You are on page 1of 4

DBP vs Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija  The four-year hiatus between primary entry and proposed

annotation in this case has not been of DBP's making. If anyone was
FACTS: responsible for failure of annotation, it was the Register of Deeds
who was chargeable with the keeping and custody of those
 The Development Bank of the Philippines ( DBP) presented for
documents.
registration to the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan
City, a sheriff's certificate of sale in its favor of two parcels of land  It does not, therefore, make sense to require DBP to repeat the
covered by Transfer Certificates both in the names of the spouses process of primary entry, paying anew the entry fees as the
Andres Bautista and Marcelina Calison. appealed resolution disposes, in order to procure annotation which
through no fault on its part, had to be deferred until the originals of
 The bank acquired it as the highest bidder at an extrajudicial
the certificates of title were found or reconstituted.
foreclosure sale.
 That view in the appealed decision fails to find support from a
 The transaction was entered as Entry No. 8191 in the Registry's
consideration of entire context of said Section 56 which in another
Primary Entry Book and DBP paid the requisite registration fees on
part also provides that the instrument subject of a primary entry "...
the same day.
shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted ...,"
 Annotation of the sale on the covering certificates of title could not,  Current doctrine thus seems to be that primary entry alone
however be effected because the originals of those certificates produces the effect of registration, whether the transaction
were found to be missing from the files of the Registry, where they entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the
were supposed to be kept, and could not be located. registrant has complied with all that is required of him for
purposes of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to
 On the advice of the Register of Deeds, DBP instituted proceedings be done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija to reconstitute said  Therefore, without necessarily holding that annotation of a
certificates, and reconstitution was ordered by that court in a primary entry on the original of the certificate of title may be
decision rendered on June 15, 1982. For reasons not apparent on deferred indefinitely without prejudice to the legal effect of said
the record, the certificates of title were reconstituted only on June entry, the Court rules that in the particular situation here
19,1984. obtaining, annotation of the disputed entry on the reconstituted
 On June 25, 1984, DBP sought annotation on the reconstituted originals of the certificates of title to which it refers is entirely
titles of the certificate of sale subject of Entry No. 8191 on the basis proper and justified.
of that same four-year-old entry
 To hold said entry "ineffective," as does the appealed resolution,
 The Acting Register of Deeds, being in doubt of the proper action to amounts to declaring that it did not, and does not, protect the
take on the solicitation, took the matter to the Commissioner of Land registrant (DBP) from claims arising, or transactions made,
Registration by consulta raising two questions: thereafter which are adverse to or in derogation of the rights
 whether the certificate of sale could be registered using the created or conveyed by the transaction thus entered. That, surely,
old Entry No. 8191 made in 1980 notwithstanding the fact is a result that is neither just nor can, by any reasonable
that the original copies of the reconstituted certificates of title interpretation of Section 56 of PD 1529, be asserted as warranted
were issued only on June 19, 1984; and by its terms.
 if the first query was answered affirmatively, whether he
could sign the proposed annotation, having assumed his  SECOND ISSUE in the consulta: He would only be making a
duties only in July 1982. memorandum of an instrument and of its entry based on or
 Consulta: reciting details which are already of indubitable record and,
 Entry No. 8191 had been rendered "... ineffective due to the pursuant to the express command of the law, giving said
impossibility of accomplishing registration at the time the memorandum the same date as the entry. No part of that function
document was entered because of the non-availability of the is exclusive to the incumbent of the office at the time entry was made
certificate (sic) of title involved. For said certificate of sale to or is forbidden to any of his successors.
be admitted for registration, there is a need for it to be re-
entered now that the titles have been reconstituted upon National Housing Authority vs Augusto Basa
payment of new entry fees,"
 The second query as having been rendered moot and
academic by the answer to the first. FACTS:
DBP appealed the resolution to CA  On April 19, 1983, spouses Augusto and Luz Basa loaned from NHA
the amount of ₱556,827.10 secured by a real estate mortgage over
 Primary entry without a corresponding annotation thereof on
their properties covered by Transfer Certificates of Title located at
the certificate of title to which the instrument subject of said
Quezon City. Spouses Basa did not pay the loan despite repeated
entry refers is without any effect.
demands. Thus there was a foreclosure and NHA emerged as the
 "... the making of a new entry ... would be the more orderly
highest bidder during the public action.
procedure,"
 On April 16, 1991, the sheriff’s certificate of sale was registered and
 DBP should not be made to pay filing fees anew.
annotated only on the owner’s duplicate copies of the titles in the
ISSUE: Whether the certificate of sale could be registered using the old
hands of the respondents, since the titles in the custody of the
entry made in 1980 notwithstanding the fact that the original copies of
Register of Deeds were among those burned down when a fire
the reconstituted certificates of title were issued only on June 19, 1984.
gutted the City Hall of Quezon City on June 11, 1988.
 On April 16, 1992, the redemption period expired, without
respondents having redeemed the properties.
RULING:  Shortly thereafter, on April 24, 1992, NHA executed an Affidavit of
Consolidation of Ownership7 over the foreclosed properties, and the
 Yes. DBP, therefore, complied with all that was required of it for same was inscribed by the Register of Deeds on the certificates of
purposes of both primary entry and annotation of the certificate of title in the hand of NHA under Entry No. 6572/T-287008-PR-29207.
sale. Requisite registration fees were fully paid and that the  On June 18, 1992, NHA filed a petition for the issuance of a Writ of
certificate of sale was registrable on its face. Possession. The said petition was granted by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in an Order dated August 4, 1992. However, it remained
unserved thus NHA to move for the issuance of an alias writ of NHA argued that respondents should have assailed the foreclosure sale
possession on April 28, 1993. during the hearing in the petition for the issuance of a Writ of Possession,
RESPONDENTS and not during the hearing in the petition for the issuance of an alias writ
 Before the RTC could resolve the motion for the issuance of an alias of possession since the "petition" referred to in Section 8 of Act No. 3135
writ of possession, respondents filed a Motion for Leave to pertains to the original petition for the issuance of the Writ of Possession
Intervene and Petition in Intervention (with Prayer for Temporary and not the Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Possession.
Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction).

 Respondents anchored said petition for intervention on Section


8 of Act No. 3135, as amended, which gives the debtor/mortgagor CA ruled in favor of the NHA. It declared null and void the assailed orders
the remedy to petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of of the RTC.
possession be cancelled.

Respondents’ claimed that


ISSUE: Whether the annotation of the sheriff's certificate of sale on the
 The extrajudicial foreclosure of the subject properties was a nullity owner's duplicate certificate of titles is sufficient registration considering
since notices were not posted and published, written notices of that the inscription on the original certificates could not be made as the
foreclosure were not given to them, and notices of sale were not same got Burned
tendered to the occupants of the sold properties, thereby denying
them the opportunity to ventilate their rights.
RULING: Yes
 And they were still entitled to redeem the same since the one-year
 The ruling in DBP was further explained- There is nothing in the
redemption period from the registration of the sheriff’s certificate
subject declaration that categorically states its pro hac vice character.
of foreclosure sale had not yet prescribed.
For in truth, what the said statement really conveys is that the current
 Annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of sale on the owner’s copy is doctrine that entry in the primary book produces the effect of
inadequate to propel the running of the redemption period registration can be applied in the situation obtaining in that case since
the registrant therein complied with all that was required of it, hence,
 For the sale instrument to be considered as registered, the it was fairly reasonable that its acts be given the effect of registration,
inscription must be made on the reconstituted titles. just as the Court did in the past cases.
 Respondents’ stand on the non-applicability of the DBP case to other
 Issuance of the writ of possession prayed for by NHA before the cases, absent any statement thereof to such effect, contravenes the
RTC is no longer ministerial since it raised the issue of whether principle of stare decisis
their period of redemption has already expired.  Respondents’ resort to Bass v. De la Rama is futile as the same was
abandoned by the later cases, i.e., Bass, Potenciano and DBP.
 The prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once
Citing Bernardez v. Reyes and Bass v. De la Rama, respondents theorized the registrant has fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes
that the instrument is deemed registered only upon actual inscription on of entry and annotation, so that what is left to be accomplished
the certificate of title in the custody of the civil registrar.Since the lies solely on the register of deeds.
sheriff’s certificate was only inscribed on the owner’s duplicate  Just like in DBP, Levin, Potenciano and Autocorp, NHA followed the
certificate of title, and not on the certificate of title in the possession of procedure in order to have its sheriff’s certificate of sale annotated
the Register of Deeds, then there was no effective registration and the in the transfer certificates of title.
one-year redemption period had not even begun to run  It was not NHA’s 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
NHA opposed respondents’ petition for intervention. available during the time of inscription as it had taken the necessary
steps in having the same reconstituted as early as July 15, 1988. NHA
 The extrajudicial foreclosure sale was conducted validly and made did everything within its power to assert its right.
in accordance with Act No. 3135 as evidenced by the publication of  NHA presented the sheriff’s certificate of sale to the Register of
the Notice of Sheriff’s Sale in the Manila Times in its issues dated Deeds and the same was entered as Entry No. 2873 and said entry
July 14, 21 and 28, 1990 was further annotated in the owner’s transfer certificate of title.
 Since entry of the certificate of sale was validly registered, the
 Respondents’ right of redemption had long expired on April 15,
redemption period accruing to respondents commenced therefrom,
1992 since the certificate of sale was inscribed on their TCT Nos.
since the one-year period of redemption is reckoned from the date
285413 and 287008 a year earlier, or on April 16, 1991.
of registration of the certificate of sale.
 It pointed out that the RTC, via its Order dated August 4, 1992,  It must be noted that on April 16, 1991, the sheriff’s certificate
had already ruled that respondents’ right of redemption was of sale was registered and annotated only on the owner’s
already gone without them exercising said right. duplicate copies of the titles and on April 16, 1992, the
redemption period expired, without respondents having
redeemed the properties.
 On April 24, 1992, NHA executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of
RTC: Ownership. Clearly, respondents have lost their opportunity to
redeem the properties in question.
 Granted the issuance of the alias writ of possesion which allowed
NHA to take possession of the subject properties PUBLICATION
 But admitted respondents’ motion for intervention and issued a  As regards respondents’ allegation on the defect in the publication
writ of preliminary injunction. NHA was ordered to refrain from and notice requirements of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, the
selling or disposing of the contested properties. same is unavailing.
 The rule is that it is the mortgagor who alleges absence of a  Durawood filed a Motion to Reinstate Notice of Levy on Attachment
requisite who has the burden of establishing such fact.62 in TCT No. R-22522 and Cite Atty. Randy A. Rutaquio for Contempt.
presumption of regularity and the burden of evidence to rebut the RTC ruled in favor of Durawood.
same is on the party who questions it
 “Atty. Santos was the only person authorized to sign and approve
all the transactions with the Registry of Deeds of Antipolo City at
the time.”
WRIT OF POSSESSION
 The Register of Deeds of Antipolo City is directed to reinstate the
 Considering that the foreclosure sale and its subsequent notice of levy on attachment in TCT No. R-22522 in the names of
registration with the Register of Deeds were done validly, there is intervenors immediately upon receipt of this Order.
no reason for the non-issuance of the writ of possession.
 The new Acting Register of Deeds Jose S. Loriega, Jr. complied such
order.
 On April 11, 2006, Sheriff Leyva sold the subject property at public
Durawood vs Candice Bona auction for ₱1,259,727.90 with Durawood being the lone bidder,
and issued the corresponding Certificate of Sale.
Principle: All the requirements must be complied with in order to
 The sale was inscribed in TCT No. R-22522 on the same date.
confer jurisdiction upon the RD.
CA:

 The sequence of presentation of the entries in the TCT cannot


FACTS: control the determination of the rights of the claimants over a
disputed property. It is the registration in the Primary Entry Book
 On June 3, 2004, petitioner Durawood Construction and Lumber (also referred to in other cases as the day book) that establishes
Supply, Inc. (Durawood) filed an action for sum of money plus the order of reception of instruments affecting registered land.
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against LBB Construction and Development Corporation  It considered the date of entry in the day book of the Registry of
(LBB Construction) and its president Leticia Barber (Barber) before Deeds as controlling over the presentation of the entries in TCT No.
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo. In said suit, Durawood R-17571. It relied on Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529
prayed for the sum of ₱665,385.50 as payment for construction
materials delivered to LBB Construction.
 On June 14, 2004, the RTC issued an Order granting Durawood’s
ISSUE: Whether the sale annotated earlier should prevail over the levy on
prayer for the issuance of a writ of attachment.
execution
 On June 17, 2004, Sheriff Rolando C. Leyva levied on a 344-square
meter parcel of land in Richdale Subdivision, Antipolo City covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. R-17571 in the name of RULING: No. While it was true that the levy came later, it turned out that
LBB Construction. the fee required in the sale was not paid.
 A Notice of Levy on Attachment was annotated in TCT No. R-17571’s
Memorandum of Encumbrances on the same day, June 17, 2004.
 On July 13, 2004, respondent Candice filed a Motion seeking leave
to intervene in Civil Case No. 04-7240 and claimed that she is a co- Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529
owner of the property covered by TCT No. R-17571.
They shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and
 She alleged that LBB Construction had sold the property to her and the memorandum of each instrument, when made on the
her siblings through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 2, 2004. certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date

 Candice asserted that the sale is the subject of Entry No. The consequence of the highlighted portion of the above section is two-
30549 dated June 16, 2004 in the books of the Registry of Deeds of fold: (1) in determining the date in which an instrument is considered
Antipolo City, while the levy on attachment is only Entry No. registered, the reckoning point is the time of the reception of such
30590 dated June 17, 2004. instrument as noted in the Primary Entry Book; and (2) when the
 What was attached to the Motion was a copy of TCT No. R-17571, memorandum of the instrument is later made on the certificate of title to
and not a title in Candice and her co-owners’ name 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.
NOT SO IMPORTANT DETAILS As to the first consequence:
 On July 21, 2005, the RTC rendered its Decision in Civil Case No.  Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces
04-7240 in favor of Durawood. On September 12, 2005, Durawood the effect of registration, whether the transaction entered is a
filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution and on voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the registrant
November 15, 2005, the RTC issued a Writ of Execution has complied with all that is required of him for purposes
of entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be
 On June 16, 2004, the supposed Register of Deeds of Antipolo City, done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of deeds.
Atty. Randy A. Rutaquio (Atty. Rutaquio), cancelled TCT No. R-  But, for the entry of instruments in the Primary Entry Book to
17571 and issued TCT No. R-22522 in the name of Candice and her be equivalent to registration, certain requirements have to be
co-owners. That said cancellation of the old TCT and issuance of met.
the new one was antedated, since Atty. Rutaquio was still the  There is still a need to comply with all that is required for
Register of Deeds of Malabon on said date. entry and registration, including the payment of the
prescribed fees.
 According to a certification of the Land Registration Authority, it
was a certain Atty. Edgar D. Santos (Atty. Santos) who was the  Records in the case at bar reveal that as of June 25, 2004, the date
Acting Register of Deeds of Antipolo City on June 16, 2004. of the letter of Atty. Santos seeking the opinion of the LRA as regards
the registration of the Deed of Sale and the Notice of Levy on
Attachment, the required registration fees for the Deed of Sale has
not yet been paid.
 Since there was still no compliance of "all that is required x x x for
purposes of entry and annotation" of the Deed of Sale as of June 25,
2004, we are constrained to rule that the registration of the Notice
of Levy on Attachment on June 17, 2004 should take precedence
over the former
 The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94479 dated
April 18, 2007 and its Resolution dated September 18, 2007
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.