LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |1

 Registration is NOT a mode of acquiring ownership nor is it even a title. It is merely recognition of
ownership.

 You can only register a property capable of acquisition.

 Non- registrable properties:

a.) Property of the public domain

b.) National parks
c.) Reservations for public and semi-public purposes
d.) Forest lands
e.) Mineral lands
f.) Military and naval reservations
g.) Open areas in subdivisions
h.) Watersheds
i.) Foreshore lands – midpoint between low tide and high tide
- Foreshore Lease Agreement (FLA)
j.) Reclaimed lands
k.) Mangrove swamps
l.) Rivers
m.) Lakes
n.) Creeks

 Registration of lands under the Torrens system, by itself, cannot convert public lands into private lands.
(Chavez vs. PEA, 06 May 2003)

 Laurel case

 A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain like forest or timber or mineral
lands is void and can be cancelled even in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. (H0eirs of
Venturanza vs. Republic, 27 July 2007)

 Sale of a portion of the Fort Bonifacio Military Reservation to the NOVAI void. The title issued to NOVAI
is similarly void. Registration under the Torrens System does not, by itself, vest title as it is not a mode
of acquiring ownership. (Navy Officer’s Village Association vs. Republic, 03 August 2015)

 LNMB is a land of the public domain devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine
purposes. Under the Administrative Code, the President has the power to reserve for specific public
uses and purposes lands of the public domain. (Ocampo vs. Enriquez, 08 Nov 2016)

 Open areas in a subdivision are properties of the pubic domain and cannot be the subject of commerce
pursuant to PD No. 1216. (Añonuevo vs. Court of Appeals,244 SCRA 28)

 PD No. 1216, effective 14 October 1977, does not have retroactive effect and does not apply to the
Talayan Village which was developed in the 1950s. (Homeowners Association of Talayan Village vs. J.M.
Tuason & Co., 10 Nov. 2015)

 HLURB has jurisdiction over action by homeonwer’s association to nullify mortgage by developer to
bank of subdivision open space. (BDO vs. Sunny-Side Heights Homeowner’s Association, 13 January
2016)
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |2

 PD 1354 – Jurisdiction of HLURB over disputes

Purposes of the Torrens System

 To encourage dealings and transactions in land and thereby unlock value of land.
 To lend stability and protection to registered ownership.

 In a forcible entry case, the heirs of registered owner have better right of possession as against the
transferees in unregistered deed of sale, based on the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens title. (
Endaya vs. Villaos, 27 January 2016) (not subject to a collateral attack)
 A certificate of title is not subject to collateral attack. It cannot be modified, altered, or cancelled (MAC)
except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law. (Section 48, PD 1529)
 Features of Torrens title: 1.) Imprescriptible and 2.) Not subject to a collateral attack
 Direct attack on certificate of title – A direct attack is an action the object of which is to nullify the
certificate of title and hence to challenge the proceeding pursuant to which the title was decreed.

Collateral attack

 An indirect or collateral attack is an action the purpose of which is to seek a different relief but in which
an attack on the certificate of title or proceeding is made as an incident thereof. (Leyson vs. Bontuyan,
18 February 2005)

 A resolution on the issue of ownership does not subject the Torrens title issued over the disputed
realties to a collateral attack. It must be borne in mind that what cannot be collaterally attacked is the
certificate of title and not the title itself. (Inalvez vs. Nool, 18 April 2016)

 Mere issuance of the Certificate of Title in a person’s name does not preclude the possibility that the
realty may be under co-ownership with persons not named in the Certificate of Title, or that the
registrant is only a trustee, or that other parties may have acquired interest over the property after the
issuance of the certificate of title.

Quieting of title a collateral attack

 The validity of a certificate of title cannot be assailed in an action for annulment of title is the
appropriate remedy to seek the cancellation of a certificate of title. (Leonero vs. Sps. Barba, 23
December 2009)

Where quieting of title neither a direct or collateral attack.

 An action to quiet title may be availed of by the buyer of registered land in order to cancel the title in
the name of the seller and to issue a new title in the name of the buyer, where the seller’s heirs refused
to surrender the title and to recognize their predecessor’s sale.

 A direct attack on the certificate of title may be in an original action or in a counterclaim. A counterclaim
is considered a new suit in which the Defendant becomes the Plaintiff in respect of the counterclaim.
(Leyson vs. Bontuyan, 18 February 2005)

 In an action for recovery of possession based on ownership, the petitioner’s third-party complaint for
cancellation of plaintiff’s title is not a prohibited collateral attack on such title. (Sarmiento vs. CA, 16
September 2005, Chico-Nazario J.)

Collateral attack on title

 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |3

 In an action for recovery of land, the defense in the answer was that the defendant’s land is not within
the plaintiff’s certificate of title as the technical description in the title is erroneous.

 This is not a valid defense since it is a collateral attack on the title. (Catores vs. Afidchao, 31 March
2009) It will involve a modification or alteration of the Certificate of Title which cannot be made
except in a direct proceeding. (Section 48)

Remedy: COUNTER-CLAIM for the correction of the modification or alteration of the title

Estopped to raise defense of collateral attack

 An intervenor which based its intervention on its alleged right over two lots and as a result of which the
trial court issued titles to it over the lots cannot raise the defense of collateral attack if the trial court
later on cancels the titles due to fraud. The reason is that the intervenor had impliedly submitted the
validity of the tiles to the trial court. (GAUF vs. RTC of Kalookan, 4 March 2009)

Collateral attack on certificate of title

 Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance against Respondents. Respondents in their answer attacked
the validity of petitioner’s certificate of title by claiming that their mother became the true owner of the
land even before the issuance of the OCT. (Aguilar vs. Alfaro, 5 July 2010)

 The DARAB in its judgment directed the cancellation of the title of the Sps. Filcon but the latter had
transferred the title pendent lite to Green Acres. A motion for execution of the judgment which seeks the
cancellation of Green Acres’ certificate of title would be a collateral attack. (Green Acres Holdings vs.
Cabral, 5 June 2013)

 Mandamus does not lie to compel the LRA to issue a decree of registration over land which already has
two titles issued over it. Otherwise the same would be a collateral attack on the two certificates of titles.
Proper remedy is to directly attack the two extant titles. (Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, 13 June 2013)

 In an unlawful detainer suit, defense that plaintiff’s certificate of title was fraudulently obtained is a
collateral attack. (Tuason vs. Isagon, 2 September 2015)

 An application for original registration of land w hich is already registered would be a collateral attack
on the certificate of title. (Wee vs. Mardo, 4 June 2014)

 SEC has no jurisdiction to cancel TCT and order issuance of new TCT. SC however cannot cancel the TCT
because of the principle of indefeability of a Torrens title. (Imperial vs. Armes, 30 January 2017)

Conclusiveness of Torrens titles

 Probate court cannot include in inventory land covered by certificates of title in name of persons other
than the decedent. (Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 24 January 2000)

 Property titled in the name of a person other than decedent cannot be included by probate court in the
inventory because of the incontestability of a Torrens title. (Mayor vs. Tiu, 23 November 2016)

 The titleholder should not be made to bear the unfavourable effect of the mistake or negligence of the
RD in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud. (Pontigon vs. Sanchez, 5 December 2016)
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |4

Registered land not just to acquisitive prescription

 No title to registered land in derogation to the title of the registered owner may be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Section 47)

 The owner of registered land may file an accion publiciana even after 10 years form the accrual of the
right of action pursuant to Sec. 47 of the PRD. (Supapo vs. De Jesus, 20 April 2015)

 Sale of the entire co-owned property by one co-owner to MCIAA was unenforceable as to heirs who did
not consent. MCIAA could not claim ownership by adverse possession since property was covered by a
Torrens title. (MCIAA vs. Ijordan, 11 January 2016)

3 proceedings in original registration

1. Administrative
2. Regular Judicial Proceedings
3. Cadastral Proceedings

Administrative Proceedings with the LMB of the DENR

1.) Homestead patent

2.) Sales patent
3.) Free patent ( Continuous, open, notorious, exclusive (CONE) possession since 12 June 1945, may be
done judicially through Section 48(b) Public Land Act in relation to Section 14 (1) Property
Registration Decree)

 A certificate of title shall be issued to the grantee. (Section 103, Property Registration Decree.)
 A Torrens title issued pursuant to a homestead, sales or free patent has the same force and effect as title
issued by way of judicial proceedings under PD 1529.

Who can file an application for original registration (Section 14 of PD 1529) CoPAL

NB: Land of public domain – for public use, public service, development of the national wealth

If there is a formal and express declaration by the State that the land is no longer needed for public use,
public service and development of the national wealth, then, it becomes a patrimonial property of the State.
It can be sold, levy upon execution, etc.

1.) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuous, open,
notorious, and exclusive possession and occupation of alienable land of public domain from 12
June 1945 or earlier.
(NB: Art. 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code of the Philippines)

- Although declared as alienable and disposable still it is considered land of the public
domain and can only be SOLD to Filipino citizens.
- Cannot sold to or acquired by corporations
- Corporations can hold it by way of lease

2.) Those who have acquired ownership of private land by prescription. (10-30 years under Articles
1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code)

3.) Those who acquire ownership by accession or accretion. (Art. 457, Civil Code, Art. 84, Spanish Law
of Waters)
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |5

- Includes lakes, streams and creeks

4.) In any other manner provided by law.

Adverse possession of public alienable land

 Heirs of Malabanan vs. Republic (29 April 2009)

Distinction between Section 14 (1) and Section 14(2) of Property Registration Decree

Section 14(1) Section 14 (2)

- Acquisition of patrimonial land of the
- Acquisition of alienable public land State

- Adverse possession under the provisions - Acquisitive prescription pursuant to

of Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act Articles 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code
- Adverse possession must be since 12 - Acquisitive prescription must be for 10 or
June 1945 30 years
- Declaration that land is alienabe and - Formal and express declaration that the
disposable land is patrimonial (not need for public
use, public service, development of
national wealth)
- Adverse possession prior to declaration - Only the adverse possession after the
may be counted. Declaration need not be declaration may be counted
made on 12 June 1945 or earlier

Boracay as forest land

 Except for those already covered by existing titles, Boracay was unclassified land of the public domain.
Hence pursuant to P.D. No. 705, Boracay was considered as forest land.

 Hence even if the resort owners could track their ownership back to 12 June 1945 that would not confer
title since public forest land cannot be alienated or disposed of. (Secretary of DENR vs. Yap, 08 October
2008)

Quasha ruling overturned

 Secretary of DENR vs. Yap overturns the doctrine in Quasha vs. Republic (17 August 1972) reiterated as
recently in Chavez vs. PEA (09 July 2002), that unclassified public land is deemed to be public
agricultural land.

Competent proof that land is alienable and disposable

 Survey plan by a geodetic engineer that the survey is inside L.C. Map No. 2623 classified as alienable
and disposable by the Bureau of Forest Development is not sufficient proof to show that land is
alienable and disposable.

CAV

 There must be a certificate of land classification status issued by the CENRO or the PENRO of the
DENR , which must be approved by the DENR Secretary, and that the land is within the approved area
per verification through survey by the CENRO or PENRO. (Republic vs. Dela Paz, 15 November 2010)
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |6

Substantial compliance rule abandoned

 Substantial compliance rule re Section 14(1) abandoned by SC in Rep vs. T.A.N. Properties (2008).
There must be strict compliance and clear showing that land is alienable and disposable. (Espiritu vs.
Republic, 21 June 2017)

 Possession under Sec. 14(1) must be actual and not just constructive or fictional possession. Tax
declarations which are not coupled with proof of actual possession are insufficient.

 That land is alienable and disposable may be the subject of a judicial admission be the subject of a
judicial admission (Heirs of Delfin vs. NHA, 28 November 2016)

 CA cannot take judicial notice of identity and location of land subject of application for original
registration. (Republic vs. Estate of Santos, 07 December 2016)

Citizenship Requirement

 Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred except to individuals,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. (SEC. 7, Art. XII,
Constitution)

 Notwithstanding Section 7 a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine
citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. (Sec. 8, Art. XII,
Constitution)

Who may be transferee of private lands? (FANC)

1.) Filipino citizens

2.) Private corporations or associations at least 60% of the capital stock belongs wholly to
Filipino citizens and which is organized and constituted under Philippine Laws. (Section 33,
Public Land Act)
3.) Aliens by hereditary succession. (Sec. 8, Art. 12, Constitution)

 Hereditary succession refers to succession by operation of law and not to testamentary

succession. (Ramirez vs. Ramirez, 15 February 1982)
4.) Former natural-born Filipino per the limits under Sec. 10 of the Foreign Investments Act.

 Former natural-born Filipino may be a transferee of private land

o >/ 5000sqm URBAN
o >/ 3 hectares RURAL

Bar only to land not improvements

 The constitutional prohibition refers only to acquisition of land. The improvements on land, such as a
house, are not covered and hence may be donated in favor of an alien. (Beumer vs. Amores, 03
December 2012)

Remedy if land transferred illegally to alien

 Action for reversion under Section 5, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court and Section 101 of the Public Land
Act. Only the Government, through the Solicitor General, has the personality to file a case challenging
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |7

the capacity of an alien to acquire or to own land. (Balais-Mabanag vs. Register of Deeds, 29 March
2010)

Re-acquisition/Retention of Citizenship under RA 9255

 A natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country prior to
the effectivity of R.A. 9225 on 17 September 2003 is deemed merely to have re-acquired and not
retained his Filipino citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance.

Can corporation acquire lands?

 If alienable and disposable public land? NO. (Section 3, Article XII, Constitution)

 If private land? YES, provided corporation incorporated in the Philippines and at least 60% of capital
stock belongs to Filipino citizens. (Section 33, Public Land Act)

Jurisdication over application for original registration

 Jurisdiction is vested with the Regional Trial Court (Section 14 and Section 36, PD 1529)

MTC’s delegated jurisdiction

1.) Where there is no controversy or opposition (uncontested)

2.) Contested lots the value of which does not exceed P100,000 (Section 34 BP Bilang 129, SC
Administrative Circular 6-93)

Determination of P100,000 value

 The value is to be determined from the affidavit of the claimant, agreement of the claimants if there
are two or more, or from the corresponding tax declaration.

 The value of the lot is not to be determined from the selling price in the deed of sale annexed to the
petition but rather from the value indicated in the tax declaration. (Republic vs. Bantigue Point
Development Corporation, 14 March 2012)

Appeal from MTC in exercise of delegated jurisdiction

1.) Appeal to Court of Appeals per Rule 41 of the Rules of Court by filing notice of appeal within 15
days from notice of judgment. (Section 34 of BP Bilang 129)

Venue

 RTC/MTC of the place where the land is located. If parcel of land straddles two jurisdictional areas (e.g.
Las Pinas/Paranaque), the application may be filed in either place. The application may cover two
parcels of land provided they are in the same city/jurisdictional area.
Steps in registration (in a nutshell)

1.) Survey by a licensed Geodetic Engineer who prepares a Technical Description and a Surveyor’s
Certificate.
2.) Approval by the Director of the Land Management Bureau of the survey plan. (Section 17 of PD
1529)
3.) File verified application – citizenship, description, place, occupiers, owners of adjoining lands. Copy
of the application should be furnished to the LMB.
4.) Branch clerk issue order for initial hearing – published once in OG and newspaper of general
circulation. Publication in OG sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the court. [What is published is the
notice of hearing and not the petition.]
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |8

Notice of hearing (Section 23)

 The court shall, within 5 days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the
date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than
90 days form the date of the order.

 The first paragraph of Section 23 is merely directory and noncompliance therewith

through no fault of the applicant will not deprive the land registration court of
jurisdiction. (Republic vs. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, 14 March 2012)

 Publication is jurisdictional since an application for original registration of land is an in

rem proceeding.

 Since a registration proceeding is one in rem, personal notice to all the claimants is not
necessary. The publication of the notice of hearing is sufficient notice to all the claimants
to the property. (Republic vs. Sann Mateo, 10 November 2014)

5.) Mailing

 Mailing of notice by LRA to persons named in the application, also to government

officials mentioned in Section 23: OSG, LMB, DPWH, Prov. Governor, Mayor, DAR, Bureau
of Forests, Mines and Geosciences Board, BFAR, as the case may be (Section 23)

6.) Posting

 Posted on land and on bulletin board of concerned municipal or city hall.

Opposition
 Interested parties may file an opposition on or before the date of the initial hearing or such other time
as may be allowed by the court. (Section 25)
 Under the Administrative Code, the OSG represents the government in all land registration and related
proceedings. (Republic vs. Court of appeals, 15 Febuary 2016)
 Applicant will ask for an order of default to prevent those who did not file opposition or appear from
having standing in the court.

Order of general/special default

 Order of general default. Nobody appears and files an opposition.
 Order of special default. If somebody appears and files an opposition, an order of default is entered
against those who did not file opposition.
 By the description in the notice “To All Whom It May Concern”, all the world are made parties defendant
and shall be concluded by the default order. (Section 26)

Remedy against order of default

 Not a motion to intervene but for him to ask first for the lifting of the order of default, and then, if lifted,
to file an opposition to the application of the applicants. This is because proceedings in land registration
are in rem, and not in personam. (Heirs of Lopez vs. Enriquez, 21 January 2005)

Ocular Inspection

Report to Court
 LAN D TI TLES AN D DEEDS |9

7.) Hearing – applicant proves the following: (GIT(

1.) Grant from State or by law

2.) Title of ownership
3.) Identity of land
Opposition

 Private parties and State through the Land Management Bureau represented by the OSG

8.) Decision – in favor of applicant or any of the oppositors

 The decision becomes final and executor within 15 days from date of receipt of notice of
the judgment. Note that decision of MTC in delegated jurisdiction is appealable to the
Court of Appeals
 After the judgment becomes final and executor, the court shall forthwith issue an order
to LRA to issue/enter a decree of registration and the original certificate of title.
 The LRA will send the decree of registration and OCT to the RD who will then send a
notice to the registered owner that he may obtain delivery of the owner’s duplicate CT
upon payment of the proper fees.

 COURT (order) -> Land Registration Authority (decree of registration and OCT) ->
Register of Deeds (notice) -> Registered owner (

REMEDIES

1.) Under the Rules of Court

2.) Under Property Registration Decree (PRD)
3.) Under the Civil Law
4.) Where title has passed to an Innocent Purchaser for Value (IPV)

 Under the PRD

1.) Petition for Review of Decree

2.) Assurance Fund

 Remedies under the Civil Law

1.) Action for Reconveyance (Art 1456)

2.) Damages

 Remedies where title has passed to an IPV

1.) Damages vs. guilty person

2.) Assurance Fund

 Petition for reopening and review of decree (Section 32)

 Filed with the RTC

 Ground: Actual Fraud (Same meaning in Section 37 and 38 of RoC)
o Fraud which prevented a person from having his day in court.
o Extrinsic fraud
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 10

 Period: One year from the date of entry of the decree of registration and provided no IPV
has acquired the land or an interest therein and whose rights may be prejudiced.

 Incontrovertibility of certificate of title

 Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration and the
certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible, meaning the decree of
registration can no longer be reopened or reviewed.

 Execution pending appeal not applicable to a land registration proceeding and the title issued pursuant
thereto is void. (Top Mgt. Programs Corp. vs. Fajardo, 15 June 2011)

Action for reconveyance

 GROUND: Property acquired through fraud or by mistake. The acquire is deemed a trustee for the
benefit of the person from whom the property came. (Art. 1456, CC)

 PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: 10 years form the issuance of a Torrens title in the name of the acquirer.
Imprescriptible if plaintiff in possession.

 JURISDICTION: RTC/MTC. Real action. [Assessed value outside Manila: 20k, within Metro Manila: 50k]

 Nature of an action for reconveyance

 An action for reconveyance does not seek to reopen the registration proceedings and to
set aside the decree of registration but only purports to show that the person who
secured the registration of the propertyin controversy is not the real owner thereof.
(Sps. Lopez vs. Sps. Lopez, 25 Nov. 2009)

 An action for reconveyance over land is a real action, the jurisdiction of which lies with
the MTC/RTC depending on the assessed value. (Aboitiz vs. Po, 5 June 2017)

 In an action for cancellation of a TCT, the RD is merely a nominal, not an indispensable

party. (De Leon vs. Chu, 2 September 2015)

Writ of possession [REF]

 Can be availed of by the winning applicant or party against all other parties/oppositors and those
occupying the land at the time of finality of court judgment.

 Not necessary for applicant/awardee to file ejectment on them. He can simply move for an issuance of a
writ of possession from the court which rendered judgment

When Writ of Possession available

A.] Land registration proceedings

B.] Execution sale
C.] Foreclosure proceedings (whether judicial or extrajudicial) – the purchaser is entitled to a writ of
possession once the redemption period has expired or the foreclosure sale has been confirmed)

 Ex parte
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 11

 The issuance by the court of the writ of possession is MINISTERIAL in these cases.

Question: X entered the land subject of application after final judgment was rendered. Can he be ousted by a
writ of possession?

 NO. The SC that the winning party must avail of accion interdictal or accion publiciana to
recover possession. The reason is that X is a stranger insofar as the land registration
proceedings are concerned and not bound thereby. (Bernas vs. Nuevo, 31 Jan. 1984)

 Winning bidder in extrajudicial foreclosure sale executed a Contract To Sell in favor of former owner-
mortgagor. If the buyer fails to comply with Contract To Sell, remedy of seller is not a writ of possession
but to file ejectment suit. (PNB vs. Pimentel, 24 August 2015)

 The issuance of a writ of possession is not proper in an action for consolidation under Art. 1607 of the
Civil Code. Proper remedy is the filing of appropriate real action. (Latoja vs. Lim, 13 July 2016)
[interdictal or publiciana]

 Section 6 Rule 39 of RoC is not applicable to land registration proceedings. Writ of possession may be
availed of even if more than 10 years from entry of judgment. (Spouses Topacio vs. Banco Filipino, 17
November 2010)

 Final judgment in land registration proceedings does not become extinct even if not enforced within 10
years. Hence the same would still be the basis of res judicata. (Ting vs. Heirs of Lirio, 14 March 2007)

Certificate against of Forum Shopping not required

 An ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession under Act No. 3135 is not an initiatory
pleading asserting a claim. Thus a certification against forum shopping is not required. Being ex parte,
intervention is not allowed. (Metro Bank vs. Abad Santos, 15 December 2009)

 In an action for reversion, the State is the real party-in-interest. Hence a private party cannot file an
action for reversion.

 Exception: Where the complaint is not for reversion but for nullification of a free paten on the ground of
prior ownership, the prior owner is a real party-in-interst who can file the action in his name. (Soquillo
vs. Tortola, 24 July 2012)

Mirror Principle (Section 44)

 Every (1) registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of ownership of a decree
of registration and (2) every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for value
and in good faith (IPV), shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted in said
certificate.

EXCEPTIONS: Statutory liens affecting title (PILAR) (Section 44)

1.) Legal liens

2.) Real Estate Taxes (within 2 yrs. preceding acquisition)
3.) Public/private highway/way recognized by law
4.) Irrigation (govt) canal
5.) Agrarian reform liens
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 12

 Registered levy on execution prevails over a prior unregistered sale. (Sps. Suntay vs. Keyser Mercantile
Inc., 20 Dec. 2014)

Article 1387, Civil Code (Rescission)

 Alienations by onerous title are presumed fraudulent when made by persons against whom a writ of
attachment has been issued. The attachment need not refer to the property alienated, and need not
have been obtained by the party seeking the rescission.

 Fraud presumption under Article 1387 of the Civil Code does not apply to registered lands if the
judgment or attachment made is not registered.

Exception to the Mirror Principle

 Mortgages who are engaged in the real estate or financing business cannot simply rely upon a paper
examination of the title. (Adriano vs. Pangilinan, 373 SCRA 544)

“As is, where is” clause [you take it as you find it]

 “As is, where is” clause in a deed of sale does not place the buyer in bad faith for the clause refers only to
the physical condition, not the legal situation of the land. (Casimiro Dev’t Corp. vs. Mateo, 27 July 2011)

 Knowledge by buyer’s agent that registered owner not in possession and that ejectment owner not in
possession and that ejectment case filed by a person other than registered owner is imputable to the
buyer. Hence buyer was not an innocent purchaser for value. (Locsin vs. Hizon, 17 September 2014)

 Mirror doctrine not applicable to assignee in deed of assignment of rights over registered real property
where the assignor was not registered owner. (Bliss Dev’t Corp. vs. Diaz, 5 August 2015)

 A person who buys realty from someone who is not from the registered owner must make the
appropriate inquiries and cannot rely on a mere paper examination of the title. (Gabutan vs. Nacalaban,
29 June 2016)

Requirements for registration of voluntary transaction (Section 112)

1.) The deed should be in a public instrument, that is, acknowledged before a Notary Public.

2.) 2-witness rule. Signed by parties before two witnesses at least.

3.) If 2 or more pages, each page, including the acknowledgment, should be signed on left margin by the
parties and the witnesses and all the pages sealed by the NP, and these facts shall appear in the
acknowledgment.

4.) If it relates to sale, transfer, or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, this fact shall also be
stated in the acknowledgment.

5.) Payment of fees and the capital gains tax and the DST. [Certifcate Authorizing Registration]

6.) The owner’s duplicate title should be presented to the RD. (Section 53)
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 13

 The reason for this requirement is that it serves as a proof of authority of the registered
owner to register the transaction and for the RD to annotate deed on the owner’s
duplicate title.

Dealings over unregistered lands

 Note that voluntary/involuntary dealings over unregistered lands may also be registered pursuant to
Section 113. The dealings are entered in the primary entry book and the registration book and are
binding upon third persons upon such registration.

Act No. 3344 superseded but registration books still in force

 Upon the effectivity of the PRD in 11 June 1978, all dealings with unregistered lands shall be registered
under Section 113 and no longer under Act. No. 3344. However, the registration books under Act No.
3344 shall continue to remain in force. (Section 3, PRD)

 Recordings under Act No. 3344 or under Section 113 of PRD is binding upon third persons but “shall be
without prejudice to a party with a better right.” This means a party who has already acquired
ownership or title.

 Who is that party who has a better right? The party who has acquired ownership over
the land.

Illustration: Double sale to A & B

A (unregistered but sale and delivery)  A has a better right, sale was coupled with delivery
B (registered)

What if we change the facts? – Registered land, who has a better right? B because of his registration. The
one who registers the property in good faith. (Art. 1544, CC)

 Wrong registration of certificate of sale on registry for unregistered properties does not prevent
running of one-year redemption period under Rule 39. (Gomero Metal Corp. vs. Pamana Island Resort,
17 August 2016)

RD’s duty to register ministerial

 The function of the RD to register documents is ministerial. The RD passes only upon the formal
requirements for registrability and not the instrinsic validity of the underlying contract.

 Exception: Patent nullity as a deed of sale of a 5-hectare land to a foreigner

 Since registration of documents is a ministerial act, the RD is not authorized to determine whether or
not fraud was committed in the document sought to be registered. (OMB vs. Manalastas, 27 July 2016)

When is a deed considered as registered?

 Upon entry in primary entry book upon payment of entry fee. “They shall be considered as registered
from the time so noted.” (Section 56)

Illustration: S wishes to buy the land, examined the title on file and bought it from D. Later on, J who
won his suit against D, claims that he has a better right over the land. Who between J and S has the
better right over the land?
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 14

 J has the better right over the land. The entry of an attachment over a parcel of land in
the primary entry book is sufficient registration. (Caviles vs. Bautista, 24 November
1999)

Registration of instrument, when effective

 Entry of a document in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient registration.
(Caviles vs. Bautista, 24 November 1999; NHA vs. Basa, 20 April 2010) The ruling applies to both
voluntary and involuntary transactions. (DBP vs. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRA 450)

Bass vs. De La Rama abandoned

 The ruling in Bass vs. De La Rama, 73 Phil. 682 (1942) that entry in the day book (now the primary
entry book) is not sufficient registration unless accompanied by annotation on the original title, was
expressly abandoned by the SC. (NHA vs. Basa, 20 April 2010)

 Notice of levy on execution was entered in primary entry book but no annotated on title. A buyer who
relied on the clean title is considered as having constructive notice of the levy but will be considered as
a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code. (Saberon vs. Ventanilla, 21 April 2014)

Why is it necessary to register a deed?

 In order to affect 3rd persons. “The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the
land insofar as third persons are concerned.” (Section 51)

 Registration serves as constructive notice to all persons. (Section 52)

Involuntary dealings

 Transactions or dealing affecting land that do not require the consent of the registered owner or that
can be effected even against his consent. E.g. attachment, levy on execution, lis pendens, adverse claim

 Precisely because the registered owner’s consent is not needed, involuntary dealings can be registered
even without presenting the owner’s duplicate title.

Adverse claim (Section 70)

 Made by a claimant who claims an interest in registered land adverse to the owner.

Adverse claim must be based on valid real right

 The basis of the adverse claimant’s right was a waiver executed by a sibling when their father was still
alive, which is void under Art. 1347 of the Civil Code. Thus the adverse claim is also void. (Ferrer vs. Sps.
Diaz, 23 April 2010)
 A claim based on a future right does not ripen an adverse claim. Here the right of the claimant was still
subject to negotiations. The adverse claims should be cancelled. (Cathay Metal Corp. vs. Laguna West
Multi-purpose Coop, 2 July 2014)

When adverse claim available

 The remedy of an adverse claim is available only if there is no other provision in the decree for the
registration of the claimant’s adverse interest. (Section 70)

 Adverse claim not proper to register a claim based on a contract to sell. (Logarta vs. Mangahis, 05 July
2016)
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 15

o L.P. Leviste & Co. vs. Noblejas, 30 April 1979

- Villanueva filed an adverse claim over the disputed lot, based on an agreement to
sell executed in her favor by Garcia Realty. She did not present the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title, as required by Section 53 of the Property Registration Decree nor
did she register the agreement to sell as provided in Section 54.

- Subsequently, Petitioner registered a notice of attachment covering the disputed lot,

issued in a case he had filed against Garcia Realty. As between Villanueva and the
Petitioner, who has a better right over the disputed lot?

- HELD: It is the Petitioner who has a better right.

- Under Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree, the remedy of an adverse

claim is available only if there is no other provision in the decree for the registration
of the claimant’s adverse interest.

- Here there is a provision in the Property Registration Decree for the registration of
the contract to sell (Section 54) which has the basis of the adverse claim. Hence the
remedy of an adverse claim was not available to Villanueva and thus could not
confer a better right on her.

o However if the seller in a contract to sell refused to deliver the owner’s duplicate title to the
buyer despite demands, the latter is justified in resorting to an adverse claim. Court
distinguished this case from Leviste. (PCSO vs. New DAgupan Metro Gas Corp., 11 July 2012)

Effectivity of Adverse Claim

 The Adverse Claim is effective only for a period of 30 days after registration which it may be cancelled
upon filing of a verified petition with the RTC by the party in interest.

 A notice of adverse claim subsists even after the lapse of the 30-day period if not yet cancelled. A buyer
who purchases a land on which there is a subsisting adverse claim is in bad faith.

 There should be a hearing with notice to the adverse claimant before the adverse claim is cancelled,
even if the 30-day period had already expired. (Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, 298 SCRA 388)

 Pursuant to Section 70, an adverse claim may be cancelled only by a court or by the claimant himself. A
person who buys a property containing an AC cancelled by a person other than the claimant is not an
innocent purchaser for value. (Mendoza vs. Garana, 5 August 2015)

Notice of lis pendens

 Notice that a particular land or the building thereon is the subject of a pending action. The action is a
real action, that is, one which affects title to or possession of such land or building. (Section 14, Rules of
Court, Section 76 of PRD)

 Notice of lis pendes does not apply to personal actions, such as one over membership shares in a
corporation. (MR Holdings Ltd. vs. Bajar, 10 October 2012)
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 16

 An oppositor in a land registration case who has been declared in default cannot file a notice of lis
pendens upon the title issued pursuant thereto.

 What the oppositor should have done was to file an action for reconveyance and then register a notice
of lis pendens. (Heirs of Lopez vs. Enriquez, 21 January 2005)

 A transferre pendent lite of registered land, whose title bears a notice of a pending litigation involving
his transferor’s title to the said land, is bound by the outcome of the litigation, even if he is not
impleaded. (De la Merced vs. GSIS, 23 November 2011)

Lis pendens

 The doctrine of lis pendens is not one of constructive notice but of public policy and necessity. The
purpose is to prevent litigating parties to give to others, pending litigation, their rights over the
property in dispute as to prejudice opposite parties.
 So upon cancellation of notice of lis pendens the buyer cannot be said to have had constructive notice of
any defect in the title. To hold otherwise would be to render meaningless and useless the cancellation of
a notice of lis pendens. (Spouses Po Lam vs. Court of Appeals & Lim, 6 December 2000)

 A mortgagee is not in good faith where the mortgage was executed after the trial court had ordered the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but before the registration of the order of cancellation.
(Cunanan vs. Jumping Jap Trading Corp., 24 April 2009)

Preliminary Injunction

 Preliminary injuction proper to restrain buyer from taking possession where the applicant had
registered his adverse claim and notice of lis pendens. (Lukang v.s Pagbilao Dev’t Corp., 10 March 2014)

Public documents

 All records and papers relative to registered land in the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in
the same manner as court records, subject to reasonable regulations as the RD, under the direction of
the LRA, may prescribe. (Section 56)

 The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who have a known interest in
ascertaining the status of the immovable or real rights annotated or inscribed therein. (Art. 710, Civil
Code)

Amendment and cancellation of certificate of certificate (Section 108)

 No amendment or cancellation of the certificate can be made except upon order of the proper RTC.
Original and exclusive jurisdiction with RTC.

LRA without power to cancel titles

 There is nothing in the Property Registration Decree or in any other law which empowers the LRA to
cancel titles. Nor may the Court of Appeals, in an appeal from the LRA, order or uphold the LRA’s
cancellation. (Namotok v.s Heirs of Barque, 18 December 2008)

Correction of errors

 Errors, even typographical or innocuous errors, may not be corrected without a court order. (Section
108) The land registration court my hear both contentious and non-contentious matters under Section
108. (Averia vs. Caguioa, 146 SCRA 659)
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 17

 In action for the cancellation of memorandum annotated at the back of a certificate of title, the persons
considered as indispensable include those whose liens appear as annotations pursuant to Section 108.
(Crisologo vs. JEWN Agro-Ind. Corp., 03 March 2014)

 Town location in TCT binding for purposes of local tax payment. Cainta should have filed petition under
Section 108 to correct technical description. (Cainta vs. Pasig, 28 June 2017)

What if title lost or destroyed?

 Owner’s duplicate is lost. It is advisable to file an affidavit of loss with the RD. This will serve to protect
the registered owner from the transfer of the title to IPV. Then file a petition in court for issuance of
new owner’s duplicate under Section 109.

 The RTC has no jurisdiction to order the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title the owner’s
duplicate title was not actually lost but was in the possession of a person who had bought the property.

 The order of the RTC may be set aside under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court and it cannot become final
and executory as the order is void for lack of jurisdiction. (Villanueva vs. Viloria, 14 March 2008)

IPV’s rights to be tackled in separate proceeding

 The rights however of one who claims to be an IPV of the land covered by the replacement duplicate
certificate cannot be adjudicated or determined in the Rule 47 proceeding but must be threshed out in
an appropriate proceeding. (Billote vs. Solis, 17 June 2015)

Problems involving forged title/deed

 GENERAL RULE: A forged certificate of title/deed cannot be root of a valid title. “After the entry of the
decree of registration, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate
certificate of title or a forged deed or instrument shall be null and void.” (Section 53)

 EXCEPTION: The Supreme Court has held however that a forged deed may be the root of a valid title if
an innocent purchaser for value, relying upon the forger’s apparently valid title, had purchased the land
covered by the same and the loss or fraud was occasioned by the true owner’s negligence or act of
confidence. [Chain of title doctrine]

 Requisites for the application of the chain of title doctrine (NIRC)

a.) Negligence on the part of the owner or act of confidence on the part of the
owner which made the fraud possible
b.) Certificate of title in the name of the forger
c.) The one who acquires the title from the forger is an innocent for value
d.) The purchaser must register the deed in his favor in good faith.

o Bar Question: (1985 Bar Question No. 14[b] )

After finding on a bus an envelope containing two Torrens certificates of title in A’s
name, B posing as A and forging his signature, sold the two parcels of land described in
the Titles to X who bought them in good faith and for value and to whom transfer
certificates were issued in his name.

He then conveyed one parcel to Y, a bona fide purchaser for value, while the other was
levied upon to satisfy the judgment against X. Who has the better right to the said
parcels of land, A, Y, or the judgment creditor? Discuss.
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 18

Answer: A has the better right to the said parcels of land. The chain of title
doctrine will not apply since there was not certificate of title issued in the name of the
forger B. B sold the land direct from A to X.

What applies is the general rule under Section 53.

 Buyers cannot be considered in good faith if they merely relied upon a photocopy of the forger’s title. A
mere photocopy should have made them suspicious that there was some flaw in the forger’s title
because he was not in possession of the original owner’s duplicate of title. (Sps. Peralta vs. Abalon, 30
June 2014)

 Purchasers cannot be considered as IPVs if they did not register the deed of sale in their favor.
(Mahilum vs. Ilano, 22 June 2015)

o Bar question (2005)

Rod, the owner of an FX taxi, found in his vehicle an envelope containing TCT No. 65432
over a lot registered in Cesar’s name. Posing as Cesar, Rod forged Cesar’s signature on a
Deed of Sale in Rod’s favor.

Rod registered the said document with the Registered of Deeds, and obtained a new title
in his name. After a year, he sold the lot to Don, a buyer in good faith and for value, who
also registered the lot in his name.

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

Answer: No. Rod did not acquire title to the land.

Under the property registration decree, any registration procured by the

presentation of forged deed is void.

Here Rod procured the registration of the title in his name by presenting
a forged deed of sale. Hence the registration of title in Rod’s name is void
and did not confer any right upon him.

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

Answer: Don as an innocent purchaser for value acquired title over the
land.

The Supreme Court has held that a forged deed may be the root
of a valid title if an innocent purchaser had relied upon a title in forger’s
name and the true owner’s negligence or act of confidence made the fraud
possible.

Here Don relied in good faith upon the title in the forger Rod’s
name and there was negligence on Cesar’s part since despite the fact that the
title was lost for about a year, he failed to register an affidavit of loss. Hence,
Don acquired title over the land.

o O donated ½ of his land to his niece X and entrusted the title to X for the registration of the deed
of donation. X, however, forged O’s signature in a deed of donation of the whole parcel of land
registered in the name of O.
 L A N D T I T L E S A N D D E E D S | 19

X was able to obtain title in his own name. X then sold to Y the ½ portion which was not
donated. When O discovered the forgery, he brought an action to nullify the donation and
recover the parcel of land from Y.

a.) May D recover the land from Y?

Answer: D may no longer recover the land from Y.

The Supreme Court has held that a forged deed may be the root
of a valid title if an innocent purchaser had relied upon a title in
forger’s name and the true owner’s negligence or act of confidence
made the fraud possible.

Here Y had relied in good faith upon the title of the forger X
and O’s act of confidence in entrusting the title to x made the fraud
possible. Hence, Y acquired title over the land and O may no longer
recover it.

b.) What would be the proper recourse of O?

Answer: The proper recourse of O would be to bring an action for

damages against X and if the latter is insolvent, an action against the
Treasurer of the Philippines maybe filed for recovery of damages against
the assurance fund. (Eduarte vs. CA, 253 SCRA 391)

Source: Lectures of Atty. Manuel Riguera