AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES

AND DEEDS
1. Importance of the Subject
a. Man - Land Ratio
b. Land as a finite resource
 II. GOVERNING LAWS
1. PD 1529
otherwise known as "The Property
Registration Decree . Approved June 11,
1978 codified and incorporated the
following laws related to property
registration : a. Act 496, The Land
Registration Act
b. Commonwealth Act 141, The Public
Land Act
c. Act 2259, The Cadastral Act
 d. Act 3344, System of Registration for
Unregistered Lands
e. Act No. 1508, as amended, The Chattel
Mortgage Law
f. Republic Act No. 26, Reconstitution of
Original Certificates of Title
g. PD 27, Emancipation Patents, Land
Reform Law
2.
The Civil Code Provision (Articles 708 - 711)
Title IX a. Art. 708.
The Registry Property has for its object:
a. the inscription or annotation of acts
and contracts relating to the ownership
and other rights over immovable
property.
b. Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or
of other rights over immovable
property, which are not duly inscribed
or annotated in the Registry of Property
shall not prejudice third persons.
 c. Art. 710. The books in the
Registry of Property shall be public
for those who have a known
interest in ascertaining the status
of the immovables or real rights
annotated or inscribed Mortgage
Law, the Land Registration Act, and
other special laws shall govern.
 d . Art. 711. For determining what titles
are subject to inscription or annotation,
as well as the form, effects, and
cancellation of inscriptions and
annotations, the manner of keeping the
books in the Registry, and the value of
the entries contained in said books, the
provisions of the Mortgage Law, the
Land Registration Act, and other special
laws shall govern.
 THE TORRENS SYSTEM
1. The Legal Basis and Nature
(Sec 2, PD 1529)
2.Nature of registration proceedings;
3. Jurisdiction of courts.
Judicial proceedings for the registration
of lands throughout the Philippines shall
be in rem and shall be based on the
generally accepted principles underlying
the Torrens system.
 2. Purpose and meaning of the
Torrens System of Registration.
a.) The real purpose of the system is
to quiet title of land; to put a stop
forever to any question of the legality
of the title, except claims which were
noted at the time of registration, in
the certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto.
That being the purpose of the law,
it would seem that once a title is
registered, the owner may rest
secure, without the necessity of
waiting in the portals of the courts,
or sitting in the "mirador de su
casa", to avoid the possibility of
losing his land. (Legarda vs.
Saleeby 31 Phl 590)
 b.) The main purpose of the Torrens
System is to avoid possible conflicts of title to
real estate and to facilitate transactions relative
thereto by giving the public the right to rely
upon the face of the Torrens Certificate Title and
to dispense with the need of inquiring further,
except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of the facts and circumstances that
should impel a reasonably cautious man to
make such further inquiry.
(Traders Royal Bank vs CA 315 SCRA 190)
 2. Jurisdiction
a. Regional Trial Court Courts of First
Instance (RTC) shall have exclusive
jurisdiction over all applications for original
registration of title to lands, including
improvements and interest therein, and
over all petitions filed after original
registration of title, with power to hear and
determine all questions arising upon such
applications or petitions. (Sec 2, PD 1529)
 b. Pursuant to Sec 34 of Batas Pambansa
129, the Supreme Court issued
Administrative Order No 64-93 dated April
21, 1993, authorizing METC's , MTCC's and
MTC's to hear and decide, Cadastral or
Land Registration cases covering Lots
where there is no controversy or
opposition, or contested lots, the value of
which does not exceed P100,000.00 for
MTC'sand P200,000.00 for METC's.
 IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
1.Original Registration under Sec 14, Pd
1529
Who may apply:
A.) Those who by themselves or through
their predecessors-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of alienable
and disposable lands of the public domain
under a bona fide claim of ownership since
June 12, 1945, or earlier.
 In Republic vs CA and Corazon Naguit GR
No 144057, January 17,2005, the Supreme
Court held that : "Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529
merely requires the property sought to be
registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time of application for
registration of title is filed . If the State,
at the time the application is made, has
not yet deemed it proper to release the
property for alienation or disposition,
The presumption is that the government is
still reserving the right to utilize the
property, hence, the need to preserve its
ownership is the State irrespective of the
length of adverse possession even if in
good faith. "However, if the property has
already been classified as alienable and
disposable, then there is already an
intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the
property."
 .""There are no material differences
between Sec 14 (1) of the Property
Registration Decree and Sec 48 (b) of
the Public Land Act. True, the Public
Land Act does refer to "agricultural
land of the public domain , while the
Property Registration Decree uses the
term "Alienable and Disposable lands
of public domain."
 It must be noted though that the
Constitution declares that
"alienable lands of public domain
shall be limited to agricultural
lands. Clearly, the subject lands
under Sec 48 (b) of the Public Land
Act and Sec 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree are of the
same type.
B.) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws. Prescription is
one of the modes of acquiring ownership
under the Civil Code. There is a consistent
jurisprudential rule that properties
classified as alienable public land may be
converted into private property by reason
of open, continuous and exclusive
possession of at least 30 years.
 With such conversion, such property may now
fall within the contemplation of "Private Lands"
under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to
registration by those who have acquired
ownership through prescription. Thus, even if
possession of the alienable public land
commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945,
and such possession being open, continuous
and exclusive, then the possessor may have the
right to register the land by virtue of Section
14(2) of the Property Registration Decree"
(Republic vs CA and Naguit)
 C.) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands or abandoned river beds by right
of accession or accretion under the existing
laws. Accretion is the slow and hardly
perceptible accumulation of soil deposits that
the law grants to the riparian owner. (Binalay vs
Manolo, 195 SCRA374)
D.) Those who have acquired ownership of land
in any other manner provided by law.
 2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or
Incomplete Title under Sec 48 (b)of CA 141.
Those who by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession
and occupation of agricultural lands of the
public domain under a bona fide claim of
acquisition of ownership, for at least 30 years
immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of title, except
when prevented by war or force majeure.
 Those shall be conclusively presumed to
have performed all the conditions essential
to a government grant and shall be entitled
to a certificate of title under the provision
of this chapter. The period to avail of this
provision has been extended to Dec 31,
2020pursuant to RA 9176 , approved Nov
13, 2002 with the limitation that the area
applied for should not exceed 12 hectares.
 3. Cadastral Act, Ac 2259
(Involuntary Proceedings)Compulsory
proceedings are premised on the
presumption under the Regalian Doctrine.
That all Lands of whatever classifications
belong to the public domain. Once
instituted in court, all private claims to land
are open to question and it is to the public
interest that such private claims be settled
and adjudicated.
 4. Administrative Method
Free Patent, Homestead and Sale
Provisions
A.) Whenever lands of the public domain are
disposed of by the DENR through free patent,
homestead and sales, they shall be brought
under the operation of the Torrens System .
Thus Sec 103 of PD 1529, states: "Whenever
public land is by the Government alienated,
granted, or conveyed to any person, the same
shall be brought forthwith under the operation
of this Decree.
 It shall be the duty of the official issuing
the instrument of alienation, grant, patent
or conveyance in behalf of the Government
to cause such instrument to be filed with
the Register of Deeds of the province or
city where the land lies, and to be
registered like other deeds and conveyance
whereupon a certificate of title shall be
entered as in other cases of registered
land, and an owner's duplicate issued to
the grantee.
."B.) Emancipation Patent or Certificates of
Land Ownership Awards(CLOA)Whenever a
tenant or farm worker is issued a patent,
the same shall also be transmitted to the
Register of Deeds for registration under Sec
104and 105 of PD 1529 and the issuance of
the corresponding Certificate of Title, this
bringing the land under the operation of
the Torrens System.
 C.) Indefeasibility of a title obtained
through the administrative method. An
original certificate of title issued on the
basis of a patent partakes of the nature of
a certificate of title issued in a judicial
proceeding and becomes indefeasible
upon the expiration of one year from the
date of promulgation of the order of the
Director of Lands for the issuance
of patent. (Heirs of Gregorio Tingco vs
Heirs of Jose Alinaias, 168 SCRA 198)
V. STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
OF TITLE
1. Survey
- In Director of Lands vs. Reyes, et al, 68
SCRA 177 -182. The SC ruled: The
applicant is not relieved from submitting in
evidence the original plan approved by the
Director of Lands as required by law. One
of the distinguishing marks of the Torrens
System is the absolute certainty of the
identity of a registered land.
Consequently, the primary purpose of the said
requirements is to fix the exact or definite
identity of the land as shown inthe plan and
technical description.

2.Application
- Discussed earlier as to where to file.

3.Setting the Date of Initial Hearing

Not earlier than 45 days nor more than 90 days
from the date of the order (Sec 23, PD 1529)
 4.Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA
5.Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of
Initial Hearing
6. Publication, registered mail and posting
(Sec 23, PD 1529)
" Sec 23 states that publication in the Official
Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction
upon the Court. However, in Director of Lands
vs. CA(276 SCRA 276-287) the SC ruled that the
publication in a newspaper of general circulation
is equally a mandatory jurisdictional
requirement.
 "The elementary norms of due
process require that before the
claimed property is taken from the
concerned parties and registered in
the name of the applicant. The said
parties must be given notice and
opportunity to oppose.
 7. Opposition
Shall be filed by any person who claims the
land or any interest therein.
8.Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence
A. General Default
B. Default Order is entered
C. All applicants must overcome the
presumption that the land sought to be
registered form part of the public domain.
(Republic vs CA and Naguit Supra)
 D. Tax declarations when coupled
with proof of actual possession are
strong evidence of ownership
(Gonzaga vs CA SCRA 327)
E. A foreign national may apply for
registration of title over a parcel of
land which he acquired by purchase
while still a citizen of the Philippines
(Republic vs CA and Lapia, 235 SCRA
567)
 F. A private corporation may apply for judicial
confirmation of title to public agricultural land
because if a price of land of the public domain
has been in open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession under a bona fide claim of
ownership for a period prescribed by law, the
land after the lapse of said period Ipso Jure
ceases to form part of the public domain and
becomes private property, thus removing it from
the ambit of the constitutional prohibition
(Republic vs CA 155 SCRA 344)
 G. Spanish Titles - PD 892, effective
Feb 16, 1976, invalidated all Spanish
titles and declared that they can no
longer be used as evidence of
landownership. They shall then be
treated as unregistered lands .
H. Judgment - Shall become final after
15 days from notice, there can be no
execution of judgment pending appeal
in land registration proceedings.
 9.
Decree of Registration for the Land to
be issued by the Administrator , LRA
10.
Original Certificate of Title
The land Registration Authority has
devised a form where the decree and
the original certificate of title are
embodied in the same document.
 VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TORRENS
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Rules, principles, doctrines, and maxims of the
Torrens system which were culled from
landmark decisions of the highest court on
actual cases as arranged by Prof. Gregorio Bilog
in his book, "Land Title and Deeds", 2005 Ed.

A . Best Evidence of Ownership

- A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best
evidence of ownership of the land described
therein.
 (See Vilanueva vs CA, 198 SCRA
482 Ching vs CA, 181 SCRA 9,Heirs
of George Bofill vs CA, 237 SCRA
451,Halili vs National Labor
Relations Commissions, 257 SCRA
174,Lee Tek Sheng vs CA, 292 SCRA
544)
 B.Notice to the Whole World
- A torrens title gives notice to the
whole world ; or a Torrens title
bind the whole world.
(See Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA
484,National Grains Authority vs
IAC, 157 SCRA 380,Ching vs
Malaya, 153 SCRA 412,People vs
Reyes, 175 SCRA 597)
 The issuance of certificate of title is a
constructive notice thereof to all persons.
(Serna vs CA, 308 SCRA 527, 529)
Registration of a deed sale in the Registry of
Deeds constitutes constructive notice thereof to
the whole world.
(See Calalang vs ROD of Quezon City, 208 SCRA
215,People vs Pacificador, 354 SCRA 310)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
(Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,Jacob vs CA, 244
SCRA 189)
 C. Unregistered Claims
- A Torrens title bars all prior claims not
registered on the title.
(See PD 1529 , Sec 44; Republic vs Umali
171 SCRA 647)
All claims and liens of whatever character
existing against the land prior to the
issuance of certificate of title are barred, if
not noted on said certificate.
The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of
Title and the subsequent purchaser for value
and in good faith of registered land shall hold
the certificate free from all liens and
encumbrances, except those noted in said
certificate and those specified by law.
(See PD 1529 Sec 44 and 46, Republic vs Umali
171 SCRA 647, Felix Gochan and Sons Realty
Corp vs Caada, 165 SCRA 207; Ferrer-Lopez vs
CA 150 SCRA 393;Cureg vs IAC, 177 SCRA 313,
Aldecoa and Co vs Warner Barns & Co, 30 Phil
209;Snyder vs Fiscal of Cebu and Avila. 42 Phil
766)
 D. Indefeasible
- A Torrens certificate of title services as
evidence of an indefeasible title to the property
in favor of the person whose names
appear therein.
( See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs
CA, 204 SCRA 358, Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA
321, Ortegas vs Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob
vs CA, 266 SCRA189)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens
certificate becomes incontrovertible or
indefeasible after one year from the entry of the
decree if registration.
 **SeePD 1529, Sec 32 Calalang vs. Register of
Deeds of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215 Reyes and
Nadres vs Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil
791 Jacob vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189
Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA 524Tirado vs Sevilla,
188 SCRA 321 Cagayan de Oro City Landless
Residents Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA
220 Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160 Muyco vs
CA, 204 SCRA 358 Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA
635 Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA
267 Heirs of Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of
Mariano E. Santiago, 404 SCRA 193
 E. A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible.
(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs
CA,351 SCRA 12).No title to registered land in
derogation of the title of the unregistered owner
shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possesion . See: PD 1529, Sec 17 Viacrucis vs CA,
44 SCRA 176 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93
SCRA 146 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA
390 umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca
vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA
248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133Jacob vs. CA,
224 SCRA 198 Caia vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 Rivera
vs. CA, 244 SCRA 218
The owner of the land registered under
the Torrens System cannot lose it by
prescription.
See:Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636 Ruvera vs
CA, 244 SCRA 218 J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc.
vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA
484 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 Umbay
vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 Cimafranca vs IAC,
147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA
248 Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133Jacob vs.
CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caia vs. CA, 239 SCRA
252 Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12
 F. Integrity of Titles
-The integrity of the Torrens System must
be protected . Every person dealing with
registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued
therefore and the law will in no way oblige
him to go behind the certificate to
determine the condition of the property.
Stated differently, an innocent purchaser
for value, relying on a Torrens title issued,
is protected.
 G. Not Subject to Collateral Attack
- A certificate of title shall not be subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered,
modified or cancelled, except in a direct
proceeding in accordance with law.
See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National
Grains Authority vs IAC, 157 SCRA 380;Tan
vs. Philippines Banking Corp., 355 SCRA
292; Windows and Orphans Association,
Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor
Phils. Corp vs CA, 216 SCRA236)
 H. Fraudulent Registration
-The person in whose name the land is
fraudulently registered holds it as a mere
trustee, with the legal obligation to
reconvey the property and the title thereto
in favor of the true owner.
(Pajarillo vs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)
A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield
for fraud or for enriching a person at the
expense of another .
(Vda. De Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196;
Legarda and Prieto vs Saleeby, 31 Phil 590)
 The Torrens system was not designed to shield
and protect one who had committed fraud or
misrepresentation and thus holds title in bad
faith.(Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)
The Torrens system only protects a title holder in
good faith, and cannot be used as shield for
fraud and chicanery. Deceit is not to be
countenanced; duplicity is not to be rewarded.
(Philippine Commercial &Industrial Bank vs
Villalva, 48 SCRA 31)
The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds.
(Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672)
 I. Forgery
- Any registration procured by the presentation
of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a
forged deed or other instrument shall be null
and void (PD 1529 Sec 23)A forged instrument
may become the "root of a valid title".
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
A fraudulent or forged document of sale may
become the root of a valid title if the certificate
of title has already been transferred from the
name of the true owner to the name of the
forger or the name indicated by the forger.
 (See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la
Cruz vs Fabie, 35 Phil 14; Roman
Catholic Bishop vs Philippine Railway, 49
Phil. 546)
The doctrine that a forged instrument
may become the root of a valid title
cannot be applied where the owner still
holds a valid and existing certificate of
title covering the same interest in a realty.
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)
 J. Loss
As between two innocent persons, the one who
made it possible for the wrong to be done
should be the one to bear the resulting loss
(See: Legarda vs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs
CA, 366 SCRA 176; Tomas vs. Tomas,98SCRA280;
Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of them whom
are in good faith and both innocent of any
negligence, the law must protect and prefer the
lawful holder of registered title over the transfer
of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights.
(Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354; Torres vs CA, 186
SCRA672)
 K. Priority of Rights
- "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who is
first in time is preferred in right. The act of
registration in the Registry of Deeds shall
be the operative act to convey or affect the
land insofar as third persons are
concerned.
L. Double Titles
. Where two certificates of title include the
same land, the certificate that is earlier in
date prevails.
(Garcia vs CA, 95 SCRA 380)
 M. Presumptions: Regular and Valid
- Torrens title presumed to have been
issued regularly and legally.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs.
Malaya, 153SCRA 412; Ofrecio vs. Lising,
159 SCRA 366, Republic vs. Umali, 171
SCRA 647;People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597,
Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)
A strong presumption exists that a Torrens
title is regularly issued and that itis valid.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65)
 A Torrens title is presumed to have been
issued regularly and legally , unless
contradicted and overcome by clear,
convincing, strong and irrefutable proof.
More than merely preponderant evidence
is required.
(Ramos vs. CA, 112 SCRA 542)
Good Faith - The presumption is that the
transferee of registered land is not aware
of any defect in the title of the property he
purchased.
(Tajonera vs CA,103 SCRA 467)
 N. Reliance on the Title
-Every person dealing with registered land may
safely rely on the correctness of the certificate
of title issued therefore.
(See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRA
174; Kho vs CA, 214 SCRA 329;Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA
642; Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRA 616)
One who deals with properly registered under
the Torrens System need not go beyond the
same, but only has to rely on the title. He is
charge with notice only of such burdens and
claims as are annotated on the title.
(Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
 Exception:
This principle does not apply when the party has
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances
that would impel a reasonably cautious man to
make such inquiry or when the purchaser has
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his
vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the
status of the title of the property in litigation.
One who falls within the exception can neither
be dominated by an innocent purchaser for
value nor a purchaser in good faith.
(Domingo vs.Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right
to rely on the correctness of the title.
(A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla, 173 SCRA 572;
Gevero vs IAC, 189 SCRA201)

He is not required to explore further than what

the Torrens title on its face indicates, in quest for
any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right thereto.
(National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA
380; Duran vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489)
Where the title is in the name of the vendor when
the land is sold, the vendee for value has the right
to rely on what appears on the title. Where
innocent third persons relying on the correctness of
the certificate of title issued, acquired rights over
the property, the court cannot disregard such rights
and order the total cancellation of the certificate for
that would impair public confidence in the
certificate of title, otherwise everyone dealing with
property registered under the Torrens System
would have to inquire in every instance as to
whether the title had been regularly or irregularly
issued by the court.
 A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in
the certificate of title and in the absence of anything to
excite suspicion, he is under no obligation to lock
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate. A
person dealing with registered land has a right to rely
on the Torrens certificate of title without the need of
inquiring further, except when he has actual knowledge
of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when
he has knowledge of a defect of the lack of title of the
other party or of sufficient belief to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of
the title of the property in litigation.
 See Sandoval vs CA, 260, SCRA 283State Investment
House, Inc. vs CA, 254 SCRA 368 Tiburcio vs PHHC, L-
13479, October 31, 1959Capitol Subd., Inc. vs Province
of Negros Occidental, 7 SCRa 60 Luz vs Manipon, 381
SCRA 788
Where the Torrens title is in the name of the
vendor, the vendee has the right to rely on
what appears on the title; and, in the absence
of anything to arouse suspicion, the vendee has
no obligation to look beyond the title.
(See: Pino vs CA, 198 SCRA 434Centeno vs CA, 139
SCRA 545 Chit, Sr. vs Benelda Estate Dev Corp, 353
SCRA 424Republic vs CA, 306 SCRA 81
O. Titles Derived from a Void Title are Also Void
If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent
certificates of title derived therefrom are also
void because of the truism that the "spring
cannot rise higher than its source."
See De Santos vs IAC, 157 SCRA 295 Calalang vs
Register od Deeds of Quezon city, 231 SCRA 88 Mathay
vs CA, 295 SCRA 556
This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim,
"Nemo potest pius juris adallum transferre
quam ipse habet," "No one can transfer a
greater right to another than he himself has."
VII. REMEDIES OF PERSONS AGGRRIEVED IN A LAND
REGISTRATIONPROCEEDINGS
1. New Trial - Rule 37, Rules of Court
2. Relief from Judgment - Sec 2, Rule 38 of the Rules
of Court
3. Appeal - Sec 33 PD 1529 provides that judgment or
orders of the court inland registration cases are
appellable to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions.
4. Petition for Review - Sec 32 of PD 1529A. Petition
may be filed within one year from the entry of such
decree of registration.
 B. On the ground of Actual or Extrinsic Fraud.
Extrinsic Fraud -refers to any fraudulent act of
the successful party in litigation which is
committed outside the trial of a case against the
defeated party whereby said defeated party is
prevented from presenting fully and fairly his
side of the case.
Intrinsic Fraud -refers to acts of a party in a
litigation during trial which did not affect the
presentation of the case, but did not prevent a
fair and just determination of the case. (Sterling
Investment Corp vs Ruiz, 30SCRA 318)
 C. The title has not passed to the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.
5. Action of Reconveyance -Sec 96 of PD 1529 states:
"that nothing in this decree shall be construed to
deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he
may have against any person for such loss or damage
or deprivation (of land or of any estate or interest
therein) without joining the National Treasurer as
party-defendant.
"A. Grounds: 1. Fraud
2. Implied or Constructive Trust
3. Void Contract
B. When to Avail
1. On the ground of fraud - 4yrs from discovery
 2. Implied Constructive Trust prescribes in 10 years
C. The period is to be reckoned from the date of
issuance of the original certificate of title .
D. If the party is in actual possession of the property,
the action does not prescribe.
6. Action for Damages. If the property has been passed
to an innocent purchaser for value, the aggrieved party
may bring an ordinary action for damages against the
applicant. (Sec 32, PD 1529)7. Action for Compensation
from Assurance Fund . Any person who sustains loss or
damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest
by reason of the operation of the Torrens System may
file an action for compensation against the Assurance
Fund. (Sec 93 and 93 of PD1529)
 VIII. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH
REGISTERED LANDS
1. The act of registration is the operative
act to convey or affect the land in so far as
third persons are concerned.
2. Entry along produces the effect of
registration whether the transaction is
voluntary or involuntary as long as
registrant complies with all the
requirements.
(DBP vs RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRa 450)
3. The production of the owner's duplicate
whenever any voluntary instrument is presented
for registration shall be conclusive authority
from the registration shall be conclusive
authority from the registered owner to the
Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to
make a memorandum of registration.(Sec 53 PD 1529)
4. The "Mirror Principle A purchaser is not
required to explore beyond what the record in
the registry indicates on its face, in quest for any
hidden defect or inchoate right which may
subsequently defeat his title thereto.(Chu Sr vs
Benelda Estate Dev. Corp,353 SCRA 424)
5. Prior physical delivery or possession is
not legally required and the execution of
the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to
delivery.
(Power and Ind. Corp. vs CA, 274 SCRA 59)
6. Even if only part of the property has
been sold or alienated within the
prohibited period of 5 years such
alienation is sufficient cause for the
reversion of the whole estate to the state
(Republic vs CA 281, SCRA 639).
 IX. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
1. ADVERSE CLAIM
Even after the lapse of thirty days as
provided under Sec. 70 of PD 1529,an
adverse claim may be cancelled only upon
order of the court.
(Sajonas vs CA, 258 SCRA 79)
 2. LIS PENDENS
A notice of lis pendens is not confined only
to cases involving the title to or possession
of real property, but applies to suits
brought to establish an, or right, in specific
real property or to enforce any lien, charge
or encumbrance against it.
(Viewmaster vs Maulit, GR 136283, Feb 29, 2000)
" A notation of lis pendens neither affects
the merits of a case nor creates a right or a
lien."
3. Surrender of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of
Title in Involuntary Dealings.
Sec. 107 of PD 1529 provides: "Where it is
necessary to issue a new certificate of title
pursuant to any involuntary instrument which
divest the title of the registered owner against
his consent or where a voluntary instrument
cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or
failure of the holder to surrender the owner's
duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest
may file a petition in court to compel surrender
of the same to the Register of Deeds."
Likewise, Sec. 80 of PD 1529 states: "Every
court rendering judgment in favor of the
plaintiff affecting registered land shall,
upon petition of said plaintiff, order the
parties before it to execute for registration
any deed or instrument necessary to give
effect to the judgment, and shall require
the registered owner to deliver his
duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to
the Register of Deeds to be cancelled or to
have memorandum annotated upon it.
 In the case of (Toledo-Baaga vs CA, 302 SCRA 331)
The Supreme Court held:"Petitioners other
contention that the execution of the final and
executory decision - which is to issue title in the name
of private respondent - cannot be compelled by
mandamus because of the formality that the
registered owner first surrenders her duplicate
Certificate of Title for cancellation per Sec. 80 of PD
1529 cited by the Register of Deeds , bears no merit.
In effect, they argue that the winning party must wait
execution until the losing party has complied with the
formality of surrender of the duplicate title. Such
preposterous contention borders on the absurd and
has no place in our legal system."
 4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
RA 8791, otherwise know as "The General Banking Law,
approved on May 23, 2000 modified the right of the
mortgagor to redeem the property in an extrajudicial
foreclosure under the following conditions:
A. The mortgagor is a juridical entity
B. The property has been mortgaged in favor of a bank,
quasi-bank or trust entity
C. The foreclosure is done extra-judicially If the forgoing
conditions are present, the period of redemption will
now be as follows : The mortgagor shall have the right
to redeem the property until but not after, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale , with
the applicable Register of Deeds which is no case shall
be more than three months after foreclosure,
whichever is earlier.
 ."Stated otherwise, the maximum period of
redemption under this new law is three
months, and no longer 1 year as provided
under RA 3135. Thus, considering that the
period of redemption is reckoned after the date
of the foreclosure or until the registration
of the certificate of sale "Whichever is earlier",
this period may be shorter than 3 months as
when the buyer, for instance, may cause the
registration of the certificate of sale
immediately after the foreclosure sale.
 X. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED
ORIGINAL
Sec. 110 of PD 1529, abrogated the procedure relative
to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed
certificates provided under RA 26. However, RA 6732
approved on June 8, 1989 allowed once again the
administrative reconstitution of original copies of
certificates of title, but only when it is lost or destroyed
due to fire, flood, and other force majeure. Provided
further that the number of lost or damaged certificates
should at least be 100% and the number of certificates
of titles lost or damaged be less than 500.