Registration; not a mode of acquiring ownership
Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership
nor is it even a title. Hence a certificate of title covering
inalienable lands of the public domain like forest or
mineral lands is void and can be cancelled even in the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value.1
TORRENS SYSTEM
Congress borrowed Torrens System from
Australia. Pioneered by Sir Robert Torrens in Australia in
1857.
Purpose:
1. To encourage dealings and transactions in land
by imparting faith and credit in land titles. A person
dealing in lands need not look beyond the certificate of
title. Our system is superior to the United State System
where they have to hire title abstractors to investigate the
title. Here a layman can do his own title verification. The
books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those
who have a known interest in ascertaining the status of
the immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed
therein. (Art. 710, Civil Code).
2. To lend stability to the registered ownership.
Hence not subject to collateral attack (S48),
imprescriptible (S47), and indefeasible after one year
(S32).
NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTY
1. Property of the public dominion.
2. National parks.
3. Reservations for public and
purposes.
4. Forest lands.
5. Mineral lands.
6. Military and naval reservations.
7. Open areas in subdivisions.
8. Watersheds.
9. Foreshore lands.
10. Reclaimed lands.
11. Mangrove swamps.
12. Rivers.
13. Lakes.
14. Creeks.
Open areas in a subdivision are properties of the
public domain and cannot be the subject of commerce
pursuant to PD No.1216. Hence even if titled and
purchased by a buyer in good faith, the latter would not
be able to acquire ownership over the open areas.2
HLURB has jurisdiction over action
homeowners association to nullify mortgage
developer to bank of subdivision open space.3
PD No. 1216, effective 14 October 1977, does not
have retroactive effect and does not apply to the Talayan
Village which was developed in the 1950s.4
Sale of a portion of the Fort Bonifacio Military
Reservation to the NOVAI is void. The title issued to
NOVAI is similarly void. Registration under the Torrens
1 Heirs of Venturanza v. Rep., G.R. 149122, 27 Jul 2007
2 Aonuevo v. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 28
3 7
BDO v. Sunny-Side Heights Homeowners Assoc., 13 Jan 2016
4 Homeowners Assoc. of Talayan Village v. J.M. Tuason & Co., 10 Nov 2015
System does not, by itself, vest title as it is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.5
LAND REGISTRATION LAW
Before Act No. 496. Now PD 1529 or the Property
Registration Decree.
Characteristics
1. Conclusive, indefeasible, and incontrovertible
2. Immune from collateral attack
3. Imprescriptible
1. Conclusive, indefeasible, and incontrovertible
A torrens certificate of title becomes conclusive,
indefeasible or incontrovertible after the lapse of one (1)
year from entry in the Registry of Deeds.
2. Immunity from collateral attack
Defendant in a real action cannot raise defense
of nullity of Plaintiffs title. He must institute a direct action
to nullify the title.
Direct Attack; Definition
A direct attack is an action the object of which is
to nullify the certificate of title and hence to challenge the
proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed. An
indirect or collateral attack is an action the purpose of
which is to seek a different relief but in which an attack on
the certificate of title or proceeding is made as an incident
thereof.
semi-public The validity of a certificate of title cannot be
assailed in an action for quieting of title; an action for
annulment of title is the appropriate remedy to seek the
cancellation of a certificate of title. Hence the action for
quieting of title is a mere collateral attack.6
Question
The Plaintiffs filed a complaint for quieting of title
and damages against Engr. Leyson wherein the Plaintiffs
allege that they are the owners of the property being
occupied by Leyson. The Plaintiffs presented an OCT to
prove their ownership. Leyson filed an answer with
counterclaim wherein he counterclaimed that the Plaintiffs
obtained their OCT through fraud and deceit and prayed
that the certificate of title be nullified. The CA said that
Leysons counterclaim was a proscribed collateral attack.
Was the counterclaim a direct attack on the certificate of
title?
Answer
Yes. The attack may be in an original action or in
by a counterclaim. A counterclaim is considered a new suit
by in which the Defendant becomes the Plaintiff in respect of
the counterclaim.7
Some Court Rulings
A third-party complaint seeking nullification of the
certificate of title is also considered as a direct attack.8
In an action for recovery of land, the defense in
the answer that the defendants land is not within the
plaintiffs certificate of title as the technical description in
the title is erroneous is not a valid defense since the same
5 Navy Officers Village Assoc. v. Rep, 3 Aug 2015
6 Leonero v Sps. Barba, 23 Dec 2009
Leyson v. Bontuyan, 18 Feb 2005; Arangote v. Sps. Maglunob, 18 Feb 2009
8 Sarmiento v. CA, 16 Sep 2005
is a collateral attack on the certificate of title which is not
allowed under Section 48 of the Property Registration
Decree.9
In unlawful detainer suit, defense that plaintiffs
title was fraudulently obtained is a collateral attack.10
In an action for specific performance, the
occupants of the Maysilo Estate filed an action to compel
the PHHC to sell to them the respective occupied portions
thereof. GAUF filed a motion to intervene on the ground
that the occupants had sold their rights over the estate to
GAUF. GAUF submitted the compromise agreement and
on the basis thereof the court issued to GAUF title over
Lots 75 and 54. Later on it was found that the signature
of the tenant in the compromise agreement was forged
and the trial court issued an order canceling the title over
Lots 75 and 54. GAUF argued that this was a collateral
attack on the certificate of title but the SC said that Section
48 of PD 1529 does not apply since GAUF had based its
intervention on its alleged rights over Lots 75 and 54 and
had thus impliedly submitted the issue of the validity of the
certificate of titles thereto to the trial court.11
Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance
against the Respondents. Respondents in their answer
attacked the validity of petitioners certificate of title by
claiming that their mother became the true owner of the
southern portion of Lot 83 in 1968 even before the
issuance of OCT No. P-9354 in 1977. The SC held that
the Respondents defense is a proscribed collateral attack
on the certificate of title.12
The DARAB in its judgment directed the
cancellation of the certificate of title of the Sps Filcon but
the latter had transferred the title pendente lite to Green
Acres. A motion for execution of the judgment which
seeks the cancellation of Green Acres certificate of title
would be a collateral attack.13
Mandamus does not lie to compel the LRA to
issue a decree of registration over land which already has
two titles issued over it. Otherwise the same would be a
collateral attack on the two certificates of title. Proper
remedy is to directly attack the two extant certificates of
title.14
Question:
Petitioner filed an application for original
registration of parcel of land wherein she contends that
Respondent had sold the land to her. Respondent filed
an opposition stating that the deed of sale was spurious.
During the pendency of the land registration case, an
OCT over the subject land was issued in the name of the
Respondent. Should the land registration court dismiss
the application?
Answer
Yes. An application for original registration of land
which is already registered would be a collateral attack on
the certificate of title. The remedy of the Petitioner is to file
an action for reconveyance.15
9 15
Catores v. Afidchao, 31 March 2009.
10 Tuason v. Isagon, 2 Sep 2015
11 GAUF v RTC of Kalookan, 4 Mar 2009
12 Vda. de Aguilar v. Sps. Alfaro, 5 Jul 2010
13
Green Acres Holdings v Cabral 5 Jun 2013
14 Rodriguez v CA, 13 Jun 2013
A resolution on the issue of ownership does not
subject the Torrens title issued over the disputed realties
to a collateral attack. It must be borne in mind that what
cannot be collaterally attacked is the certificate of title and
not the title itself. Mere issuance of the Certificate of Title
in a persons name does not preclude the possibility that
the realty may be under co-ownership with persons not
named in the Certificate of Title, or that the registrant is
only a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired
interest over the property after the issuance of the
certificate of title.16
3. Imprescriptible
No title in derogation to the title of the registered
owner may be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. Includes interest less than ownership like
easements.
Laches may however apply in exceptional cases.
Some Court Rulings
The owner of a land covered by a Torrens Title
may file an accion publiciana even after 10 years from the
accrual of the right of action pursuant to Sec. 47 of the
PRD.17
Sale of the entire co-owned property by one co-
owner to MCIAA was unenforceable as to heirs who did
not consent. MCIAA could not claim ownership by
adverse possession since property was covered by a
Torrens title.18
Probate court cannot include in inventory land
covered by certificates of title in name of persons other
than the decedent because of the conclusive nature of a
Torrens title. 19
Heirs of registered owner have better right of possession
as against transferees in unregistered deed of sale, based
on the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title. (Endaya
v Villaos, 27 Jan 2016).
3 Proceedings to Register
1. Administrative
- obtain grants from government. Patent,
homestead. Governed by provisions of the
Public Land Act (CA 141).
2. Regular Judicial Proceedings
- filing of application with RTC and ask court
that you be the owner and ownership
registered. In rem proceeding.
- MTC has delegated jurisdiction in land
registration cases where there is no
controversy or opposition, or in contested lots
where the value does not exceed P100K.
3. Cadastral Proceedings
- same as a No. 2 except it is the government
that initiates the application for registration.
- Parcel of land known as Cadastral lots.
Under Sec. 34 of B.P. Blg. 129 re delegated
jurisdiction in cadastral cases, the value of the lot is not to
be determined from the selling price in the deed of sale
Wee v. Mardo, 4 Jun 2014
16 Inalvez v. Nool, 18 Apr 2016
17 Supapo v. De Jesus, 20 April 2015
18 MCIAA v Ijordan, 11 Jan 2016, Bersamin, J.
19
Lim v CA, 24 Jan 2000
annexed to the petition but rather from the value indicated
in the tax declaration.20
A Torrens title issued pursuant to a homestead,
sales or free patent has the same force and effect as title
issued by way of judicial proceedings under PD 1529.
Who can file application for registration under PD
1529?
Ordinary Proceeding.
Section 14 enumerates
1. Those Filipinos who by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest, have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, adverse, and notorious (OCEAN)
possession of alienable land of public domain from 12
June 1945 or earlier. The OCEAN possession ipso facto
converts the land from public to private land. 21. (Note that
30-year period has been superseded by the June 12,
1945 reckoning period. However, in the case of
indigenous people, 30-year OCEAN possession would
suffice. Sec.12, IPRA
2. Those who have acquired ownership of private
land by prescription. 10-30 years under Articles 1134 and
1137 of the Civil Code.
3. Those who acquire ownership by accession or
accretion. The fact that the riparian property is registered
does not mean that the alluvium is also covered by the
prescription. Hence may be lost by acquisitive
prescription by others.
4. In any other manner provided by law
Sec. of DENR v. Yap, 8 October 2008
Except for those already covered by existing
titles, Boracay was unclassified land of the public domain.
Hence pursuant to P.D. No. 705, Boracay was considered
as forest or timber land. PD No. 705 categorized all
unclassified land of the public domain as public forests.
Hence even if the resort owners could tack their
ownership back to 12 June 1945 that would not confer
ownership upon them since public forest land cannot be
alienated or disposed. This case overturns the doctrine
in Quasha v. Republic, 17 August 1972, reiterated as
recently in Chavez v. PEA, 9 July 2002, that unclassified
public land is deemed to be public agricultural land.
Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, 29 April 2009:
Distinctions between Sec. 14(1) and Sec. 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree:
SEC. 14(1), PD 1529 SECTION 14(2), PD 1529
Refers to acquisition of Refers to acquisition of
alienable public land by private land or patrimonial
adverse possession land of the State by
under the provisions of acquisitive prescription
Sec. 48(b) of the Public pursuant to Articles 1134
Land Act, known as and 1137 of the Civil Code
judicial confirmation of
imperfect title
Adverse possession Adverse possession must
must be since 12 June be for 10 or 30 years
1945
20
Rep v. Bantigue Point Devt Corp, 14 Mar 2012
21 Director of Lands v. IAC, 146 SCRA 509
Declaration that land is Formal and express
alienable and declaration that the land is
disposable patrimonial, i.e, no longer
needed for public use,
public service, or the
development of the national
wealth
Adverse possession Only the adverse possession
prior to declaration may after the declaration may be
be counted counted
Question
Malabanan filed an application for original
registration of land with the RTC over a parcel of land in
Silang, Cavite. Malaban presented evidence that he and
his predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of
the parcel of land for more than 30 years or since 1948.
He presented a CENRO-DENR certification declaring the
land as alienable and disposable in 1982. May the RTC
grant the application for registration?
Answer
No. Malabanan may not acquire the land
pursuant to Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act in relation
to Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree.
While the possession even before the declaration of the
land as alienable and disposable in 1982 may be taken
into account, the fact is that Malabanans possession
could only be traced back to 1948, not to 12 June 1945
as required under Sec. 48(b).
Nor may Malabanan obtain title by virtue of
acquisitive prescription under Articles 1134 and 1137 of
the NCC in relation to Sec. 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree. Acquisitive prescription applies
only to patrimonial property of the State, not to lands of
the public domain. The declaration that the land is
alienable and disposable did not convert it to patrimonial
property. There must be a formal and express declaration
that the land is no longer needed for public use, public
service, or the development of the national wealth. And
in such a case, it is only the possession after the
declaration which would be counted for purposes of
acquisitive prescription.22
Heirs of Malabanan v Republic, 3 September 2013, en
banc, (resolution
(1) Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of the public
domain belong to the State. Lands that are not clearly
under private ownership are also presumed to belong
to the State and thus may not be alienated.
(2) The following are excepted from the general rule, to
wit:
(a) Agricultural lands of the public domain
are rendered alienable and disposable through
any of the exclusive modes under Section 11 of
the Public Land Act. (E.g., homestead, sales
patent, free patent, Sec. 48[b]).
If the mode is judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the PLA, the
land subject of the application needs only to be
classified as alienable and disposable as of the
time of the application; provided the applicants
possession and occupation of the land dated
back to June 12, 1945, or earlier.
22
Heirs of Malabanan v. Rep., 29 Apr 2009.
 (b) Lands of the public domain declared as
no longer intended for public use or for the
development of national wealth are converted
into patrimonial lands that may be alienated or
disposed through any of the modes of acquiring
ownership under the Civil Code. This includes
acquisitive prescription.
Survey plan by a geodetic engineer that the
survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623 classified as alienable
and disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development is
not sufficient proof to show that land is alienable and
disposable. There must be a certificate of land
classification status issued by the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) or
the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office
(PENRO) of the DENR, which must be approved by the
DENR Secretary, and that the land is within the approved
area per verification through survey by the CENRO or
PENRO.23
Possession under Sec. 14(1) must be actual and
not just constructive or fictional possession.24
CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT
SEC.7, ART. XII, CONSTITUTION
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, ART. XII, CONSTITUTION
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7, 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.
Who may be a transferee of private lands?
1. Filipino citizens (Sec. 3, Art. XII, Constitution).
The citizenship is determined at the time of
acquisition not registration. (Director of Lands v
IAC, 29 Dec 1986). Congress cannot pass a law
allowing alien individuals to be a transferee of
private lands. If the alien later becomes a Filipino
or sells it to a Filipino, the defect of the acquisition
is cured.25
2. Private corporations or associations at least 60%
of the capital stock belongs wholly to Filipino
citizens and which is organized and constituted
under Philippine laws. (Sec. 33 of the PLA).26
3. Aliens by hereditary succession. (Sec. 7, Art. XII,
Constitution). Hereditary succession refers to
succession by operation of law and not to
testamentary succession.27
4. Former natural-born Filipinos. (Sec. 8, Art. XII,
Constitution). The relevant law is Sec. 10 of the
Foreign Investments Act which provides that
such former Filipino may be a transferee of
private land up to 5,000 sq. m. in case of urban
land and up to 3 hectares in case of rural land to
23 Rep v. Dela Paz, 15 Nov 2010
24 Rep v East Silverware Realty, 20 Feb 2012
25
Halili v. CA, 12 Mar 1998, 287 SCRA 465
26 It has been opined that Congress may pass a law modifying the 60-40
requirement since the basis of the nationality requirement in the case of
corporations is statutory not constitutional. (Tadeo F. Hilado, Point of Law,
be used by him for business or other purposes.
In case of a married couple, one or both may avail
provided that the total area acquired shall not
exceed the maximum. A transferee who has
already acquired urban land is disqualified from
acquiring rural land and vice-versa.
The constitutional prohibition refers only to
acquisition of land. The improvements on land, such as
a house, are not covered and hence may be donated in
favor of an alien.28
REMEDY IF LAND ILLEGALLY TRANSFERRED TO
ALIEN; Reversion Proceedings
Action for reversion under Sec. 5 Rule 91. Only
the Government, through the Solicitor General, has the
personality to file a case challenging the capacity of a
person to acquire or to own land based on non-
citizenship. This limitation is based on the fact that the
violation is committed against the State, not against any
individual; and that in the event that the transferee is
adjudged to be not a Filipino citizen, the affected property
reverts to the State, not to the previous owner or any other
individual.29
Question
In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua Chung
Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land in Binondo.
Chua died in 1990, leaving behind his wife and three
children, one of whom, Julian, is a naturalized Filipino
citizen. Six years after Chuas death, the heirs executed
an extrajudicial settlement of estate, and the parcel of
land was allocated to Julian. In 2007, Luciano filed suit to
recover the land he sold to Chua, alleging that the sale
was void because it contravened the Constitution which
prohibits the sale of private lands to aliens. Will the suit
prosper?
Answer
No, the suit will not prosper. First. Only the
Government, through the Solicitor General, has the
personality to file a reversion case challenging the
capacity of a person to acquire or to own land based on
non-citizenship. 30 Second. The reason behind the
Constitutional proscription against transfer of private
lands to aliens no longer exists since the land is now
owned by a Filipino citizen.31
RE-ACQUISITION AND RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP
UNDER RA 9225
A natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country prior to
the effectivity of R.A. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act) on 17 September 2003 is deemed merely
to have reacquired and not retained his Filipino citizenship
upon taking the oath of allegiance. Hence, he is liable for
falsification of public document when he indicated in his
Miscellaneous Lease Application that he was a Filipino
when he had not yet taken his oath of allegiance under
R.A. 922532
Can corporations acquire lands?
27 Ramirez v. Ramirez, 15 Feb 1982
28 Beumer v. Amores, 3 Dec 2012
29
Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds, 29 Mar 2010
30 Balais-Mabanag v. Register of Deeds, supra
31 Halili vs CA, supra
32 David v. Agbay, 18 Mar 2015
If public land
No. Sec. 3 Article 12 of the Constitution
If private land
Yes. Corporation must be incorporated in the
Philippines, and at least 60% of capital stock belongs to
Filipino citizens. (Sec 33, Public Land Act).
A corporation may be a transferee of private land
from an individual who has possessed it for the required
period under the Public Land Act or since 12 June 1945.
(Sec. 48(b), Public Land Act, as amended in 1977 by PD
1073).
WHERE DO YOU FILE APPLICATION FOR LAND
REGISTRATION?
JURISDICTION. (Sec.34, BP 129)
Jurisdiction is vested in the RTC. (S17 and S36,
PD 1529).
MTC has delegated jurisdiction in cadastral or
land registration cases:
1. Where there is no controversy or opposition.
2. Contested lots the value of which does not
exceed P100,000. (S34 BP Blg. 129, SC
Administrative Circular 6-93).
Take note that the decision of the MTC in the
above cases may be appealed in the same manner as a
decision of the RTC. Otherwise put the appeal is to the
CA under Rule 41.
VENUE
RTC of the place where the land is located. If
parcel of land straddles two jurisdictional areas (e.g Las
Pinas/Pque), the application may be filed in either place.
The application may cover two parcels of land provided
they are in the same city/jurisdictional area.
HOW DO YOU REGISTER
1. Survey by a licensed Geodetic Engineer who
prepares a Technical Description and a
Surveyors Certificate.
2. Approval by the Director of the Land
Management Bureau of the survey plan. (Sec
17).
3. File verified application citizenship, description,
place, occupiers, owners of adjoining lands. Copy
of the application should be furnished to the LMB.
Pro forma application contained in Section 15.
4. Branch clerk issue order for initial hearing
published once in OG and newspaper of general
circulation. Publication in OG sufficient to confer
jurisdiction on the court.
5. Mailing. Mailing of notice by LRA to persons
named in the application, also to government
officials mentioned in Section 23: DPWH, Prov.
Governor, Mayor, DAR, OSG, LMB, Bureau of
Forests, Mines and Geosciences Board, BFAR,
as the case may be (S23).
6. Posting. Posted on land and on bulletin board of
concerned municipal or city hall. Publication is
jurisdictional since an in rem proceeding.
Interested parties may file an opposition on or before the
date of the initial hearing or such other time as may be
allowed by the court.
Under Sec. 35(5) of the Administrative Code, the OSG
represents the government in all land registration and
related proceedings. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 15
Feb 2016).
Applicant will ask for an order of default to prevent those
who did not file opposition or appear from having standing
in the court.
Order of general/special default
Ocular Inspection Report to court
Hearing applicant proves three things 1. Grant from
State or by law.
2. Title of ownership
3. Identify of land
Oppositors (Private parties and Land Management
Bureau represented by the OSG).
Decision In favor of applicant or any of oppositors
The decision becomes final and unappealable within 15
days from service of the judgment upon the applicant and
the oppositors. The court will issue an order to LRA to
issue/enter a decree of registration and the original
certificate of title. The LRA will send the decree of
registration and OCT to the RD who will then send a
notice to the registered owner that he may obtain delivery
of the title upon payment of the proper fees.
The first paragraph of 23 (that initial hearing shall not be
less than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the order
setting the initial hearing) is merely directory and
noncompliance therewith through no fault of the applicant
will not deprive the land registration court of jurisdiction.
(Republic v. Bantigue Point Devt Corp., 14 March 2012).
Since a registration proceeding is one in rem, personal
notice to all the claimants is not necessary. The
publication of the notice of hearing is sufficient notice to
all the claimants to the property. (Republic v. San Mateo,
10 November 2014).
Republication is not required if amendment of technical
description was by way of reduction and not addition
thereto. (Id.).
REMEDIES
1. Procedural Remedies
2. Remedies under PD 1529
a. Petition for Review of Decree
b. Assurance Fund
3. Remedies under the Civil Law
a. Action for Reconveyance
b. Damages
4. Remedies where title has passed to an IPV
a. Damages v. guilty person
b. Assurance Fund

In an action for cancellation of a TCT, the
Registrar of Deeds is merely a nominal, not an
indispensable, party.33
Execution pending appeal not applicable to a
land registration proceeding and the title issued pursuant
thereto is void.34
REMEDIES UNDER PD 1529
PETITION FOR REVIEW & RE-OPENING OF DECREE
OF REGISTRATION.
Sec 32 PD 1529. Filed with the RTC.
Ground: Actual Fraud.
Period: One year from the date of entry of the
decree of registration and provided no IPV has acquired
the land or an interest therein and whose rights may be
prejudiced.
REMEDIES UNDER THE CIVIL CODE.
ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE.
Breach of Trust. Property acquired through fraud
or by mistake. The acquirer is deemed a trustee for the
benefit of the person from whom the property came.
(Article 1456, Civil Code).
10 years from the issuance of a Torrens title in
the name of the acquirer. However, if the Plaintiff is in
possession, either personally or through another
(including the possession of a co-owner which redounds
to the benefit of the co-owners) the action is
imprescriptible.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE.
RTC or MTC where land lies. The RTC has
jurisdiction if the value of the land is at least P50,000.00;
otherwise, the MTC will have jurisdiction.
WRIT OF POSSESSION (in favor of applicant)
Can be served on all parties and oppositors and
even those who did not oppose but entered land after
entry of decree. Not necessary for applicant to file
ejectment on them. He can simply move for an issuance
of a writ of possession from the court which rendered
judgment.
When writ of possession available:
1. Land registration proceeding.
2. Execution sale.
3. Foreclosure (extrajudicial and judicial).
Winning bidder in extrajudicial foreclosure sale
executed a CTS in favor of former owner-mortgagor. If
the buyer fails to comply with CTS, remedy of seller is not
a writ of possession but to file ejectment suit.35
Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court not
applicable to land registration proceedings. Writ of
possession may be availed of even if more than 10 years
from entry of judgment.36
Question
33 De Leon v. Chu, 2 Sep 2015
34 Top Mgt Programs Corp. v. Fajardo, 15 Jun 2011
35
PNB v Pimentel, 24 Aug 2015
36 Sps Topacio v. Banco Filipino, 17 Nov 2010
Lirio filed a petition for the original registration of
Lot 18281 with the CFI of Cebu. (1st LRC Case) The CFI
granted the petition and the decision became final and
executory in 1977. The CFI issued an order directing the
LRC to issue the decree of registration and the certificate
of title in favor of Lirio. The LRC however did not get
around to issuing the decree of registration. In 1997
Petitioner filed with the RTC of Cebu an application for
registration of title to the same lot. (2nd LRC Case). The
Respondents (heirs of Lirio) filed an answer in which they
alleged that the 2nd LRC Case is barred by res judicata or
the 1st LRC Case. Petitioner argues that the 1st LRC Case
cannot be the basis of res judicata. Petitioner contends
that although the 1st LRC Case became final and
executory; no decree of registration was issued by the
LRA. Hence it is an extinct judgment, that is, one which
was not enforced within 10 years from the date of its entry
pursuant to S6 R39 of the Rules of Court. Is Petitioners
argument meritorious?
Answer
No, the Petitioners argument is not meritorious.
The Supreme Court has held that Section 6, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court does not apply in land registration
proceedings. S6 R39 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 promptly enforce a judgment that is secured
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, a right or a particular fact; in land
registration proceedings, the ownership by a person of a
parcel of land is sought to be established.37
An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of
possession is not an initiatory pleading asserting a claim.
Rather, it is a mere incident in the transfer of title over the
real property which was acquired by Metrobank through
an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, in accordance with
Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. Thus, the petition
is not covered by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules and a
certification against forum shopping is not required. Being
ex parte, intervention is not allowed.38
Order issuing a writ of possession in an
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage is a final
order and the proper remedy is appeal not a special civil
action for certiorari.39
REMEDY OF STATE
In an action for reversion, the State is the real
party-in-interest. Hence a private party cannot file an
action for reversion.
Where the complaint is not for reversion but for
nullification of a free patent on the ground of prior
ownership, the prior owner is a real party-in-interest who
can file the action in his name.40
37 Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, G.R. No. 168913, 14 Mar 2007
38 MetroBank v. Abad Santos, 15 Dec 2009
39
Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries, 16 Apr 2012
40 Soquillo v Tortola, 24 Jul 2012

STATUTORY LIENS AFFECTING TITLE
Every (1) registered owner receiving a
certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of
registration and (2) every subsequent purchaser of
registered land taking a certificate of title shall for
value and in good faith (IPV), shall hold the same free
from all encumbrances except those noted is said
certificate and any of the following subsisting
encumbrances: (PILAR) This is also known as the
mirror principle or mirror doctrine.
1. LEGAL LIENS. Liens which by law are not
required to appear of record in order to bind
subsequent purchasers or encumbrancers.
2. REAL ESTATE TAXES. Unpaid realty taxes
levied and assessed within 2 years immediately
preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by
the IPV.
3. PUBLIC/PRIVATE HIGHWAY/WAY.
4. IRRIGATION (GOVT) CANAL.
5. AGRARIAN REFORM LIENS.41
Registered levy on execution prevails over a
prior unregistered sale
Fraud presumption under Article 1387 of the Civil Code
does not apply to registered lands if the judgment or
attachment made is not registered.42
Buyer in an as is, where is sale not a buyer in
bad faith.43
Knowledge by buyers agent that registered
owner not in possession and that ejectment case filed by
a person other than registered owner is imputable to the
buyer. Hence buyer is not an innocent purchaser for
value.44
Mirror doctrine not applicable to assignee in deed
of assignment of rights over registered real property
where the assignor was not the registered owner.45
A person who buys realty from someone who is
not from the registered owner must make the appropriate
inquiries and cannot rely on a mere paper examination of
the title. 46
DEEDS and DOCUMENTS
Voluntary Dealings.
In order that a deed covering a voluntary transaction may
be registered, the following requirements should be
observed:
1. The deed should be in public instrument, that is,
acknowledged before a NP. Section 112
2. 2-witness rule. Signed by parties before two
witnesses at least.
41 Suntay v Keyser Mercantile Inc., 20 Dec 2014
42 Lee v. Bangkok Bank, 642 SCRA 447 [2011]
43
Casimiro Devt Corp v. Mateo, 27 Jul 2011
44 Locsin v. Hizon, 17 Sep 2014
3. If 2 or more pages, each page, including the
acknowledgment, should be signed on left margin
by the parties and the witnesses and all the pages
sealed by the NP, and these facts shall appear in
the acknowledgment.
4. If relates to sale, transfer, or encumbrance of two
or more parcels of land, this fact shall also be
stated in the acknowledgment.
5. Payment of fees and the capital gains tax and the
DST.
6. The owners duplicate title should be presented
to the RD. Section 53 The basis of the requirement is
that it serves as a proof of authority of the
registered owner to register the transaction, in the
other words his consent to the transaction, and
for the RD to annotate deed on the owners
duplicate title. Cf the rule on involuntary dealings.
Note that voluntary dealings over unregistered lands may
also be registered pursuant to Sec. 113. But this
recording shall be without prejudice to a party with better
right. Meaning a party who has already acquired
ownership or title.
The function of the RD to register documents is
ministerial. He cannot refuse to register a document
because of his opinion that the document embodies a void
or defective contract. That is for the courts to pass on. In
other words, the RD only passes upon the formal
requirements for registrability and not the intrinsic validity
of the underlying contract. He cannot refuse to register a
deed of sale by the husband on the ground that the wife
did not sign her conformity thereto. This is a matter which
should be resolved by the court not by the RD.
Exception: Patent nullity as a deed of sale of a
6-meter urban land to a foreigner.
When is deed registered?
If entered in primary entry book upon payment of
entry fee and all requirements met. They shall be
considered as registered from the time so noted. Sec 56
Question
J obtained a writ of attachment over parcel of
registered land owned by D. J presented the writ of
attachment for registration with the register of deeds. The
RD entered the writ in the primary entry book but failed to
annotate it in the certificate of title. X wishes to buy the
land, examined the title on file and bought it from D. Later
on, J who won his suit against D, claims that he has a
better right over the land.
Who between J and X has the better right over
the land?
Answer
J has the better right over the land. The
registration of an attachment over a parcel of land in the
primary entry book is sufficient.47
The ruling in Bass v. De la Rama, 73 Phil. 682
(1942) that entry in the day book (now the primary entry
book) is not sufficient registration unless accompanied by
45 Bliss Devt Corp. v. Diaz, 5 Aug 2015
46 Gabutan v. Nacalaban, 29 Jun 2016
47
Caviles v. Bautista, 24 Nov. 99
annotation on the original title, was expressly abandoned
by the SC.48
Question
The spouses Ventanilla filed an action for specific
performance against MRCI. The trial court ordered MRCI
to execute an absolute deed of sale over the subject
registered land in favor of the Ventanillas. A contract to
sell by MRCI over the said land was registered on 21 May
1991 in favor of Marquez. On 31 May 1991, a notice of
levy on execution in favor of the spouses Ventanillas was
entered in the primary entry book but not annotated on the
title. The deed of absolute sale by MRCI in favor of
Marquez was registered in March 1992. The notice of levy
was still not annotated on the title. Subsequently the land
was sold to the spouses Saberon who had examined the
title and found no encumbrance thereon. Title was issued
in favor of the Saberons. The Saberons built a house
thereon. The Ventanillas filed an action to nullify the title
issued in favor of the Saberons. Will the action to nullify
the titles prosper?
Answer
Yes. The Ventanillas had a better right because
the entry of the notice of levy in the primary entry book
was a sufficient registration and served as constructive
notice upon the Saberons. The earlier CTS in favor of
Marquez did not negate the levy because a contract to
sell does not transfer title until upon full payment.
Nevertheless since the Saberons relied upon the clean
title, they are considered builders in good faith and are
entitled to the rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code.49
Note: The ruling that the registration of the earlier CTS in
favor of Marquez did not negate the levy seems arguable.
Why necessary to register document or deed?
The purpose of registration of a document or
deed is to affect 3rd parties. The act of registration shall
be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as
third persons are concerned. Sec 51
Registration serves as constructive notice to all
persons Sec 52.
Double Sales
1st Registrant in good faith wins. (Art.1544, CC).
Mortgages:
If you dont own land, mortgage is invalid. This
is subject to the rights of a mortgagee in good faith.
Involuntary Dealings; Definition
Transactions or dealings affecting the land that
do not require the consent of the registered owner or that
can be effected even against his consent. E.g.
attachment, levy on execution, lis pendens, adverse
claim. Precisely because the registered owners consent
is not needed, involuntary dealings can be registered
even without presenting the owners duplicate title.
Section 70. Adverse claim
48 NHA v. Basa, 20 Apr 2010
49 Saberon v. Ventanilla, 21 Apr 2014
50 Ferrer v. Sps. Diaz, 23 Apr 2010
51
Cathay Metal Corp. v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., 2 Jul
2014
Definition
Made by a claimant who claims an interest in
registered land adverse to the owner.
A notice of adverse claim must be based on a
valid real right. Here the basis of the adverse claimants
right is a waiver executed by a sibling when their father
was still alive. This waiver is void under Article 1347 of
the Civil Code which declares void any contract over
future inheritance. Hence the adverse claim is also void
and ineffective.50
A claim based on a future right does not ripen into
an adverse claim. Here the right of the claimant was still
subject to negotiations.51
Under S70 of the Property Registration Decree, the
remedy of an adverse claim is available only if there is no
other provision in the decree for the registration of the
claimants adverse interest.
Question
Maria Villanueva filed an adverse claim covering
the disputed lot, based on an agreement to sell executed
in her favor by Garcia Realty. She did not present the
owners duplicate certificate of title, as required by Section
53 of Property Registration Decree nor did she register
the agreement to sell as provided in Section 54.
Subsequently, Petitioner registered a notice of
attachment covering the disputed lot, issued in a case he
had filed against Garcia Realty. As between Villanueva
and the Petitioner, who has a better right over the
disputed lot?
Answer
It is the Petitioner who has a better right.
Under S70 of the Property Registration Decree,
the remedy of an adverse claim is available only if there
is no other provision in the decree for the registration of
the claimants adverse interest.
Here the contract to sell in favor of Villanueva
could have been registered pursuant to Section 54 of the
Property Registration Decree. Hence Villanuevas resort
to an adverse claim was invalid and did not serve to
protect her interest in the disputed lot nor could the
same prejudice any right that may have arisen thereafter
in favor of third parties.52
Question
The Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation
(PHHC) executed a deed of sale over the land covered by
TCT No. 1356 in favor of the DBP. Later on TCT No.
1356 was subdivided and a new TCT No. 36533 was
issued in cancellation of TCT No. 1356. DBP presented
on 15 January 1959 for registration the deed of sale in its
favor but the same was not annotated on the title since
TCT No. 1356 had already been cancelled by TCT No.
36533.
Subsequently the Spouses Nicandro bought from
PHHC two lots included in TCT No. 36533. On 16
February 1959, the Spouses Nicandro presented for
registration the deed of sale in their favor but the same
52 Register of Deeds for Quezon City v. Nicandro, G.R. No. L-16648, 29 Apr
1961. See also Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. 142687, 20 Jul 2006. But see Ching v.
Enrile, G.R. No. 156076, 17 Sep 2008. It is opined that the rulings which
correctly apply the law are L.P. Leviste, Nicandro, and Francisco. Moreover the
Nicandro doctrine cannot be modified or reversed except by the court en banc.
(Sec. 4[3], Art. VIII, Constitution).
was not registered as the owners duplicate of TCT No.
36533 was in the possession of the mortgagee GSIS. The
next day the Spouses Nicandro caused the registration of
an adverse claim on TCT 36533 based on the deed of
sale of the two lots in their favor and they also filed a
petition with the
CFI to compel GSIS to surrender the owners
duplicate for the registration and the annotation of the
deed of sale in their favor. On 6 March 1959, the DBP
was able to register the deed of sale in its favor and have
it annotated on TCT No. 36533. Who between the two
vendees, the Nicandros or the DBP, has a better right to
the subject two lots?
Answer
It is DBP who has a better right to the subject lots.
Under Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529, in order for
the special remedy of an adverse claim to be availed of, it
must be shown that there is no other provision in the law
for registration of the claimants alleged right or interest in
the property.
Here the claim of the Nicandros was based on a
perfected contract of sale executed in their favor by the
lawful owner of the land. Considering that Section 57 of
P.D. No. 1529 specifically prescribes the procedure for
the registration of a vendees right on registered property,
the remedy provided in Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529 would
be ineffective for the purpose of protecting the Nicandros
right or interest on the two lots.53
Question
Peralta mortgaged the subject land to PCSO in
1989. The REM was not registered. Peralta entered into
a CTS over the land in favor of New Dagupan Corp. in
1990. Because of the failure of Peralta to deliver the title
and a deed of absolute sale to New Dagupan, it withheld
the last installment and caused the registration of an
adverse claim in 1991. In 1992, PCSO registered the
REM over the land in its favor. Who between PCSO and
New Dagupan has a better right over the land?
Answer
New Dagupan has the better right. If the seller, in
a contract to sell, refused to deliver the owners duplicate
title to the buyer despite demands, the latter is justified in
resorting to an adverse claim. Hence the adverse claim
was effective and placed PCSO in bad faith. 54 Court
distinguished this case from Leviste.
The adverse claim is effective only for a period of
30 days after registration after which it may be cancelled
upon filing of a verified petition with the RTC by the party
in interest. The claimant himself may withdraw the
adverse claim by filing an affidavit of withdrawal with the
RD.
The 30-day period is for the benefit of the
claimant. It is presumed that such period is enough for
the claimant to file a proper court action and annotate a
notice of lis pendens on the land.
The purpose of the adverse claim is to prevent
the claimant losing his right should the registered land be
sold to an innocent purchaser for value. A buyer who
53
Register of Deeds for Quezon City v. Nicandro, G.R. No. L-16648, 29 Apr 1961
54 PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corp., 11 Jul 2012
purchases a land in which there is an adverse claim is
buyer in bad faith.
A notice of adverse claim subsists even after the
lapse of the 30-day period under Sec. 70 as long as the
adverse claim is not yet cancelled. A buyer who
purchases a land on which there is a subsisting adverse
claim is in bad faith.55 There should be a hearing with
notice to the adverse claimant before the adverse claim is
cancelled, even if the 30-day period had already expired.
1998 Bar Question - Civil Law #19
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529,
concerning adverse claims on registered land, provides a
30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, counted
from the date of its registration. Suppose a notice of
adverse claim based upon a contract to sell was
registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the
BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the 30-
day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor of a
JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also registered to enforce a
final judgment for money against the registered owner.
Then, on June 15, 1997 there having been no formal
cancellation of his notice of adverse claim, the BUYER
pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full
and registers the corresponding deed of sale. Because
the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over to the
new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action against
the JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such annotation,
but the latter claims that his lien is superior because it was
annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso
facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit prosper?
Answer
The suit to cancel the annotation of the notice of
levy will prosper.
The Supreme Court has held in Sajonas v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 102377, 5 July 1996, that a notice of
adverse claim subsists even after the 30-day period and
until the same is cancelled by a formal petition with the
register of deeds.
Here the notice of adverse claim was not
cancelled. Hence it still subsists and thus the interest of
the BUYER is superior to that of the JUDGMENT
CREDITOR and perforce the notice of levy must be
cancelled.
Note: An answer which states that the suit to cancel will
not prosper, on the ground that an adverse claim based
on a contract to sell is invalid and ineffective to protect the
claimants right, should be given substantial credit.
A notice of adverse claim must be based on a
valid real right. Here the basis of the adverse claimants
right is a waiver executed by a sibling when their father
was still alive. This waiver is void under Article 1347 of
the Civil Code which declares void any contract over
future inheritance. Hence the adverse claim is also void
and ineffective.56
Pursuant to Section 70, an adverse claim may be
cancelled only by a court or by the claimant himself. A
person who buys a property containing an AC cancelled
55
The registration of the adverse claim, although based on a deed of absolute
sale, was valid since the seller had refused to surrender the owners duplicate
certificate to the claimant. Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA 388
56 Ferrer v. Sps. Diaz, 23 Apr 2010
by a person other than the claimant is not an innocent
purchaser for value.57
NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS
The enumeration of the actions which may be the
subject of the notice of lis pendens under Sec 76 is quite
convoluted. Better to use as references Sec 14 Rule 13
which provides that the notice may be had regarding
actions affecting the title to or the right of possession of
real property (land and building).) The notice shall state
the important details of the action.
Notice of lis pendens does not apply to actions
involving title to or any right or interest in, personal
property, such as the subject membership shares in a
private non-stock corporation.58
A transferee pendente lite of registered land,
whose title bears a notice of a pending litigation involving
his transferors title to the said land, is bound by the
outcome of the litigation, even if he is not impleaded. The
modification of the decision to include him as defendant,
even if final and executory, is a mere formality and does
not violate the principle of immutability of judgments.59
An oppositor in a land registration case cannot file
a notice of lis pendens upon the title issued pursuant
thereto even if the RTC had re-opened the case to allow
the oppositor to adduce evidence. A pending case is one
in which the person seeking the annotation of the notice
of lis pendens is a party. An oppositor in a land
registration case is not a party to pending case. What the
oppositor should have done was to file an action for
reconveyance and then a notice of lis pendens.60
Question
Felix filed an action to recover a parcel of land
from his brother Chiong, which Chiong had sold to
Legaspi Hardware (LH). Felix alleged that the land was
his inheritance. Felix caused the annotation of a notice of
lis pendens on the title over the subject land. Later the
trial court rendered a decision declaring that LH was the
rightful owner of the land. The trial court ordered the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. Felix appealed
to the CA. Pending appeal, LH sold the land to the
Spouses Po Lam. Felix contended that the spouses Po
Lam are not innocent purchases for value since they had
notice of the pending litigation for it cannot be denied that
the inscription of the lis pendens together with its
cancellation still appears in the title. Are the Spouses Po
Lam innocent purchasers for value?
Answer
Yes. The doctrine of lis pendens is not one of
constructive notice but of public policy and necessity. The
purpose is to prevent litigating parties to give to others,
pending litigation, their rights over the property in dispute
as to prejudice opposite parties. So upon cancellation of
lis pendens the Spouses Po Lam cannot be said to have
had constructive notice of any defect in the title of LH. To
hold otherwise would be to render meaningless and
useless the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens.61
57 Mendoza v. Garana, 5 Aug 2015
58 MR Holdings Ltd. v. Bajar, 10 Oct 2012
59 De la Merced v. GSIS, 23 Nov 2011
60
Heirs of Lopez v. Enriquez, 21 Jan 2005
61 Sps Po Lam v. CA & Lim, G.R. No. 116220, 6 Dec. 2000
A mortgagee is not in good faith where the
mortgage was executed after the trial court had ordered
the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but before the
registration of the order of cancellation. This is because
prior to the registration of the order cancelling the notice
of lis pendens, the notice is still in effect. Moreover, the
mortgagee was aware of the pending litigation and should
have awaited further developments in the trial of the case
before having executing the mortgage. As it turned out,
the trial court reconsidered its order of cancellation and
reinstated the notice of lis pendens. This case should be
distinguished from Spouses Po Lam where a sale was
made after the registration of the order cancelling the
notice of lis pendens and where no motion for
reconsideration and motion for reinstatement was filed
with the trial court62
Note: In the Po Lam case, no motion for reconsideration
of the order cancelling the notice of lis pendens or moving
for its reinstatement was made, unlike in Cunanan. Moral:
Wait for the registration of the order cancelling the notice
of lis pendens and that no motion for reconsideration or
reinstatement of lis pendens is filed with the trial court.
Preliminary injunction proper to restrain buyer
from taking possession where the applicant had
registered his adverse claim and notice of lis pendens.63
CORRECTION OF ERRORS
Errors, even typographical or innocuous errors
may not be corrected without a court order. (S108). The
land registration court may hear both contentious and
non-contentious matters under Sec. 108.64
In an action for the cancellation of memorandum
annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the persons
considered as indispensable include those whose liens
appear as annotations pursuant to Sec 108.65
The provision of sec 108 which provides that all
petitions or motions shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree of registration was
entered is a rule of venue, not of jurisdiction.66
What if title lost or destroyed?
Owners duplicate is lost. It is advisable to file an affidavit
of loss with the RD. This will serve to protect the
registered owner from loss of the title if forger sells to IPV.
Then file a petition in court for issuance of new owners
duplicate under sec. 109.
Question
In 2001 Private Respondent filed with the RTC a
petition for issuance of new owners duplicate title alleging
the loss of his owners duplicate title. The RTC issued an
order for the issuance of a new owners duplicate in the
name of the Private Respondent. Since no appeal was
made, the judgment was entered in the book of entries.
Private Respondent then sold the property to a Mr. Marty.
The Private Respondents title was cancelled and new
TCT issued in the name of Mr. Marty. Later the
62 Cunanan v. Jumping Jap Trading Corp., 24 Apr 2009
63 Lukang v Pagbilao Devt Corp., 10 Mar 2014
64 Averia v. Caguioa, 146 SCRA 659
65
Crisologo v JEWM Agro-Ind. Corp., 3 Mar 2014
66 Oppen v. Compas, 21 Oct 2015
Petitioners who had bought the property of the Private
Respondent in 1986 and were in possession of the
property, filed with the Court of Appeals an action to annul
the RTCs judgment on the ground that the duplicate title
was not lost but in their possession after if had been
delivered by the late spouse of the Private Respondent in
1986. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on the
ground that the RTC had jurisdiction to issue the order
and that the Petitioner did not acquire any vested right
since the sale in their favor was not registered. May the
RTCs decision be nullified under R47?
Answer
Yes. The RTC has no jurisdiction to issue an
order for the issuance of new owners duplicate title if the
owners duplicate title was not actually lost but was in the
possession of a person (Petitioner) who had brought the
property. The order of the RTC may be set aside under
Rule 47 of the Rule of Court and cannot become final and
executory as the order is void for lack of jurisdiction.67
The rights however of one who claims to be an
innocent purchaser for value of the land covered by the
replacement duplicate certificate cannot be adjudicated or
determined in the Rule 47 proceeding but must be
threshed out in an appropriate proceeding. 68
Reconstitution
If original copy of the duplicate of title is lost, then
the remedy is reconstitution. The governing laws are R.A.
No. 26, as amended by R.A. No. 6732; and Sec. 110 of
PD 1529. Reconstitution may be judicial or administrative.
PROBLEMS INVOLVING FORGED/FRAUDULENT
DEED
GENERAL RULE
A forged title/document cannot be root of a valid
title. After the entry of the decree of registration, any
subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a
forged duplicate certificate of title or a forged deed or
instrument shall be null and void.
Exception:
The Supreme Court has held that a forged or
fraudulently obtained deed may be the root of a valid title
if an innocent purchaser for value, relying upon the
forgers apparently valid title, had purchased the land
covered by the same and the loss or fraud was
occasioned by the true owners negligence or act of
confidence. This is referred to by some law professors as
the chain of title doctrine.
Registered Owner
O was no certificate of title in the name of the forger Patrick.
TCT 1 Hence the bank is not an innocent mortgagee for value
X Forger
TCT 2 nullified.
Y (IPV)
TCT 3 Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an
Y, the IPV will get the title even against O, the
owner. As between two persons victimized by a fraud,
one who caused loss/fraud thru his negligence or act of
confidence will bear the loss.
67 Villanueva v. Viloria, G.R. No. 155804, 14 Mar 2008
Requisites for application of Chain of Title concept.
(NIRC)
1. Negligence on the part of the owner or act of
confidence on the part of the true owner which made
the fraud possible
2. Certificate of title in the name of the forger or some
other person chosen by the forger.
3. The one who acquires the title from the forger or his
designate is an innocent purchaser for value.
4. The purchaser must register the deed in his favor in
good faith.
Where there is no certificate of title in the name
of the forger, the chain of the title doctrine cannot be
applied or invoked.
Question
X representing himself as O, executed an affidavit
of loss over the TCT in the name of O. He then filed an
action for the issuance of a new owners duplicate title.
The trial court issued a new owners duplicate in the name
of O. X representing himself as O, then sold the land to
Y. A new owners duplicate was issued to Y. May O
recover the land from Y.
Answer
Yes. There was no title in the name of X but the
title was still in the name of O, the true owner. Hence the
chain of title doctrine will not apply.
2016 Bar Question Civil Law #11
Ellen entrusted her title over the lot where she is
residing to Patrick, her nephew, for safekeeping because
of her poor eyesight. Patrick, a gambler, prepared a
Special Power of Attorney empowering him to mortgage
the lot. Ellen's signature was forged. With the help of Julia
who represented herself as Ellen, Mega Bank granted a
loan to Patrick secured by a mortgage on Ellen's lot. Due
to non-payment, Mega Bank foreclosed the mortgage and
was declared the highest bidder. Title was later registered
in the name of the bank. When Ellen was notified that she
should vacate the premises, she filed a complaint to nullify
the loan with mortgage, the auction sale and the title of
Mega Bank on the ground that the bank is not a
mortgagee in good faith. Decide the case with reasons.
Answer
The case should be decided in favor of Ellen.
Under the Property Registration Decree, a
registration procured by the presentation of a forged deed
shall be null and void.
The chain of title doctrine will not apply as there
and thus the mortgage in favor of the bank which was
based on a forged SPA purportedly of Ellen may be
2005 Bar Question
envelope containing TCT No. 65432 over a lot registered
in Cesars name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesars
signature on a Deed of Sale in Rods favor. Rod
registered the said document with the Register of Deeds,
and obtained a new title in his name. After a year, he sold
68 Billote v. Solis, 17 Jun 2015
the lot to Don, a buyer in good faith and for value, who
also registered the lot in his name.

a) Did Rod acquire title to the land? Explain.

b) Discuss the right of Don, if any, over the property

ANSWERS:

a) No. Rod did not acquire title to the land.

Under the property registration decree, any
registration procured by the presentation of forged deed
is void.
Here Rod procured the registration of the title in
his name by presenting a forged deed of sale. Hence the
registration of title in Rods name is void and did not confer
any right upon him.

b) Don as an innocent purchaser for value acquired title

over the land.
The Supreme Court has held that a forged deed
may be the root of a valid title if an innocent purchaser
had relied upon a title in forgers name and the true
owners negligence or act of confidence made the fraud
possible.
Here Don had relied in good faith upon the title in
Rods name and there was negligence on Cesars part
since despite the fact that the title was lost for about a
year, he failed to register an affidavit of loss.

Question
O donated of his land to his niece X and
entrusted the title to X for the registration of the Deed of
Sale. X however, forged Os signature in a deed of
donation of the whole parcel of land registered in the
name of X. X was able to obtain a title in his own name.
X then sold to Y the portion which was not donated.
When O discovered the forgery, he brought an action to
nullify the donation and recover the parcel of land from Y.
May D recover the land from Y?

Answer
No. A forged deed can legally be the root of a
valid title. Where the certificate of the title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger,
and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently
sold to an innocent purchaser for value, the owner can no
longer recover for the vendee had the right to rely upon
what appeared in the certificate.

Purchasers cannot be considered in good faith if

they merely relied upon a photocopy of the forgers title.
A mere photocopy should have made the purchasers
suspicious that there was some flaw in the forgers title
because he was not in possession of the original copy.69

Purchasers cannot be considered as IPVs if they

did not register the deed of sale in their favor.70

The proper recourse of the true owner is to bring

an action for damages against X and if the latter is
insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the
Philippines maybe filed for recovery of damages against
the assurance fund.71

69 71
Sps Peralta v. Abalon, 30 Jun 2014 Eduarte v. CA, 253 SCRA 391
70 Mahilum v. Ilano, 22 Jun 2015