ABRIGO V DE VERA

FACTS: Villafania sold a house and lot located Pangasinan and Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go
covered by a tax declaration. Unknown, however to Tigno-Salazar and a Cave-Go, Villafania
obtained a free patent over the parcel of land involved.The said free patent was later on cancelled
by a TCT.

On Oct 16, 1997, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, sold the house and lot to the Spouses Abrigo.

On Oct 23, 1997, Villafania sold the same house and lot to de Vera. De Vera registered the sale
and as a consequence a TCT was issued in her name.

De Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against Spouses Abrigo before the MTC.

Spouses Abrigo filed a case with the RTC for the annulment of documents, injunction,
preliminary injunction, restraining order and damages Villafania.

The parties submitted a Motion for Dismissal in view of their agreement in the instant (RTC) case
that neither of them can physically take possession of the property in question until the instant
case is terminated. Hence the ejectment case was dismissed.

The RTC rendered judgment approving the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. In
the said Decision, Villafania was given one year from the date of the Compromise Agreement to
buy back the house and lot, and failure to do so would mean that the previous sale in favor of
Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go shall remain valid and binding and the plaintiff shall voluntarily
vacate the premises without need of any demand. Villafania failed to buy back the house and lot,
so the [vendees] declared the lot in their name

The RTC rendered the assailed Decision awarding the properties to Spouses Abrigo as well as
damages. Moreover, Villafania was ordered to pay [petitioners and private respondent] damages
and attorneys fees.

Not contented with the assailed Decision, both parties [appealed to the CA].

In its original Decision, the CA held that a void title could not give rise to a valid one and hence
dismissed the appeal of Private Respondent de Vera. Since Villafania had already transferred
ownership to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go, the subsequent sale to De Vera was
deemed void.The CA also dismissed the appeal of Petitioner-Spouses Abrigo and found no
sufficient basis to award them moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

On reconsideration found Respondent De Vera to be a purchaser in good faith and for value. The
appellate court ruled that she had relied in good faith on the Torrens title of her vendor and must
thus be protected.

Hence, this Petition.

Issue: Who between petitioner-spouses and respondent has a better right to the property.
Held: Respondent Romana De Vera.
Petitioners contend that Gloria Villafania could not have transferred the property to Respondent
De Vera because it no longer belonged to her. They further claim that the sale could not be
validated, since respondent was not a purchaser in good faith and for value.
Law on Double Sale
Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale. 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. There is no ambiguity in the application of this law with respect to lands registered
under the Torrens system.
In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of the property.
Since neither petitioners nor their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the
property was covered by the Torrens system, they registered their respective sales under Act
3344. For her part, respondent registered the transaction under the Torrens systembecause,
during the sale, Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title (TCT) covering the
property.
Respondent De Vera contends that her registration under the Torrens system should prevail over
that of petitioners who recorded theirs under Act 3344. De Vera relies on the following insight of
Justice Edgardo L. Paras:
x x x If the land is registered under the Land Registration Act (and has therefore a Torrens Title),
and it is sold but the subsequent sale is registered not under the Land Registration Act but under
Act 3344, as amended, such sale is not considered REGISTERED, as the term is used under Art.
1544 x x x.
Soriano v. Heirs of Magali 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.
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 ones favor does not give him any right over the land if the
vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else
even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.
Petitioners cannot validly argue that they were fraudulently misled into believing that the property
was unregistered. A Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the whole world. All
persons must take notice, and no one can plead ignorance of the registration.
Good-Faith Requirement
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 buyers rights) ----
from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration, or failing registration,
by delivery of possession.
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.
"The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been held to refer to registration under Act
496 Land Registration Act (now PD 1529) which considers the act of registration as the operative
act that binds the land (see Mediante vs. Rosabal, 1 O.G. [12] 900, Garcia vs. Rosabal, 73 Phil
694). On lands covered by the Torrens System, the purchaser acquires such rights and interest
as they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or encumbrance not noted
therein. The purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face,
indicates. The only exception is where the purchaser has actual knowledge of a flaw or defect in
the title of the seller or of such liens or encumbrances which, as to him, is equivalent to
registration (see Sec. 39, Act 496; Bernales vs. IAC, G.R. 75336, 18 October 1988; Hernandez
vs. Sales, 69 Phil 744; Tajonera vs. Court of Appeals, L-26677, 27 March 1981),"
Respondent in Good Faith
The Court of Appeals examined the facts to determine whether respondent was an innocent
purchaser for value. After its factual findings revealed that Respondent De Vera was in good faith.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED.
BARANDA VS GUSTILO
GR 81163, SEPTEMBER 26, 1988

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

FACTS:

A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo involving a
parcel of land known as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered by OCT No.
6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.
The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the names of petitioners
Baranda and Hitalia.
The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and
Susana Silao refused to honor on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the
same Lot No. 4517.
The Court found out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently acquired by Perez, Gotera
and Susana.
Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition which was questioned by Perez and
others so a motion for reconsideration was filed.
Another case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) for the execution of
judgement in the resolutions issued by the courts.
In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case (GR. NO. 00827) involving the same
properties. (NOTE: This time three cases na ang involve excluding the case at bar.)
The petitioners prayed that an order be released to cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to
cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-
106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.
In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso
annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued
new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners.
However, by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis
pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title.
This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in
the new certificates.
 Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of the
notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration
invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis
pendens in a torrens certificate of title.

HELD:
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds
to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal
property which complies with all the requisites for registration. ... If the instrument is not
registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in
writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by
consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree."

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

The function of ROD is ministerial in nature

The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances,
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not
have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order
directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the
petitioners over the subject parcel of land.

In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument
presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration
now, the Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration in
accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute
are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and
the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The statute concerning the function of the
Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no
room for construction.

DE LEON V DELEON
FACTS:
1. Bonifacio De Leon, then single and the Peoples Homesite and Housing
Corporation (PHHIC) entered into a Conditional Contract to Sell for the
purchase on installment of a 191.30 sq.m lot in Fairview.
2. Subsequently, Bonifacio married Anita Deleon in Nueva Ecija and they had
2 children, Danilo and Vilma
3. After the full payment of the Fairview Lot, PHHC executed a Final Deed of
Sale in favor of Bonifacio and a TCT (173677) was issued in the name of
Bonifacio, single.
4. Subsequently, Bonifacio (19k) sold the lot to her sister Lita and Felix
Tarrosa.
5. The deed of sale did not bear the written consent and signature of Anita.
6. On February 29, 1996, Bonifactio died.
7.3 months later, the Tarrosas registered the Deed of Sale and had the TCT of
Bonifacio cancelled. They secured the issuance in their names of TCT No.
173911 from the Registry of Deeds.
8. Due to the cancellation of their fathers title, Vilma and Danilo filed for a
Notice of Adverse Claim to protect their rights over the subject property.
Later, Anita, Danilo and Vilma filed a reconveyance suit before the RTC.
9. In their complaint they alleged that:
(1) Fraud attended the execution of deed of sale
(2) Subsequent acts of Bonifacio would show that he was still the owner of
the parcel of land.
REM infavor of Spouses Almero
Civil Complaint filed by Bonifacion for the nullifaction of the REM
CFIs decision nullifying the REM
10. The Tarrosas, in their Answer, they alleged that the lot Bonifacio sold to
them was his exclusive property inasmuch as he was still single when he
acquired it from PHHC. As further alleged, they were not aware of the
supposed marriage between Bonifacio and Anita at the time of the execution
of the Deed of Sale.
11. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Anita declaring:
(1) The property was conjugal
(2) DOS is void
(3) Cancellation of TCT of Tarrosas
(4) Transfer the property in the name of Bonfiacio
12. Upon appeal, CA affirmed RTCs decision.
13. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the property was conjugal

HELD: YES. Property is conjugal.
1. According to the Civil Code at the time of the marriage of Bonifacio and
Anita, all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership unless it is proved that it pertains exclusively to
the husband or the wife. Only proof of acquisition during the marriage
is needed to raise the presumption that the property is conjugal. In
fact, even when the manner in which the properties were acquired
does not appear, the presumption will still apply, and the properties
will still be considered conjugal.
In the case at bar, Bonifacio and PHHC entered into a
Conditional Contract to Sell. That the title would be passed to
Bonifacio upon full payment of the purchase price. In this type of
contract, ownership is retained by the seller and is not passed to the
buyer until full payment of the price, unlike in a contract of sale where
title passes upon delivery of the thing sold.
Since title to property only passed to Bonifacio after full
payment of the purchase price, which was made 2 years after
Bonifacio and Anitas marriage, the property was acquired during the
marriage, as such ownership to the property is presumed to belong to
the conjugal partnership.
 Petitioners argument that the disputed lot was Bonifacios
exclusive property, since it was registered solely in his name, is
untenable. The mere registration of a property in the name of one
spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature. What is material is the
time when the property was acquired.
Moreover, the sale of a conjugal piece of land by the husband,
as administrator, must, as a rule, be with the wifes consent. Else, the
sale is not valid. So it is that in several cases we ruled that the sale by
the husband of property belonging to the conjugal partnership without
the consent of the wife is void ab initio, absent any showing that the
latter is incapacitated, under civil interdiction, or like causes.

GUARANTEED HOMES V HEIRS OF VALDEZ

FACTS:
1. The Heirs of Valdez, descendants of Pablo Pascia filed a complaint
seeking reconveyance of a parcel of land with an area of 23
hectares in Zambales covered by OCT No. 404 in the name of
Pablo.
2. The OCT contained several annotations in the memorandum of
encumbrances which showed that the property had already been
sold by Pablo during his lifetie to Alejandria Marquinez and
Restituto Morales.
3. Respondents also attached copies of the several documents (TCT,
Extrajudicial Settement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales)
executed by Cipriano Pascua, and the Deed of Sale with Mortgage
between Spouses Rudolfo and petitioner.
4. Repondents alleged that Pablo died intestate and was survived by
4 heirs one of who is Cipriano. Cipriano execited a document
denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement of Sole Heir and
Confirmation of Sales, wherein he declared himself as the only heir
of Pablo and confirmed the sales made by the decedent during his
lifetime, including the sale to Spouses Rudolfo
5. TCT No. T-8241 was issued in the name of Cipriano without the OCT
404 being cancelled. However, the TCT was not signed by the ROD.
On the same day, TCT 8242 was issued to Spouses Rudolfo and TCT
8241 was cancelled.
6. Subsequently, Spouses Rudolfo, sold the property to Guanranteed
Homes by virtue of Deed of Sale with Mortgage. TCT 8242 was
cancelled, TCT10863 was issued in favor of Guaranteed Homes.
7. Jorge Pascua, son of Cipriano, filed a petition before the RTC for the
issuance of a new owners duplicate of OCT 404. RTC denied the
petition and held Guaranteed Homes as the owner of the land,
holding that failure to annotate the subsequent transfer of property
to it at the back of OCT 404 did not affect its title to the property.
8. Guaranteed Homes filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that
the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations for more than 28
years had elapsed from the issuance of TCT to Guaranteed Homes.
And that the complaint states no cause of action for Guaranteed
 Homes is an innocent purchaser for value having relied on the title
of Spouses Rudolfo.
9. Heirs of Cipriano denied the existence of the extrajudicaial
settlement.
10. Register of Deeds through the OSG filed an answer, averring that
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 for the filing of an action
against the Assurance Fund had long prescribed since the transfer
of ownership over the property was registered through the
issuance of TCT No. T-10863 in favor of petitioner as early as 1969.
They also claimed that respondents have no cause of action
against the Assurance Fund since they were not actually deprived
of ownership over the property, as they could have recovered the
property had it not been for their inaction for over 28 years
11. RTC granted petitioners motion to dismiss.
Noting that respondents had never claimed nor established
that they have been in possession of the property and that
they did not present any evidence to show that petitioner
has not been in possession of the property either, the RTC
applied the doctrine that an action to quiet title prescribes
where the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.
The RTC added that it is an enshrined rule that even a
registered owner of property may be barred from recovering
possession of property by virtue of laches.
The RTC further held that petitioner had the right to rely on
TCT No. T- 8242 in the name of spouses Rodolfo. Petitioner is
not obliged to go beyond the title considering that there
were no circumstances surrounding the sale sufficient to put
it into inquiry.
Concerning the Assurance Fund, the RTC held that the claim
against it had long prescribed since Section 102 of P.D. No.
1529 provides for a six-year period within which a plaintiff
may file an action against the fund and in this case the
period should be counted from the time of the issuance of
the challenged TCT No. T-10863 on 5 November 1969 and
thus expired in 1975.
12. CA reversed RTCs order
Respondents complaint before the RTC make out a case for
quieting of title which has not prescribed. Respondents did
not have to prove possession over the property since
petitioner as the movant in a motion to dismiss
hypothetically admitted the truth of the allegations in the
complaint. The appellate court found that possession over
the property was sufficiently alleged in the complaint which
stated that neither petitioner nor the Rodolfo spouses ever
had possession of the disputed proper as a number of the
Pascua heirs either had been (still are) in actual, continuous
and adverse possession thereof or had been enjoying (still
are enjoying) the use thereof. By the same token, laches had
not set in, the Court of Appeals added.
 Guaranteed Homes is not an innocent purchaser for value.

ISSUE: W/N the action of quieting of title has already prescribed.

HELD: YES.
1. The complaint does not allege any defect with TCT No. T-8242 in the
name of the spouses Rodolfo, who were petitioners predecessors-in-
interest, or any circumstance from which it could reasonably be
inferred that petitioner had any actual knowledge of facts that would
impel it to make further inquiry into the title of the spouses Rodolfo. It
is basic that a person dealing with registered property need not go
beyond, but only has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-interest.
Since the act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect
the land insofar as third persons are concerned it follows that where
there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in
the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the
purchaser is not required to explore farther 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. If the rule were
otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title
which the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and
nugatory. The public shall then be denied of its foremost motivation for
respecting and observing the Torrens system of registration. In the end,
the business community stands to be inconvenienced and prejudiced
immeasurably.

It is enough that petitioner had examined the latest certificate of title

which in this case was issued in the name of the immediate transferor,
the spouses Rodolfo. The purchaser is not bound by the original
certificate but only by the certificate of title of the person from whom
he had purchased the property. Hence, the fact that TCT 8241 was not
signed is not important since there is a presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty.

The Court cannot give credence to respondents claims that the Extrajudicial
Settlement of a Sole Heir and Confirmation of Sales was not registered and
that OCT No. 404 was not cancelled by the Register of Deeds. The Register of
Deeds of Zambales certified that the extrajudicial settlement was recorded on
14 February 1967, per Entry No. 18590. This is in compliance with Section 56
of Act No. 496,41 the applicable law at the time of registration, which
provides that: Each register of deeds shall keep an entry book in which he
shall enter in the order of their reception all deeds and other voluntary
instruments, and all copies of writs and other pro- cess filed with him relating
to registered land. He shall note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and
minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they are
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.
Registration in the public registry is notice to the whole world. Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument
or entry affecting registered land shall be, if registered, filed or entered in the
Office of the Register of Deeds of 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.