AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
of registration, in the certificate, or which may arise
1. Importance of the Subject
a. Man - Land Ratio
b. Land as a finite resource
II. GOVERNINING LAWS
1. PD 1529 otherwise known as "The Property
Registration Decree". Approved June 11, 1978
codified and incorporated the following laws related to
property registration:
a. Act 496, The Land Registration Act
b. Commonwealth Act 141, The Public Land Act
c. Act 2259, The Cadastral Act
d. Act 3344, System of Registration for
Unregistered Lands
e. Act No. 1508, as amended, The Chattel
Mortgage Law
f. Republic Act No. 26, Reconstitution of Original
Certificates of Title
g. PD 27, Emancipation Patents, Land Reform Law
2. The Civil Code Provision (Articles 708 - 711)
Title IX
a. Art. 708. The Registry Property has for its object
the inscription or annotation of acts and
contracts relating to the ownership and
other rights over immovable property.
b. Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of
other rights over immovable property, which are
not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry
of Property shall not prejudice third persons.
c. Art. 710. 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.
d. Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject
to inscription or annotation, as well as the form,
effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and
annotations, the manner of keeping the books in
the Registry, and the value of the entries
contained in said books, the provisions of the
Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and
other special laws shall govern.
THE TORRENS SYSTEM
1. The Legal Basis and Nature (Sec 2, PD 1529)Nature of
registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. -
Judicialproceedings for the registration og lands
throughout the Philippines shall be in rem
and shall be based on the generally accepted principles
underlying the Torrens system.
2. Purpose and meaning of the Torrens System of
Registration.
a.) The real purpose of the system is to quiet title of
land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality
of the title, except claims which were noted at the time
subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law,
it would seem that once a title is registered, the owner
may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the courts, or sitting in the "mirador de su
casa", to avoid the possibility of losing his land. (Legarda
vs. Saleeby 31 Phl 590)
b.) The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid
possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate
transactions relative thereto by giving the public the
right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Certificate Title
and to dispense with the need of inquiring further,
except when the party concerned has actual knowledge
of the facts and circumstances that should impel
a reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry.
(Traders Royal Bank vs CA 315 SCRA 190)
2. Jurisdiction
a. Regional Trial Court Courts of First Instance (RTC) shall
have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for
original registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interest therein, and over
all petitions filed after original registration of title, with
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
such applications or petitions. (Sec 2, PD 1529)
b. Pursuant to Sec 34 of Batas Pambansa 129, the
Supreme Court issued Administrative Order No 64-93
dated April 21, 1993, authorizing METC's, MTCC's and
MTC's to hear and decide, Cadastral or Land
Registrationcases covering Lots where there is no contro
versy or opposition, or contested lots, the value of which
does not exceed P100, 000.00 for MTC's and P200,
000.00 for METC's.
IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
1. Original Registration under Sec 14, Pd 1529Who may
apply:
A.) Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of
alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12,
1945, or earlier.
In Republic vs CA and Corazon Naguit GR No 144057,
January 17, 2005, the Supreme Court held that: “Sec
14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the property sought to
be registered as already alienable and disposable at the
time of application for registration of title is filed."
"If the State, at the time the application is made, has not
yet deemed it proper to release the property for
alienation or disposition, the presumption is that the
government is still reserving the right to utilize the
property, hence, the need to preserve its ownership is
the State irrespective of the length of adverse
possession even if in good faith."
"However, if the property has already been classified as
alienable and disposable, then there is already an
intention on the part of the State to abdicate its
exclusive prerogative over the property."
"There are no material differences between Sec 14 (1) of
the Property Registration Decree and Sec 48 (b) of the
Public Land Act. True, the Public Land Act does refer to
"agricultural land of the public domain, “while the
Property Registration Decree uses the term "Alienable
and Disposable lands of public domain." It must be noted
though that the Constitution declares that "alienable
lands of public domain shall be limited to agricultural
lands. Clearly, the subject lands under Sec 48 (b) of the
Public Land Act and Sec 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree are of the same type."
B.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing laws.
“Prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership
under the Civil Code. There is a consistent jurisprudential
rule that properties classified as alienable public land
may be converted into private property by reason of
open, continuous and exclusive possession of at least 30
years. With such conversion, such property may now fall
within the contemplation of "Private Lands" under
Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by
those who have acquired ownership through
prescription. Thus, even if possession of the alienable
public land commenced on a date later than June 12,
1945, and such possession being open, continuous and
exclusive, then the possessor may have the right to
register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the
Property Registration Decree" (Republic vs CA and
Naguit)
C.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands
or abandoned river beds by right of accession or
accretion under the existing laws. Accretion is the slow
and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil deposits that
the law grants to the riparian owner. (Binalay vs Manolo,
195 SCRA374)
D.) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any
other manner provided by law.
2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Title
under Sec 48 (b) of CA 141.
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-
in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
notorious possession and occupation of agricultural
lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for
confirmation of title, except when prevented by war or
force majeure. Those shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of
title under the provision of this chapter.
The period to avail of this provision has been extended
to Dec 31, 2020pursuant to RA 9176, approved Nov 13,
2002 with the limitation that the area applied for should
not exceed 12 hectares.
3. Cadastral Act, Ac 2259
(Involuntary Proceedings) Compulsory proceedings are
premised on the presumption under the Regalian
Doctrine. That all Lands of whatever classifications
belong to the public domain. Once instituted in court, all
private claims to land are open to question and it is to
the public interest that such private claims be settled
and adjudicated.
4. Administrative Method
Free Patent, Homestead and Sale Provisions
A.) Whenever lands of the public domain are disposed of
by the DENR through free patent, homestead and sales,
they shall be brought under the operation of the Torrens
System.
Thus Sec 103 of PD 1529, states:
“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 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."
B.) Emancipation Patent or Certificates of Land
Ownership Awards(CLOA)
Whenever a tenant or farm worker is issued a patent,
the same shall also be transmitted to the Register of
Deeds for registration under Sec 104and 105 of PD 1529
and the issuance of the corresponding Certificate of
Title, this bringing the land under the operation of the
Torrens System.
C.) Indefeasibility of a title obtained through the
administrative method.
An original certificate of title issued on the basis of a
patent partakes of the nature of a certificate of title
issued in a judicial proceeding and becomes indefeasible
upon the expiration of one year from the date of
promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands for
the issuance of patent.
(Heirs of Gregorio Tingco vs Heirs of Jose Alinaias, 168
SCRA198)
V. STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE
1. Survey - In Director of Lands vs. Reyes, et al, 68 SCRA
177 -182. The SC ruled: “The applicant is not relieved
from submitting in evidence the original planapproved
by the Director of Lands as required by law. One of
thedistinguishing marks of the Torrens System is the
absolute certainty of the identity of a registered land.
Consequently, the primary purpose of the said
requirements is to fix the exact or definite identity of the
land as shown in the plan and technical description."
2. Application - Discussed earlier as to where to file.
3. Setting the Date of Initial Hearing
Not earlier than 45 days nor more than 90 days from the
date of the order (Sec 23, PD 1529)
4. Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA
5. Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial
Hearing
6. Publication, registered mail and posting (Sec 3, Pd
1529)
“Sec 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette
shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court.
However, in Director of Lands vs. CA (276 SCRA 276-287)
the SC ruled that the publication in a newspaper
of general circulation is equally a mandatory
jurisdictional requirement. "The elementary norms of
due process require that before the claimed property is
taken from the concerned parties and registered in the
name of
theapplicant. The said parties must be given notice and o
pportunity tooppose.
7. Opposition
Shall be filed by any person who claims the land or any
interest therein.8.
Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence
A. General Default
B. Default Order is entered
C. All applicants must overcome the presumption that
the land sought to be registered form part of the public
domain.
(Republic vs CA and Naguit Supra)
D. Tax declarations when coupled with proof of actual
possession are strong evidence of ownership
(Gonzaga vs CA SCRA 327)
E. A foreign national may apply for registration of title
over a parcel of land which he acquired by purchase
while still a citizen of the Philippines
(Republic vs CA and Lapiña, 235 SCRA 567)
F. A private corporation may apply for judicial
confirmation of title to public agricultural land because if
a price of land of the public domain has been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under
a bona fide claim of ownership for a period prescribed
by law, the land after the lapse of said period Ipso Jure
ceases to form part of the public domain and becomes
private property, thus removing it from the ambit of the
constitutional prohibition
(Republic vs CA 155 SCRA 344)
G. Spanish Titles - PD 892, effective Feb 16, 1976,
invalidated all Spanish titles and declared that they can
no longer be used as evidence of landownership. They
shall then be treated as unregistered lands.
H. Judgment - Shall become final after 15 days from
notice, there can beno execution of judgment
pending appeal in land registration proceedings.
9. Decree of Registration for the Land to be issued by the
Administrator, LRA
10. Original Certificate of Title
The land Registration Authority has devised a form
where the decree and the original certificate of title
are embodied in the same document.
VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TORRENS CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE
Rules, principles, doctrines, and maxims of the Torrens
system which were culled from landmark decisions of
the highest court on actual cases as arranged by Prof.
Gregorio Bilog in his book, "Land Title and Deeds",
2005 Ed.
A. Best Evidence of Ownership - A Torrens Certificate of
Title is the best evidence of ownership of the land
described therein.
(See Vilanueva vs CA, 198 SCRA 482 Ching vs CA, 181
SCRA 9,Heirs of George Bofill vs CA, 237 SCRA 451,Halili
vs National Labor Relations Commissions, 257 SCRA
174,Lee Tek Sheng vs CA, 292 SCRA 544)
B. Notice to the Whole World - A torrens title gives notice
to the whole world; or a Torrens title bind the whole
world.
(See Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484, National Grains
Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380,Ching vs Malaya, 153
SCRA 412,People vs Reyes, 175 SCRA 597)
The issuance of certificate of title is a constructive notice
thereof to all persons .
(Serna vs CA, 308 SCRA 527, 529)
Registration of a deed sale in the Registry of
Deeds constitutes constructive notice thereof to the
whole world.
(See Calalang vs ROD of Quezon City, 208 SCRA
215,People vs Pacificador, 354 SCRA 310)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
(Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,Jacob vs CA, 244 SCRA 189)
C. Unregistered Claims - A Torrens title bars all prior
claims not registered on the title.
(See PD 1529 , Sec 44; Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647)
All claims and liens of whatever character existing
against the land prior to the issuance of certificate of
title are barred, if not noted on said certificate. The
registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of Title and the
subsequent purchaser for value and in good faith of
registered land shall hold the certificate free from all
liens and encumbrances, except those noted in said
certificate and those specified by law.
(See PD 1529 Sec 44 and 46, Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA
647, Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corp vs Cañada, 165
SCRA 207; Ferre-Lopez vs CA 150 SCRA 393;Cureg vs IAC,
177 SCRA 313, Aldecoa and Co vs Warner Barns & Co, 30
Phil 209;Snyder vs Fiscal of Cebu and Avila. 42 Phil 766)
D. Indefeasible - A Torrens certificate of title services as
evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor
of the person whose names appear therein.
(See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs CA, 204
SCRA 358, Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321, Ortegas vs
Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob vs CA, 266 SCRA189)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate
becomes incontrovertible or indefeasible after one year
from the entry of the decree of registration.
**See PD 1529, Sec 32 Calalang vs. Register of Deeds
of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215 Reyes and Nadres vs
Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil 791Jacob vs Court
of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA
524Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321Cagayan de Oro City
Landless Residents Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA
220 Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160 Muyco vs CA,
204 SCRA 358 Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA
635 Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267 Heirs of
Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 404
SCRA 193
E. A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible
(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs CA,
351 SCRA 12)
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the unregistered owner shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession.
See: PD 1529, Sec 17 Viacrucis vs CA, 44 SCRA 176 J.M.
Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Alarcon vs Bidin,
120 SCRA 390 umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA
427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC,
155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133Jacob vs. CA,
224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Rivera vs. CA,
244 SCRA 218
The owner of the land registered under the Torrens
System cannot lose it by prescription
See: Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636 Ruvera vs CA, 244 SCRA
218 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Egao vs
CA, 174 SCRA 484 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 Umbay
vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA
611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 Claudel vs. CA, 199
SCRA 133Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239
SCRA 252 Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12
F. Integrity of Titles - The integrity of the Torrens System
must be protected. Every person dealing with registered
land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate
of title issued therefore and the law will in no way oblige
him to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. Stated differently, an innocent
purchaser for value, relying on a Torrens title issued, is
protected.
G. Not Subject to Collateral Attack - A certificate of title
shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be
altered, modified or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National Grains
Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380;Tan vs. Philippines
Banking Corp., 355 SCRA 292; Windows and Orphans
Association, Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor
Phils. Corp vs CA, 216 SCRA236)
H. Fraudulent Registration - The person in whose name
the land is fraudulently registered holds it as a mere
trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
(Pajarillovs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)
A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud or for
enriching a person at the expense of another.
(Vda. De Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196; Legarda and
Prieto vs Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and
protect one who had committed fraud or
misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad faith.
(Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)
The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good
faith, and cannot be used as shield for fraud and
chicanery. Deceit is not to be countenanced; duplicity is
not to be rewarded.
(Philippine Commercial &Industrial Bank vs Villalva, 48
SCRA 31)
The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds.
(Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672)
I. Forgery - Any registration procured by the
presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a
forged deed or other instrument shall be null and void
(PD 1529 Sec 23) A forged instrument may become the
"root of a valid title".
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become
the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has
already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated
by the forger.
(See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la Cruz vs Fabie, 35
Phil 14; Roman Catholic Bishop vs Philippine Railway, 49
Phil. 546)
The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the
root of a valid title cannot be applied where the owner
still holds a valid and existing certificate of title covering
the same interest in a realty.
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
J. Loss - As between two innocent persons, the one who
made it possible for the wrong to be done should be the
one to bear the resulting loss
(See: Legarda vs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs CA, 366
SCRA 176; Tomas vs. Tomas, 98 SCRA280; Traders Royal
Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of them whom are in
good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law
must protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered
title over the transfer of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible rights. (Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354;
Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA672)
K. Priority of Rights - "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who
is first in time is preferred in right. The act of registration
in the Registry of Deeds shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned.
L. Double Titles - Where two certificates of title include
the same land, the certificate that is earlier in
date prevails.
(Garcia vs CA, 95 SCRA 380)
M. Presumptions: Regular and Valid - Torrens title
presumed to have been issued regularly and legally.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs. Malaya, 153SCRA
412; Ofrecio vs. Lising, 159 SCRA 366, Republic
vs. Umali, 171 SCRA 647;People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597,
Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)
A strong presumption exists that a Torrens title is
regularly issued and that itis valid.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65)
A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly
and legally, unless contradicted and overcome by clear,
convincing, strong and irrefutable proof. More than
merely preponderant evidence is required.
(Ramos vs. CA, 112 SCRA 542)
Good Faith - The presumption is that the transferee of
registered land is not aware of any defect in the title of
the property he purchased.
(Tajonera vs CA,103 SCRA 467)
N. Reliance on the Title - Every person dealing with
registered land maysafely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefore.
(See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRa 174;
Kho vs CA, 214 SCRA 329;Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA 642;
Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRa 616)
One who deals with properly registered under the
Torrens System need not go beyond the same, but only
has to rely on the title. He is charge with notice only of
such burdens and claims as are annotated on the title.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
Exception:
This principle does not apply when the party has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or
when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the
lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the
title of the property in litigation. One who falls within the
exception can neither be dominated an innocent
purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely
on the correctness of the title.
(A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla, 173 SCRA 572; Gevero vs IAC,
189 SCRA201)
He is not required to explore further than what the
Torrens title on its face indicates, in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat
his right thereto.
(National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380; Duran
vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489)
Where the title is in the name of the vendor when the
land is sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on
what appears on the title. Where innocent third persons
relying on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued, acquired rights over the property, the court
cannot disregard such rights and order the total
cancellation of the certificate for that would
impair public confidence in the
certificate of title, otherwise everyone dealing with
property registered under the Torrens System would
have to inquire in every instance as to whether the title
had been regularly or irregularly issued by the court.
A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the
certificate of title and in the absence of anything to
excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to lock beyond is committed outside the trial of a case against
the certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor the defeated party whereby said defeated party
appearing on the face of said certificate. is prevented from presenting fully and fairly his
side of the case. Intrinsic Fraud -refers to acts of
A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely
a party in a litigation during trial which did not
on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of
affect the presentation of the case, but did not
inquiring further, except when he has actual knowledge
prevent a fair and just determination of the case.
of facts and circumstances that would impel a
(Sterling Investment Corp vs Ruiz, 30SCRA 318)
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when
C. The title has not passed to the hands of an
he has knowledge of a defect of the lack of title of the
innocent purchaser for value.
other party or of sufficient to induce a reasonably
prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the 5. Action of Reconveyance Sec 96 of PD 1529 states:
property in litigation. "that nothing in this decree shall be construed to deprive
the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have
See Sandoval vs CA, 260, SCRA 283State Investment
against any person for such loss or damage or
House, Inc. vs CA, 254 SCRA 368 Tiburcio vs PHHC, L-
deprivation (of land or of any estate or interest therein)
13479, October 31, 1959Capitol Subd., Inc. vs Province
without joining the National Treasurer as party-
of Negros Occidental, 7 SCRa 60 Luz vs Manipon, 381
defendant. “
SCRA 788
A. Grounds:
Where the Torrens title is in the name of the vendor, the
vendee has the right to rely on what appears on the title; 1. Fraud
and, in the absence of anything to arouse suspicion, the 2. Implied or Constructive Trust3. Void Contract
vendee has no obligation to look beyond the title.
B. When to Avail
(See: Pino vs CA, 198 SCRA 434Centeno vs CA, 139 SCRA
1. On the ground of fraud - 4 yrs from discovery
545 Chit, Sr. vs Benelda Estate Dev Corp, 353 SCRA
2. Implied Constructive Trust prescribes in 10 years
424Republic vs CA, 306 SCRA 81
C. The period is to be reckoned from the date of
O. Titles Derived from a Void Title are Also Void
issuance of the original certificate of title.
If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent certificates
D. If the party is in actual possession of the property, the
of title derived therefrom are also void because of the
action does not prescribe.
truism that the "spring cannot rise higher than its
source." 6. Action for Damages. If the property has been passed
to an innocent purchaser for value, the aggrieved party
See De Santos vs IAC, 157 SCRA 295 Calalang vs Register
may bring an ordinary action for damages against the
od Deeds of Quezon city, 231 SCRA 88 Mathay vs CA,
applicant. (Sec 32, PD 1529)
295 SCRA 556
7. Action for Compensation from Assurance Fund. Any
This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim, "Nemo
person who sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of
potest pius juris adallum transferre quam ipse habet,"
land or any estate or interest by reason of the operation
"No one can transfer a greater right toanother than he
of the Torrens System may file an action for
himself has."
compensation against the Assurance Fund. (Sec 93 and
VII. REMEDIES OF PERSONS AGGRRIEVED IN A LAND 93 of PD1529)
REGISTRATIONPROCEEDINGS
VIII. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS
1. New Trial - Rule 37, Rules of Court
1. The act of registration is the operative act to convey
2. Relief from Judgment - Sec 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of or affect the land insofar as third persons are
Court concerned.
2. Entry along produces the effect of registration
3. Appeal - Sec 33 PD 1529 provides that judgment or
whether the transaction is voluntary or involuntary as
orders of the court inland registration cases are
long as registrant complies with all the requirements.
appealable to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions. (DBP vs RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRa 450)

4. Petition of Review - Sec 32 of PD 1529 3. The production of the owner's duplicate whenever
any voluntary instrument is presented for registration
A. Petition may be filed within one year from the
shall be conclusive authority from the registration
entry of such decree of registration.
shall be conclusive authority from the registered
B. On the ground of Actual or Extrinsic Fraud.
owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new
Extrinsic Fraud -refers to any fraudulent act of
certificate or to make a memorandum of registration.
the successful party in litigation which
(Sec 53 PD 1529)
4. The "Mirror Principle “A purchaser is not required to
explore beyond what the record in the registry
indicates on its face, in quest for any hidden defect or
inchoate right which may subsequently defeat his
title thereto.
(Chu Sr vs Benelda Estate Dev. Corp,353 SCRA 424)
5. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally req
uired and theexecution of the Deed of Sale is deemed
equivalent to delivery.
(Power and Ind. Corp. vs CA, 274 SCRA 59)
6. Even if only part of the property has been sold or
alienated within the prohibited period of 5 years such
alienation is sufficient cause for the reversion of the
whole estate to the state
(Republic vs CA 281, SCRA 639)
IX. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS1. ADVERSE CLAIM
Even after the lapse of thirty days as provided under Sec.
70 of PD 1529, an adverse claim may be cancelled only
upon order of the court.
(Sajonasvs CA, 258 SCRA 79)
2. LIS PENDENS
A notice of lis pendends is not confined only to cases
involving the title took possession of real property, but
applies to suits brought to establish an equitable estate,
interest, or right, in specific real property or to enforce
any lien, charge or encumbrance against it.
(Viewmaster vs Maulit, GR 136283, Feb 29, 2000)
“A notation of lis pendends neither affects the merits of
a case nor creates a right or a lien."
3. Surrender of Owner's Duplicate Certificate
of Title in Involuntary Dealings.
Sec. 107 of PD 1529 provides:
“Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title
pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divest the
title of the registered owner against his consent or
where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by
reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the party in
interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender
of the same to the Register of Deeds. “
Likewise, Sec. 80 of PD 1529 states:
“Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff
affecting registered land shall, upon petition of said
plaintiff, order the parties before it to execute
for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give
effect to the judgment, and shall require the registered
owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff
or to the Register of Deeds to be cancelled or to have
memorandum annotated upon it."
In the case of (Toledo-Bañaga vs CA, 302 SCRA 331)
The Supreme Court held:
“Petitioners other contention that the execution of the
final and executory decision - which is to issue title in the
name of private respondent - cannot be compelled
by mandamus because of the formality that the
registered owner first surrenders her duplicate
Certificate of Title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of PD
1529 cited by the Register of Deeds, bears no merit. In
effect, they argue that the winning party must wait
execution until the losing party has complied with the
formality of surrender of the duplicate title. Such
preposterous contention borders on the absurd and has
no place in our legal system."
4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
RA 8791, otherwise known as "The General Banking Law,
approved on May 23, 2000 modified the right of the
mortgagor to redeem the property in an extrajudicial
foreclosure under the following conditions:
A. The mortgagor is a juridical entity
B. The property has been mortgaged in favor of a bank,
quasi-bankor trust entity
C. The foreclosure is done extra-judicially If the forgoing
conditions are present, the period of redemption will
now be as follows:
“The mortgagor shall have the right to redeem the
property until but not after, the registration of
the certificate of foreclosure sale, with the applicable
Register of Deeds which is no case shall be more than
three months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. “
Stated otherwise, the maximum period of redemption
under this new law is three months, and no longer 1 year
as provided under RA 3135. Thus, considering that the
period of redemption is reckoned after the date of
the foreclosure or until the registration of the certificate
of sale "Whichever is earlier", this period may be shorter
than 3 months as when the buyer, for instance, may
cause the registration of the certificate of
sale immediately after the foreclosure sale.
X. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL
Sec. 110 of PD 1529, abrogated the procedure relative to
administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates provided under RA 26/ However, A 6732
approved on June 8, 1989 allowed once again the
administrative reconstitution of original copies of
certificates of title, but only when it is lost or destroyed
due to fire, flood, and other force majeure. Provided
further that the number of lost or damaged certificates
should at least be 100% and the number of certificates
of titles lost or damaged be less than 500.00