You are on page 1of 25

Page 1 of 25

CHAPTER VI – CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (Section 39 – 50)

Decree Binds the Land


- The decree shall bind the land and quiet title thereto, subject only to such liens as may be
provided by law. It shall be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the national
government and all branches thereof.
- The certificate shall take effect upon the date of the transcription of the decree.
- A land registration proceeding being in rem, the decree of registration issued pursuant to the
decision binds the land and quiets title thereto, and is conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the government and all the branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application, notice or citation, or included in the general inscription “To All Whom It May
Concern.”7

 Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. No. 76265, April 22, 1992
-
Moreover, the petition for reconstitution of title by Lucia dela Cruz which the court held to be
valid was a proceeding in rem. It is well established that in rem proceedings such as land
registration constitutes constructive notice to the whole world. The petitioners cannot now claim
that they were not notified of the reconstitution proceedings over said lot. Under the facts of the
case, the title in the name of Lucia dela Cruz (TCT No. RT 58) has become indefeasible and
incontrovertible.
-
The certificate of title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible one year from its final decree.
It is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the land referred to therein.11
(Calalang v. Register of Deeds)

Owner’s Duplicate Certificate


-
Issuance of decree of registration and certificate of title. Upon the finality of the judgment of
the court adjudicating the land as private property, the court shall, within fifteen (15) days from
the entry thereof, issue an order directing the LRA Administrator to issue the corresponding
decree of registration and certificate of title. The Administrator shall then prepare the decree of
registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding certificate of title. The
original certificate of title, signed by him, shall be a true copy of the decree of registration, and
shall be sent, together with the owner’s duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the City
or province where the land lies.
-
The certificate of the title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the Register of
Deeds in the registry.1
-
The owner’s duplicate certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or his duly
authorized representative.

 Reyes v. Raval-Reyes, G.R. No. L-21703, August 31, 1966


-
In Reyes v. Raval-Reyes,34 the Court directed respondent to deliver to petitioners, as registered
owners, the owners’ duplicate of OCT Nos. 2216 and 8066, holding: “It being undisputed that
respondent had already availed of an independent civil action to recover his alleged co-owner’s
share in the disputed lots by filing a counterclaim for partition in said Civil Case No. 3659, his
rights appear to be amply protected, and considering that he may also avail of, to better protect his
rights thereto, the provision on notice of lis pendens under (the Rules of Court), for the purpose of
recording the fact that the lots covered by the titles in question are litigated in said Civil Case No.
3659, we again see no justifiable reason for respondent to retain the custody of the owners’
duplicates of certificates of title.”
-
The duplicate certificates of title may either be the duplicate original certificate or duplicate
transfer certificate. The registered owner may claim his owner’s duplicate certificate from the
Register of Deeds upon payment of the proper fees.

Page 1 of 25
Page 2 of 25

 Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409, June 21, 2004


-
More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals, 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.

 Republic v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 185091, August 8, 2010


-
The Court holds that, where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his property by the
government for public use, he thereby waives his right to the institution of a formal expropriation
proceeding covering such property. Further, as the Court also held in Eusebio v. Luis, the failure
for a long time of the owner to question the lack of expropriation proceedings covering a
property that the government had taken constitutes a waiver of his right to gain back possession.
The Mendozas' remedy is an action for the payment of just compensation, not ejectment.

Statement of Personal Circumstances (Section 45)


-
Every certificate of title shall contain the following entries:
 (a) full names of all persons whose interest make up the full ownership in the
land;
 (b) civil status;
 (c) names of their respective spouses, if married;
 (d) citizenship; and
 (e) residence and postal address.

If the property belongs to the conjugal partnership, the title shall be issued in the names of both
spouses.

It should be noted that an original certificate of title, issued in accordance with the decree,
merely confirms a pre-existing title. The original certificate of title does not establish the time of
acquisition of the property by the registered owner.57

 Ventura v. Abuda, G.R. No. 202932, October 23, 2013


-
The title itself shows that the Vitas property is owned by Esteban alone. The phrase "married to
Socorro Torres" is merely descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that Socorro co-
owned the property.27

 Litam v. Espiritum, G.R. No. L-7644, November 27, 1956


-
In Litam v. Espiritu,61 the Court quoted with approval the following disquisition of the lower
court:

“Further strong proofs that the properties in question are the paraphernal properties of
Marcosa Rivera, are the very Torrens Titles covering said properties. All the said
properties are registered in the name of ‘Marcosa Rivera, married to Rafael Litam.’ This
circumstance indicates that the properties in question belong to the registered owner,
Marcosa Rivera, as her paraphernal properties, for if they were conjugal, the titles
covering the same should have been issued in the names of Rafael Litam and Marcosa
Rivera. The words ‘married to Rafael Litam’ written after the name of Marcosa

Page 2 of 25
Page 3 of 25

Rivera, in each of the above mentioned titles are merely descriptive of the civil status of
Marcosa Rivera, the registered owner of the properties covered by said titles.”

 Parulan v. Garcia, G.R. No. 184148, June 9, 2014

-
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.
-
A plain reading of the above provision would clearly reveal that the phrase "Pedro Calalang,
married to Elvira Berba [Calalang]" merely describes the civil status and identifies the spouse of
the registered owner Pedro Calalang. Evidently, this does not mean that the property is conjugal.

 Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R. No. 159310, February 4, 2009


-
It is settled that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is only a means of
confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large. Certificates of title are not
a source of right. The mere possession of a title does not make one the true owner of the property.
Thus, the mere fact that respondent has the titles of the disputed properties in her name does not
necessarily, conclusively and absolutely make her the owner. The rule on indefeasibility of title
likewise does not apply to respondent. A certificate of title implies that the title is quiet, and that it
is perfect, absolute and indefeasible. However, there are well-defined exceptions to this rule, as
when the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acquire the subject properties for a
valuable consideration. This is the situation in the instant case. Respondent did not contribute a
single centavo in the acquisition of the properties. She had no income of her own at that time, nor
did she have any savings. She and her two sons were then fully supported by Jambrich.

 Ventura v. Abuda, G.R. No. 202932, October 23, 2013


-
The title itself shows that the Vitas property is owned by Esteban alone. The phrase "married to
Socorro Torres" is merely descriptive of his civil status, and does not show that Socorro co-owned
the property. The evidence on record also shows that Esteban acquired ownership over the Vitas
property prior to his marriage to Socorro, even if the certificate of title was issued after the
celebration of the marriage. Registration under the Torrens title system merely confirms, and does
not vest title.

Registered Land not Subject to Prescription (Section 47)


-
Prescription and adverse possession can never militate against the right of a registered owner
since a title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious
possession.64 Adverse possession of real property for the requisite period confers title as
effectually as any paper title, but such a title cannot be acquired against a title registered under the
provisions of the Property Registration Decree. The statute of limitations is merely a bar to a right
of action and does not operate as a transfer of title at all.65

 Supapo v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, April 20, 2015


-
Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
-
On their part, the Spouses Supapo admit that they filed the complaint for accion publiciana more
than ten (10) years after the certificate to file action was issued. Nonetheless, they argue that their
cause of action is imprescriptible since the subject property is registered and titled under the
Torrens system.
Page 3 of 25
Page 4 of 25

-
We rule that the Spouses Supapo's position is legally correct.
-
In a long line of cases, we have consistently ruled that lands covered by a title cannot be acquired
by prescription or adverse possession . We have also held that a claim of acquisitive prescription
is baseless when the land involved is a registered land because of Article 112649 of the Civil
Code in relation to Act 496 [now, Section 47 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 152950].51

 Cabrera v. CA, G.R. No. 108547, 267 SRCA 339, February 3, 1997

- Laches has been defined as 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 to assert it either
has abandoned it or declined to assert it.

- The defense of laches is an equitable one and does not


concern itself with the character of the defendant's title,
but only with whether or not by reason of plaintiff's
long inaction or inexcusable neglect, he should be
barred from asserting his claim at all, because to allow
him to do so would be inequitable and unjust to
defendant. Laches is not concerned merely with lapse of
time, unlike prescription. While the latter deals with the
fact of delay, laches deals with the effect of
unreasonable delay. This Court emphasized in Mejia
de Lucas vs. Gamponia, G.R. No. L-9335, October 31,
1956, 100 Phil 277, the reason upon which the rule is
based is not alone the lapse of time during which the
neglect to enforce the right has existed, but the changes
of condition which may have arisen during the period in
which there has been neglect. In other words, where a
court finds that the position of the parties has to change,
that equitable relief cannot be afforded without doing
injustice, or that the intervening rights of third persons
may be destroyed or seriously impaired, it will not exert
its equitable powers in order to save one from the
consequences of his own neglect. In our jurisdiction, it
is an enshrined rule that even a registered owner of
property may be barred from recovering possession of
property by virtue of laches. Under the Land
Registration Act (now the Property Registration
Decree), no title to registered land in derogation to that
of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession. The same is not true with
regard to laches. As we have stated earlier in Mejia de
Lucas vs. Gamponia, while the defendant may not be
considered as having acquired title by virtue of his and
his predecessor's long continued possession (37 years)
the original owner's right to recover back the possession
of the property and the title thereto from the defendant
has, by the latter's long period of possession and by
patentee's inaction and neglect, been converted into a
stale demand.

Page 4 of 25
Page 5 of 25

 Tiongco v. Tiongco, G.R. No. 161360, October 19, 2011

Certificate of Title not Subject to Collateral Attack (Section 48)

- The certificate of title serves as evidence of an


indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein. After the expiration of the
one (1) year period from the issuance of the decree of
registration upon which it is based, it becomes
incontrovertible. The settled rule is that a decree of
registration and the certificate of title issued pursuant
thereto may be attacked on the ground of actual fraud
within one (1) year from the date of its entry and such an
attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding.
The validity of the certificate of title in this regard can be
threshed out only in an action expressly filed for the
purpose.89

*collateral attack – the challenge of another case or another court’s ruling in the case at bar.

- Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree expressly


provides that a certificate of title cannot be subject to
collateral attack. It can be altered, modified or cancelled
only in a direct proceeding. Under Article 1126 of the Civil
Code, prescription of ownership of lands registered under
the Decree shall be governed by special laws. Correlatively,
Section 47 of the Decree provides that no title to
registered land in derogation of that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by adverse possession.
Consequently, any claim to registered land on the basis of
acquisitive prescription is baseless, and proof of possession
by the claimant is both immaterial and inconsequential.90

 Taparuc v. Vda. de Mende, G.R. No. 152007, 512 SCRA 97, January 22, 2007
-
As a final note, we emphasize that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The question
on the validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, can be raised only in an
action expressly instituted for that purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot be
changed, altered, modified, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral proceeding.

 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 175720, 532 SCRA 642, September 11, 2007
-
We agree with the RTC that a certificate of title is a conclusive evidence of ownership of the
land described therein; the validity of which shall not be subject to a collateral attack,
especially in an ejectment case which is summary in nature.

 Corpuz v. Agustin, G.R. No. 183822, January 18, 2010


-
It is settled in jurisprudence that a Torrens certificate of title cannot be the subject of collateral
attack. Such attack must be direct and not by a collateral proceeding. It is a well-established
doctrine that the title represented by the certificate cannot be changed, altered, modified,
enlarged, or diminished in a collateral proceeding. Considering that this is an unlawful detainer

Page 5 of 25
Page 6 of 25

case wherein the sole issue to be decided is possession de facto rather than possession de jure, a
collateral attack by herein respondents on petitioner's title is proscribed.

 Tuazon v. Isagon, G.R. No. 191432, September 2, 2015


-
A person who possesses a title issued under the Torrens system is entitled to all the attributes of
ownership including possession. A certificate of title cannot be subject to a collateral attack in an
action for unlawful detainer. A collateral attack is made when, in an action to obtain a different
relief, the validity of a certificate of title is questioned.

VII. Subsequent Registration

CHAPTER V – SECTION 51 – 77

1. Voluntary Dealings with Registered Lands


a. Primary Entry Book (Sec. 56)

The primary entry book is a record of all instruments, including copies of writs and
processes, affecting registered lands, which are entered by the Register of Deeds in the order of
their filing, upon payment of the proper fees. The recording is a preliminary process in
registration and shall note the date, hour and minute of receipt of said instruments. An instrument
shall be regarded as registered only from the time it is so noted.
Every deed or instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, shall be numbered and
endorsed by the Register of Deeds with proper reference to the certificate of title. All records and
papers relative to registered land shall be open for examination by the public, subject to such
reasonable regulations as the Register of Deeds may prescribe.
All deeds and voluntary instruments and copies thereof shall be attested and sealed by the
Register of Deeds and copies with the corresponding file number shall be delivered to the person
presenting them.

 DBP v. Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988
-
Therefore, without necessarily holding that annotation of a primary entry on the original of the
certificate of title may be deferred indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of said entry,
the Court rules that in the particular situation here obtaining, annotation of the disputed entry on
the reconstituted originals of the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely proper and
justified. To hold said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed resolution, amounts to declaring
that it did not, and does not, protect the registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or transactions
made, thereafter which are adverse to or in derogation of the rights created or conveyed by the
transaction thus entered. That, surely, is a result that is neither just nor can, by any reasonable
interpretation of Section 56 of PD 1529, be asserted as warranted by its terms.

 National Housing Authority v. Augusto Basa, G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010
-
Issue: Whether the annotation of the sheriffs certificate of sale on the owners duplicate certificate
of titles is sufficient registration considering that the inscription on the original certificates could
not be made as the same got burned.
-
Ruling: Indeed, the prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the registrant has
fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and annotation, so that what is left to
be accomplished lies solely on the register of deeds. The Court thus once held:

Page 6 of 25
Page 7 of 25

Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces the effect of registration,
whether the transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the
registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and
annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the
register of deeds.[52]
-
NHA followed the procedure in order to have its sheriffs certificate of sale annotated in
the transfer certificates of title. There would be, therefore, no reason not to apply the
ruling in said cases to this one. It was not NHAs fault that the certificate of sale was not
annotated on the transfer certificates of title which were supposed to be in the custody of
the Registrar, since the same were burned. Neither could NHA be blamed for the fact that
there were no reconstituted titles available during the time of inscription as it had taken
the necessary steps in having the same reconstituted as early as July 15, 1988.[56]

 Durawood v. Candice Bona, G.R. No. 179884, January 25, 2012


-
Ruling: The Court of Appeals, in considering the date of entry in the day book of the Registry
of Deeds as controlling over the presentation of the entries in TCT No. R-17571, relied on
Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 which provides that:

SEC. 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
provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees
in advance in order to be entitled to entry and registration. (Emphasis supplied.)

The consequence of the highlighted portion of the above section is two-fold:

 (1) in determining the date in which an instrument is considered registered,


the reckoning point is the time of the reception of such instrument as noted in
the Primary Entry Book; and

 (2) when the memorandum of the instrument is later made on the certificate
of title to which it refers, such memorandum shall bear the same date as that of
the reception of the instrument as noted in the Primary Entry Book.

As regards the first consequence, this Court has applied the same in several cases. National
Housing Authority v. Basa, Jr.,[27] we upheld the entry of instruments in the Primary Entry
Book to be equivalent to registration despite even the failure to annotate said instruments in
the corresponding certificates of title.

However, a close reading of the above-mentioned cases reveals that for the entry of instruments
in the Primary Entry Book to be equivalent to registration, certain requirements have to be
met. Thus, we held in Levin that:
Page 7 of 25
Page 8 of 25

Do the entry in the day book of a deed of sale which was presented and filed
together with the owner's duplicate certificate of title with the office of the
Registrar of Deeds and full payment of registration fees constitute a complete
act of registration which operates to convey and affect the land? In voluntary
registration, such as a sale, mortgage, lease and the like, if the owner's duplicate
certificate be not surrendered and presented or if no payment of registration
fees be made within 15 days, entry in the day book of the deed of sale does not
operate to convey and affect the land sold. x x x.[28]

“ATTY. ESPINA: A mere registration for constructive notice takes effect when the instrument is
entered in the Registry Book and there is nothing left for the Register of Deeds to be done. As
registrar, payment must be done immediately.”
-
In Development Bank of the Philippines v. Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,
[30]
this Court applied the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 and modified the
doctrine as follows:

Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces the effect
of registration, whether the transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary
one, so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him
for purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done
but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.[31]
-
This pronouncement, which was reiterated in National Housing Authority v. Basa, Jr.,
[32]
shows that for the entry to be considered to have the effect of registration, there is
still a need to comply with all that is required for entry and registration, including the
payment of the prescribed fees.

b. Double Sales

(NCC) Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof
in good faith, if it should be a movable property.

Should it be an immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring
it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good
faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents
the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

 Rodriguez v. Sioson, G.R. No. 199180, July 27, 2016


-
The rule on double sale, as provided in Article 1544 of the Civil Code,30 does not apply
to a case where there was a sale to one party of the land itself while the other contract
was a mere promise to sell the land or at most an actual assignment of the right to
repurchase the same land.31

 Melencio v. CA, G.R. No. 148846, September 25, 2007


-
Application of Art. 1544 of the Civil Code in a case of double sale of a registered land.

Page 8 of 25
Page 9 of 25

-
We have already ruled that the registration contemplated in this provision refers to
registration under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the
operative act[41] that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. [42] This
rule precisely applies to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and
those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties. [43] Thus, we
held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the same. [44]

 Antonio v. Santos, G.R. No. 149238, 538 SCRA 1, November 22, 2007

c. Buyer in Good Faith


-
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair
price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or
interest of some other person in the property.
-
In Cruz v. Cabana,106 the Court, through Justice Teehankee, said: “It is essential that the
buyer of realty must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale to merit the
protection of the second paragraph of Article 1544 of the Civil Code. x x x The
governing principle here 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 right except only as provided by the Civil Code and that is where the second
buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first. 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.
-
3. Rules of preference. Following Article 1544, in the double sale of an immovable, the
rules of preference are:
(a) the first registrant in good faith;
(b) should there be no entry, the first in possession in good faith; and
(c) in the absence thereof, the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith.

Prior registration of the subject property does not by itself confer ownership or a better right
over the property. Article 1544 requires that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the
first, he must show that he acted in good faith from the time he acquired the property until the
title or possession is transferred to him.107

 LBP v. Poblete, G.R. No. 196577, February 25, 2013


 Legarda v. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 94457, October 16, 1997

 Gabutan v. Nacalaban, G.R. No. 185857-53, June 29, 2016


-
To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show that he relied on the face
of the title to the property. He need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is not obliged to
explore beyond the four comers of the title. Such degree of proof of good faith, however, is
sufficient only when the following conditions concur:

first, the seller is the registered owner of the land;

second, the latter is in possession thereof; and

Page 9 of 25
Page 10 of 25

third, at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or interest of
some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the
seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property.

-
Absent one or two of the foregoing conditions, then the law itself puts the buyer on notice and
obliges the latter to exercise a higher degree of diligence by scrutinizing the certificate of title and
examining all factual circumstances in order to determine the seller's title and capacity to transfer
any interest in the property. Under such circumstance, it is no longer sufficient for said buyer to
merely show that he relied on the face of the title; he must now also show that he exercised
reasonable precaution by inquiring beyond the title. Failure to exercise such degree of precaution
makes him a buyer in bad faith. 127(Emphasis supplied.)

 Cusi v. Domingo, G.R. No. 195825, February 27, 2013

 Saberon v. Ventanilla, G.R. No. 192669, April 21, 2014

d. Real Estate Mortgage (Sec. 60)


-
A real mortgage is a contract in which the debtor guarantees to the creditor the
fulfillment of a principal obligation, subjecting for the faithful compliance therewith a
real property in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation at the time stipulated.2
-
It is a settled rule that in a real estate mortgage when the obligation is not paid when
due, the mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property
seized and sold in view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the obligation.
Foreclosure is valid where the debtors are in default in the payment of their obligation.1

 Home Bankers Savings v. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 128354, April 26, 2005

-
Under Section 18 of P.D. No. 957, it is provided that no mortgage on any unit or lot shall be
made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of the authority. Such
approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be
used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have
been provided to ensure such utilization. As in the Union Bank, the mortgage was constituted on
the subject lots in favor of petitioner without the prior written approval from the HLURB, thus
HLURB has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the mortgage.
-
Concededly, P.D. No. 957 aims to protect innocent lot buyers. Section 18 of the decree directly
addresses the problem of fraud committed against buyers when the lot they have contracted to
purchase, and which they have religiously paid for, is mortgaged without their knowledge. The
avowed purpose of P.D. No. 957 compels the reading of Section 18 as prohibitory acts committed
contrary to it are void. Such construal ensures the attainment of the purpose of the law: to protect
lot buyers, so that they do not end up still homeless despite having fully paid for their home lots
with their hard-earned cash.[22]

-
Since the mortgage is void, HLURBs orders of the cancellation of the sheriffs certificate of sale,
release of the mortgaged lots and delivery of the corresponding titles to respondents who had fully
paid the purchase price of the units are but the necessary consequences of the invalidity of the
mortgage for the protection of private respondents.

 De La Merced v. GSIS, et. al., G.R. No. 167140, November 23, 2011
Page 10 of 25
Page 11 of 25

 Ruiz v. Dimailig, G.R. No. 170540, October 28, 2009

-
Such doctrine of mortgagee in good faith presupposes "that the mortgagor, who is not the rightful
owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the property in his
name and that, after obtaining the said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the property to another
who relies on what appears on the said title." 37 In short, the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
assumes that the title to the subject property had already been transferred or registered in the
name of the impostor who thereafter transacts with a mortgagee who acted in good faith. In
the case at bench, it must be emphasized that the title remained to be registered in the name of
Bernardo, the rightful and real owner, and not in the name of the impostor.
e. Sale Involving Real Estate
 Esguerra v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007

-
Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity, which correlatively carries a
strong presumption that the provisions of the law governing the registration of land which led to
its issuance have been duly followed. [25] Fraud being a serious charge, it must be supported by
clear and convincing proof.[26] Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof, however.
-
On the questioned interpretation and application by the appellate court of Article 1542 of the Civil
Code reading:

In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a
certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than
that stated in the contract.

The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables are sold for a single
price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable in every
conveyance of real estate, its area or number should be designated in the contract, the
vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said boundaries, even when it
exceeds the area or number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so,
he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the area or
number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the
failure to deliver what has been stipulated. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

while petitioners admittedly sold Lot No. 3591 to the Trinidad spouses, they contend that what they sold
were only 5,000 square meters and not 6,268 square meters, and thus claim the excess of 1,268 square
meters.
-
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of pricing
agreement: a unit price contract wherein the purchase price is determined by way of reference
to a stated rate per unit area (e.g., P1,000 per square meter), or a lump sum contract which
states a full purchase price for an immovable the area of which may be declared based on an
estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., P1 million for 1,000 square
meters, etc.). In Rudolf Lietz, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court discussed the distinction:

. . . In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive


and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If the
vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the vendor to
deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of
the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the vendor delivers more than the area

Page 11 of 25
Page 12 of 25

stated in the contract, the vendee has the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or
to accept the whole area, provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.

xxxx

In the case where the area of the immovable is stated in the contract based on an
estimate, the actual area delivered may not measure up exactly with the area stated in the
contract.According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in the sale of real estate, made for a
lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall
be no increase or decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number
than that stated in the contract. . . .

xxxx

Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared, the area
covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated area. In cases
of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. What
really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more or less certainty,
mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the
land and indicating its limits. In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established
that the specific boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with
respect to the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a
deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is
sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to
identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the
vendor is to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety
thereof that distinguishes the determinate object. [28] (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

The courts below correctly characterized the sale of Lot No. 3591 as one involving a lump sum
contract.

 Del Prado v. Caballero, G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010


 Agatep v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 170540, October 28, 2009

f. Caveat Emptor Principle


-
One who purchases real property which is in actual possession of others should, at least,
make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. The actual possession by
people other than the vendor should, at least, put the purchaser upon inquiry. He can
scarcely, in the absence of such inquiry, be regarded as a bona fide purchaser as against
such possession. The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the
supposed title of the vendor and one who buys without checking the vendor’s title takes
all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.79
-
Thus, where the purchaser did not fight for the possession of the property if it were true
that he had a better right to it; that there were circumstances at the time of the sale, and
even at the time of registration, which would reasonably require the purchaser to
investigate to determine whether defects existed in his vendor’s title; and that,
instead, he willfully closed his eyes to the possibility of the existence of these flaws —
for failure to exercise the measure of precaution which may be required of a prudent
man in a like situation, he cannot be called a purchaser in good faith.80 Also, where
the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must
go beyond the certificate of title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual
Page 12 of 25
Page 13 of 25

possessor, otherwise he cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith and could
not have acquired a better right than his predecessor-in-interest.81

 Sy v. Capistrano Jr., G.R. No. 154450, July 28, 2008


 Domingo Realty v. CA, G.R. No. 126236, January 26, 2007

 Locsin v. Hizon, G.R. No. 304369, September 17, 2014

2. Involuntary Dealings
a. Attachments (Sec. 69)
b. Adverse Claims (Sec. 70)
-
The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the title of the disputed land is to apprise
third persons that there is a controversy over the ownership of the land and to
preserve and protect the right of the adverse claimant during the pendency of the
controversy. It is a notice to third persons that any transaction regarding the disputed
land is subject to the outcome of the dispute.10 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 data
pertinent thereto. The registration of an adverse claim is expressly recognized under
Section 70 of PD No. 1529.11 Where the notice of adverse claim is sufficient in law and
drawn up in accordance with existing requirements, it becomes the ministerial duty of the
Register of Deeds to register the instrument without unnecessary delay.12

 Sajonas v. CA, G.R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996


-
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 data pertinent thereto. The registration of an adverse claim is
expressly recognized under Section 70 of PD No. 1529.11
-
Adverse claim not ipso facto cancelled after 30 days; hearing necessary.

In Sajonas v. Court of Appeals,31 the Supreme Court held that while the law
states that “(t)he adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date
of registration,” this provision should not be treated separately, but should be read in
relation to the sentence following that “(a)fter the lapse of said period, the annotation of
adverse claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party
in interest.” If the rationale of the law is for the adverse claim to ipso facto lose force and
effect after the lapse of thirty days, then no adverse claim need be cancelled. 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. 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 by the court.

The Register of Deeds cannot unilaterally cancel the adverse claim. There must
be a court hearing for the purpose.32 The reason for this 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 least the
existence of any encumbrance on the title arising from such adverse claim. This is in line
with the provision “that after cancellation, no second adverse claim shall be registered by
the same claimant.”33

 Rodriguez v. CA, G.R. No. 142687, July 20, 2006

Page 13 of 25
Page 14 of 25

 Golden Haven Memorial Park v. Filinvest, G.R. No. 188265, November 17, 2010
 Martinez v. Garcia, G.R. No. 166356, February 4, 2010

c. Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land and Application of New Certificate Upon


Expiration of Redemption Period (Sec. 74-75)
-
Registration of deeds relating to execution and tax delinquency sales.

Whenever registered land is sold 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.
-
Entry of new certificate.

In case registered land which has been sold on execution for the enforcement of any
lien, except a mortgage lien, has not been redeemed within the period allowed by law, the
purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the issuance of a
new certificate of title to him. But before the entry of such new certificate, the registered
owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul the proceedings.

 Padilla Jr. v. Phil. Producer’s Cooperative, G.R. No. 141256, July 15, 2005
 Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing, G.R. No. 185620, December 14, 2011

d. Lis Pendens (Sec. 76)


-
Nature and purpose of lis pendens.

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. 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.

A notice of lis pendens may involve actions that deal not only with title or possession of a
property, but also with the use or occupation of a property. The litigation must directly involve a
specific property which is necessarily affected by the judgment.

The notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a particular
real property is in litigation. The inscription serves as a warning that one who acquires an
interest over litigated property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the
litigation over the property.45 Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any
cancellation or issuance of title over the land involved as well as any subsequent transaction
affecting the same would have to be subject to the outcome of the suit. In other words, a purchaser
who buys registered land with full notice of the fact that it is in litigation between the vendor and a
third party stands in the shoes of his vendor and his title is subject to the incidents and result of the
pending litigation. The filing of lis pendens in effect:
(a) keeps the subject matter of litigation within the power of the court until the entry
of the final judgment so as to prevent the defeat of the latter by successive alienations’
and

Page 14 of 25
Page 15 of 25

(b) binds a purchaser of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that
will be promulgated thereon whether such a purchaser is a bona fide purchaser or not; but
(c) does not create a non-existent right or lien.46

By disregarding the inscriptions and pursuing the registration of the sale, a buyer, for
instance, assumes the risk of losing the property. He, or his heirs being merely the juridical
continuation of his personality, holds the same in trust for the true owner.47

The purpose of the rule on lis pendens is to keep the subject matter of the litigation
within the power of the court until the litigation is over.48 The doctrine of lis pendens is
founded upon reason of public policy and necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject
matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the judgment or the decree shall have
been entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree
shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.49
-
(1) Effect of the notice

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. Without a notice of lis
pendens, a third party who acquires the property after relying only on the certificate of title is a
purchaser in good faith. Against such third party, the supposed rights of a litigant cannot prevail,
because the former is not bound by the property owner’s undertakings not annotated in the transfer
certificate of title.52
-
Notice of lis pendens, when appropriate; when not proper.

A notice of lis pendens may involve actions that deal not only with title or possession of a
property, but also with the use or occupation of a property. The litigation must directly involve a
specific property which is necessarily affected by the judgment. Lis pendens is appropriate in
the following cases:

1. Action to recover possession of real estate;


2. Action to quiet title thereto;
3. Action to remove clouds thereon;
4. Action for partition; and
5. 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.

On the other hand, the doctrine of lis pendens has no application in the following cases:

1. Preliminary attachments;
2. Proceedings for the probate of wills;
3. Levies on execution;
4. Proceedings for administration of estate of deceased persons; and
5. Proceedings in which the only object is the recovery of a money judgment.62

It is important that a specific property is directly involved in the action and necessarily
affected by the judgment. Thus, where the object of the suit is the recovery of a money judgment,
the rule of lis pendens cannot be applied.63

Page 15 of 25
Page 16 of 25

 Viewmaster Construction v. Maulit, et. al., G.R. No. 136283, February 29, 2000
 Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty, G.R. No. 148568, March 20, 2003
 Homeowners Savings v. Delgado, G.R. No. 189477, February 26, 2014
 Casim v. RD of Las Piñas, G.R. No. 168655, July 2, 2010

e. Levies on Execution
 Pineda v. Arcalas, G.R. No. 170172, November 23, 2007
 Valdevieso v. Damalerio, G.R. No. 133303, February 17, 2005

VIII. Registration of Judgments, Orders, and Partitions (Sections 78 – 92)

1. Surrender of Owner’s Duplicate (Sec. 107, P.D. 1529)


 Toledo Banaga v. CA, et. al., G.R. No. 127941, January 28, 1999

 Abad, et. al., v. Filhomes Realty, G.R. No. 189239, November 24, 2010

IX. Assurance Fund

CHAPTER VII – SECTIONS 93 – 102

1. Claims against the Assurance Fund (Sec. 95)

The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained his title thereto through fraud. The
remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the
fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be
filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.19

 Development Bank of the Philippines v. Bautista, G.R. No. 21362, November 29, 1968
 Torres v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-63046, June 21, 1990
-
Then it becomes evident that the remaining possible remedies of the Cues are to go against
Fernandez or the Assurance Fund, as they in fact had done in the lower court by filing a cross
claim and third party complaint. The lower court dismissed the Cues' cross-claim against
Fernandez reasoning out that their remedy is to cause the final judgment (compromise agreement)
in Civil Case No. 75643 executed. This, of course, is correct since the rights and obligations of
both parties had been determined in that case.
-
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: xxx

X. Registration of Patents

CHAPTER VIII (Sec. 103)

1. Certificate of Titles pursuant to patents (Sec. 103)

Page 16 of 25
Page 17 of 25

SEC. 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.

Scope of Sec. 103

The instruments mentioned in Section 103 whereby public lands are


“alienated, granted, or conveyed” are instruments transferring
ownership — not documents of lease, transferring mere possession. 1 The
provision directs the issuance to the grantee of “an owner’s duplicate
certificate.” After due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, the
land shall be deemed registered land to all intents and purposes under the
Property Registration Decree. Public land patents when duly registered are
veritable Torrens titles subject to no encumbrances except those stated
therein, plus those specified by the statute. They become private property
which can no longer be the subject of subsequent disposition by the Director
of Lands.2

As explained in Lahora v. Dayanghirang,3 where disposable public


land is granted by the government by virtue of a public land patent (like
homestead, sales or free patent), the patent is recorded and the
corresponding certificate of title is issued to the grantee;thereafter, the land
is automatically brought within the operation of the Property
Registration Decree, entitled to all the safeguards of a veritable
Torrens title. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its
issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and
indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.

 Yap v. Republic, G.R. No. 199810, March 15, 2017


 Alonzo v. CCC, G.R. No. 188471, April 20, 2010

-
Admittedly, neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in
question. The most that petitioners could claim was that the Director of Lands issued a
sales patent in the name of Tomas N. Alonso. The sales patent, however, and even the
Page 17 of 25
Page 18 of 25

corresponding deed of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds and no
title was ever issued in the name of the latter. This is because there were basic
requirements not complied with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale
executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources. Hence, the deed of sale was void. Approval by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale.
-
Only recently, in Jesus P. Liao v. Court of Appeals, the Court has ruled categorically
that approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce of the sale of friar
lands is indispensable for its validity, hence, the absence of such approval made the
sale null and void ab-initio. Necessarily, there can be no valid titles issued on the basis
of such sale or assignment. Consequently, petitioner Franciscos father did not have
any registerable title to the land in question. Having none, he could not transmit
anything to his sole heir, petitioner Francisco Alonso or the latters heirs.

 Egao v. CA, G.R. No. L79787, June 29, 1989

2. An Act Authorizing the Issuance of Free Patents to Residential Lands (R.A. 10023)

XI. Certification of Land Transfer (Sec. 105)

1. Certificate of Land Transfer (Sec. 105)


2. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998, R.A. 6657

XII. Petitions and Actions after Original Registration

CHAPTER X (Sections 107 – 110)

1. Surrender Withheld Duplicate Certificate (Sec. 107)


 Ligon v. CA, G.R. No. 107751, June 1, 1995

 Toledo Banaga v. CA, G.R. No. 127941, January 28, 1999

2. Amendment and Alteration of Certificated (Sec. 108)


 Oliva v. Republic, G.R. No. 163118, April 27, 2007
 Republic v. Galeno, G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017
 Paz v. Republic, G.R. No. 157367, November 23, 2011
 Cabanez v. Solano, G.R No. 200180, June 6, 2016

3. Notice and Replacement of Lost Duplicate Certificate (Sec. 109)


 Coombs v. Castañeda, G.R. No. 192353
 Tan Po Chu v. CA, G.R. No. 184348, April 4, 2016
 Gocheco v. Estacio, G.R. No. L-15183, October 30, 1962

4. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Original Torrens Title (Sec. 110)

Page 18 of 25
Page 19 of 25

 Saint Mary Crusade v. Riel, G.R. No. 176508, January 12, 2015
 Republic v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 146081, July 17, 2006

 Heirs of Venturanza v. Republic, G.R. No. 149122, July 27, 2007


 Republic v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 172338, December 10, 2012

5. Estoppel in Action for Cancellation of Title


 Barstowe Phils. v. Republic, G.R. No. 133110, March 28, 2007
 Republic v. CA and Santos, G.R. No. 116111, January 21, 1999

XIII. Schedule of Fees, Special Fund

XIV. Forms Used in Land Registration and Conveyance

XV. Dealings with Unregistered Land

Chapter XIII, Sec. 113

 Radiowealth v. Palileo, G.R. No. 83432, May 20, 1991

Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo 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 somebody
else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.

“The case of Carumba vs. Court of Appeals is a case in point. It was held therein that
Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application to land not registered under Act No. 496. Like in
the case at bar, Carumba dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. The first sale was
made by the original owners and was unrecorded while the second was an execution sale that
resulted from a complaint for a sum of money filed against the said original owners. Applying
[Section 33], Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court held that Article 1544 of the Civil
Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at the execution sale though the latter was a buyer
in good faith and even if this second sale was registered. It was explained that this is because the
purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff’s execution sale only steps into the shoes of the
judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as of the time the
property was levied upon.
“Applying this principle, . . . the execution sale of unregistered land in favor of petitioner
is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the judgment debtor as of the time of the
said execution sale.

Page 19 of 25
Page 20 of 25

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.

We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second buyer to 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.

XVI. Registration of Chattel Mortgages

Chapter XIV, Sec. 114 – 116

 Sabitsana v. Muertigue, G.R. No. 181359, August 5, 2013

XVII. Consultas (Section 117)

SEC. 117. Procedure. — When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with


regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for
registration, or 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 Commissioner of Land Registration by
the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of
Deeds. Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds
shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the
instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not
agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from
the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of
notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land
Registration upon payment of a consulta fee in such amount as shall be
prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending
consulta on the certificate of title which shall be cancelled motu proprio by
the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before
resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and
the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall
enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be
made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding
upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who
disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner
relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period
and in the manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.

The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of


deeds, encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature.1 He may
Page 20 of 25
Page 21 of 25

not validly refuse to register an instrument, a deed of sale for example,


presented to him for registration. Whether a document is valid or not is not for the
Register of Deeds to determine since such function belongs to the courts. The law on
registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. 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.
Hence, registration must first be allowed, and the validity or effect thereof
litigated afterwards.2

 Almirol v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, supra

Reference of doubtful questions to the LRA via consulta.

Section 117 provides that when the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what
action should be taken when any deed or other instrument is presented to him for
registration, or where any party does not agree with the action by the Register of
Deeds, the question shall be submitted to the LRA Administrator, via the process of
consulta, for proper determination, after due notice and hearing.

As held in Almirol v. Register of Deeds of Agusan,8 a Register of Deeds is


entirely precluded from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when
confronted with the problem of whether to register a deed or instrument on the
ground that it is invalid. For when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken
with respect to any deed or other instrument presented to him for registration, all
that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the LRA
Administrator who shall, after notice and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step
to be taken on the doubtful question.

In a situation where the Register of Deeds determines that the instrument is


not registrable, he shall notify the interested party in writing, stating the reasons for
such denial, and if such party does not agree with his ruling, he may elevate the
matter by consulta to the LRA Adminstrator for resolution. The Register of Deeds shall
make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title which shall be
cancelled motu proprio (a) upon final resolution of the case by the LRA Administrator,
or (b) if the consulta is withdrawn by the petitioner before such resolution.

Where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds, the
question shall be submitted to the LRA Administrator who thereafter “shall enter an
order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made,” which shall be
“conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds.” This administrative remedy
must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts. 9

The decision or ruling of the LRA Administrator shall be conclusive and binding
upon all Registers of Deeds, without prejudice to an appeal which the interested party
may take to the Court of Appeals.

 Smith Bell & Co. v. RD, G.R. No. 24736, January 29, 1926

XVIII. Final Provisions

Page 21 of 25
Page 22 of 25

XIX. The Condominium Act (R.A. 4726)

1. Definition (Sec. 2, R.A. 4726)


2. Warranties and Representations
 BPI v. ALS Management Corp., G.R. No. 151821, April 14, 2004

3. Redemption of Mortgaged Amortization


 De Vera v. CA, G.R. No. 132869, October 18, 2001

4. Suspension of Monthly Amortization


 Gold Loop Properties, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 122088, January 26, 2001

5. Alteration of Plans
 G.O.A.L. Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 118822, July 28, 1997

XX. Subdivision and Condominium Protective Buyer’s Decree (P.D. 957)

1. Jurisdiction of the HLURB


 Ortigas v. CA, G.R. No. 129822, June 20, 2012

Section 109 of PD 1529 provides for the procedure in getting a new owner’s duplicate
certificate as follows:

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 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

Page 22 of 25
Page 23 of 25

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.

JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 26


 Republic Act 26: An Act Providing a Special Procedure For The Reconstitution of
Torrens Certificate of Titles Lost or Destroyed

 Reconstitution of title is an action in rem

 A judicially reconstituted title has the same validity and legal effect as the original
thereof, and isn’t subject to the reservation that it shall be without prejudice to
any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in the original at
the time of loss or destruction but which entry or notation hasn’t been
made on the reconstituted title

 The limitation that reconstitution of title should be limited to the certificate as it


stood at the time of its loss or destruction has reference only to changes which
alter or affect title of the registered owner and not to mere liens and other
encumbrances

RECONSTITUTION DENOTES RESTORATION OF THE LOST TITLE IN ITS ORIGINAL


FORM AND CONDITION
 Purpose is to have it reproduced, after observing the procedure prescribed by law in
the same form they where when the loss or destruction occurred

 The fact that the title to the land was lost doesn’t mean that the lot ceased to be a
registered land before the reconstitution of its title

 As the subject land didn’t cease to be titled, it cannot be acquired by acquisitive


prescription

 Reconstitution is proper only when it is satisfactorily shown that the title sought to be
reconstituted is lost or no longer available

 Where the petition for reconstitution wasn’t to restore a lost registered certificate of
title but to re-register and issue a new certificate in the names of petitioner and her
deceased husband, in lieu of one originally registered in the names of other persons,
the petition should be denied without prejudice to the right of the
parties to take the necessary action under Section 51 and 53 of PD1529
 Republic Act 26 provides for special procedure for the reconstitution of torrens
certificate of title that are missing and not fictitious titles which are existing. Where a
certificate of title over a parcel of land was reconstituted judicially and later it was
found that there existed a previous certificate of title covering the same land in the

Page 23 of 25
Page 24 of 25

name of another person, the court ruled that the existence of the prior title ipso facto
nullified the reconstitution proceedings

SOURCES OF RECONSTITUTION ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE


1. The owner’s duplicate certificate of title
2. The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate certificate of title
3. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the RD or by a legal
custodian thereof
4. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be,
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued
5. A document, on file with the RD, by which the property, the description of which is
given in said document, is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its original has been registered
6. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title

FOR TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

1. The owner’s duplicate certificate of title


2. The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate certificate of title
3. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the RD or by a legal
custodian thereof
4. The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the RD, containing a description
of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had
been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate
of title was issued
5. A document, on file with the RD, by which the property, the description of which is
given in said document, is mortgaged, leased, or encumbered, or an
authenticated copy of said document showing that its original has been registered
6. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title

FOR LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES

1. Annotations or memoranda appearing on the owner’s co-owner’s mortgagee’s or


lessee’s duplicate
2. Registered documents on file in the RD, or authenticated copies thereof showing
that the originals thereof had been registered
3. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court is sufficient and proper
basis for reconstituting the liens or encumbrances affecting the property covered
by the lost or destroyed certificate of title

MEANING OF “ANY OTHER DOCUMENT”


 As per LRC circular #35, the signed duplicate copy of the petition to be forwarded to
this Commission shall be accompanied by the following:
- A duly prepared plan of said parcel of land in tracing cloth, with 2 print copies
thereof, prepared by the government agency which issued the certified
technical
Page 24 of 25
Page 25 of 25

description, or by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer who shall certify thereon


that he prepared the same on the basis of a duly certified technical
description. Where the plan as submitted is certified by the government
agency which issued the same, it is sufficient that the technical description be
prepared by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer on the basis of said certified
plan.

- The original, 2 duplicate copies, and a Xerox copy of the original of the
technical description of the parcel of land covered by the certificate of title,
duly certified by the authorized officer of the Bureau of Lands or the LRC who
issued the technical description

- A signed copy of the certification of the RD concerned that the original of the
certificate on title on file with the RD was either lost or destroyed, indicating
the name of the registered owner, if known from the other records in file in
said office.

WHERE TO FILE PETITION; CONTENTS


 Shall be filed by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having interest in
the property with the proper RTC where the same is based on sources enumerated
earlier
 Contents shall be as followed—

1. That the owner’s duplicate had been lost or destroyed


2. That no co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, lessee’s, duplicate had been issued or, if any
had been issued, the same had been lost or destroyed
3. The location, area and boundaries of the property
4. The nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which don’t
belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of
such buildings or improvements
5. 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
6. A detailed description of the encumbrances if any, affecting the property
7. A statement that no deeds or other instruments affecting the property have been
presented for registration, or if there be any, the registration thereof hasn’t been
accomplished, as yet

REQUIREMENTS OF NOTICE BY PUBLICATION, POSTING AND MAILING


1. To be published twice, at the expense of the petitioner, in successive issues of the
Official Gazette
2. 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
3. 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 known, within 30
days prior the date of hearing

 The jurisdiction of the court is hedged in the forewalls of the petition and the
published notice of hearing which define the subject matter of the petition.

Page 25 of 25

You might also like