section 67. Judicial appointment of new trustee. If a new trustee of
registered land is appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, a new
certificate may be issued to him upon presentation to the Register of
Deeds of a certified copy of the order or judicial appointment and the
surrender for cancellation of the duplicate certificate.
Section 68. Implied, trusts, how established. Whoever claims an interest
in registered land by reason of any implied or constructive trust shall file
for registration with the Register of Deeds a sworn statement thereof
containing a description of the land, the name of the registered owner
and a reference to the number of the certificate of title. Such claim shall
not affect the title of a purchaser for value and in good faith before its
registration.
N. Involuntary Dealings
1. General Provisions
Section 71. Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings. If an attachment or
other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered land is registered,
and the duplicate certificate is not presented at the time of registration, the
Register of Deeds shall, within thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by mail to
the registered owner, stating that such paper has been registered, and
requesting him to send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a
memorandum of the attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the
owner neglects or refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of
Deeds shall report the matter to the court, and it shall, after notice, enter an
order to the owner, to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein,
and may enforce the order by suitable process.
Section 74. Enforcement of liens on registered land. Whenever registered land
is solved on execution, or taken or sold for taxes or for any assessment or to
enforce a lien of any character, or for any costs and charges incident to such
liens, any execution or copy of execution, any officer's return, or any deed,
demand, certificate, or affidavit, or other instrument made in the course of the
proceedings to enforce such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall be
filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies and
registered in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper
certificate of title in each case as lien or encumbrance.
Section 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption
period. Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption
after registered land has been sold on execution taken or sold for the
enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser
at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry
of a new certificate of title to him.
Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may pursue all
legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.
Before entry of a new certificate of title by the purchaser at execution
sale pursuant to Sec. 75, PD 1529, the registered owner may pursue all
legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.
It is crystal from the above-quoted provision(Sec. 75) that upon the
expiration of time allowed by law for redemption of a registered land sold
on execution, the purchaser at such sale may petition for the issuance of
a new certificate of title to him, subject to the condition that "before
entry of a new certificate of title the registered owner may pursue all
legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings."
(emphasis ours).
76
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
xxx
. . . While it is true that Section 78 of Act. 496 on which the petition is
based provides that upon the failure of the judgment-debtor to redeem
the property sold at public auction the purchaser of the land may be
granted a new certificate of title, the exercise of such function is qualified
by the provision that 'at any time prior to the entry of a new certificate
the registered owner may pursue all his lawful remedies to impeach or
annul proceedings under executions or to enforce liens of any
description.' The right, therefore, to petition for a new certificate under
said section is not absolute but subject to the determination of any
objection that may be interposed relative to the validity of the
proceedings leading to the transfer of the land subject thereof which
should be threshed out in a separate appropriate action.
Tagaytay-Taal v CA
The petition for the surrender and/or cancellation of the owners
duplicate copy of transfer certificate title is merely a consequence of the
execution of a judgment in an auction or foreclosure sale. It is settled
that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and sale.
A closer examination of the facts discloses that enforcement of the
decision in Civil Case No. 10270 of the CFI of Rizal was not the cause of
action in private respondent's petition for the Surrender and/ or
Cancellation of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate Title
No. 14749. Plainly, the petition was merely a consequence of the
execution of the judgment as the judgment in said Civil Case No. 10270
had already been fully enforced. A writ of execution was in fact issued on
26 August 1968, by virtue of which a "Notice of Attachment or Levy" was
made by the Sheriff on the property of Blancaflor, including the lot
covered by TCT No. 14749. This notice was duly inscribe at the back of
TCT No. 14749, then an auction sale of the lot covered by TCT No. 14749
was conducted with Sarmiento Trading Corporation emerging as the
highest bidder. The latter was awarded the bid and a certificate of sale in
its favor was executed by the Sheriff and thereafter inscribed as a
memorandum of encumbrance on TCT No. 14749. Subsequently, the
Sheriff executed a final deed of sale in favor of Sarmiento Trading
Corporation.
It is settled that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and sale.
Blancaflor v CA
It is the certificate of title issued by the sheriff after the auction sale
which has to be registered for involuntary conveyance, and not the
judgment of the court.
Contrary to the impression of petitioners, it is the certificate of sale
issued by the sheriff after the auction sale which has to be registered for
such involuntary conveyance to affect the land [as provided under Sec.
74, PD 1529]. Blancaflor v CA
As should be evident from Blancaflor, petitioner Padilla's reliance on
Section 6 of Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure is
misplaced. The fact of levy and sale constitutes execution, and not the
action for the issuance of a new title. Here, because the levy and sale of
the properties took place in June and July of 1990, respectively, or less
than a year after the decision became final and executory, the
respondent clearly exercised its rights in timely fashion. Padilla v
Philippine Producers, Inc.
It should be a PETITION for the surrender and/or cancellation of
the owners duplicate copy of transfer certificate of title, not a
MOTION.
Petitioner is correct in assailing as improper respondent's filing of a mere
motion for the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones
as a result of petitioner's refusal to surrender his owner's duplicate TCTs.
Indeed, this called for a separate cadastral action initiated via petition [as
provided under Sec. 107, PD 1529].
xxx
Respondent alleges that it resorted to filing the contested motion because
it could not obtain new certificates of title, considering that petitioner
77
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
refused to surrender his owner's duplicate TCTs. This contention is
incorrect. The proper course of action was to file a petition in court,
rather than merely move, for the issuance of new titles. This was the
procedure followed in Blancaflor by Sarmiento Trading which was in more
or less the same situation as the respondent in this case. Padilla v
Philippine Producers Inc.
2. Specific Provisions
a. Attachment
Section 69. Attachments. An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order or
process issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve any lien,
status, right, or attachment upon registered land, shall be filed and registered in
the Registry of Deeds for the province or city in which the land lies, and, in
addition to the particulars required in such papers for registration, shall contain
a reference to the number of the certificate of title to be affected and the
registered owner or owners thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or
lien is not claimed on all the land in any certificate of title a description
sufficiently accurate for identification of the land or interest intended to be
affected. A restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by the court shall
be entered and registered on the certificate of title affected, free of charge.
Section 72. Dissolution, etc. of attachments, etc. Attachments and liens of
every description upon registered land shall be continued, reduced, discharged
and dissolved by any method sufficient in law, and to give effect to the
continuance, reduction, discharge or dissolution thereof the certificate or other
instrument for that purpose shall be registered with the Register of Deeds.
Section 73. Registration of orders of court, etc. If an attachment is continued,
reduced, dissolved, or otherwise affected by an order, decision or judgment of
the court where the action or proceedings in which said attachment was made is
pending or by an order of a court having jurisdiction thereof, a certificate of the
entry of such order, decision or judgment from the clerk of court or the judge by
which such decision, order or judgment has been rendered and under the seal of
the court, shall be entitled to be registered upon presentation to the Register of
Deeds.
b. Adverse Claim
Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered
land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the
original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for
registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged
right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of
the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner,
and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse
claimant's residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him.
This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the
certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days
from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of
adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the
party in interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse
claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition
in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of
the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question
of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just
and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration
thereof shall be ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and
hearing, shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may
fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor more than
five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the
claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a
sworn petition to that effect.
78
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
What is an adverse claim?
Concededly, annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to
protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the
registration of such interest or right not otherwise provided for by the
Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with
said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a
better right than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice is
registered by filing a sworn statement with the Register of Deeds of the
province where the property is located, setting forth the basis of the
claimed right together with other dates pertinent thereto. Sajonas v
CA
A subsequent sale of a property covered by a certificate of title cannot
prevail over an adverse claim.
While it is the act of registration which is the operative act which conveys
or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned, it is likewise
true, that the subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of Title
cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the
certificate of title previous to the sale. 21 While it is true that under the
provisions of the Property Registration Decree, deeds of conveyance of
property registered under the system, or any interest therein only take
effect as a conveyance to bind the land upon its registration, and that a
purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title,
upon its face, indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right
that may subsequently defeat his right thereto, nonetheless, this rule is
not absolute. Thus, one who buys from the registered owner need not
have to look behind the certificate of title, he is, nevertheless, bound by
the liens and encumbrances annotated thereon. One who buys without
checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to
such failure. Sajonas v CA
An adverse claim does not ipso facto loses its effect after the lapse of
thirty days. Petition for its cancellation is necessary to cancel the
adverse claim.
If the rationale of the law was for the adverse claim to ipso facto lose
force and effect after the lapse of thirty days, then it would not have
been necessary to include the foregoing caveat to clarify and complete
the rule. For then, no adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been
automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the law would not have
required the party in interest to do a useless act.
xxx
. . .The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the
adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the
inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the
property. For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon
the lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the
process of cancellation would be a useless ceremony. 29
It should be noted that the law employs the phrase "may be cancelled",
which obviously indicates, as inherent in its decision making power, that
the court may or not order the cancellation of an adverse claim,
nothwitstanding such provision limiting the effectivity of an adverse claim
for thirty days from the date of registration. The court cannot be bound
by such period as it would be inconsistent with the very authority vested
in it. A fortiori, the limitation on the period of effectivity is immaterial in
determining the validity or invalidity of an adverse claim which is the
principal issue to be decided in the court hearing. It will therefore depend
upon the evidence at a proper hearing for the court to determine whether
it will order the cancellation of the adverse claim or not. 30
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and
without qualification limited to thirty days defeats the very purpose for
which the statute provides for the remedy of an inscription of adverse
claim, as the annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to
protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the
registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the
Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree), and serves as a warning to third parties dealing
79
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
with said property that someone is claiming an interest or the same or a
better right than the registered owner thereof. 31 Sajonas v CA
Reason:
The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the validity of the
adverse claim is to be threshed out is to afford the adverse claimant an
opportunity to be heard, providing a venue where the propriety of his
claimed interest can be established or revoked, all for the purpose of
determining at last the existence of any encumbrance on the title arising
from such adverse claim. This is in line with the provision immediately
following:
Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim shall
be registered by the same claimant.
Should the adverse claimant fail to sustain his interest in the property,
the adverse claimant will be precluded from registering a second adverse
claim based on the same ground.
It was held that "validity or efficaciousness of the claim may only be
determined by the Court upon petition by an interested party, in which
event, the Court shall. order the immediate hearing thereof and make the
proper adjudication a justice and equity may warrant. And it is only when
such claim is found unmeritorious that the registration of the adverse
claim may be cancelled, thereby protecting the interest of the adverse
claimant and giving notice and warning to third parties". Sajonas v CA
Registration of an adverse claim does not toll the running of prescriptive
period.
Petitioner's claim that the prescriptive period was tolled when he
registered his adverse claim with the Register of Deeds is untenable. In
Garbin v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[32] wherein an action for annulment of
a deed of sale was dismissed on the ground of prescription and laches,
the Court held that the registration of an adverse claim does not toll the
running of the prescriptive period. Leonardo v Maravilla
Reason:
In the same vein, the annotation on May 20, 1993 of the November 13,
1972 affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. 2355 (34515) afforded no
protection to petitioner for the same reason that said belated assertion of
his alleged right over the property is barred by prescription and laches.
Leonardo v Maravilla
An annotation of adverse claim may substitute for the surrender the
duplicate certificate of title for the registration of voluntary instrument.
Such annotation is sufficient to bind third persons. However, lack of
demand or unjustified refusal of the owner of the duplicate certificate of
title to surrender the same renders the adverse claim invalid.
But where the vendor refused to deliver to the vendee the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, which title must be presented in order that
the deed of conveyance may be registered and the corresponding
transfer certificate of title may be issued,[38] the vendee may file with
the Register of Deeds an adverse claim under Section 110 of Act No. 496.
For an adverse claim to be valid, it must be shown that a demand was
made on the vendor and that the latter refused to surrender the owner's
duplicate certificate of title.[39]
xxx
For lack of the requisite unjustified refusal of the registered owner to
surrender the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the affidavit of adverse
claim registered by petitioner is not valid. Leonardo v Maravilla
The basis of respondent Villanueva's adverse claim was an agreement to
sell executed in her favor by Garcia Realty. An agreement to sell is a
voluntary instrument as it is a wilful act of the registered owner. As such
voluntary instrument, Section 50 of Act No. 496 [now Presidential Decree
No. 1529] expressly provides that the act of registration shall be the
operative act to convey and affect the land. And Section 55 of the same
Act requires the presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate of title
80
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
for the registration of any deed or voluntary instrument. As the
agreement to sell involves an interest less than an estate in fee simple,
the same should have been registered by filing it with the Register of
Deeds who, in turn, makes a brief memorandum thereof upon the original
and owner's duplicate certificate of title. The reason for requiring the
production of the owner's duplicate certificate in the registration of a
voluntary instrument is that, being a wilful act of the registered owner, it
is to be presumed that he is interested in registering the instrument and
would willingly surrender, present or produce his duplicate certificate of
title to the Register of Deeds in order to accomplish such registration.
However, where the owner refuses to surrender the duplicate certificate
for the annotation of the voluntary instrument, the grantee may file with
the Register of Deeds a statement setting forth his adverse claim, as
provided for in Section 110 of Act No. 496. In such a case, the annotation
of the instrument upon the entry book is sufficient to affect the real
estate to which it relates, although Section 72 of Act No. 496 imposes
upon the Register of Deeds the duty to require the production by the
[r]egistered owner of his duplicate certificate for the inscription of the
adverse claim. The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed
to protect the interest of a person over a piece of real property where the
registration of such interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the
Land Registration Act, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties
dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the
same or a better right than the registered owner thereof. (emphases
supplied)
xxx
The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by respondents
Calingo and Barrameda is a registrable instrument. In order to bind third
parties, it must be registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It
was not shown in this case that there was justifiable reason why the deed
could not be registered. Hence, the remedy of adverse claim cannot
substitute for registration. Rodriguez v CA
c. Notice of Lis Pendens
Section 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real
estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for
partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to
land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment,
and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect
upon registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a
memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and
the court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution
thereof, together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an
adequate description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall
have been filed and registered.
Section 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. Before final judgment, a notice of lis
pendens may be canceled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the
notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not
necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It
may also be canceled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party
who caused the registration thereof.
At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant, or other disposition of
the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land
and/or buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice of lis
pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding section, the notice of
lis pendens shall be deemed canceled upon the registration of a certificate of the
clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner
of disposal thereof.
What is notice of lis pendens?
The notice of lis pendens i.e., that real property is involved in an action is
ordinarily recorded without the intervention of the court where the action
is pending. The notice is but an incident in an action, an extrajudicial one,
to be sure. It does not affect the merits thereof. It is intended merely to
constructively advise, or warn, all people who deal with the property that
they so deal with it at their own risk, and whatever rights they may
acquire in the property in any voluntary transaction are subject to the
results of the action, and may well be inferior and subordinate to those
which may be finally determined and laid down therein. 21 The
cancellation of such a precautionary notice is therefore also a mere
81
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
incident in the action, and may be ordered by the Court having
jurisdiction of it at any given time. And its continuance or removal like
the continuance or removal of a preliminary attachment or injunction is
not contingent on the existence of a final judgment in the action, and
ordinarily has no effect on the merits thereof. Magdalena
Homeowners Association v CA
Lis pendens literally means a pending suit. The doctrine of lis pendens
refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over
property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and
until final judgment.[20] Heirs of Eugenio Lopez v Enriquez
What is the purpose of lis pendens?
The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reasons of public policy and
necessity, the purpose of which is to make known to the whole world that
properties in litigation are still within the power of the court until the
litigation is terminated and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or
decree by subsequent alienation. The notice of lis pendens is an
announcement to the whole world that a particular real property is in
litigation, and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over
said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of
the litigation over said property. Yared v Tiongco
The purposes of lis pendens are (1) to protect the rights of the party
causing the registration of the lis pendens, and (2) to advise third
persons who purchase or contract on the subject property that they do so
at their peril and subject to the result of the pending litigation.[21]
Heirs of Eugenio Lopez v Enriquez
Notice of lis pendens if proper in the following cases:
According to Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court 19 and Section 76
of Presidential Decree No. 1529, 20 a notice of lis pendens is proper in
the following cases, viz.:
a) An action to recover possession of real estate;
b) An action to quiet title thereto;
c) An action to remove clouds thereon;
d) An action for partition; and
e) Any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title
to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon.
Magdalena Homeowners Association v CA
Lis pendens has no application in the following:
On the other hand, the doctrine of lis pendens has no application in the
following cases:
a) Preliminary attachments;
b) Proceedings for the probate of wills;
c) Levies on execution;
d) Proceedings for administration of estate of deceased persons; and
e) Proceedings in which the only object is the recovery of a money
judgment.[27] Heirs of Eugenio Lopez v CA
What should a notice of lis pendens contain?
As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens should
contain a statement of the institution of an action or proceeding, the
court where the same is pending, and the date of its institution. A notice
of lis pendens should also contain a reference to the number of the
certificate of title of the land, an adequate description of the land affected
and its registered owner. Heirs of Eugenio Lopez v CA
When is a notice of lis pendens is may be cancelled?
Now, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court,
"after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party
who caused it to be recorded." Magdalena Homeowners
Association v CA
A notice of lise pendens may only lies where there is an action or
proceeding in court, which affects title, to or possession of real
property. Its effects are:
In other words, lis pendens is the jurisdiction, power, or control which the
court acquires over the property involved in the suit pending the
82
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
continuance of the action; and until its final judgment therein, it has for
its object the keeping of the subject or res within the power of the court
until the judgment or decree shall be entered, to make it possible for
courts of justice to give effect to their judgments and decrees. 15 This, in
effect, is the essence of the rule of lis pendens. When a case is
commenced involving any right to land registered under the Land
Registration Law, any decision therein will bind the parties only, unless a
notice of the pendency of such action is registered on the title of the said
land, in order to bind the whole world as well. Therefore, in order that a
notice of lis pendens may affect the right of a subsequent purchaser, such
notice should be annotated on the back of the certificate of title, which is
not present in the case at bar. Dino v CA
Two-fold effects of lis pendens
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect. First, it keeps
the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the
entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by
successive alienations. Second, it binds a purchaser, bona fide or not, of
the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court
will promulgate subsequently. However, the filing of a notice of lis
pendens does not create a right or lien that previously did not
exist.[22] Heirs of Eugenio Lopez v CA
An assertion of claim over the property is enough to make a notice of lis
pendens.
Thus, all petitioner has to do is to assert a claim of possession or title
over the subject property to put the property under the coverage of the
rule. It is not necessary for her to prove ownership or interest over the
property sought to be affected by lis pendens. Yared v Tiongco
A notice of lis pendens being merely an incident of action, it may be
raised for the first time on appeals.
In the case at bar, the case had properly come within the appellate
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in virtue of the perfection of the
plaintiffs' appeal. It therefore had power to deal with and resolve any
incident in connection with the action subject of the appeal, even before
final judgment. The rule that no questions may be raised for the first time
on appeal have reference only to those affecting the merits of the action,
and not to mere incidents thereof, e.g., cancellation of notices of lis
pendens, or, to repeat the grant or dissolution of provisional remedies.
[emphasis supplied] Yared v Tiongco
O. Registration of Judgments, Orders, Petitions
Section 78. Judgment for Plaintiff. Whenever in any action to recover
possession or ownership of real estate or any interest therein affecting
registered land judgment is entered for the plaintiff, such judgment shall be
entitled to registration on presentation of a certificate of the entry thereof from
the clerk of court where the action is pending to the Register of Deeds for the
province or city where the land lies, who shall enter a memorandum upon the
certificate of title of the land to which such judgment relates. If the judgment
does not apply to all the land described in the certificate of title, the certificate of
the clerk of the court where the action is pending and the memorandum entered
by the Register of Deeds shall contain a description of the land affected by the
judgment.
Section 79. Judgment adjudicating ownership. When in any action to recover
the ownership of real estate or an interest therein execution has been issued in
favor of the plaintiff, the latter shall be entitled to the entry of a new certificate
of title and to the cancellation of the original certificate and owner's duplicate of
the former registered owner. If the registered owner neglects or refuses within a
reasonable time after request of the plaintiff to produce his duplicate certificate
in order that the same may be canceled, the court shall, on application and after
notice, enter an order to the owner to produce his certificate at the time and
place designated, and may enforce the order by suitable process.
Section 80. Execution of deed by virtue of judgment. Every court rendering
judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land shall, upon petition of
said plaintiff, order and parties before it to execute for registration any deed or
instrument necessary to give effect to the judgment, and shall require the
registered owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to the
83
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Register of Deeds to be canceled or to have a memorandum annotated upon it.
In case the person required to execute any deed or other instrument necessary
to give effect to the judgment is absent from the Philippines, or is a minor, or
insane, or for any reason not amenable to the process of the court rendering the
judgment, said court may appoint a suitable person as trustee to execute such
instrument which, when executed, shall be entitled to registration.
Section 81. Judgment of partition. In proceedings for partition of registered
land, after the entry of the final judgment of partition, a copy of such final
judgment, certified by the clerk of the court rendering the same, shall be filed
and registered; thereupon, if the land is set of to the owners in severalty, each
owner shall be entitled to have his certificate entered showing the share set off
to him in severalty, and to receive an owner's duplicate thereof.
If the land is ordered by the court to be sold, the purchaser or his assigns shall
be entitled to certificate of title entered in his or their favor upon presenting a
certified copy of the judgment confirming the sale.
In case the land is ordered by the court to be assigned to one of the parties
upon payment to the others of the sum ordered by the court, the party to whom
the land is thus assigned shall be entitled to have a certificate of title entered in
his favor upon presenting a certified copy of the judgment: Provided, however,
that any new certificate entered in pursuance of partition proceedings, whether
by way of set-off or of assignment or of sale, shall contain a reference
memorandum to the final judgment of partition, and shall be conclusive as to
the title to the same extent and against the same persons as such judgment is
made conclusive by the laws applicable thereto: and provided, further, that any
person holding such certificate of title or a transfer thereof shall have the right
to petition the court at any time to cancel the memorandum relating to such
judgment or order and the court, after notice and hearing, may grant the
petition. Such certificate shall thereafter be conclusive in the same manner and
to the same extent as other certificates of title.
Section 82. Registration of prior registered mortgaged or lease on partitioned
property. If a certified copy of a final judgment or decree of partition is
presented and it appears that a mortgage or lease affecting a specific portion or
an undivided share of the premises had previously been registered, the Register
of Deeds shall carry over such encumbrance on the certificate of title that may
be issued.
Section 83. Notice of insolvency. Whenever proceeding in bankruptcy or
insolvency, or analogous proceedings, are instituted against a debtor who owns
registered land, it shall be the duty of the officer serving the notice of the
institution of such proceedings on the debtor to file a copy thereof with the office
of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land of the debtor
lies. The assignee or trustee appointed by the court in such proceedings shall be
entitled to the entry of a new certificate of the registered land of the debtor or
bankrupt, upon presenting and filing a certified copy of the assignment in
insolvency or order or adjudication in bankruptcy with the insolvent's or
bankrupt's duplicate certificate of title; but the new certificate shall state that it
is entered to him as assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankruptcy or other
proceedings, as the case may be.
Section 84. Judgment or order vacating insolvency proceedings. Whenever any
of the proceedings of the character named in the preceding section against a
registered owner, of which notice has been registered, is vacated by judgment, a
certified copy of the judgment or order may be registered. Where a new
certificate has been entered in the name of the assignee or trustee, such
certificate shall be surrendered for cancellation and forthwith the debtor shall be
entitled to the entry of a new certificate to him.
Section 85. Land taken by eminent domain. Whenever any registered land, or
interest therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National
Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality
exercising such right shall file for registration in the proper Registry a certified
copy of the judgment which shall state definitely, by an adequate description,
the particular property or interest expropriated, the number of the certificate of
title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the right or interest
taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, and
where the fee simple title is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of
the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or
instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses
incident to the memorandum of registration or issuances incident to the
memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate shall be for the
84
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
account of the authority taking the land or interest therein.
Section 86. Extrajudicial settlement of estate. When a deed of extrajudicial
settlement has been duly registered, the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the
proper title the two-year lien mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of
Court. Upon the expiration of the two-year period and presentation of a verified
petition by the registered heirs, devisees or legatees or any other party in
interest that no claim or claims of any creditor, heir or other person exist, the
Register of Deeds shall cancel the two-year lien noted on the title without the
necessity of a court order. The verified petition shall be entered in the Primary
Entry Book and a memorandum thereof made on the title.
No deed of extrajudicial settlement or affidavit of adjudication shall be registered
unless the fact of extrajudicial settlement or adjudication is published once a
week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province and proof thereof is filed with the Register of Deeds. The proof may
consist of the certification of the publisher, printer, his foreman or principal clerk,
or of the editor, business or advertising manager of the newspaper concerned, or
a copy of each week's issue of the newspaper wherein the publication appeared.
Section 87. Filing of letters of administration and will. Before the executor or
administrator of the estate of a deceased owner of registered land may deal with
the same, he shall file with the office of the Register of Deeds a certified copy of
his letters of administration or if there is a will, a certified copy thereof and the
order allowing the same, together with the letters testamentary or of
administration with the will annexed, as the case may be, and shall produce the
duplicate certificate of title, and thereupon the Register of Deeds shall enter
upon the certificate a memorandum thereof, making reference to the letters
and/or will by their file number, and the date of filing the same.
Section 88. Dealings by administering subject to court approval. After a
memorandum of the will, if any, and order allowing the same, and letters
testamentary or letters of administration have been entered upon the certificate
of title as hereinabove provided, the executor or administrator may alienate or
encumber registered land belonging to the estate, or any interest therein, upon
approval of the court obtained as provided by the Rules of Court.
Section 89. Land devised to executor. When it appears by will, a certified copy
of which with letters testamentary had already been filed as provided in this
Decree, that registered land is devised to the executor to his own use, or upon
some trust, the executor may have the land transferred to himself upon the
register in like manner and subject to like terms and conditions and to like rights
as in the case of a transfer pursuant to a deed filed in the office of the Register
of Deeds.
Section 90. When executor empowered by will to sell, etc. When the will of a
deceased owner of registered lands, or an interest therein, empowers the
executor to sell, convey, encumber, charge or otherwise deal with the land, a
certified copy of the will and letters testamentary being filed as provided in this
Decree, such executor may sell, convey, encumber, charge or otherwise deal
with the land pursuant to the power in like manner as if he were registered
owner, subject to the terms and conditions and limitations expressed in the will.
Section 91. Transfer in anticipation of final distribution. Whenever the court
having jurisdiction of the testate or intestate proceedings directs the executor or
administrator to take over and transfer to the devisees or heirs, or any of them,
in anticipation of final distribution a portion or the whole of the registered land
to which they might be entitled on final distribution, upon the filing of a certified
copy of such order in the office of the Register of Deeds, the executor or
administratory may cause such transfer to be made upon the register in like
manner as in case of a sale, and upon the presentation of the owner's duplicate
certificate to the Register of Deeds, the devisees or heirs concerned shall be
entitled to the issuance of the corresponding certificates of title.
Section 92. Registration of final distribution of estate. A certified copy of the
partition and distribution, together with the final judgment or order of the court
approving the same or otherwise making final distribution, supported by
evidence of payment of estate taw or exemption therefrom, as the case may be,
shall be filed with the Register of Deeds, and upon the presentation of the
owner's duplicate certificate of title, new certificates of title shall be issued to the
parties severally entitled thereto in accordance with the approved partition and
distribution.
85
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
P. Assurance Fund
Section 93. Contribution to Assurance Fund. Upon the entry of a certificate of
title in the name of the registered owner, and also upon the original registration
on the certificate of title of a building or other improvements on the land
covered by said certificate, as well as upon the entry of a certificate pursuant to
any subsequent transfer of registered land, there shall be paid to the Register of
Deeds one-fourth of one per cent of the assessed value of the real estate on the
basis of the last assessment for taxation purposes, as contribution to the
Assurance Fund. Where the land involved has not yet been assessed for
taxation, its value for purposes of this decree shall be determined by the sworn
declaration of two disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed by
them is to their knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the court from increasing the
valuation of the property should it appear during the hearing that the value
stated is too small.
Section 94. Custody and investment of fund. All money received by the
Register of Deeds under the preceding section shall be paid to the National
Treasurer. He shall keep this money in an Assurance Fund which may be
invested in the manner and form authorized by law, and shall report annually to
the Commissioner of the Budget the condition and income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the principal until said fund
amounts to five hundred thousand pesos, in which event the excess income from
investments as well as from the collections of such fund shall be paid into the
National Treasury to the account of the Assurance Fund.
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without
negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any
estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the
operation of the Torrens system of arising after original registration of land,
through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the
registration book, and who by the provisions of this Decree is barred or
otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for
the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an action
in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be paid out
of the Assurance Fund.
Section 96. Against whom action filed. If such action is brought to recover for
loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any estate or interest therein
arising wholly through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of
the court personnel, Register of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the
Registry in the performance of their respective duties, the action shall be
brought against the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is
situated and the National Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought
to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any interest therein
arising through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of person
other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other
employees of the Registry, such action shall be brought against the Register of
Deeds, the National Treasurer and other person or persons, as co-defendants. It
shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in person or by representative to
appear and to defend all such suits with the aid of the fiscal of the province or
city where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in this Decree shall be
construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have
against any person for such loss or damage or deprivation without joining the
National Treasurer as party defendant. In every action filed against the
Assurance Fund, the court shall consider the report of the Commissioner of Land
Registration.
Section 97. Judgment, how satisfied. If there are defendants other than the
National Treasurer and the Register of Deeds and judgment is entered for the
plaintiff and against the National Treasury, the Register of Deeds and any of the
other defendants, execution shall first issue against such defendants other than
the National and the Register of Deeds. If the execution is returned unsatisfied
in whole or in part, and the officer returning the same certificates that the
amount due cannot be collected from the land or personal property of such other
defendants, only then shall the court, upon proper showing, order the amount of
the execution and costs, or so much thereof as remains unpaid, to be paid by
the National treasurer out of the Assurance Fund. In an action under this
Decree, the plaintiff cannot recover as compensation more than the fair market
value of the land at the time he suffered the loss, damage, or deprivation
86
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
thereof.
Section 98. General Fund when liable. If at any time the Assurance Fund is not
sufficient to satisfy such judgment, the National Treasurer shall make up for the
deficiency from any funds available in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Section 99. Subrogation of government to plaintiff's rights. In every case where
payment has been made by the National Treasurer in accordance with the
provisions of this Decree, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall
be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff against any other parties or
securities. The National Treasurer shall enforce said rights and the amount
recovered shall be paid to the account of the Assurance Fund.
Section 100. Register of Deeds as party in interest. When it appears that the
Assurance Fund may be liable for damages that may be incurred due to the
unlawful or erroneous issuance of a certificate of title, the Register of Deeds
concerned shall be deemed a proper party in interest who shall, upon authority
of the Commissioner of Land Registration, file the necessary action in court to
annul or amend the title.
The court may order the Register of Deeds to amend or cancel a certificate of
title or to do any other act as may be just and equitable.
Section 101. Losses not recoverable. The Assurance Fund shall not be liable for
any loss, damage or deprivation caused or occasioned by a breach of trust,
whether express, implied or constructive or by any mistake in the resurveyed or
subdivision of registered land resulting in the expansion of area in the certificate
of title.
Section 102. Limitation of Action. Any action for compensation against the
Assurance Fund by reason of any loss, damage or deprivation of land or any
interest therein shall be instituted within a period of six years from the time the
right to bring such action first occurred: Provided, That the right of action herein
provided shall survive to the legal representative of the person sustaining loss or
damage, unless barred in his lifetime; and Provided, further, That if at the time
such right of action first accrued the person entitled to bring such action was a
minor or insane or imprisoned, or otherwise under legal disability, such person
or anyone claiming from, by or under him may bring the proper action at any
time within two years after such disability has been removed, notwithstanding
the expiration of the original period of six years first above provided.
Who can demand from the assurance fund?
1) Any person who sustains loss or damage under the following
conditions:
'a) that there was no negligence on his part; and
'b) that the loss or damage was sustained through any omission,
mistake, or misfeasance of the clerk of court, or the register of deeds, his
deputy or clerk, in the performance of their respective duties under the
provisions of the land Registration Act,' or
"2) Any person who has been deprived of any land or any interest therein
under the following conditions:
'a) that there was no negligence on his part;
'b) that he was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or
interest therein under the provisions of the Property Registration Decree;
or by the registration by any other persons as owner of such land; or by
mistake, omission or misdescription in any certificate or owner's
duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or other official
book, or by any cancellation; and
'c) that he is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for
the recovery of such land or interest therein, or claim upon the same.'"
- Treasurer of the Philippines v CA
In order to claim from the assurance fund, the person claiming must
have acquired a registered land or interest, and as the holders of title,
that they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value.
The second situation is also inapplicable. The strongest obstacle to
recovery thereunder is that the private respondents acquired no land or
87
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
any interest therein as a result of the invalid sale made to them by the
spurious Lawaan Lopez.
The petition correctly points out that such sale conveyed no title or any
interest at all to them for the simple reason that the supposed vendor
had no title or interest to transfer. He was not the owner of the land. He
had no right thereto he could convey. Manifestly, the deception imposed
upon them by the impostor deprived the private respondents of the
money they delivered to him as consideration for the sale. But there is no
question that the subsequent cancellation of the sale did not deprive
them of the land subject thereof, or of any interest therein, for they
never acquired ownership over it in the first place.
xxx
The second situation is also inapplicable. The strongest obstacle to
recovery thereunder is that the private respondents acquired no land or
any interest therein as a result of the invalid sale made to them by the
spurious Lawaan Lopez.
The petition correctly points out that such sale conveyed no title or any
interest at all to them for the simple reason that the supposed vendor
had no title or interest to transfer. He was not the owner of the land. He
had no right thereto he could convey. Manifestly, the deception imposed
upon them by the impostor deprived the private respondents of the
money they delivered to him as consideration for the sale. But there is no
question that the subsequent cancellation of the sale did not deprive
them of the land subject thereof, or of any interest therein, for they
never acquired ownership over it in the first place. - Treasurer of the
Philippines v CA
Other recourse of the person claiming from the assurance fund.
They are, of course, not entirely without recourse, for they may still
proceed against the impostor in a civil action for recovery and damages
or prosecute him under the Revised Penal Code, assuming he can be
located and arrested. The problem is that he has completely disappeared.
That difficulty alone, however, should not make the Assurance Fund liable
to the private respondents for the serious wrong they have sustained
from the false Lawaan Lopez. The Government ---- like all governments,
and for obvious reasons ---- is not an insurer of the unwary citizen's
property against the chicanery of scoundrels. - Treasurer of the
Philippines v CA
The person claiming against the assurance fund must not have acted
with negligence.
The trial court also dismissed the Cues' third party complaint against the
Treasurer of the Philippines as custodian of the Assurance Fund after
finding them negligent in protecting their interest. The trial court
recognized the principle that a person dealing with registered lands need
not go beyond the certificate of title but nevertheless pointed out that
there are circumstances in this case which should have put the Cues on
guard and prompted them to investigate the property being mortgaged to
them, thus:
The property in question is a very valuable property, in fact
accepted by defendants Mota and Medina Cue as collateral for
more than half a million pesos in loans granted by them to
Fernandez. Its value lies principally in its income potential, in the
form of substantial monthly rentals. Certainly, the registered title
does not yield any information as to the amount of rentals due
from the building, much less on who is collecting them, or who is
recognized by the tenants as their landlord. Any prospective buyer
or mortgagee of such a property, if prudent and in good faith, is
normally expected to inquire into all these and related facts and
circumstances.
Besides, by the course of visible dimensions of the M. Torres
Building, it should be readily obvious to any one that the area of
the two lots ... covered by TCT No. 86018 cannot accommodate
the building, as in fact it also rests upon a lot covered by TCT No.
56387, and partly upon a lot leased by (Torres) from the City of
Manila. Had (the Cues) known of this fact would they have
accepted the mortgage alone over TCT No. 86018? The answer is
88
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
obvious. And yet, to all indications, they never bothered to look
into this fact about the M. Torres Building.
xxx xxx xxx
Another thing that defendants Mota and Medina Cue must have
investigated, as any prudent buyer or mortgagee should before
consummating any transaction on real property, in the matter of
payment of taxes on the property. After all, the big value of the
property in question necessarily means that even real estate taxes
on it alone would involve big amounts of money, and if there are
tax arrearages, any buyer or subsequent owner of the property
wig have to come face to face with the tax hen attaching to the
property wherever its owner may be. ... (P. 257, Record on
Appeal) Torres v CA
The Assurance Fund is intended to relieve innocent persons from the
harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is conclusive evidence of an
indefeasible title to land. The Government is not an insurer of the a
negligent's persons deprivation of land. Petitioners' recourse is not
against the Assurance Fund but against the defrauders.
Petitioners' claim is not supported by the purpose for which the
Assurance Fund was established. The Assurance Fund is intended to
relieve innocent persons from the harshness of the doctrine that a
certificate is conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to land.5
[Estrellado and Alcantara vs. Martinez, supra.] Petitioners did not suffer
any prejudice because of the operation of this doctrine. On the contrary,
petitioners sought to avail of the benefits of the Torrens System by
registering the property in their name. Unfortunately for petitioners, the
original owners were able to judicially recover the property from them.
That petitioners eventually lost the property to the original owners,
however, does not entitle them to compensation under the Assurance
Fund. While we commiserate with petitioners, who appear to be victims
of unscrupulous scoundrels, we cannot sanction compensation that is not
within the law's contemplation. As we said in Treasurer of the Philippines
vs. Court of Appeals,6 [Supra.] the Government is not an insurer of the
unwary citizen's property against the chicanery of scoundrels. Petitioners'
recourse is not against the Assurance Fund, as the Court of Appeals
pointed out, but against the rogues who duped them. - De Guzman v
Court of Appeals
Q. Cadastral Proceedings
Section 35. Cadastral Survey preparatory to filing of petition.
(a) When in the opinion of the President of the Philippines public interest
so requires that title to any unregistered lands be settled and
adjudicated, he may to this end direct and order the Director of Lands to
cause to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and the plans
and technical description thereof prepared in due form.
(b) Thereupon, the Director of Lands shall give notice to persons claiming
any interest in the lands as well as to the general public, of the day on
which such survey will begin, giving as fully and accurately as possible
the description of the lands to be surveyed. Such notice shall be punished
once in the Official Gazette, and a copy of the notice in English or the
national language shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the bulletin
board of the municipal building of the municipality in which the lands or
any portion thereof is situated. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to
the mayor of such municipality as well as to the barangay captain and
likewise to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Bayan
concerned.
(c) The Geodetic Engineers or other employees of the Bureau of Lands in
charge of the survey shall give notice reasonably in advance of the date
on which the survey of any portion of such lands is to begin, which notice
shall be posted in the bulletin board of the municipal building of the
municipality or barrio in which the lands are situated, and shall mark the
boundaries of the lands by monuments set up in proper places thereon. It
shall be lawful for such Geodetic Engineers and other employees to enter
upon the lands whenever necessary for the purposes of such survey or
the placing of monuments.
(d) It shall be the duty of every person claiming an interest in the lands
to be surveyed, or in any parcel thereof, to communicate with the
Geodetic Engineer upon his request therefor all information possessed by
89
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
such person concerning the boundary lines of any lands to which he
claims title or in which he claims any interest.
(e) Any person who shall willfully obstruct the making of any survey
undertaken by the Bureau of Lands or by a licensed Geodetic Engineer
duly authorized to conduct the survey under this Section, or shall
maliciously interfere with the placing of any monument or remove such
monument, or shall destroy or remove any notice of survey posted on the
land pursuant to law, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one
thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
Section 36. Petition for registration. When the lands have been surveyed or
plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall
institute original registration proceedings by filing the necessary petition in the
Court of First Instance of the place where the land is situated against the
holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part thereof,
stating in substance that public interest requires that the title to such lands be
settled and adjudicated and praying that such titles be so settled and
adjudicated:
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by
a plan thereof, and may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full
notice to the occupants of the lands and to all persons who may claim any right
or interest therein.
Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or occupied by different
persons, the plan shall indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as
accurately as possible. The parcels shall be known as "lots" and shall on the plan
filed in the case be given separate numbers by the Director of Lands, which
numbers shall be known as "cadastral lot numbers". The lots situated within
each municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered consecutively
beginning with number "one", and only one series of numbers shall be used for
that purpose in each municipality. However in cities or townsites, a designation
of the landholdings by blocks and lot numbers may be employed instead of the
designation by cadastral lot numbers.
The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after final decision has been
entered decreasing the registration thereof, except by order of court. Future
subdivisions of any lot shall be designated by a letter or letters of the alphabet
added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the respective subdivisions
pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be known as its
"cadastral letter": Provided, however, that the subdivisions of cities or townsites
may be designated by blocks and lot numbers.
Section 37. Answer to petition in cadastral proceedings. Any claimant in
cadastral proceedings, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear before
the court by himself or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall
file an answer on or before the date of initial hearing or within such further time
as may be allowed by the court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the
claimant or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall state
whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the
spouse and the date of marriage, his nationality, residence and postal address,
and shall also contain:
(a) The age of the claimant;
(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as appearing on the
plan filed in the case by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot
numbers, as the case may be;
(c) The name of the barrio and municipality in which the lots are
situated;
(d) The names and addresses of the owners of the adjoining lots so far as
known to the claimant;
(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no
express grant of the land by the government to him or to his
predecessors-in-interest, the answer shall state the length of time he has
held such possession and the manner in which it has been acquired, and
shall also state the length of time, as far as known, during which the
predecessors, if any, held possession;
(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the land, the
answer shall fully set forth the interest claimed by him and the time and
manner of his acquisition;
(g) if the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value;
and
(h) The encumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the names of
adverse claimants, as far as known.
90
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the case may occur at any
convenient place within the province in which the lands are situated and shall be
conducted, and orders for default and confessions entered, in the same manner
as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall be governed by the same
rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by the court and decrees
awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands or to parts thereof and
such decrees shall be the basis for issuance of original certificates of title in
favor of said persons and shall have the same effect as certificates of title
granted on application for registration of land under ordinary land registration
proceedings.
A petition for reopening of a cadastral case as well as a petition for
amending its official plan requires new publication, notice, and mailing
in order to bind other persons.
But, as already stated, the petition for reopening should be filed in the
same cadastral proceedings where the original lands were surveyed and
adjudicated and in pursuance of the procedure laid down in the Cadastral
Act. Thus, besides filing the petition for reopening, it is necessary that
notice thereof be given to those persons who claim an adverse interest in
the land sought to be registered, as well as the general public, by
publishing such notice in two successive issues of the Official Gazette,
which shall likewise be posted in a conspicuous place on the new land to
be surveyed, as well as in the municipal building of the city or
municipality in which the same is situated, as required in Section 1 of the
Cadastral Act (Act No. 2259).
It is for this reason that this Court has held that "An order of a court in a
cadastral case amending the official plan so as to make it include land not
previously included therein is a nullity unless new publication is made as
a preliminary to such step. Publication is one of the essential bases of the
jurisdiction of the court in land registration and cadastral cases, and
additional territory cannot be included by amendment of the plan without
new publication" (Philippines Manufacturing Company vs. Imperial, 49
Phil. 122; See also Escueta vs. Director of Lands, 16 Phil. 482). -
Director of Lands v Benitez
A motion to dismiss may be availed of by a party in a cadastral
proceeding. Rule 132 of the Rules of Court is suppletory applied in land
registration and cadastral cases.
In support of their first assignment of error, appellants claim that
oppositors-appellees can not avail of a motion to dismiss in a land
registration case and that the application and the titles do not show
similar identities between the lots covered by said titles and those
applied for in these proceedings.
The first assignment of error can not be sustained. By express provision
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the rules contained therein apply to
land registration and cadastral cases in a suppletory character and
whenever practicable and convenient (Dulay v. The Director of Lands,
Vol. 53 O.G. p. 161). The Land Registration Act does not provide for a
pleading similar or corresponding to a motion to dismiss. As a motion to
dismiss is necessary for the expeditious termination of land registration
cases, said motion contained in the Rules of Court can be availed of by
the parties in this case.
Lands previosly registered under the Torrens system can no longer be a
subject of cadastral proceedings.
The primary and fundamental purpose of the Torrens System of
registration is to finally settle the titles to land; to put to stop any
question of legality of title thereto. That being the purpose of the law,
there would be no end to litigation if every property covered by torrens
title may still be relitigated in a subsequent land registration proceedings.
Pursuant to the above purpose, we have held in a long line of decisions
that a homestead patent once registered under the Land Registration Act
can not be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding and that any title
issued thereon is null and void.
A homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act,
becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens title, and cannot thereafter be the
subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in a cadastral
case. Any new title which the cadastral court may order to be issued is
null and void and should be cancelled. All that the cadastral court may do
91
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist
Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)
is to make correction of technical errors in the description of the property
contained in its title, or to proceed to the partition thereof if it is owned
by two or more co-owners. - Duran v Olivia
Jurisdiction of the courts over lands already registered is limited to the
correction of technical errors over the description of the subject land,
which must not impair the rights of the registered owner.
It has long been settled that in cadastral cases the jurisdiction of the
court over lands already registered 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. (Pamintuan v. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 561 [1922]).
In a later case, such power of the court was further clarified and
amplified to the effect that the above proposition does not exclude from
the jurisdiction of the court the power to determine the priority of over-
lapping or over- lying registered titles. There is nothing in this proposition
which militates against allowing the court in a cadastral case to
determine which one of several conflicting registered titles shall prevail.
This power is necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land,
which is the express purpose of cadastral proceedings and must
therefore, be considered as within the jurisdiction of the courts in such
proceedings. Furthermore, it was stressed that in such proceedings no
final decree or registration was reopened or set aside (Timbol v. Diaz, 44
Phil. 589-590 [1932]). - Gabriel v CA
R. Registration of Patents
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever public land is
by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same
shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It shall be the
duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant, patent or
conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed
with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be
there registered like other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of
title shall be entered as in other cases of registered land, and an owner's
duplicate issued to the grantee. The deed, grant, patent or instrument of
conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land but shall operate only as a contract between the
Government and the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of
Deeds to make registration. It is the act of registration that shall be the
operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree,
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province
or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee.
After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be
deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
Section 104. Provisional Register of Documents. The Department of Agrarian
Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special registry book to be
known as the "Provisional Register of Documents issued under PD-27" which
shall be kept and maintained in every Registry of Deeds throughout the country.
Said Registry Book shall be a register of:
a. All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27;
and
b. All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer such
as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous
Certificates of Land Transfer.
Section 105. Certificates of Land Transfer Emancipation Patents. The
Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27 issue in duplicate, a
Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under "Operation Land
Transfer", the original of which shall be kept by the tenant-farmer and the
duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds.
After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a
grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover
previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of
Agrarian Reform.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned
Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in
case of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the
corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the
92
 Atty. Peraltas LTD Case Gist

Dann Mercado (Batch 3, DLSU Law)

owner's duplicate of the title to be canceled.

In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall
determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of
Deeds accordingly.
In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an Emancipation Patent or
a Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of
Deeds shall affect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from
the Department of Agrarian Reform.
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection
with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration or
related documents.

Section 106. Sale of agricultural land; affidavit. No voluntary deed or

instrument purporting to be a subdivision, mortgage, lease, sale or any other
mode of encumbrance or conveyance of private agricultural land principally
devoted to rice or corn or any portion thereof shall be registered unless
accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor or executor stating that the land
involved is not tenanted, or if tenanted, the same is not primarily devoted to the
production of rice and/or corn.
If only a portion of the land is primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or
corn, and such area so devoted is tenanted, no such deed or instrument shall be
registered unless accompanied by an affidavit stating the area (size) of the
portion which is tenanted and primarily devoted to rice and/or corn, and stating
further that the deed or instrument covers only the untenanted portion or that
which is not primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or corn. A
memorandum of said affidavit shall be annotated on the certificate of title. The
Register of Deeds shall cause a copy of the registered deed or instrument,
together with the affidavit, to be furnished the Department of Agrarian Reform
Regional Office where the land is located. The affidavit provided in this section
shall not be required in the case of a tenant-farmer who deals with his
Certificate of Land Transfer or Emancipation Patent in accordance with law.

93