Junio vs.

De Los Santos
GR No. L-35744 ; September 28, 1984
Facts:
Wenceslao Junio is the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at Bayambang,
Pangasinan with an area of 7.65 hectares covered by TCT No. 1004. An Affidavit of
Adverse Claim was executed by respondent Feliciano de los Santos, claiming one
third undivided portion of Junios property by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
allegedly executed by Junio. Junio then denies having sold any portion of his
property to De Los Santos, hence his petition for the cancellation of said adverse
claim. Junio disputes the appropriateness of the annotation alleging that under
section 110 of the land registration act such inscription may be resorted only when
there is no other means of registering an interest or right, and that section 57 of the
same statute provides for the registration of a documented sale involving a titled
property and that the register of deeds acted negligently in registering the
document without the formal legal requisites. Respondent de los Santos countered
that he had tried to avail himself of Section 57 by requesting Junio to surrender his
owners dusplicate certificate of title but since the latter refused to do so he was
compelled to present an adverse claim pursuant to section 110 of the LRA.
Issue:
Whether or not respondents acts were appropriate
Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties
Held:
The court ruled that considering that Junio had refused to surrender the title; De Los
Santos could not avail of Section 57. Hence the latter correctly resorted to the
annotation of an adverse claim. Further, the court found that the genuineness and
due execution of the sale between the parties is in controversy. Moreover, although
the grounds relied upon by Junio for the cancellation of the adverse claim were
unmeritous, it behoved the lower court to have conducted a speedy hearing upon
the question of validity of the adverse claim. The case was remanded to the RTC for
hearing and for passing upon the controversy on the merits between Junio and De
Los Santos.

Baranda vs. Gustilo

GR No. L-81163 ; September 26, 1988
Facts:
This case has its origins in a petition for reconstitution of title filed with the court of
first instance of Iloilo involving a parcel of land known as Lot No. 5417 of the Sta.
Barbara Cadastre covered by Original certificate title No. 5406 in the name of
Romana Hitalia. Eventually, such original certificate was cancelled and TCT No.
106098 was issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia and Eduardo Baranda. The court
issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria Gotera and Susana Silao
refused to honow on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over the same
lot. The court then found the latters TCT fraudulently acquired and ordered that a
writ of possession be carried out. A writ for demolition was then issued. Perez and
Gotera filed for a petition for certiorari and prohibition but was denied until denial
was final. Petitioners Baranda and Hitalia contended that implementation of the
writs of possession and demolition and that the civil case was filed only to delay the
implementation of said writs. The court then issued a temporary restraining order to
maintain the status quo. Thereafter, the court issued a resolution denying with
finality the motion for reconsideration and another resolution was issued for the
execution of judgements. The RTC of Iloilo presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued
an order declaring TCT No. 25772 null and void and TCT No. 106098 valid and
subsisting and ordered the register of deeds to register such declaration to which
acting register of deeds Avito Saclauso complied. However, a notice of lis pendens
on account or by reason of the separate civil case still pending was carried out and
annotated in the new certificates issued to the petitioners which prompted the latter
to file for a motion to order the trial court to reinstate the order directing the acting
register of deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Judge Gustilo granted the
motion and directed the register of deeds to cancel the lis pendens. Respondent
acting register of deeds then filed a motion for reconsideration contending that such
notice cannot be cancelled due to the existence of a pending civil case.
Issue:
What is the nature of the duty of the register of deeds to annotate or annul a notice
of lis pendens in a certificate of title?
Whether or not the pendency of the appeal in the civil case prevents the court from
cancelling the notice of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of petitioner
Held:

Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the respondent acting register of
deeds stant that the notice of lis pendens in the certificates of titles of the
petitioners cannot be cancelled on the ground of an existence of a pending civil
case. Further, the court ruled that under section 10 and 117 of PD No. 1529, the
function of a register of deeds is purely ministerial and that the respondent acting
register of deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration
of the respondent judges order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens
annotated in the certificates of titles of the petitioners.

Halili vs Court of Appeals

GR No. 113539 ; March 12, 1998
Facts:
Simeon de Guzman, an American citizen, died sometime in 1968 leaving real
properties int he Philippines. His forced heirs were his widow, Helen Meyers Guzman
and his son David Ray Guzman both of whom are also American citizens. On August
9, 1989, Helen executed a deed of quitclaim transferring and conveying David all
her rights, titles and interests in and over the six parcels of land which the two of
them inherited from Simeon. Among said parcels of land is one situated in
Bagbaguin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan covered by TCT No. 170514 which was cancelled
due to the registration of the quitclaim and TCT No. 120259 was issued in the name
of David. David then sold said parcel of land to Emiliano Cataniag upon which the
certificate was cancelled and another was issued in the latters name. Petitioners,
who are owners of the adjoining lot, filed a complaint questioning the
constitutionality and validity of the two conveyances and claiming ownership
thereto based on their right of legal redemption under Article 162 of the Civil Code.
Issue:
Whether or not the sale the act of conveyance between Helen Guzman and David
Ray Guzman and between the latter and Emiliano Cataniag is valid
Held:
Helen Guzmans deed of quitclaim which she assigned transferred and conveyed to
David all her rights collided with the Constitution under Article XII, Section 7.
Further, the court ruled that since the disputed land is now owned by Cataniag, a
Filipino citizen, the prior invalid transfer can no longer be assailed since the
objective of the constitutional provision to keep our land in Filipino hands has
been served.

Krivenko vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. L-630 ; November 15, 1947
Facts:
Alexander A. Krivenko, an alien, bought residential lot from the Magdalena Estate
Inc. in December of 1941 to which the registration was interrupted by the war. In
May 1945, he sought to accomplish said registration but was denied by the register
of deeds of Manila on the ground that being an alien, he cannot acquire land in this
jurisdiction. Krivenko then bought the case to the court of first instance in Manila by
means of a consulta and that the court rendered judgment sustaining the refusal of
the register of deeds from which Krivenko appealed to the court.
Issue:
Whether or not an alien under the Philippine Constitution may acquire residential
land
Held:
No, the court stated that under Article XII, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, public
agricultural lands include residential, commercial and industrial lands and that
natural resources with the exception of public agricultural land shall not be
alienated. Further, with respect to the public agricultural lands, their alienation is
limited to Filipino citizens. Moreover, Section 5 of Article XIII provides that in cases
of hereditary succession, no private agricultural lands will be transferred or assigned
except to individuals, corporations, associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of
public domain in the Philippines. The court stated that it must be observed that
prior to the Constitution, under Section 24 of the Public Land Act, aliens could
acquire public agricultural lands used for industrial or residential purposes but after
the Constitution and under Section 23 of the Commonwealth Act No. 1411, the right
of aliens to acquire such kind of lands is completely stricken out.

Hernandez vs. Katigbak

GR No. L-46840 ; June 17, 1940
Facts:
Vicente Singson Encarnacion was at first alone, and later with others, the registered
owner of lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29 if the Hacienda Maysilo located in Tuliahan,
Caloocan, Rizal with an aggregate area of 234 hectares. Nicolas Rivera then
repurchased the 40 hectares of the three lots and later sold to Mariano P. Leuterio
an unsegregated portion of about 18 hectares. The latter, in turn, sold a total area
od 16, 900 square meters to Rafael Villanueva by deeds which have never been
registered. Later, Villanueva sold to Victoriano Hernandez all rights in the said total
area of 16,900 square meters. In a civil case instituted by Perfecto Salas Rodriguez
against Marinao Leuterio, a writ of execution was issued against the defendant and
in pursuance thereof, the provincial sheriff levied upon the properties of said
defendant to which among them was the property that the defendant bought from
Nicolas Rivera. Villanueva then filed a third party claim but the sheriff proceeded
with the execution and sold the property at a public auction at which judgment
creditor was the highest bidder.
Prior to the execution of the officers deed, the 40 hectares bought by Rivera from
Encarnacion was segregated and two transfer certificate titles were issued in favour
of Rivera. The execution lien of Rodriguez as well as the auction sale which were
annotated on the certificate title were transferred to and annotated on the new
certificate of title; and there having been no redemption, a final deed of sale was
executed by the sheriff in favour of Rodriguez.
Issue:
Who has a better right the purchaser at the execution sale, Perfecto J. Salas
Roriguez, predecessor in interest of the defendant, or the purchaser in the private
sale, Rafael Villanueva, predecessor in interest of plaintiff?
Held:

The court ruled that the two purchasers derived their title from Leuterio, who in turn
acquired his from Rivera. The purchase made by Villanueva took place prior to the
execution sale but was never registered and that no certificate of title was ever
issued in favour of Leuterio but the levy and the execution sale were noted on the
certificate of title of Rivera without the latters objection. It was therefore, Mariano P.
Leuterio alone who, in Riveras certificate of title, appeared as the sole owner of the
property at the time of the levy and execution sale. It is a well settled rule that
when the property sold on execution is registered under the Torrens systems,
registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer, or creates a lien
on the land, and a purchaser, on execution sale, is not required to go behind the
registry to determine the conditions of the property.

Gustilo vs. Maravilla

GR No. L-23386 ; December 12, 1925
Facts:
Antonia Gustilo was originally the owner of the Malago or Mercedes plantation in the
municipality of Sarabia, Occidental Negros under the TCT Nos. 719 and 720. Such
certificates bear the memorandum of a mortgage in favour of the Philippine
National Bank for the sum of 8,000 with 8% per annum interest for the term of 10
years. Antonia Gustilo then leased the property for the term of 7 years to Vicente
Ardosa at an annual rent of 1,000. Such lease was evidenced by a notarial
document and is recited therein that Ardosa paid the rent in advance for the whole
term of the lease. Moreover, Ardosa subleased the plantation to Felix Montinola
Celis for three agricultural years and was extended by a private document receipt.
Antonia Gustilo executed a deed of sale for the property in favour of Mercedes
Gustilo with a consideration of 30,000, the purchaser assuming the mortgage debt
to the PNB. Antonia and Mercedes Gustilo subsequently executed a second
mortgage on the same property in favour of Herminio Maravilla for the sum of
25,000 with a term of 1 year. Upon expiration of the term, the debt secured by the
mortgage was paid with the money furnished by Jose Maravilla, a cousin of
Herminio, and another mortgage was executed in Joses favour representing the
original debt. When such debt fell due, Herminio Maravilla, in the name of Jose
Maravilla, demanded payment which Mercedes Gustilo was unable to make and it
was agreed that the title to the plantation was to be transferred to the defendant in
full satisfaction of the debt. Felix Montinola remained in possession of the plantation
by virtue of his sublease and was notified by defendant that he would be required to
pay 12% of the total sugar production of the plantation as rent. Montinola refused to
pay the rent which resulted to the present action.

Issue:
Whether or not Maravilla had the right to require Montinola to pay the 12% of his
total sugar production as rent
Whether or not the contract of lease can be registered and entered in the
certificates of title
Held:
The court found that when Maravilla purchased the property from Mercedes Gustilo,
he had full knowledge of the fact that the property had been leased to Ardosa, as
well as the terms of said lease and held that it therefore become a part of the
contract of sale. The court also declared that the lease was registerable and ordered
that it be entered upon the certificates of title and upon the record of the register of
deeds. The court further found that Maravilla had failed to fulfil his obligations under
the contract of sale and declared said contract rescinded holding that it was his
fault and the latter not entitled to recover any sum. The court declared that the sale
of the plantation by Mercedes Gustilo and Leopoldo Jereza to defendant rescinded
and awards to Montinola the sugar produced on the plantation during his
receivership or the money received from the sale of such sugar.
De Castro vs. Tan
GR No. L-31956 ; April 30, 1984
Facts:
Filomena Gerona de Castro sold a 1,258 square meter residential lot in Bulan,
Sorsogan to Tan Tai, a Chinese. In 1956, Tan Tai died leaving his widow To O. Hiap,
and children Joaquin Teng Queen Tan, Tan Teng Bio, Dolores Tan and Rosario Tan Hua
Ing. Before the death of Tan Tai on August 11, 1956, one of his sons, Joaquin became
a naturalized Filipino. Six years after Tan Tais death, his heirs executed an extra
judicial settlement of estate with sale whereby the disputed lot in its entirely was
allotted to Joaquin. Petitioner de Castro then commenced a suit against the heirs of
Tan Tai for annulment of the sale for alleged violation of the 1935 Constitution
prohibiting the sale to aliens.
Issue:
Whether or not the deed of sale can be annulled because of Joaquin Tengs
qualification to own the residential land in dispute
Held:
No, the court ruled that as per the doctrine of pari delicto, petitioner De Castro
cannot have the sale annulled and recover the lot she herself sold. Further, while
the vendee was an alien at the time of the sale, the land since become the property

of respondent Joaquin Teng, a naturalized Filipino citizen, who is constitutionally

qualified to own land.