Gomez vs.

CA, 168 SCRA 503 (1988)

168 SCRA 503 Civil Law Land Titles and Deeds Judgment Confirms Title Sec 30 &
32 PD 1529
A court ruling (Philippine Islands vs Abran) settled that 12 parcels of land belonged to one
Consolacion Gomez. Consolacion later died and the 12 parcels of land were inherited by Jose
Gomez et al her heirs. The heirs agreed to divide the property among them.
After notice and publication, and there being no opposition to the application, the trial court
issued an order of general default. On August 5, 1981, the court rendered its decision
adjudicating the subject lots in Gomez et als favor. The decision became final and executory
hence the court directed the Chief of the General Land Registration Office (GLRO) to issue
the corresponding decrees of registration over the lots adjudicated.
GLRO Chief Silverio Perez opposed the adjudication and petitioned for its setting aside. He
discovered that the 12 parcels of land were formerly part of a titled land which was already
granted by homestead patent in 1929. Under the law, land already granted by homestead
patent can no longer be the subject of another registration. The lower court granted Silverios
recommendation.
Gomez et al invoked Sec. 30 and 32 of PD 1529 (Land Registration Act) which provides
that after judgment has become final and executory, the court shall forthwith issue an order
to the Commissioner of Land Registration for the issuance of the decree of registration and
certificate of title. That once the judgment becomes final and executory under Sec 30, the
decree of registration must issue as a matter of course.
ISSUE: Whether or not to set aside the lower courts initial ruling on approving the
adjudication even after it had became final and executory.
HELD: Yes. Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in a cadastral or land
registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of incontrovertibility until after the
expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of registration. The Supreme
Court has held that as long as a final decree has not been entered by the Land Registration
Commission (now NLTDRA) and the period of one (1) year has not elapsed from date of entry
of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision in the registration
proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the court rendering it.

LABURADA vs. LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY

[G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998]

FACTS:
Sps. Laburada applied for the registration of Lot 3-A which was approved by
the trial court. Upon motion of petitioners, the trial court issued an order requiring
the LRA to issue the corresponding decree of registration. However, the LRA refused.
Hence, petitioners filed an action for mandamus.
The LRA revealed that based on records, Lot 3-A which sought to be registered
by Sps. Laburada is part of Lot No. 3, over which TCT No. 6595 has already been
issued. Upon the other hand, Lot 3-B of said Lot 3 is covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 29337 issued in the name of Pura Escurdia Vda. de Buenaflor, which was
issued as a transfer from TCT No. 6595. The LRA contended that to issue the
corresponding decree of registration sought by the petitioners, it would result in the
duplication of titles over the same parcel of land, and thus contravene the policy and
purpose of the Torrens registration system, and destroy the integrity of the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the LRA may be compelled by mandamus to issue a decree of
registration if it has evidence that the subject land may already be included in an
existing Torrens certificate of title?

HELD:
NO. It is settled that a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the
registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land
registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void, since
the principle behind original registration is to register a parcel of land only once. Thus,
if it is proven that the land which petitioners are seeking to register has already been
registered in 1904 and 1905, the issuance of a decree of registration to petitioners
will run counter to said principle. The issuance of a decree of registration is part of
the judicial function of courts and is not a mere ministerial act which may be
compelled through mandamus. It is not legally proper to require the LRA to issue a
decree of registration.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED but the case is REMANDED to
the court of origin in Pasig City. The LRA, on the other hand, is ORDERED to submit
to the court a quo a report determining with finality whether Lot 3-A is included in
the property described in TCT No. 6595, within sixty (60) days from notice. After
receipt of such report, the land registration court, in turn, is ordered to ACT, with
deliberate and judicious speed, to settle the issue of whether the LRA may issue the
decree of registration, according to the facts and the law as herein discussed.

Baranda vs. Gustilo

GR No. 81163 September 26, 1988

FACTS: A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara,
Iloilo covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of the dispute between
petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez, Maria
Gotera and Susan Silao). Both parties claimed ownership and possession over the said land.
However during the trial, it was found that the transfer certificate of title held by respondents was
fraudulently acquired. So the transfer certificate of title was ordered to be put in the name of
petitioners. In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso
annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new
certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of a separate case pending in
the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title. This
prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the new
certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of
the notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration
invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of
lis pendens in a Torrens certificate of title?

HELD: Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deeds stand that
the notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the case in the Court
of Appeals. The function of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds,
encumbrances, instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. The acting register of deeds did
not have any legal standing to file a motionfor reconsideration of the Judges Order directing him
to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Sec. 10 of PD 1529 states that: It shall be the duty of the
register of deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real
or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration.

If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and in form the
presentor or such denial in writing, stating the ground and reasons therefore, and advising him of
his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sec 117 of this decree. On the other hand,
Sec 117 of PD 117 states that: When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper
step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
instrument presented to him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the
action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall
be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in
interest through the Register of Deeds.
CARMELITA FUDOT vs. CATTLEYA LAND, INC., VELASCO, JR. 533 SCRA 350

FACTS: Respondent asked someone to check, on its behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subject
land included, which it intended to buy from the spouses Troadio and Asuncion Tecson. Finding
no defect on the titles, respondent and the Tecsons executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the
same properties . The Register of Deeds, Atty. Narciso dela Serna, refused to actually annotate
the deed of sale on the titles because of the existing notice of attachment in connection with Civil
Case No. 3399 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The attachment was eventually
cancelled by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons and their attaching creditor
which was brokered by respondent. Titles to six (6) of the nine (9) lots were issued, but the
Register of Deeds refused to issue titles to the remaining three (3) lots , because the titles covering
the same were still unaccounted for. On 23 January 1995, petitioner presented for registration
before the Register of Deeds the owners copy of the title of the subject property, together with
the deed of sale purportedly executed by the Tecsons in favor of petitioner on 19 December 1986
On 5 May 1995, respondent filed its Complaint6 for Quieting of Title &/Or Recovery Of
Ownership, Cancellation Of Title With Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran
City. On 26 June 1995, Asuncion filed a complaint-in-intervention, claiming that she never signed
any deed of sale covering any part of their conjugal property in favor of petitioner. She averred
that her signature in petitioners deed of sale was forged thus, said deed should be declared null
and void. The trial court rendered its decision: (i) quieting the title or ownership of the subject
land in favor of respondent; (ii) declaring the deed of sale between petitioner and spouses Tecson
invalid; (iii) ordering the registration of the subject land in favor of respondent; (iv) dismissing
respondents claim for damages against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence; (v)
dismissing Asuncions claim for damages against petitioner for lack of factual basis; and (vi)
dismissing petitioners counterclaim for lack of the required preponderance of evidence.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision but the Court of Appeals denied her motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit.

ISSUES:

1. BETWEEN 2 BUYERS OF REGISTERED LAND, WHO HAS THE BETTER RIGHT-IS IT THE
FIRST BUYER WHO WAS GIVEN THE OWNERS DUPLICATE TCT TOGETHER WITH A
DEED OF SALE IN 1986, OR THE SECOND BUYER IN 1992 WITH ONLY A DEED OF SALE.

2. IS A BUYER OF REGISTERED LAND WHO DID NOT DEMAND OR REQUIRE THE

DELIVERY OF THE OWNERS DUPLICATE TCT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH.

3. IN SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED LANDS, AS BY SALE, WHICH LAW

SHALL GOVERN, ARTICLE 1455 OF CIVIL CODE OR P.D. 1529 OR TORRENS SYSTEM.

HELD:

1. First issue : The Civil Law provision on double sale is not applicable where there is only one
valid sale, the previous sale having been found to be fraudulent. The Court held that despite the
fact that one deed of sale was registered ahead of the other, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code will not
apply where said deed is found to be a forgery, the result of this being that the right of the other
vendee should prevail. Thus, under Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband cannot generally
alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifes consent.
The act of registration does not validate petitioners otherwise void contract. Registration is a
mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the
records of the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title
covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument.

2. On the second issue: Art. 1544. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong
to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. The Court
declared that the governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in
right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyers
rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first as
provided by the afore quoted provision of the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does
not bar him from availing of his rights under the law, among them to register first his purchase
as against the second buyer. However, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his
prior registration with bad faith. That respondent was a buyer in good faith, in its desire to finally
have the title to the properties transferred in its name, it persuaded the parties in the said case to
settle the same so that the notice of attachment could be cancelled.

3. Third issue: The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been held to refer to registration
under Act 496 Land Registration Act (now PD 1529) which considers the act of registration as the
operative act that binds the land. On lands covered by the Torrens System, the purchaser acquires
such rights and interest as they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or
encumbrance not noted therein. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED.

G.R. No. L-360 November 15, 1947

ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, petitioner-appelant, vs. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA,

respondent and appellee.

FACTS:

Alexander Krivenko, an alien, bought a residential lot in December of 1941. The registration was
interrupted by war. In 1945, he sought to accomplish the registration but was denied by the register of
deed on ground that, being an alien, he cannot acquire land within the jurisdiction. Krivenko appealed to
the Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not an alien under our Constitution may acquire residential land?

2. Whether or not the prohibitions of the rights to acquire residential lot that was already of private
ownership prior to the approval of this Constitutions is applicable at the case at bar?

RULING:

1. NO. Under the Article XIII, Section 1, of the Constitution states that: All agricultural, timber, and
mineral lands of the public domain, water, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of
potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their
disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens,
subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the
Government established under this Constitution. This means to say that, under the provisions of the
Constitutions, aliens are not allowed to acquire the ownership of urban or residential lands in the
Philippines and, as consequence, all acquisitions made in contravention of the prohibitions since the
fundamental law became effective are null and void per se and ab initio.

2. Prior to the Constitution, there were in the Public Land Act No. 2874 sections 120 and 121 which
granted aliens the right to acquire private only by way of reciprocity. It is to be observed that the
pharase "no land" used in this section refers to all private lands, whether strictly agricultural, residential
or otherwise, there being practically no private land which had not been acquired by any of the means
provided in said two sections. Therefore, the prohibition contained in these two provisions was, in
effect, that no private land could be transferred to aliens except "upon express authorization by the
Philippine Legislature, to citizens of Philippine Islands the same right to acquire, hold, lease, encumber,
dispose of, or alienate land." In other words, aliens were granted the right to acquire private land merely
by way of reciprocity.