University of San Carlos
Notes and Case Updates in Land Titles and Deeds
By: Professor Emmanuel Gimarino
I. Definition of Terms
(LTCP) Land Titling Computerization Project
- To ensure the integrity of the land tiling
registration system through a paperless system
securing through tighter controls over land titles
and eliminating fraudulent ones, all titles are
encoded and converted to digital format through
a security-tested document imaging technology.
1. Land Registration System a judicial or
administrative proceeding whereby a persons
claim of ownership over a particular land is
determined and confirmed or recognized so that
such land and the ownership thereof may be
recorded in a public registry.
o Purpose of Registration: . . .[t]o quiet
title to 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. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure,
without the necessity of waiting in the
portals of the court, or sitting in the mirador
de su casa, to avoid the possibility of
losing his land. (Legarda vs. Saleeby G.R.
8936)
2. Title in fee simple such title in real
property as belongs to a person who has full and
unconditional ownership in fact. Analogous to
absolute title.
Registered and Unregistered Lands are the
same as Titled and Untitled Lands.
3. Torrens title a government certificate
made out on a prescribed judicial form and
issued under the signature of the register of
deeds certifying that the person named is the
absolute owner of the property described therein
without limitations excepting those noted
thereon and those prescribed by law.
o vis--vis Ownership
Ownership signifies proprietorship, dominion
or exclusive control. It is a complete title.
Whereas Title refers to the evidence of a
persons right or the extent of his interests.
o vis--vis Deeds
It is a writing containing some contract or
agreement, and the evidence of its execution;
particularly an instrument conveying real estate
to a purchaser or donee.
4. Original Certificate of Title the first title
issued in the name of the registered owner by
the Register of Deeds covering a parcel of land
which had been registered under the Torrens
System by virtue of judicial or administrative
proceedings.
5. Transfer Certificate of Title the title
issued by the Register of Deeds in favor of a
transferee to whom ownership of a registered
land is transferred by virtue of a deed of
conveyance.
6. Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title
(Sec. 41, P.D. 1529)
The owners duplicate certificate of title shall be
delivered to the registered owner or to his duly
authorized representative. If two or more
persons are registered owners, one owners
duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole
land, or the co-owners may so desire, a
separate duplicate may be issued to each of
them in like form, but all outstanding certificates
of title so issued shall be surrendered whenever
the Register of Deeds shall register a
subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the
whole land or part thereof or any interest therein.
The Register of Deeds shall note on each
certificate of title a statement as to whom a copy
thereof was issued.
The Register of Deeds shall issue an exact
duplicate of the Original as well as the Transfer
Certificate of Title. The original is filed in the
Registry of Deeds and the duplicate is delivered
to the owner.
7. Transfer Certificate of Title
(Sec. 43, P.D. 1529)
, and likewise be issued in duplicate. The
certificate shall show the number of the next
previous certificate covering the same land and
also the fact that it was originally registered,
giving the record number, the number of the
1
original certificate of title, and the volume and
page of the registration book in which the latter
is found.
Two Ways of Dealing with Lands: Voluntary
Transactions and Involuntary Transactions.
In voluntary registration, such as a sale,
mortgage, lease and the like, if the
owner's duplicate certificate be not
surrendered and presented or if no
payment of registration fees be made
within 15 days, entry in the day book of
the deed of sale does not operate to
convey and affect the land sold. In
involuntary registration, such as an
attachment, levy upon execution, lis
pendens and the like, entry thereof in
the day book is a sufficient notice to all
persons of such adverse claim. ...
(Development Bank of the Phils. Vs.
Acting Register of Deeds of Nueva
Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988)
II. Significant Codal Provisions under the
Property Registration Decree
Sec. 3 - Status of other pre-existing land
registration system. The system of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby
discontinued and all lands recorded under said
system, which are not yet covered by Torrens
title shall be considered as unregistered lands.
All instruments affecting lands originally
registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may
be recorded under Sec. 113 of this Decree, until
the land shall be brought under the Torrens
system.
Sec. 10 General functions of Register of
Deeds. The office of the Register of Deeds
constitutes a public repository of records of
instrument affecting registered or unregistered
lands and chattel mortgages in the province or
city wherein such office is situated.
(Ministerial Function of RD) 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. He shall see to it
that said instrument bears the proper
documentary and science stamps and that the
same are properly cancelled. If the instrument is
not registrable, he shall forthwith deny
registration thereof and inform the presentor of
such denial in writing, stating the ground or
reason therefore, and advising him of his right to
appeal by consulta in accordance with Section
117 of this Decree.
Sec. 31 - Decree of Registration. The decree of
registration shall bind the land and quiet title
thereto, subject only to such exceptions or liens
as may be provided by law. It shall be
conclusive upon and against all persons,
including the National Government and all
branches thereof, whether mentioned by name
in the application or notice, the same being
included in the general description, To all whom
it may concern.
Sec. 32 (2008 BAR) - Review of Decree of
Registration; Innocent Purchaser for Value. The
decree of registration shall not be reopened or
revised by reason of absence, minority or other
disability of any person adversely affected
thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for
reversing judgments. This is subject to the
[r]ight of any person, including the government
and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of
any estate or interest therein by such
adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper CFI a petition
for reopening and review of the decree of
registration not later than one year from and
after the date of the entry of such decree of
registration, but in no case shall such petition be
entertained by the court where an innocent
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an
interest therein, whose rights may be prejudiced.
An innocent purchaser for value is deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other
encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of the one year period, the
decree of registration and the certificate of title
issued shall become incontrovertible. Any
person aggrieved by such decree of registration
in any case may pursue his remedy by action for
damages against the applicant or any other
persons responsible for the fraud.
Sec. 47 (1998 BAR) - Registered land not
subject to prescription. No title to registered
land in derogation of the title of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or
2
adverse possession. EXCEPT those noted in
said certificate and any of the following
encumbrances which may be subsisting,
namely: First. Liens, claims or rights arising or
existing under the laws and Constitution of the
Philippines which are not by law required to
appear of record in the Registry of Deeds in
order to be valid against subsequent purchasers
or encumbrancers of record. Second. Unpaid
real estate taxes levied and assessed within two
years immediately preceding the acquisition of
any right over the land by an innocent purchaser
for value, without prejudice to the right of the
government to collect taxes payable before that
period from the delinquent taxpayer alone.
Third. Any public highway or private way
established or recognized by law, or any
government irrigation canal or lateral thereof
have been determined. Fourth. Any disposition
of the property or limitation on the use thereof
by virtue of, or pursuant to P.D. 27 or any other
law or regulations on agrarian reform.
Sec. 48 (2005 BAR) - Certificate not subject to
collateral attack. A certificate of title shall not be
subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered,
modified, cancelled except in a direct proceeding
in accordance with law.
Sec. 50 Subdivision and Consolidation Plans.
xxx The Register of Deeds shall annotate on the
new certificate of title covering the street,
passageway or open space, a memorandum to
the effect that except by way of donation in favor
of the national government, province, city or
municipality, no portion of any street,
passageway, waterway or open space so
delineated on the plan shall be closed or
otherwise disposed of by the registered owner
without the approval of the Court of First
Instance of the province or city in which the land
is situated. . .
Sec. 51 - Conveyance and other dealing by
registered owner. The act of registration shall
be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all
cases under this Decree, the registration shall
be made in the office of the Register of Deeds
for the province or city where the land lies.
Sec. 52 - Constructive notice upon registration.
Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien,
attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry
affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed
or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds
for the province or city where the land to which it
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons
from the time of such registering, filing or
entering.
Sec. 53 - Presentation of owners duplicate upon
entry of new certificate. xxx After the entry of the
decree of registration on the original petition or
application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged
duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or
other instrument, shall be null and void.
Sec. 56 (1998 BAR) - Primary Entry Books;
fees; certified copies. xxx [a]ll instruments and
including copies of writs and processes filed xxx
relating to registered land xxx shall be regarded
as registered from the time so noted, and the
memorandum of each instrument, when made
on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall
bear the same date.
Sec. 59 - Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the
time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or
annotations appear in the registration book, they
shall be carried over and stated in the new
certificate or certificates; except so far as they
may be simultaneously released or discharged.
Sec. 70 (1998 BAR) Adverse Claim. Whoever
claims any part or interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner, arising
subsequent to the date of the original
registration, may, if no other provision is made in
this Decree for registering the same, make a
statement in writing setting forth fully alleged
right or interest, or how or under whom acquired,
a reference to the number of the certificate of
title of the registered owner, the name of the
registered owner, and a description of the land in
which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and
shall state the adverse claimants residence, and
a place at which all notices may be served upon
him. This statement shall be entitled to
registration as an adverse claim on the
certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be
effective for a period of 30 days from the date of
registration. After the lapse of said period, the
annotation of adverse claim may be cancelled
upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the
party in interest. Provided, however, that after
cancellation, no second adverse claim based on
3
the same ground shall be registered by the
same claimant.
Before the lapse of 30 days, any party in interest
may file a petition in the CFI where the land is
situated for the cancellation of the adverse
claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing
upon the question of the validity of such adverse
claim, and shall render judgment as may be just
and equitable. xxx
Sec. 76 (2001, 2002 BAR) Notice of Lis
Pendens. No action to recover possession of
real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove
clouds upon the title thereof or for partition, or
other proceedings of any kind in court directly
affecting the title to land or the use or occupation
thereof or the buildings thereon, and no
judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or
reverse any judgment, shall have any effect
upon registered land as against persons other
than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum
or notice stating the institution of such action or
proceeding and the court wherein the same is
pending, as well as the date of the institution
thereof, together with a reference to the number
of the certificate of title, and an adequate
description of the land affected and the
registered owner thereof, shall have been filed
and registered.
Sec. 95 - Action for compensation from funds. A
person who, without negligence on his part,
sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land
or any estate or interest therein in consequence
of the bringing of the land under the operation of
the Torrens system or arising after original
registration of land, through fraud or in
consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
misdescription in any certificate of title and who
by the provisions of this Decree is barred or
otherwise precluded under the provision of any
law from bringing an action in any court of
competent jurisdiction for the recovery of
damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
Sec. 103 - Certificates of Title Pursuant to
Patents. xxx The deed, grant, patent or
instrument of conveyance from the Government
to the grantee shall not take effect as a
conveyance or bind the land but shall operate
only as a contract between the Government and
the grantee and as evidence of authority to the
Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the
act of registration that shall be the operative act
to affect and convey the land xxx
Sec. 107 - Surrender of Witheld Duplicate
Certificates. Where it is necessary to issue a
new certificate pursuant to any involuntary
instrument which divests 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 owners duplicate certificate of
title, the party in interest may file a petition in
court to compel surrender of the same to the
RD. The court, after hearing, may order the
registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and
direct the entry of a new certificate or
memorandum upon such surrender. If the
person withholding the duplicate certificate is not
amenable to the process of the court, or if for
any reason the outstanding owners duplicate
certificate cannot be delivered, the court may
order the annulment of the same as well as the
issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu
thereof. xxx
Sec. 108 (1998 BAR) - Amendment and
Alteration of Certificates. No erasure, alteration,
or amendment shall be made upon the
registration book after the entry of a certificate of
title or a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same by Register of Deeds,
EXCEPT by order of the CFI. A registered
owner or other person having an interest in
registered property or, in proper cases, the
Register of Deeds with the approval of the
Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply
by petition to the court upon the ground that the
registered interests of any description, whether
vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate
appearing on the certificate, have terminated
and ceased; or that new interest not appearing
upon the certificate have arisen or been created;
or that an omission or error was made in
entering a certificate or any memorandum
thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that
the same or any person on the certificate has
been changed; or that the registered owner has
married, or, if registered as married, that the
marriage has been terminated and no right or
interest of heirs or creditors will thereby be
affected; or that a corporation which owned
registered land and has been dissolved has not
conveyed the same within three years after its
dissolution; or upon any other reasonable
ground; and the court may hear and determine
4
the petition after notice to all parties in interest, prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated.
and may order the entry or cancellation of a new
certificate, the entry or cancellation of a Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial
memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any reconstitution shall be given to the Register of
other relief upon such terms and conditions Deeds of the place where the land is situated
requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may and to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
consider proper; Provided however, that this No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution
section shall not be construed to give the court of a certificate of title shall become final until the
authority to reopen the judgment or decree of lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register
registration and that nothing shall be done or of Deeds and by the Commissioner of Land
ordered by the court which shall impair the title Registration of a notice of such order or
or other interest of a purchaser holding a judgment without any appeal having been filed
certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs by any of such officials.
and assigns, without his or their written consent.
o See R.A. 6732 (July 17, 1989)
Sec. 109 - Notice and Replacement of An Act Allowing Administrative
Lost Duplicate Certificate. In case of loss or theft Reconstitution of Original Copies of
of an owners duplicate certificate of title, due Certificates of Titles Lost or Destroyed Due
notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or to Fire, Flood and Other Force Majeure,
by someone in his behalf to the Register of Amending Section 110 of P.D. No. 1529 and
Deeds of the province or city where the land lies Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 26
as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a
duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or
cannot be produced by a person applying for the
entry of a new certificate to him or for the
registration of any instrument, a sworn statement
of the fact of such loss or destruction may be
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
filed by the registered owner or other person in
interest.
(a) Governing Laws
Sec. 117 - Procedure (Consultas). When
the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to
P.D. 1529 (Property Registration Decree)
the proper step to be taken or memorandum to
approved on June 11, 1978, codified and
be made on pursuance of any deed, mortgage
incorporated the following laws related to
or other instrument presented to him for
property registration:
registration, or where any party in interest does
not agree with the action taken by the Register
Act 496, Land Registration Act
of Deeds with reference to any such instrument,
the question shall be submitted to the C.A. 141, Public Land Act
Commissioner of Land Registration by the Act 2259, Cadastral Act
Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru Act 1508, as amended, Chattel Mortgage Law
the Register of Deeds. R.A. No. 26, Reconstitution of Original
Certificates of Title
Sec. 110 Reconstitution of lost or destroyed P.D. No. 27, Emancipation Patents, Land
original of Torrens title. Original copies of Reform Law
certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices P.D. 957, Subdivision and Condominium
of Register of Deeds as well as liens and Protective Buyers Decree
encumbrances affecting the lands covered by R.A. No. 4726, Condominium Act
such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in
accordance with the procedure prescribed in
Republic Act No. 26 (An Act Providing a Special
Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens
Certificates of Titles Lost or Destroyed) insofar
as not inconsistent with this Decree. The
procedure relative to administrative
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate

5
 2007 BAR
Bedrock Land & Property Development Corp.
is a development company engaged in
developing and selling subdivisions,
condominium units and industrial estates. In
order to replenish its inventories, it embarked
on an aggressive land banking program. It
employed scouts who roam all over the
Philippines to look for and conduct
investigations on prospective sites for
acquisition and development, whether
developed, semi-developed, or raw land. The
management of Bedrock asks you as the
company counsel to prepare a manual
containing a summary of the pertinent laws
and regulations relating to land registration
and acquisition of title to land. The manual
should include the following items:
Supply this information.
(a) What is the governing law?
Depending on the transaction involved, one or
more of the following will be the governing laws
relating to land registration and acquisition of title
to land are as follows:
1. P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree)
2. C.A. No. 141, as amended (Public Land
Law)
3. Civil Code of the Philippines
4. Act No. 2259 (The Cadastral Act)
5. Sec. 194, Administrative Code as amended
by Act No. 2837 and Act No. 3344 (System
of Recording for Unregistered Real Estate)
6. P.D. No. 1073 (Extending the Period for
Administrative and Judicial Legalization of
Imperfect Title)
7. Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution
8. P.D. No. 957 (An Act Regulating the Sale of
Subdivisions and Condominiums)
9. R.A. 4276 (An Act Amending P.D. No. 957
Real Property Tax Code
(b) Concept of Jure Regalia
All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to belong
to the State, and unless it has been shown that
they have been reclassified as alienable or
disposable to a private person, they remain part
of the inalienable public domain. (See
Constitutional Basis (1987) - Art. XII, Sec.2)
EXCEPTION: NATIVE TITLE to land, or private
ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of
possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial, and independent of any grant
from the Spanish Crown It might, perhaps, be
proper and sufficient to say that when, as far
back as testimony or memory goes, the land has
been held by individuals under a claim of private
ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish
conquest, and never to have been public land.
(Cruz vs. Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources, G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000
citing Cario vs. Insular Government)
(c) Torrens System of Registration
Registration does not vest title. It is merely a
procedure to establish evidence of title over
realty. The Torrens system is a system for the
registration of title to land only, and not a system
established for the acquisition of land.
Registration merely confirms and thereafter
protects the title already possessed by the
owner, making it imprescriptible by occupation of
third parties. The registration does not give the
owner any better title than he has. He does not
obtain title by virtue of the certificate. He
secures his certificate by virtue of the fact that
he has a fee simple title. (Legarda vs. Saleeby,
31 Phil 590)
Registration under the Torrens system does not
create nor vest title if title was based on a forged
deed. (Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang vs. Serban 516
SCRA 343)
The system merely confirms ownership and
does not create it. Certainly, it cannot be used
to divest the lawful owner of his title for the
purpose of transferring it to another who has not
acquired it by any of the modes allowed or
recognized by law. It cannot be used to protect
a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be
used as a shield for the commission of fraud;
neither does it permit one to enrich himself at
the expense of another. Where such an illegal
transfer is made, as in the case at bar, the law
presumes that no registration has been made
and so retains title in the real owner of the land.
(Heirs of Doronio vs. Heirs of Doronio, G.R. No.
169454, Dec. 27, 2007)
6

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:
Estate of Gonzales et.al. vs. Heirs of Perez
November 5, 2009
A parcel of land was registered under the name
of the municipality and subdivided into Lots A, B
and C. Occupying Lots A and C were Gibo and
Noynoy and their respective families. The
Municipal Council passed a resolution
authorizing the sale thru public bidding of Lots A
and C wherein Gibo emerged as the highest
bidder. Thus, the Municipality executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale in his favor. Pursuant to the
Administrative Code, the Deed was forwarded to
the Provincial Governor for approval. However,
the latter did not act upon said Deed.
Gibo allowed Noynoy and his family to continue
occupying Lot C. Subsequently, he sold Lot C to
Noynoy, as embodied in a Deed of Absolute
Sale, which was however not notarized.
At such time when both Gibo and Noynoy were
already deceased, the municipality, thru its
Mayor, executed a Deed of Absolute Transfer
over Lots A and C in favor of the Estate of Gibo.
Consequently, TCTs were issued over both lots
in the name of Gibos estate.
On the other hand, the heirs of Noynoy executed
a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition over Lot C. As a
result, new titles were also issued. The heirs of
Noynoy demanded from the heirs of Gibo for the
reconveyance of Lot C. The latter heirs however
resisted contending that the prior Deed of Sale
executed by Gibo in favor of Noynoy was not
valid as Gibo was not yet the owner thereof. It
was only when a TCT was issued covering Lot C,
by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Transfer, that
Gibo became the owner thereof.
DECISION: The heirs of Gibo are not correct.
The ownership of a thing sold is acquired by
the vendee from the moment it is delivered to
him. A thing sold shall be understood as
delivered when it is placed in the control and
possession of the vendee. In this case, Gibo
took control and possession of Lot C
immediately after his bid was accepted by the
Municipal Government. In fact, Gibo
permitted Noynoy and his family to stay
thereon. This only shows that upon
perfection of the contract of sale between the
Municipality and Gibo, the latter acquired
ownership of the subject property by means
of delivery of the same to him.
The absence of approval by the Provincial
Governor of the said Contract of Sale does
not per se make it null and void. Such
contract is only considered voidable and is
valid and binding, effective and obligatory
between the parties, before it is set aside. In
the present case, since the contract was
never annulled or set aside, it has the effect
of transferring ownership of subject property
to Gibo. The latter therefore had the full
capacity to transfer ownership to Noynoy.
The failure on the part of the administrative
authorities to do their part in the issuance of the
decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing
party from ownership of the land. The ultimate
goal of our land registration system is geared
towards the final and definitive determination of
real ownership in the country, and the imposition
of an additional burden on the owner after the
judgment in the land registration case had
attained finality would simply frustrate such goal.
(Republic vs. Nillas, Jan, 23, 2007)
II. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
(a) Who May Apply? (2008 BAR) (OPRA)
(1) Those who by themselves or thru 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.
(2) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands by Prescription under the
provisions of existing laws.
(3) Those who have acquired ownership of
private lands or abandoned river beds by Right
of accession or accretion under the existing
laws,
(4) Those who have acquired ownership of land
in Any other manner provided for by law. (Sec.
14, P.D. 1529)
7
On the basis of their capacity to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain, who may
acquire private lands?
(1) Filipino citizens
(2) Filipino corporations and associations
as defined in Section 2, Article XII of
the Constitution; and by exception:
(3) Aliens, but only by hereditary
succession; and
(4) A natural-born citizen of the Philippines
who has lost his citizenship under the
terms of Section 8.
** Filipino citizens can both acquire or
otherwise hold lands of the public domain.
Filipino corporations cannot acquire lands of the
public domain by they can hold such lands by
modes other than acquisition, such as lease.
Re: Acquisition of Lands by Aliens
GENERAL RULE: Aliens are not qualified to
own lands
Constitutional Basis: Art. XII, Section 7 -
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no
private lands shall be transferred or conveyed
except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands
of the public domain.
EXCEPTIONS
1.
2. P.D. 713 (American Parity Rights May 27,
1975): The Law allowing Americans who were
2009 BAR
In 1972, Luciano de la Cruz sold to Chua
Chung Chun, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of
land in Binondo. Chua died in 1990, leaving
behind his wife and three children, one of
whom, Julian, is a naturalized Filipino
citizen. Six years after Chuas death, the
heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement
of estate, and the parcel of land was
allocated to Julian. In 2007, Luciano filed
suit to recover the land he sold to Chua,
alleging that the sale was void because it
contravened the Constitution which
prohibits the sale of private lands to aliens.
Julian moved to dismiss the suit on
grounds of pari delicto, laches and
acquisitive prescription. Decide the case
with reasons.
The petition of Luciano must be dismissed.
Independently of the doctrine of pari delicto,
the petitioner cannot have the sale annulled
and recover the lot Luciano himself has sold.
While the vendee was an alien at the time of
the sale, the land has since become the
property, of respondent Julian, a naturalized
Philippine citizen, who is constitutionally
qualified to own. As such the defect is already
cured.
Laches also militates against petitioner's
cause. Luciano sold the disputed lot in 1972
and instituted the action to annul the sale only
in the year 2007. By his long inaction of
inexcusable neglect, he should be held barred
from asserting his claim to the litigated
property.
Respondent, therefore, must be declared to be
the rightful owner of the property.
(De Castro vs. Teng Queen Tan, G.R. No. L-
31956, April 30, 1984)
Art. XII, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution:
Hereditary Succession
8
formerly Filipino Citizens, Americans who
became Permanent Residents of the
Philippines, and Americans who have resided in
the Philippines continuously for at least twenty
years and who in good faith had acquired private
residential lands for family dwelling purposes in
the Philipppines prior to July 3, 1974, to continue
holding such lands and transfer ownership over
the same to qualified persons or entities
3. B.P. 185 - An Act to Implement Sec. 15 of
Art. XIV of the Constitution and for Other
Purposes (March 16, 1982): Any natural-born
citizen of the Philippines who has lost his
Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine
laws may be a transferee of a private land up to
a maximum area of one thousand square
meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare
in the case of rural land, to be used by him as
his residence.
4. R.A. 8179 An Act to Further Liberalize
Foreign Investments, Amending for the Purpose
R.A. No. 7042 (Foreign Investments Act), and
for other purposes
SEC. 5. The Foreign Investment Act is further
amended by inserting a new section designated
as Section 10 to read as follows:
SEC. 10. Other Rights of natural Born
Citizen Pursuant to the Provisions of Article
XII, Section 8 of the Constitution.
- Any natural born citizen who has lost his
Philippine citizenship and who has the legal
capacity to enter into a contract under
Philippine Laws may be a transferee of a
private land up to maximum area of five
thousand (5,000) square meters in the case
of urban land or three (3) hectares in the
case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes. In the case of
married couples, one of them may avail of
the privilege herein granted: Provided, That
If both shall avail of the same, the total are
acquired shall not exceed the maximum
herein fixed.
In case the transferee already owns urban
or rural land for business or other purposes,
he shall be entitled to be a transferee of
additional urban or rural land for business or
other purposes which when added to those
already owned by him shall not exceed the
maximum areas herein authorized.
A transferee under this Act may acquire not
more than two (2) lots which should be
situated in different municipalities or cities
anywhere in the Philippines: Provided, That
the Total land area thereof shall not exceed
five thousand (5,000) square meters in the
case of urban land or three (3) hectares in
the case of rural land for use by him for
business or other purposes. A transferee
who has already acquired urban land shall
be disqualified form acquiring rural land and
vice versa.
5. R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (Aug. 29, 2003)
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and
political rights. . .
6. P.D. No. 471 (May 24, 1974) Fixing a
Maximum Period for the Duration of Leases of
Private Lands to Aliens
Section 1. The maximum period allowable for
the duration of leases of private lands to aliens
or alien-owned corporations, associations, or
entities not qualified to acquire private lands in
the Philippines shall be twenty-five years,
renewable for another period of twenty-five
years upon mutual agreement of both lessor and
lessee.
2003 BAR
In 1970, Spouses dela Cruz, the Filipinos,
bought a parcel of unregistered land in the
Philippines, on which they built a house which
became their residence. In 1986, they migrated
to Canada and became Canadian citizens.
Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by
the Republic, for the registration of the
aforesaid land in their names. Should the
application of the spouses be granted over the
Republics opposition?
Yes, the application should be granted. As a rule,
the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning private
lands in the Philippines. This rule, however, does
not apply to the spouses Juan and Juana dela Cruz
because at the time they acquired ownership over
the land, albeit imperfect, they were still Filipino
citizens. The application for registration is a mere
confirmation of the imperfect title which the spouses
have already acquired before they became
Canadian citizens. (Republic vs. CA, 235 SCRA 9
567)

Ong vs. Republic,
3/12/2008, G.R. 175746
The law speaks of possession and occupation.
Since these words are separated by the
conjunction and, the clear intention of the law
is not to make one synonymous with the other.
Possession is broader than occupation because
it includes constructive possession. When,
therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it
seeks to delimit the all encompassing effect of
constructive possession. Taken together with
the words Open, Continuous, Exclusive and
Notorious (OCEN), the word occupation serves
to highlight the fact that for an applicant to
qualify, his possession must not be a mere
fiction.
Feliciano vs. Zaldivar
September 26, 2006
Respondents claim that they had been
occupying the subject lot since 1947 openly,
publicly, adversely and continuously or for over
41 years is unavailing. In a long line of cases,
the Court has consistently ruled that lands
covered by a title cannot be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. A claim of
acquisitive prescription is baseless when the
land involved is a registered land.
Appellants claim of acquisitive prescription is
likewise baseless. Under Article 1126 of the Civil
Code, prescription of ownership of lands
registered under the Land Registration Act shall
be governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act
No. 496 provides that no title to registered land
in derogation of that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by adverse possession.
Consequently, proof of possession by the
defendants is both immaterial and
inconsequential.
Vda. de Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals
351 SCRA 12
The owner of the land registered under the
Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription.
2008 BAR
(Prescription)
Anthony bought a piece of untitled
agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn,
acquired the property by forging Carlos
signature in a deed of sale over the property.
Carlo had been in possession of the property
for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes, and
religiously paid all taxes due on the property.
Anthony is not aware of the defect in Berts
title, but has not been in actual physical
possession of the property from the time he
bought it from Bert, who had never been in
possession. Anthony has since then been in
possession of the property for one year.
Can Anthony acquire ownership of the
property by acquisitive prescription? How
many more years does he have to possess it
to acquire ownership?
Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of the
property thru acquisitive prescription. In the
present case, Anthony is a buyer/possessor in
good faith because he was not aware of the
defect on Berts title. As such, Anthony can
acquire ownership and other real rights over
immovable property through open, continuous
possession of ten years. Anthony needs nine
years of possession in addition to his one year of
possession in good faith.
(Accretion)
The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are
neighbors, lie along the banks of Marikina
River. At certain times of the year, the river
would swell and as the water recedes, soil,
rocks and other materials are deposited on
Jessicas and Jennys properties. This
pattern of the river swelling, receding and
depositing soil and other materials being
deposited on the neighbors properties have
gone on for many years. Knowing this
pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete
barrier about 2 meters from her property line
and extending towards the river, so that when
the water recedes, soil and other materials
are trapped within this barrier. After several
years, the area between Jessicas property
line to the concrete barrier was completely
filled with soil, effectively increasing
Jessicas property by 2 meters. Jennys
10
 property, where no barrier was constructed,
also increased by one meter along the side of
the river.
If Jessicas and Jennys properties are
registered, will the benefit of such
registration extend to the increased of their
properties?
If the properties of Jessica and Jenny are
registered, the benefit of such registration does
not extend to the increased area of their
properties. Accretion does not automatically
become registered land because there is a
specific technical description of the lot in its
Torrens title. There must be a separate
application for registration of the alluvial deposits
under the Torrens system. (Grande vs. CA, G.R.
L-17652)
(b) Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title
or Incomplete Title
(Sec. 48[b] of the Public Land Act)
(Sec. 14[1] of P.D. No. 1529)
P.D. 1529 [Registered Lands] versus C.A. 141
[Unregistered Lands]: Under P.D. 1529, there
already exists a title which the court need only
confirm while the Public Land Act [C.A. 141]
works under the presumption that the land
applied for still pertains to the State, and the
occupants and possessors merely claim an
interest in the land by virtue of their imperfect
title or continuous, open and notorious
possession thereof. (Limcoma Multipurpose
Cooperative vs. Republic 527 SCRA 233)
Requisites for an Application for Registration
under this Rule
(1) The applicant must be a Filipino citizen
(2) He must have, by himself or through his
predecessors-in-interest, possessed and
occupied an alienable and disposable
agricultural portion of the public domain;
(3) Such possession and occupation must
have been open, continuous, exclusive,
notorious and in the concept of owner,
since June 12, 1945; and
(4) The application must be filed with the
proper court.
Re: Disqualification of private corporations
or associations from acquiring alienable
lands of the public domain
Article XII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution: xxx
Private corporations or associations may not
hold such alienable lands of the public domain
except by lease, for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than
twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the
Philippines may lease not more than five
hundred hectares, or acquire not more than
twelve hectares thereof, by purchase,
homestead, or grant.
Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court and Acme Plywood and Veneer Co.
G.R. No. 73002
Where at the time the corporation acquired the
land, its predecessors-in-interest had been in
possession and occupation thereof in the
manner and for the period prescribed by law as
to entitle him to registration in his name, then the
proscription against corporations acquiring
alienable lands of the public domain except
through lease does not apply for the land was no
longer public land but private property.
Canete vs. Genuino Ice Comp.,
542 SCRA 206, 1/22/2008
One who acquires land under the Friar Lands
Act, as well as his successors-in-interest may
not claim successional rights to purchase by
reason of occupation from the time immemorial,
as this contravenes the historical fact that friar
lands were bought by the Government of the
Philippine Islands, pursuant to Act of Congress
of the United States, approved on July 1, 1902,
not from the individual persons but from certain
companies, a society and a religious order.
Reckoning time when land has been declared as
alienable and disposable for purposes of
complying with Sec. 48[b] of the Public Land Act
11
 Did the enactment of the Property
Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D.
No. 1073 preclude the application for
registration of alienable lands of the public
domain, possession over which commenced
only after June 12, 1945?
No. Even if the possession of alienable lands of
the public domain commenced only after 12 June
1945, application for registration of said property
is still possible by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the
Property Registration Decree which speaks of
prescription.
. . . It is well-settled that properties classified as
alienable and disposable land may be converted
into private property by reason of open,
continuous and exclusive possession of at least
30 years. Such property now falls within the
contemplation of private lands under Section
14(2), over which title by prescription can be
acquired. Hence, because of Section 14(2) of
P.D. 1529, those who are in possession of
alienable and disposable land, and whose
possession has been characterized as open,
continuous and exclusive for 30 years or more,
may have the right to register their title to such
land despite the fact that their possession of the
land commenced only after 12 June 1945.
(Buenaventura vs. Republic 517 SCRA 271;
Limcoma Multipurpose Cooperative vs. Republic
527 SCRA 233)
Republic vs. Naguit
January 17, 2005
The more reasonable interpretation of Section
14(1) is that it merely requires the property
sought to be registered as already alienable and
disposable at the time the 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 in 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, as it is in
this case, then there is already an intention on
the part of the State to abdicate its exclusive
prerogative over the property.
Republic vs. Herbieto
May 26, 2005
Sec. 48(b) of the Public Land Act, as amended,
now requires adverse possession of the land
since 12 June 1945 or earlier. In the present
Petition, the subject lots became alienable and
disposable only on 25 June 1963.
Espiritu, Jr. v. Republic
G.R. No.. 219070, June 21, 2017
In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic of the
Philippines, 33 the Court explained that when
Section 14 (2) of P.D. No. 1529 provides that
persons "who have acquired ownership over
private lands by prescription under the
provisions of existing laws," it unmistakably
refers to the Civil Code as a valid basis for the
registration of lands.
For registration under this provision to prosper,
the applicant must establish the following
requisites: (a) the land is an alienable and
disposable, and patrimonial property of the
public domain; (b) the applicant and its
predecessors-in-interest have been in
possession of the land for at least 10 years, in
good faith and with just title, or for at least 30
years, regardless of good faith or just title; and
(c) the land had already been converted to or
declared as patrimonial property of the State at
the beginning of the said 10-year or 30-year
period of possession.
As regards the first and most important requisite,
the Court has ruled that declaration of
alienability and disposability is not enough for
the registration of land under Section 14 (2) of
P.D. No. 1529. There must be an express
declaration that the public dominion property is
no longer intended for public service or the
development of the national wealth or that the
property has been converted into patrimonial
property. This is only logical because acquisitive
prescription could only run against private
properties, which include patrimonial properties
of the State, but never against public properties.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Heirs of
Carag
G.R. 155450, August 6, 2008
When the land registration court issued a
decision for the issuance of a decree which was
12
the basis of an original certificate of title to the
land, the court had already made a
determination that the land was agricultural and
that the applicant had proven that he was in
open and exclusive possession of the subject
land for the prescribed number of years.
However, Section 8 provides that lands which
are already private lands, as well as lands on
which a private claim may be made under any
law, are not covered by the classification
requirement in Section 8 for purposes of
disposition. This exclusion in Section 8
recognizes that during the Spanish regime,
Crown lands were per se alienable unless
falling under timber or mineral zones, or
otherwise reserved for some public purpose in
accordance with law.
Clearly, with respect to lands excluded from the
classification requirement in Section 8, trial
courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate these lands
to private parties. Petitioner has not alleged that
the disputed portion had not become private
property prior to the enactment of Act No. 2874.
Neither has petitioner alleged that the disputed
portion was not land on which a private right
may be claimed under any existing law at that
time.
Leonardo-De Castro vs. Mayor Jose Yap
G.R. No. 167707, Oct. 8, 2008
Except for lands already covered by existing
titles, Boracay was an unclassified land of the
public domain prior to Proclamation No. 1064.
Such unclassified lands are considered public
forest under P.D. No. 705.
If we accept the position of private claimants, the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and Act No. 926 would
have automatically made all lands in the
Philippines, except those already classified as
timber or mineral land, alienable and disposable
lands. That would take these lands out of State
ownership and worse, would be utterly
inconsistent with and totally repugnant to the
long-entrenched Regalian doctrine.
Non-Registrable Properties
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Republic,
543 SCRA 453 Feb. 4, 2008;
A certificate of title is void when it covers
property of public domain classified as forest or
timber or mineral land; any title issued covering
non-disposable lots even in the hands of an
alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be
cancelled.
Republic v. Espinosa
G..R. No. 186603, April 5, 2017
The Regalian doctrine is well-enshrined not only
in the present Constitution, but also in the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions. The Court has always
recognized and upheld the Regalian doctrine as
the basic foundation of the State's property
regime. Nevertheless, in applying this doctrine,
we must not lose sight of the fact that in every
claim or right by the Government against one of
its citizens, the paramount considerations of
fairness and due process must be observed.
Respondent in this case failed to show that the
subject lot is part of timberland or forest reserve
it adverted to. In the face of the uncontroverted
status of Free Patent No. 473408 and OCT No..
0-6667 as valid and regular issuances,
respondent's insistence on the classification of
the lot as part of the forest reserve must be
rejected.
The rules of admissibility must be applied
uniformly. The same rule holds true when the
Government is one of the parties. The
Government, when it comes to court to litigate
with one of its citizens, must submit to the rules
of procedure and its rights and privileges at
every stage of the proceedings are substantially
in every respect the same as those of its
citizens; it cannot have a superior advantage.
This is so because when a [sovereign] submits
itself to the jurisdiction of the court and
participates therein, its claims and rights are
justiciable by every other principle and rule
applicable to the claims and rights of the private
parties under similar circumstances. Failure to
abide by the rules on admissibility renders the
L.C. Map submitted by respondent inadmissible
as proof to show that the subject lot is part of the
forest reserve.
2007 BAR Question
Bedrock Land & Property Development Corp.
is a development company engaged in
developing and selling subdivisions,
condominium units and industrial estates. In
order to replenish its inventories, it
embarked on an aggressive land banking
13
program. It employed scouts who roam all
over the Philippines to look for and conduct
investigations on prospective sites for
acquisition and development, whether
developed, semi-developed, or raw land. The
management of Bedrock asks you as the
company counsel to prepare a manual
containing a summary of the pertinent laws
and regulations relating to land registration
and acquisition of title to land. The manual
should include the following items:
Supply this information.
(b) What properties are not registrable?
With respect to land banking program of
Bedrock, the following properties may not be
registered under the Torrens System with any
Register of Deeds: (a) inalienable lands of the
public domain; and (b) those prohibited under
the Constitution (such as national parks, mineral
lands, forest or timber lands and agricultural
lands not classified as alienable and
disposable).
Take note of the distinction of the two Chavez
cases. Both involved the sale of reclaimed
lands to private corporations. In the first Chavez
case, the sale was nullified while in the latter
Chavez case, the sale was upheld
Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority
July 9, 2002
The ownership of lands reclaimed from
foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the
Regalian doctrine which holds that the State
owns all lands and waters of the public domain. .
. . Foreshore lands became inalienable as
natural resources of the State, unless reclaimed
by the government and classified as agricultural
lands of the public domain. . . These lands
remained sui generis, as the only alienable or
disposable lands of the public domain the
government could not sell to private parties.
Since then and until now, the only way the
government can sell to private parties
government reclaimed lands of the public
domain is for the legislature to pass a law
authorizing such sale.
xxx
The reclaimed lands being sold or leased by
PEA are not private lands, in the same manner
that DENR, when it disposes of private lands but
alienable lands of the public domain. Only when
qualified private parties acquire these lands will
the lands become private lands. In the hands of
the government agency tasked and authorized
to dispose of alienable lands of the public
domain, these lands are still public, not private
lands.
Chavez vs. National Housing Authority
August 15, 2007
NHA is a government agency not tasked to
dispose of public lands under its charterThe
Revised Administrative Code of 1987. The NHA
is an end-user agency authorized by law to
administer and dispose of reclaimed lands. The
moment titles over reclaimed lands based on the
special patents are transferred to the NHA by
the Register of Deeds, they are automatically
converted to patrimonial properties of the State
which can be sold to Filipino citizens and private
corporations, 60% of which are owned by
Filipinos. The reason is obvious: if the
reclaimed land is not converted to patrimonial
land once transferred to NHA, then it would be
useless to transfer it to the NHA since it cannot
legally transfer or alienate lands of public
domain. More importantly, it cannot attain its
avowed purposes and goals since it can only
transfer patrimonial lands to qualified
beneficiaries and prospective buyers to raise
funds for the SMDRP.
From the foregoing considerations, we
find that the 79-hectare reclaimed land has been
declared alienable and disposable land of the
public domain; and in the hands of NHA, it has
been reclassified as patrimonial property.
Certificate of Alienability
DENR Secretary vs. Yap,
G.R. 167707, 10/8/2008
The Executive Department, thru the President,
has the exclusive prerogative to classify or
reclassify public lands into alienable or
disposable, mineral or forest. Since 1919,
courts no longer had the authority, whether
express or implied, to determine the
classification of lands of the public domain.
14
 Republic vs. Mendoza,
519 SCRA 203
It cannot be gainsaid that the prerogative of
classifying public lands pertains to administrative
agencies which have been specially tasked by
statues to do so and that the courts will not
interfere on matters which are addressed to the
sound discretion of government and/or quasi-
judicial agencies entrusted with the regulation of
activities coming under their special technical
knowledge and training. It should be stressed
that the function of administering and disposing
of lands of the public domain in the manner
prescribed by law is not entrusted to the courts
but to executive officials. And as such, courts
should refrain from looking into the underlying
reasons or grounds which impelled the
classification and declaration . . . and its
subsequent release as alienable and disposable
land.
Republic vs. Sarmiento,
418 SCRA 250, 3/13/2007
Reliance on the notation of surveyor-geodetic
engineer that this survey is inside the alienable
and disposable area to prove that the lot is
alienable is insufficient and does not constitute
controvertible evidence to overcome the
presumption that it remains part of the
inalienable public domain.
Xxx
Reliance on the notation of surveyor-geodetic
engineer that this survey is inside the alienable
and disposable area to prove that the lot is
alienable is insufficient and does not constitute
controvertible evidence to overcome the
presumption that it remains part of the
inalienable public domain.
(c) Ordinary Registration Proceedings
Publication; Opposition; Default
Heirs of Regalado vs, Republic
516 SCRA 38
If what is sought to be registered are sublots of a
bigger lot, the publication must contain the
technical descriptions of the smaller lots since
the adjoining owners of the mother lot are not
the adjoining owners of the smaller lots.
Specific Evidence of Ownership
Recto vs. Republic
440 SCRA 79
The belated declaration of the lot for tax
purposes does not necessarily mean that
possession by the previous owners thereof did
not commence in 1945 or earlier. As long as the
testimony supporting possession for the required
period is credible, the court will grant the petition
for registration.
xxx
A duly certified blue print copy of the tracing
cloth with the technical description is sufficient
compliance and the submission of the survey
plan on tracing cloth may be dispensed with.
Azana vs. Lumbo
518 SCRA 707
Non-declaration of property for tax purposes
does not necessarily negate ownership.
Republic vs. Barandiaran
538 SCRA 1
It is settled that tax receipts and declarations of
ownership for tax purposes are not
incontrovertible evidence of ownership; they only
become evidence of ownership acquired by
prescription when accompanied by proof of
actual possession of the property.
Republic vs, Sta, Ana Burgos 523 SCRA 309;
Buenaventura vs. Republic 517 SCRA 271
As a rule, tax declarations or realty tax
payments of property are not conclusive
evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indicia of possession in the concept of
owner, for no one in his right mind would be
paying taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or constructive possession. They
constitute at least proof that the holder has a
claim of title over the property. The voluntary
declaration of a piece of property for taxation
purposes manifests not only ones sincere and
honest desire to obtain title to the property and
announces his adverse claim against the State
15
and all other interested parties, but also the
intention to contribute needed revenues to the
Government. Such an act strengthens ones
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.
Hearing; Judgment; Decree of Registration
Republic vs, San Lorenzo
513 SCRA 294
The duty and the power to set the hearing date
lie with the land registration court. After an
applicant has filed his application, the law
requires the issuance of a court order setting the
initial hearing date. The notice of initial hearing
is a court document. The notice of initial hearing
is a court document. The notice of initial hearing
is signed by the judge and copy of the notice is
mailed by the clerk of court to the LRA. This
involves a process to which the party applicant
absolutely has no participation. x x x
Respondent should not be faulted if the initial
hearing that was conducted on September 23,
1995 was outside the 90-day period set forth
under Sec. 23 of P.D. 1529, and (b) that
respondent might have substantially complied
with the requirement thereunder relating to the
registration of the subject land.
When an adjacent owner did not appear in the
hearing of the application for registration of
land due to actual or extrinsic fraud by the
applicant, and a decision granting a portion
of the adjacent owners land to the applicant
became final, what are the adjacent owners
remedies?
A: As the case involves actual and extrinsic
fraud, his remedy is a petition for relief under
Rule 38, provided that no decree has yet been
issued by the Land Registration Authority. If a
Decree has been issued, the remedy would be a
petition for review under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529.
The requisites for a petition for review are: (a) a
person/owner is deprived of ownership of a land;
(b) deprivation is through extrinsic fraud; (c) that
the petition for review is filed within one year
from the issuance of the decree of registration
and; (d) there is no innocent purchaser for value.
If one year has elapsed, then an action for
reconveyance is the proper remedy. The
requisites for an action for reconveyance are: (a)
a person/owner is deprived of ownership of a
land; (b) deprivation is through extrinsic fraud;
and (c) there is no innocent purchaser for value.
Factor vs. Mariel, Jr.
G.R. 161037, 2/4/2008
A writ of possession may be issued only
pursuant to a decree of registration in original
land registration proceedings not only against
the person who has been defeated in a
registration case but also against anyone
adversely occupying the land or any portion
thereof during the proceedings up to the
issuance of the decree.
Republic vs. Nillas
512 SCRA 286, 1/23/2007
The peculiar procedure provided in the Property
Registration Law from the time decisions in land
registration case became final is complete in
itself and does not need to be filled in the
judgment does not have to be executed by
motion or enforced by action within the purview
of Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ting vs. Heirs of Lirio
518 SCRA 336
16

There is no provision in the Land Registration
Act xxx regarding the execution of a judgment in
a civil action, except the proceedings to place
the winner in possession by virtue of a writ of
possession. The decision in a land registration
case, unless the adverse or losing party is in
possession, becomes final without any further
action, upon the expiration of the period for
perfecting an appeal.
xxx [t]he provision in the Rules of Court to the
effect that judgment may be enforced within 5
years by motion, and after 5 years but within 10
years, by an action (Sec. 6, Rule 39) xxx refers
to civil actions and is not applicable to special
proceedings, such as a land registration case.
This is so because a party in a civil action must
immediately enforce a judgment that is secured
as against the adverse party, and his failure to
act to enforce the same within a reasonable time
as provided in the Rules makes the decision
unenforceable against the losing party. In
special proceedings, the purpose is to establish
a status, condition or fact; in land registration
proceedings, the ownership by a person of a
parcel of land is sought to be established. After
the ownership has been proved and confirmed
by judicial declaration, no further proceeding to
enforce said ownership is necessary, except
when the adverse or losing party had been in
possession of the land and the winning party
desires to oust him therefrom.
Heirs of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy
528 SCRA 522
A previous final and executory judgment
awarding the lot in favor of a party bars the
losing party from later filing an application for
registration of title covering the same lot.
Jurisdiction of Cadastral Courts
The power to dispose of the lands placed under
the administration of the Philippine Homesite
and Housing Corporation [PHHC] is lodged in
said body. There is no provision of law
authorizing courts to review decisions of
respondent PHHC and to take cognizance of
actions to annul awards of sale of any other
action made by it pursuant to the authority
granted it by law, unless a prayer for
nullification of title is in the Complaint.
Manotok Realty, Inc. vs.
CLT Realty Development. Corp.
G.R. No. 123346, Dec. 14, 2007
Such jurisdiction is limited to the necessary
correction of technical errors in the description of
the lands, provided such corrections do not
impair the substantial rights of the registered
owner, and that such jurisdiction cannot operate
to deprive a registered owner of his title. (Id. at
561) It was further clarified in Timbol v. Diaz (44
Phil 587 (1923)) that the limited jurisdiction of
the cadastral court over such lands even
extends to the determination of which one of
the several conflicting registered titles shall
prevail[, as such] power would seem to be
necessary for a complete settlement of the title
to the land, the express purpose of cadastral
proceedings, and must therefore be considered
to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such
proceedings.
When an Original Certificate of Title takes effect
The original certificate of title is issued on the
date the decree of registration is transcribed.
What stands as the certificate of title is the
transcript of the decree or registration made by
the registrar of deeds in the registry. (Manotok
Realty vs. CLT Realty)
Entry of the Decree versus
Entry of the Certificate of Title
Entry of the Decree is made by the chief clerk of
the land registration and the entry of the
certificate of title is made by the register of
deeds. A certificate of title is issued in
pursuance of the decree of registration. What is
actually issued by the Register of Deeds is the
certificate of title itself, not the decree of
registration, as he is precisely the recipient from
the land registration office of the decree for
transcription to the certificate as well as the
transcriber no less. It is only after the
transcription of the decree by the register of
deeds that the certificate of title is to take effect.
Situation: Given that what is acknowledged as
the authentic OCT No. 994 indicates that it was
received for transcription by the Register of
Deeds on 3 May 1917, it is that date that is the
date of registration since that was when he was
able to transcribe the decree in the registration
book. (Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty)
17

III. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Key Concepts of the Torrens System
(a) Best Evidence of Ownership
A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best evidence
of ownership of the land described therein. (Lee
Tek Sheng vs. CA 292 SCRA 544)
(b) Constructive Notice
A Torrens title binds the whole world. (People
vs. Reyes 175 SCRA 597)
The issuance of a torrens certificate of title is
constructive notice to the whole world that the
person in whose name it is issued has become
the owner of the lot described therein. (Borbe vs.
Calalo 535 SCRA 89)
No one can plead ignorance of the registration.
(Jacob vs. CA 224 SCRA 189)
(c) Curtain Principle
Unregistered Claims
A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered
on the title. (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. (Id.)
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. (Secs. 44 and 46, P.D. 1529)
(d) Indefeasibility
A Torrens certificate of title serves as evidence
of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of
the person whose name appears therein.
(Ortegas vs. Hidalgo 198 SCRA 635)
Title to the property covered by a Torrens
certificate becomes incontrovertible or
indefeasible after one year from the entry of the
decree of registration. (Heirs of Santiago vs.
Heirs of Santiago 404 SCRA 193)
A certificate of title cannot be defeated by
adverse, open and notorious possession by third
persons. (DOro Land Realty & Devt Corp. vs.
Claunan 516 SCRA 681)
(e) Imprescriptible
No title to registered land in derogation of the
title of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Rivera vs.
Court of Appeals 244 SCRA 218)
The Spouses Supapo (as holders of the TCT)
enjoy a panoply of benefits under the Torrens
system. The most essential insofar as the
present case is concerned is Section 47 of PD
No. 1529 which states:
Section 47. Registered land not
subject to prescriptions. No title
to registered land in derogation of
the title of the registered owner
shall be acquired by prescription
or adverse possession.
In addition to the imprescriptibility, the person
who holds a Torrens Title over a land is also
entitled to the possession thereof. The right to
possess and occupy the land is an attribute and
a logical consequence of ownership. Corollary to
this rule is the right of the holder of the Torrens
Title to eject any person illegally occupying their
property. Again, this right is imprescriptible.
In Bishop v. CA, we held that even if it be
supposed that the holders of the Torrens Title
were aware of the other persons' occupation of
the property, regardless of the length of that
possession, the lawful owners have a right to
demand the return of their property at any time
as long as the possession was unauthorized or
merely tolerated, if at all. (Supapo v. Spouses
De Jesus, G.R. No. 198356, [April 20, 2015])
(f) Integrity of Titles
Insurance Principle
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
18
determine the condition of the property. Stated
differently, an innocent purchaser for value,
relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected.
(Nazareno vs. Court of Appeals 343 SCRA 637)
(g) Not Subject to Collateral Attack
A certificate of title shall not be the subject to
collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified
or cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in
accordance with law. (Vda. de Retuerto vs. Barz
372 SCRA 712)
(h) Fraudulent Registration
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. (Philippine Commercial &
Industrial Bank vs. Villalva 48 SCRA 31)
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. (Caro vs. CA 180 SCRA 401)
(i) Forgery
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. (Reyes vs. Borbon
50 Phil. 791)
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. (Traders
Royal Bank vs. CA 315 SCRA 190)
As between two persons, both of 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. (Torres vs.
Court of Appeals 186 SCRA 672)
(k) Presumption: Regular and Valid
A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued
regularly and legally, unless contradicted and
overcomed by clear, convincing, strong and
irrefutable proof. More than merely
preponderant evidence is required. (Ramos vs.
Rodriguez 244 SCRA 418)
(l) Double Titles
Where two certificates of title include the same
land, the certificate of title that is earlier in date
prevails. (Garcia vs. CA 95 SCRA 380)
(m) Priority of Rights
Prior tempura potior jure. He who is first in
time is preferred in right. (Santiago vs. CA 186
SCRA 672)
(n) Reliance on the Title
Mirror Principle (1999, 2005 BAR)
. . .[u]nder the Torrens System of Registration,
the minimum requirement for one to be a good
faith buyer for value is that the vendee at least
sees the owner's duplicate copy of the title and
relies upon the same. The private respondent,
presumably knowledgeable on the aforesaid
workings of the Torrens System, did not take
heed of this and nevertheless went through with
the sale with undue haste. The unexplained
eagerness of INC to buy this valuable piece of
land in Quezon City without even being
presented with the owner's copy of the titles
casts very serious doubt on the rightfulness of
its position as vendee in the transaction. (Islamic
Directorate of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 117897, May 14, 1997)
An innocent purchaser for value has every right
to rely on the correctness of the title. 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. (Nazareno vs. Court of
Appeals 343 SCRA 637).
When a person deals with registered land
through someone who is not the registered
owner, he is expected to look behind the
19
certificate of title and examine all the factual
circumstances, in order to determine if the
vendor has the capacity to transfer of any
interest in the land. (Chua vs. Soriano 521
SCRA 68, 4/13/2007)
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 denominated an
innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in
good faith. (Domingo vs. Roces 401 SCRA 197)
Under the Torrens system of land registration,
the registered owner of realty cannot be
deprived of her property through fraud, unless a
transferee acquires the property as an innocent
purchaser for value. A transferee who acquires
the property covered by a reissued owner's copy
of the certificate of title without taking the
ordinary precautions of honest persons in doing
business and examining the records of the
proper Registry of Deeds, or who fails to pay the
full market value of the property is not
considered an innocent purchaser for value.
(Spouses Cusi v. Domingo, G.R. No. 195825,
195871, [February 27, 2013], 705 PHIL 255-
273)
(o) Titles derived from a void title
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. This truism is
in accord with the Latin maxim Nemo potest
plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse habet.
No one can transfer a greater right to another
than he himself has. (Mathay vs. Court of
Appeals 295 SCRA 556)
IV. REMEDIES
Tapuroc vs. Vda. de Mende
512 SCRA 97, 1/22/2007
Invoking the invalidity of an original certificate of
title as an affirmative defense in an answer and
the prayer for the declaration of its nullity is a
collateral attack on a certificate of title is not
allowed.
Vda. de Recinto vs. Inciong
77 SCRA 196
The mere possession of a certificate of title
under the Torrens system does not necessarily
make the possessor a true owner of all the
property described therein for he does not by
virtue of said certificate alone become the owner
of the land illegally included. It is evident from
the records that the petitioner owns the portion
in question and therefore the area should be
conveyed to her. The remedy of the land owner
whose property has been wrongfully or
erroneously registered in anothers name is,
after one year from the date of the decree, not to
set aside the decree, but, respecting the decree
as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court
of justice for reconveyance or, if the property
has passed into the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value, for damages.
Remedies Available to the Losing Party in a
Registration Case
(1) Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
under Rule 37 of the Rules of Court
(2) Petition for Relief from Judgment under
Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
(3) Appeal to the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court, in the same manner as
in ordinary actions
Remedies under the Property Registration
Decree available to the aggrieved party in
cases of fraudulent registration
(1) Petition for review of Decree (Sec. 32)
(2) Action for Reconveyance (Secs. 53 and
96)
(3) Action for Damages (Section 32)
(4) Claim against the Assurance Fund (Sec.
95)
Other Remedies Available
(1) Action for cancellation or reversion
instituted by the government through
the Solicitor General (Sec. 101 of the
Public Land Act)
20
(2) Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47,
Rules of Court)
(3) Criminal Prosecution under the RPC
2003 BAR
Louie, before leaving the country to train as a
chef in a five-star hotel in New York, USA,
entrusted to his firstdegree cousin Dewey
an application for registration, under the
Land Registration Act, of a parcel of land
located in Bacolod City. A year later, Louie
returned to the Philippines and discovered
that Dewey registered the land and obtained
an Original Certificate of Title over the
property in his name. Compounding the
matter, Dewey sold the land to Huey, an
innocent purchaser for value. Louie promptly
filed an action for reconveyance of the parcel
of land against Huey. Is the action pursued
by Louie the proper remedy?
An action for reconveyance against Huey is not
the proper remedy, because Huey is an innocent
purchaser for value. The proper recourse is for
Louie to go after Dewey for damages by reason
of the fraudulent registration and subsequent
sale of the land. If Dewey is insolvent, Louie
may file a claim against the Assurance Fund.
(Heirs of Lopez vs. De Castro 324 SCRA 591
[2000])
Petition for Review
Heirs of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy
528 SCRA 522
When the petition for review of decree is filed
after the expiration of one (1) year from the
issuance of the decree of registration, the
certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears thereon. The
certificate of title that was issued attained the
status of indefeasibility one year after its
issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat
title previously issued by subsequently filing an
application for registration.
Ingusan vs. Heirs of Reyes
513 SCRA 315
When an original certificate of title is secured
fraudulently and in breach of trust, a direct
attack on the title is a petition for review of
decree of registration.
Reconveyance
Heirs of Labanon vs. Heirs of Labanon
530 SCRA 97, 8/14/2007
P.D. 1529 does not totally deprive a party of any
remedy to recover the property fraudulently
registered in the name of another. It merely
precludes the reopening of the registration
proceedings for titles covered under the Torrens
system, but does not foreclose other remedies
for the reconveyance of the property to its
rightful owner.
Heirs of Dumaliang vs. Serban
516 SCRA 343
The real owner has the right to sue for
reconveyance (an action in personam) of a
property. The action is imperscriptible if the land
wrongfully registered is still in the name of the
person who caused the registration.
Gasataya vs. Mabasa 2/16/ 2007
Reconveyance is available not only to the legal
owner of a property but also to the person with a
better right than the person under whose name
said property was erroneously registered.
Antonio vs. Santos
538 SCRA 1
Note should be taken of the established doctrine
that an action for reconveyance resulting from
fraud prescribes four (4) years from the
discovery of the fraud. Such discovery is
deemed to have taken place upon the issuance
of the certificate of title over the property.
Registration of real property is considered
constructive notice to all persons, thus, the four-
year period shall be counted therefrom.
Pedrano vs. Heirs of Pedrano
21
 Dec. 4, 2007
An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of
land based on implied or constructive trust, as
we have already explained in this case,
prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference
being the date of registration of the deed or the
date of the issuance of the certificate of title of
the property; however, where no OCT has yet
been issued despite an order from the court to
title the lots, the date from whence the
prescriptive period could be reckoned is
unknown and it could not be determined if
indeed the period had already lapsed or not.
Reconciling the above-cases:
. . . the action for reconveyance prescribes in
four years involved causes of action all accruing
prior to the effectivity of the new Civil Code.
Before August 30, 1950, the old Code of Civil
Procedure (Act No. 190) governed prescription.
It provided in Section 43 thereof that civil actions
other than for the recovery of real properly can
only be brought within the following period after
the right of action accrues: Within four years: . .
.An action for relief on the ground of fraud, but
the right of action in such case shall not be
deemed to have accrued until the discovery of
the fraud. In contrast, under the present Civil
Code, just as an implied or constructive trust is
an offspring of the law (Art. 1456, Civil Code), so
is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the
property and the title thereto in favor of the true
owner. In this context, and vis--vis
prescription, Article 1144 of the Civil Code is
applicable, i.e., that an action upon an obligation
created by law must be brought within ten years
from the time the right of action accrues.
(Amerol vs. Bagumbayan) Consequently
An action for reconveyance based on an implied
or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in
ten years and not otherwise. xxx It must be
stressed, at this juncture, that Article 1144 and
Article 1456, are new provisions. They have no
counterparts in the old Civil Code or in the old
Code of Civil Procedure, the latter being then
resorted to as legal basis of the four-year
prescriptive period for an action for
reconveyance of title of real property acquired
under false pretenses. (Sanjorjo vs. Quijano)
Heirs of Bituin vs. Caoleng, Sr.
August 10, 2007
An action for reconveyance prescribes in ten
years, the reckoning point of which is the date of
registration of the deed or the date of issuance
of the certificate of title over the property. If the
person claiming to be the owner of the property
is in actual possession thereof, the right is to
seek reconveyance which in effect seeks to
quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.
Republic vs. Nillas
512 SCRA 286
If the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property,
remains in possession of the property, the
prescriptive period to recover title and
possession of the property does not run against
him in such case, an action for reconveyance,
if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a
suit for quieting of title, an action that is
imprescriptible
Reversion
Estate of the late Yujuico vs. Republic
537 SCRA 513
Effective 1 July 1997, any action for reversion of
public land instituted by the Government was
already covered by Rule 47 and the same
should be filed with the Court of Appeals, not the
Regional Trial Court.
Actions of Reversion versus
Actions for Declaration of Nullity
of Free Patents and Certificates of Title
The distinction between ordinary civil actions for
declaration of nullity of free patents and
certificates of title from actions of reversion lies in
the allegation as to the character of ownership of
the realty whose title is sought to be nullified.
(Banguilian vs. Court of Appeals, 4/27/2007)
Laches
DOro Land Realty & Development
Corporation vs. Claunan 516 SCRA 681
A squatter has no right of possession that may
be prejudiced by his eviction. Unless there are
intervening rights of third persons which may be
22
affected or prejudiced by a decision ordering the
return of lots to the registered owner, the
equitable defense of laches will not apply as
against the latter.
Although a registered owner may lose his right
to recover possession of his registered property
be reason of laches, the equitable defense is
unavailing to one who has not shown any color
of title to the property such as a squatter.
Feliciano vs. Zaldivar
September 26, 2006
As registered owners of the lots in question, the
private respondents have a right to eject any
person illegally occupying their property. This
right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed
that they were aware of the petitioners
occupation of the property, and regardless of the
length of that possession, the lawful owners
have a right to demand the return of their
property at any time as long as the possession
was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.
This right is never barred by laches.
1998 BAR
In 1965, Renren brought from Robyn a parcel
of registered land evidenced by a duly
executed deed of sale. The owner presented
the deed of sale and the owners certificate
of title to the Register of Deeds. The entry
was made in the day book and
corresponding fees were paid as evidenced
by official receipt. However, no transfer of
certificate of title was issued to Renren
because the original certificate of title in
Robyns name was temporarily misplaced
after fire partly gutted the Office of the
Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had
been possessed by Robyns distant cousin,
Mikaelo, openly, adversely and continuously
in the concept of an owner since 1960. It
was only in April 1998 that Renren sued
Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo
invoked a.) acquisitive prescription and b.)
laches, asking that he be declared owner of
the land. Decide the case by evaluating
these defenses.
a.) Renrens action to recover possession of the
land will prosper. In 1965, after buying the land
from Robyn, he submitted the Deed of Sale to
the Registry of Deeds for registration together
with the owners duplicate copy of the title and
paid the corresponding registration fees. Under
Sec. 56 of P.D. No. 1529, the Deed of Sale to
Renren is considered registered from the time
the sale was entered in the Primary Entry Book.
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is
considered the registered owner of the land.
After all, it was not his fault that the Registry of
Deeds could not issue the corresponding
certificate of title.
Mikaelos defense of prescription cannot be
sustained. A Torrens title is imprescriptible. No
title to registered land in derogation of the title of
the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. (Sec. 47,
P.D. 1529)
The right to recover possession of registered
land likewise does not prescribe because
possession is just a necessary incident of
ownership.
b.) Mikaelos defense of laches, however,
appears to be more sustainable. Renren bought
the land and had the sale registered way back in
1965. From the facts, it appears that it was only
in 1998 or after an inexplicable delay of 33 years
that he took the first step asserting his right to
the land. It was not even an action to recover
ownership but only possession of the land. By
ordinary standards, 33 years of neglect or
inaction is too long and may be considered
unreasonable. As often held by the Supreme
Court, the principle of imprescriptibility
sometimes has to yield to the equitable principle
of laches, which can convert even a registered
owners claim into a stale demand.
Mikaelos claim of laches, however, is weak
insofar as the element of equity is concerned,
there being no showing in the facts how he
entered into ownership and possession of the
land.
V. SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
(i.) Voluntary Dealings
Registration Requirements
(a) Compliance with the essential
requisites of a contract
23
(b) Observapnce of the formal
requirements of public instruments
(c) Performance of the jurisdictional
requisites for registration
(d) In addition, special laws require the
submission of supporting documents
for certain transactions before
registration is allowed
DBP vs. RD of Nueva Ecija 162 SCRA 450,
Autocorp. Group vs. CA, Sept. 4, 2004
Entry alone produces the effect of registration.
Ballesteros vs. Abion, Feb. 9, 2006
The Primary Entry of a Void Contract does not
produce the effect of registration.
Sps. Abrigo vs. de Vera, 6/21/2004
Registration must be done in the proper registry
in order to bind the land.
Santos vs. Lumbao,
519 SCRA 408
The failure of a contracting party to have a
document registered does not affect its validity
and enforceability as between the contracting
parties for registration serves chiefly to bind third
persons not parties to a contract that a
transaction involving the property has been
entered into.
2002 BAR
In 1948, Windas husband sold in favor of
Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde) a 10-
hectare property belonging to their conjugal
partnership, without Windas knowledge,
much less consent. In 1950, Winda learned
of the sale, after her husbands demise.
Upon completion of the construction in 1952,
she tried but failed to get the membership
privileges in Verde.
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the
annulment of the sale on the ground that she
did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde
contends that, in accordance with the
Spanish Civil Code which was then in force,
the sale did not need her concurrence.
Verde contends that in any case, the action
has prescribed or is barred by laches. Winda
rejoins that her Torrens title covering the
property is indefeasible and imprescriptible.
Decide the case.
Windas claim is not tenable. The rule of
indefeasibility of a Torrens Title means that after
one year from the date of issue of the decree of
registration, or if the land has fallen into the
hands of a purchaser for value, the title
becomes incontestable and incontrovertible.
Imprescriptibility, on the other hand, means that
no title to the land in derogation of that of the
registered owner may be acquired by adverse
possession or acquisitive prescription or that the
registered owner does not lose by extinctive
prescription his right to recover ownership and
possession of the land.
The action in this case is for annulment of the
sale executed by the husband over a conjugal
partnership property covered by a Torrens title.
Actions on contracts are subject to prescription.
Sale
Types of Pricing Agreement
(In Sales involving Real Estate)
Unit Price Contract purchase price is
determined by way of reference to a stated rate
per unit area
Lump Sum Contract full purchase price is
stated for an immovable, the area of which may
be declared based on an estimate or where both
the area and boundaries are stated (Esguerra
vs. Trinidad 518 SCRA 186 3/12/2007)
RE: Sales of Real Property
TO BE ENFORCEABLE:
ART. 1358, NCC xxx [s]ales of real property or
of an interest therein are governed by Articles
1403, No. 2 and 1405. Xxx
Art. 1403 (2) xxx In the following cases,
an agreement hereafter made shall be
unenforceable by action, unless the same,
or some note or memorandum thereof be in
writing, and subscribed by the party charged,
or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the
agreement cannot be received without the
24
 writing, or a secondary evidence of its
contents xxx
TO BE REGISTRABLE
ART. 1358, NCC - The following must appear in
a public document:
(1) Acts and contract which have for their
object the creation, transmission,
modification or extinguishment of real rights
over immovable property xxx
SEC. 112, P.D. 1529 Deeds, conveyances,
encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney
and other voluntary instruments, whether
affecting registered or unregistered land,
executed in accordance with law in the form of
public instruments shall be registrable: Provided,
that, every such instrument shall be signed by
the person or persons executing the same in the
presence of at least two witnesses who shall
likewise sign thereon, and shall be
acknowledged to be the free act and edeed of
the person or persons executing the same
before a notary public or other public officer
authorized by law to take acknowledgment. xxx
TO COMPEL PERFORMANCE
ART. 1357, NCC If the law requires a
document or other special form, the contracting
parties may compel each other to observe that
form, once the contract has been perfected.
This right may be exercised simultaneously with
the action upon the contract.
MIRROR PRINCIPLE: Where there is nothing
on the certificate of title to indicate cloud or vice
in ownership or encumbrance, the purchaser is
not required to explore further than the Torrens
title.
Sy vs. Capistrano, Jr.
G.R. No. 154450, July 28, 2008
Notable likewise is that the owners duplicate
copy of TCT No. 76496 in the name of
Capistrano had always been in his possession
since he gave Scott only a photocopy thereof
pursuant to the latters authority to look for a
buyer of the property. On the other hand, the
Jamilars were able to acquire a new owners
duplicate copy thereof by filing an affidavit of
loss and a petition for the issuance of another
owners duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496. The
minimum requirement of a good faith buyer is
that the vendee of the real property should at
least see the owners duplicate copy of the title.
A person who deals with registered land through
someone who is not the registered owner is
expected to look beyond the certificate of title
and examine all the factual circumstances
thereof in order to determine if the vendor has
the capacity to transfer any interest in the land.
Caveat Emptor Principle:
(How to conduct Due Diligence
Verification of title)
1. Verify the origin, history, authenticity and
validity of the title with the Register of Deeds
and Land Registration Authority
2. Engage the services of a competent and
reliable geodetic engineer to verify the
boundary, metes and bounds of the lot subject
of said title based on the technical description in
the said title and the approved survey plan in the
Land Management Bureau
3. Conduct an actual ocular inspection
4. Inquire from the owners and possessors of
adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal
ownership of the lot in question
5. Put up signs that said lot is being purchased,
leased or encumbered
6. Undertake such other measures to make the
general public aware that said lot will be subject
to alienation, lease or encumbrance by the
parties (Domingo Realty Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, Jan. 26, 2007)
Domingo vs. Roces
401 SCRA 197
One who deals with property registered under
the Torrens system need not go beyond the
same, but only has to rely on the title. He is
charged with notice only of such burdens and
claims as are annotated on the title.
Buyer in Good Faith
To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and
titled land need only show that he relied on the
face of the title to the property. He need not
prove that he made further inquiry for he is not
25
obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the
title. Such degree of proof of good faith,
however, is sufficient only when the following
conditions concur: first, the seller is the
registered owner of the land; second, the latter
is in possession thereof; and third, at the time of
the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim
or interest of some other person in the property,
or of any defect or restriction in the title of the
seller or in his capacity to convey title to the
property. (Gabutan v. Nacalaban, G.R. Nos.
185857-58 & 194314-15, [June 29, 2016])
2008 BAR
Juliet offered to sell her house and lot to
Dehlma. Before agreeing to purchase the
property, Dehlma went to the Register of
Deeds to verify Juliets title. She discovered
that while the property was registered in
Juliets name under the Land Registration
Act, as amended by P.D. No. 1529, it was
mortgaged to Elaine to secure a debt of
P=80,000.00. Wanting to buy the property,
Dehlma told Juliet to redeem the property
from Elaine, and gave her an advance
payment to be used for purposes of
releasing the mortgage on the property.
When the mortgage was released, Juliet
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the
property which was duly registered with the
Registry of Deeds, and a new TCT was
issued in Dehlmas name. Dehlma
immediately took possession over the house
and lot and the movables therein.
Thereafter, Dehlma went to the Assessors
Office to get a new tax declaration under her
name. She was surprised to find out that the
property was already declared for tax
purposes in the name of XYZ Bank which
had foreclosed the mortgage on the property
before it was sold to her. XYZ Bank was also
the purchaser in the foreclosure sale of the
property. At that time, the property was still
unregistered but XYZ Bank registered the
Sheriffs Deed of Conveyance in the day
book of the Register of Deeds under Act
3344 and obtained a tax declaration in its
name.
Was Dehlma a purchaser in good faith?
Yes, Dehlma is a purchaser in good faith.
Before Dehlma brought the property, she went
to the Register of Deeds to verify Juliets title.
When she discovered that the property was
mortgaged to Elaine, she gave an advance
payment so that Juliet could release the
mortgage. It was only after the mortgage was
released and free from the claims of other
persons that Dehlma bought the property. Thus,
she is a purchaser in goo
d faith. (Mathay vs. C.A., G.R. No. 115788)
Who as between Dehlma and XYZ Bank has a
better right to the house and lot?
Between Dehlma and XYZ Bank, Dehlma has a
better right to the house and lot. After the
release of the mortgage, the Deed of Absolute
Sale was registered and a new title was issued
in Dehlmas name. Act 3344 is applicable
exclusively to instruments resulting from
agreement of parties thereto and does not apply
to deeds of a sheriff conveying to a purchaser
unregistered lands sold to him under execution.
(Williams vs. Suner, 49 Phil 534)
Pascual vs. Coronel
527 SCRA 474
A registered owner with title has a better right to
possess the land as opposed to a vendee with
an unregistered sale.
Barstowe vs. Republic
519 SCRA 148
The Republic may not go after innocent
purchasers of lots of a subdivision owner (who is
guilty of securing titles fraudulently) who looked
into TCTs of developer and found nothing to
raise doubts as to their validity and authenticity.
Antonio vs. Santos
538 SCRA 1
When two certificates of title are issued to
different persons covering the same land in
whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail;
and in case of successive registrations where
more than one certificate is issued over the
same land, the person holding a prior certificate
is entitled to the land as against a person who
relies on a subsequent certificate.
Amodia Vda. de Melencion vs.
Court of Appeals 534 SCRA 62
The registration under the Art. 1544 of the New
Civil Code refers to registration under the
torrens system which considers the act of
registration as the operative act that gives
26
validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the
land. If a parcel of land is registered under the
Land Registration Act and has a torrens
certificate of title and is sold and the sale is
registered not under Land Registration Act but
under Act 3344, such sale is not considered
registered as the term is used under Article 1544
of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land
does not convert the land into unregistered land.
Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.
533 SCRA 351
Knowledge gained by first buyer of second sale
cannot defeat first buyers rights, except where
the second buyer registers in good faith the
second sale ahead of the first. It is essential to
merit the protection of Art. 1544 of the New Civil
Code that the second realty buyer must act in
good faith in registering his deed of sale.
Tanglao vs. Parungao
535 SCRA 123
Indefeasibility of title does not extend to
transferees who take the certificate of title in bad
faith.
xxx
The act of registration by the second buyer must
be coupled with good faith and no knowledge of
any defect or lack of title of the vendor or that he
is not aware of facts which should put him upon
inquiry and investigation as must be necessary
to acquaint him with defects in the title.
2001 BAR
On 12 June 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of
registered land to Jaime. On 30 June 1995,
he sold the same land to Jose. Who has a
better right if:
(a) The first sale is registered ahead of the
second sale, with knowledge of the
latter. Why?
(b) The second sale is registered ahead of
the first sale, with knowledge of the
latter. Why?
(a) The first buyer has the better right if his sale
was first to be registered, even though the first
buyer knew of the second sale. The fact that he
knew of the second sale at the time of his
registration does not make him as acting in bad
faith because the sale to him was ahead in time,
hence, has a priority in right. What creates bad
faith in the case of double sale of land is
knowledge of a previous sale.
(b) The first buyer is still to be preferred, where
the second sale is registered ahead of the first
sale but with knowledge of the latter. This is
because the second buyer, who at the time he
registered his sale knew that the property had
already been sold to someone else, acted in bad
faith.
Real Estate Mortgage
Requisites:
1. Constituted to secure the fulfillment of a
principal obligation.
2. The mortgagor is the absolute owner of the
thing mortgaged.
3. The persons constituting the mortgage have
the free disposal of their property, and in the
absence thereof, that they be legally authorized
for the purpose. (Art. 2085, NCC)
How Foreclosed:
1. JUDICIAL Foreclosure governed by Rule
68 of the Rules of Court
2. EXTRAJUDICIAL governed by Act 3135,
as amended by Act 411
Bank of Commerce vs. Sps. Flores
GR No. 174006, December 8, 2010
27
A mortgage given to secure advancements is a
continuing security and is not discharged by
repayment of the amount named in the
mortgage until the full amounts of the
advancements are paid. Respondents full
payment of the loans annotated on the title of
the property shall not effect the release of the
mortgage because, by the express terms of the
mortgage, it was meant to secure all future
debts of the spouses and such debts had been
obtained and remain unpaid. Unless full
payment is made by the spouses of all the
amounts that they have incurred from petitioner
bank, the property is burdened by the mortgage.
Erea vs. Querrer-Kauffman
492 SCRA 298, 6/22/2006
The doctrine of mortgagee in good faith
presupposes that the mortgagor who is not the
rightful owner of the property, has already
succeeded in obtaining a Torrens title over the
property in his name and that, after obtaining the
said title, he succeeds in mortgaging the
property to another who relies on what appears
on the said title. It does not apply to a situation
where the title is still in the name of the rightful
owner and the mortgagor is a different person
pretending to be the owner.
2001 BAR
Cesar bought a residential condominium unit
from High Rise Co. and paid the price in full.
He moved into the unit, but somehow he was
not given the Condominium Certificate of
Title covering the property. Unknown to him,
High Rise Co. subsequently mortgaged the
entire condominium building to Metrobank
as security for a loan of P500 million. High
Rise Co. failed to pay the loan and the bank
foreclosed the mortgage. At the foreclosure
sale, the bank acquired the building, being
the highest bidder. When Cesar learned
about this, he filed an action to annul the
foreclosure sale insofar as his unit was
concerned. The bank put up the defense that
it relied on the condominium certificates of
title presented by High Rise Co., which were
clean. Hence, it was a mortgagee and buyer
in good faith. Is this defense tenable or not?
Metrobanks defense is untenable. As a rule, an
innocent purchaser for value acquires a good
and clean title to the property. However, it is
settled that one who closes his eyes to facts that
should put a reasonable man on guard is not an
innocent purchaser for value. In the present
problem, the bank is expected as a matter of
standard operating procedure, to have
conducted an ocular inspection of the premises
before granting any loan. Apparently,
Metrobank did not follow this procedure,
otherwise, it should have discovered that the
condominium unit in question was occupied by
Cesar and that fact should have led it to make
further inquiry. Under the circumstances,
Metrobank cannot be considered a mortgagee
and buyer in good faith.
Heirs of Espiritu vs. Landrito
520 SCRA 385
Registration of a foreclosure sale (where debtors
were not given opportunity to settle their debt at
the correct amount without iniquitous interest)
cannot transfer any rights over mortgaged
property even after the expiration of 1 year
from registration of sale.
San Fernando Rural Bank Inc. vs. Pampanga
Omnibus Devt Corp.
April 4, 2007, 520 SCRA 566
The ministerial duty of the RTC to issue a writ of
possession does not become discretionary
simply because the Register of Deeds had
elevated in consulta to the Land Registration
Authority the question whether the Torrens title
should be issued in favor of a buyer whose
Affidavit of Consolidation was registered in the
RD, or in favor of the assignee of mortgage who
claimed to have redeemed the property.
(ii) Involuntary Dealings
Adverse Claim
Essential Requisites
i. The claimant must have an interest in the
land adverse to the registered owner
ii. The right or interest must arise subsequent
to the original registration of the land
iii. The registration of such interest or right is
not otherwise provided by P.D. 1529
iv. The claim must be in writing, signed and
sworn to by the adverse claimant, and must
comply with formal requirements
28
An attorneys lien may be annotated on the
delinquent clients title only after it has become
judicially settled and the execution thereof
ordered by the court. Where the interest of a
lawyer by way of attorneys fees consists of a
share in the property recovered by the client,
such interest may be the basis of an adverse
claim.
Sajonas vs. CA
258 SCRA 79
Cancellation of an adverse claim is still
necessary even after the lapse of thirty days to
render it ineffective.
Rodriguez vs. CA
495 SCRA 490 7/20/2006
The annotation of an adverse claim is a
measure designated to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property where the
registration of such interest or right is not
otherwise provided by the Land Registration Act,
and such serves as a notice and warning to third
parties dealing with said property that someone
is claiming an interest on the same or better
right than the registered owner thereof.
1998 BAR
Sec. 70 of P.D. 1529, concerning adverse
claims on registered land, provides a 30-day
period of effectivity of an adverse claim,
counted from the date of its registration.
Suppose a notice of adverse claim based
upon a contract to sell was registered on
March 1, 1997 at the instance of the BUYER,
but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of the
30-day period, a notice of levy on execution
in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR was also
registered to enforce a final judgment for
money against the registered owner. Then,
on June 15, 1997 there having been no
formal cancellation of his notice of adverse
claim, the BUYER pays to the seller-owner
the agreed purchase price in full and
registers the corresponding deed of sale.
Because the annotation of the notice of levy
is carried over to the new title in his name,
the BUYER brings an action against the
JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such
annotation, but the latter claims that his lien
is superior because it was annotated after
the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso
facto ceased to be effective. Will the suit
prosper?
The suit will prosper. While an adverse claim
duly annotated at the back of the title under Sec.
70 of P.D. 1529 is good only for 30 days,
cancellation thereof is still necessary to render it
ineffective. Otherwise, the inscription thereon
will remain annotated as a lien on the property.
While the life of the adverse claim is 30 days
under P.D. 1529, it continues to be effective until
it is cancelled by formal petition filed with the
court.
The cancellation of the notice of levy is justified
under Section 108 of P.D. 1529, considering that
the levy on execution cannot be enforced
against the buyer whose adverse claim against
the registered owner was recorded ahead of the
notice of levy on execution.
Lis Pendens
Requisites of a Valid Lis Pendens
i. There must be an action or proceeding
affecting the title of real property on the
possession thereof
ii. The court must have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the property
iii. That the property is sufficiently described in
the complaint
2001 BAR
Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for
P1 million payable in five (5) equal
installments. The sale was registered and
title was issued in Carmens name. Carmen
failed to pay the last 3 installments and Mario
filed an action for collection, damages and
attorneys fees against her. Upon filing of
the complaint, he caused a notice of lis
pendens to be annotated on Carmens title.
Is the notice of lis pendens proper or not?
Why?
The notice of lis pendens is not proper for the
reason that the case filed by Mario against
Carmen is only for collection, damages and
attorneys fee.
Annotation of lis pendens can only be done in
cases involving recovery of possession of real
property, or to quiet title or to remove cloud
29
thereon, or for partition or any other proceeding
affecting title to the land or the use or occupation
thereof. The action filed by Mario does not fall
on any one of these.
Viewmaster Construction Corp.
vs. Maulit 326 SCRA 490, 7/20/2006
It is an announcement to the whole world that a
particular real property is in litigation and serves
as a warning that one who acquires an interest
therein does so at his own risk, or that he
gambles on the result of the litigation over said
property.
Generally a notice of Lis Pendens covers
actions pending before the regular courts
however, cases involving real property pending
before administrative agencies such as the
HLURB, SEC and the DARAB which are
endowed with quasi-judicial functions have been
recognized as proper basis for the annotation of
a Lis Pendens.
Availability of lis pendens is not confined to
cases involving the title to or possession of real
property. It applies to suits brought to establish
an equitable estate, interest or right in specific
real property or to enforce any lien, charge or
encumbrance against it.
2002 BAR
Sancho and Pacifico are co-owners of a
parcel of land. Sancho sold the property to
Bart. Pacifico sued Sancho and Bart for
annulment of the sale and reconveyance of
the property based on the fact that the sale
included his one-half pro indiviso share.
Pacifico had a notice of lis pendens
annotated on the title covering the property.
After trial, the court declared Bart the owner
of the property and ordered the cancellation
of the notice of lis pendens. The notice of lis
pendens could not be cancelled immediately
because the title over the property was with
a bank to which the property had been
mortgaged by Bart. Pacifico appealed the
case. While the appeal was pending and
with the notice of lis pendens still
uncancelled, Bart sold the property to
Carlos, who immediately caused the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as
well as the issuance of a new title in his
name.
Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b)
transferee pendente lite?
Carlos is a buyer in bad faith. The notice of lis
pendens was still annotated at the back of the
title at the time he bought the land from Bart.
The uncancelled notice of lis pendens operates
as a constructive notice of its contents as well as
interests, legal or equitable, included therein. All
persons are charged with the knowledge of what
it contains.
In an earlier case, it was held that a notice of an
adverse claim remains effective and binding
notwithstanding the lapse of the 30 days from its
inscription in the registry. This ruling is even
more applicable in a lis pendens.
Carlos is a transferee pendente lite insofar as
Sanchos share in the co-ownership in the land
is concerned because the land was transferred
to him during the pendency of the appeal.
Alternative Answer
Carlos is a purchaser in good faith.
A possessor in good faith has been defined as
one who is unaware that there exists a flaw
which invalidates his acquisition of the thing.
Good faith consists in the possessors belief that
the person from whom he received the thing was
the owner of the same and could convey his
title. In the case in question, while Carlos
bought the subject property from Bart while a
notice of lis pendens was still annotated thereon,
there was also an existing court order cancelling
the same. Hence, Carlos cannot be considered
as being aware of a flaw which invalidates the
acquisition of the thing since the alleged flaw,
the notice of lis pendens was already being
ordered cancelled at the time of the purchase.
On this ground alone, Carlos can already be
considered a buyer in good faith. (Po Lam vs.
Court of Appeals, 347 SCRA 86).
If your answer is (a), how can the right of
Pacifico as co-owner be protected? Explain.
Pacifico can protect his right as a co-owner by
pursuing his appeal, asking the Court of Appeals
to order the re-annotation of the lis pendens on
30
the title of Carlos; and by invoking the right of
redemption of Barts share under Article 1620 of
the New Civil Code.
Alternative Answer
To protect his right over the subject property,
Pacifico should have timely filed an action for
reconveyance and reinstated the notice of lis
pendens.
Levies on Execution
a. Registration of the Levy on Execution
b. Registration of the Certificate on Sale
c. Sheriffs Final Deed of Sale
d. Petition for Issuance of a New Certificate of
Title pursuant to Sec. 75 of P.D. 1529 .(Padilla
vs. Philippine Producers Cooperative, G.R.
141256, July 15, 2005)
Pineda vs. Arcalas
538 SCRA 596
A levy on execution registered takes preference
over a prior unregistered sale a registered lien
is entitled to preferential consideration. An
exception to the preference given to a registered
lien is the case where a party has actual
knowledge of the claimants actual, open,
continuous and notorious possession of the
disputed property at the time the levy or
attachment is registered.
Writ of Attachment
The Court held that a registered writ of
attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is against
a particular property, enforceable against the
whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a
specific lien on the attached property which
nothing can subsequently destroy except the
very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself.
An exception to the preference given to a
registered lien is the case where a party has
actual knowledge of the claimants actual, open,
continuous and notorious possession of the
disputed property at the time the levy or
attachment is registered.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Cayton vs. Zoennix Trading Corp.
G.R. 169541, Oct. 9, 2009
Sps. Scofield secured a mortgage over their
parcel of land in favor of The Bank. Meanwhile,
a levy on attachment was annotated on their
title, in favor of The Trading Company, which
filed a case against the spouses. Thereafter,
Sps. Scofield sold the property to Sps. Burrows
by virtue of a Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage. The latter spouses however failed to
register this Deed because the owners title was
with The Bank. In the meantime, a decision was
rendered in favor of The Trading Company. On
the other hand, Sps. Burrows defaulted in the
payment of the amortization to The Bank, thus
the property was extra-judicially foreclosed and
sold at public auction with Sps. Burrows
emerging as the highest bidder. Thus, Sps.
Burrows filed an action to quiet their title against
The Trading Company contending that by virtue
of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage, all rights, interests and participation
over the property had been transferred by Sps.
Scofield in their favor. Hence, The Trading
Company had no more right of redemption.
DECISION: True, Sps. Burrows are
successors-in-interest of Sps. Scofield.
However their supposed right or title over
the property as evidenced by the Deed of
Absolute Sale is unregistered and as such,
cannot affect third persons. Such Deed shall
not take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land but shall operate only as a contract
between the parties therein and as authority
of the Register of Deeds to register the sale
and transfer title. Registration is the
operative act to convey the land insofar as
third persons are concerned. The
unregistered sale of the house and lot by
Sps. Scofield cannot prejudice the right of
redemption granted by law in favor of The
Trading Company which has a levy on
attachment duly recorded in its favor.
The Trading Company has acquired by
operation of law the right of redemption over
the foreclosed property by virtue of the court
decision in its favor and against the
registered owners, Sps. Scofield. The writ of
attachment entitles the attaching creditor to
exercise the right to redeem the foreclosed
property.
(iii) Common Registration Problems
Cautionary Notice
31
Under the Spanish Mortgage Law, this was a
procedure intended to maintain the right of
priority of the interested party while he goes
about correcting the defect of his document.
The Spanish Mortgage Law as a system of
registration has been discontinued as of June
11, 1978 by Sec. 3 of P.D. 1529.
Opposition Filed By Lawyers
A mere opposition from a lawyer or a third
person who claims an adverse interest in the
property involved in a transaction is not sufficient
to justify the Register of Deeds in denying the
registration of a voluntary instrument. (LRC
Consulta No. 259)
Litigious matters are to be decided, and the
appropriate relief granted, not by the Register of
Deeds, but by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(LRC Consulta No. 57)
Carryover of Encumbrances
Sec. 59 of P.D. 1529 provides: If at the time of
any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or
annotations appear in the registration book, they
shall be carried over and stated in the new
certificate except so far as they may be
simultaneously released or discharged.
Exception: Upon a proper foreclosure of a
prior mortgage, all liens subordinate to the
mortgage are likewise foreclosed, and the
purchaser at public auction acquires the title
free from the subordinate liens. (PNB vs.
ICB 199 SCRA 500)
VI. PATENTS; GOVERNMENT AWARDS
Taguinod vs. Court of Appeals
533 SCRA 403
The rights of a homestead patentee are superior
to that of a tenant under the Agrarian Reform
Law.
Justalero vs. Gonzales
517 SCRA 341
Where the predecessor of a free patent
applicant did not avail of any legal remedy to
assail a decision adverse to him, his successors
are bound thereby.
Heirs of Jugalbot vs. CA
518 SCRA 202, 3/12/2007
The landowner is denied due process where the
Department of Agrarian Reform took the
property without sending notice of the impending
land reform coverage to the proper party.
Tanenglian vs. Lorenzo, 3/28/2008;
Padua vs. CA 517 SCRA 232, 3/2/2007
Acquisition of land through agrarian reform
requires full payment of amortization before a
farmer-beneficiary may be issued a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award or Emancipation Patent
which, in turn, can become the basis for the
issuance in his name of an original or a transfer
certificate of title.
Padua vs. Ca
517 SCRA 232, 3/2/2007
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board [DARAB] Regional Adjudicator oversteps
the boundaries of his jurisdiction when he makes
a declaration that certain properties are
ancestral lands and proceeds to award the same
to the claimants-jurisdiction over the delineation
and recognition of the same is explicitly
conferred on the National Commission on
Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous
People. DARAB acts without jurisdiction in
entertaining a collateral attack on a partys TCT.
2000 BAR
In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a
Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural land
with an area of 30 hectares, located in
General Santos City. He presented the Free
Patent to the Register of Deeds, and he was
issued a corresponding Original Certificate
of Title No. 375. Subsequently, Nestor sold
the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was
submitted to the Register of Deeds and on
the basis thereof, OCT No. 375 was cancelled
32
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4576 was
issued in the name of Eddie. In 1986, the
Director of Lands filed a complaint for
annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No. 4576
on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free
Patent thru fraud. Eddie filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that he was an
innocent purchaser for value and in good
faith and as such, he has acquired a title to
the property which is valid, unassailable and
indefeasible. Decide the motion.
The motion of Nestor to dismiss the complaint
for annulment of OCT No. 375 and TCT No.
4576 should be denied for the following reasons:
1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
innocent purchaser for value nor can he
interpose the defense of indefeasibility of
his title, because his TCT is rooted on a
void title. Under Sec. 91 of C.A. No. 141,
as amended, otherwise known as the
Public Land Act, statements of material
facts in the application for public land must
be under oath. Sec. 91 of the same act
provides that such statements shall be
considered as essential conditions and
parts of the concession, title or permit
issued, any false statement therein, or
omission of facts shall ipso facto produce
the cancellation of the concession. The
patent issued to Nestor in this case is void
ab initio not only because it was obtained
by fraud but also because it covers 30
hectares which is far beyond the maximum
of 24 hectares provided by the free patent
law.
The government can seek annulment of the
original and transfer certificates of title and the
reversion of the land to the state. Eddies
defense is untenable. The protection afforded by
the Torrens System to an innocent purchaser for
value can be availed of only if the land has been
titled thru judicial proceedings where the issue of
fraud becomes academic after the lapse of one
(1) year from the issuance of the decree of
registration. In public land grants, the action of
the government to annul a title fraudulently
obtained does not prescribe such action and will
not be barred by the transfer of the title to an
innocent purchaser for value.
Martinez vs. Court of Appeals
542 SCRA 604, 1/28/2008
A certificate of title issued on the basis of a free
patent procured through fraud or in violation of
the law may be cancelled as such title is not
cloaked with indefeasibility. The principle of
indefeasibility of title is unavailing where fraud
attended the issuance of the free patents and
titles.
Republic Act No. 10023
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTAL LANDS
Section 1. Qualifications. - Any Filipino citizen
who is an actual occupant of a residential land
may apply for a Free Patent Title under this Act:
Provided; That in highly urbanized cities, the
land should not exceed two hundred (200)
square meters; in other cities, it should not
exceed five hundred (500) square meters; in first
class and second class municipalities, it should
not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square
meters; and in all other municipalities, it should
not exceed one thousand (1,000) square
meters; Provided, further, That the land applied
for is not needed for public service and/or public
use.
Section 2. Coverage. - This Act shall cover all
lands that are zoned as residential areas,
including townsites as defined under the Public
Land Act; Provided, That none of the provisions
of Presidential Decree No. 705 shall be violated.
Zoned residential areas located inside a delisted
military reservation or abandoned military camp,
and those of local government units (LGUs) or
townsites which preceded Republic Act No.
7586 or the National Integrated Protected Areas
System (NIPAS) law, shall also be covered by
this Act.
Section 3. Application. - The application on the
land applied for shall be supported by a map
based on an actual survey conducted by a
licensed geodetic engineer and approved by the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) and a technical description
of the land applied for together with supporting
affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons who are
residing in the barangay of the city or
municipality where the land is located, attesting
to the truth of the facts contained in the
application to the effect that the applicant thereof
has, either by himself or through his
predecessor-in-interest, actually resided on and
continuously possessed and occupied, under a
33
 bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the
land applied for at least ten (10) years and has
complied with the requirements prescribed in
Section 1 hereof.
Section 4. Special Patents. - Notwithstanding
any provision of law to the contrary and subject
to private rights, if any, public land actually
occupied and used for public schools, municipal
halls, public plazas or parks and other
government institutions for public use or purpose
may be issued special patents under the name
of the national agency or LGU concerned:
Provided, That all lands titled under this section
shall not be disposed of unless sanctioned by
Congress if owned by the national agency or
sanctioned by the sanggunian concerned
through an approved ordinance if owned by the
LGU.
Section 5. Removal of Restrictions. - The
restrictions regarding encumbrances,
conveyances, transfers or dispositions imposed
in Sections 118, 119,121, 122 and 123 of
Chapter XII, Title VI of Commonwealth Act No.
141 as amended, shall not apply to patents
issued under this Act.
Section 6. Period for Application. - All
applications shall be filed immediately after the
effectivity of this Act before the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) of the DENR. The CENRO is
mandated to process the application within one
hundred and twenty (120) days to include
compliance with the required notices and other
legal requirements, and forward this
recommendation to the Provincial Environment
and Natural Resources Office (PENRO), who
shall have five (5) days to approve or disapprove
the patent. In case of approval, patent shall be
issued; in case of conflicting claims among
different claimants, the parties may seek the
proper judicial remedies.
xxx
VII. PETITIONS AND ACTIONS
AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Surrender of Witheld Duplicate Certificate
(Sec. 107, P.D. 1529)
Toledo Banaga vs. Court of Appeals
January 28, 1999
Petitioners contend that the execution of the
final and executory decision which is to issue
titles in the name of private respondent
cannot be compelled by mandamus because of
the "formality" that the registered owner first
surrenders her duplicate Certificates of Title for
cancellation per Sec. 80 of P.D. No. 1529 bears
no merit. . . To file another action just to compel
the registered owner, herein petitioner Tan, to
surrender her titles constitute violation of, if not
disrespect to, the orders of the highest tribunal.
Otherwise, if execution cannot be had just
because the losing party will not surrender her
titles, the entire proceeding in the courts, not to
say the efforts, expenses and time of the parties,
would be rendered nugatory. It is revolting to
conscience to allow petitioners to further avert
the satisfaction of their obligation because of
sheer literal adherence to technicality, or
formality of surrender of the duplicate titles. The
surrender of the duplicate is implied from the
executory decision since petitioners themselves
were parties thereto. Besides, as part of the
execution process, it is a ministerial function of
the Register of Deeds to comply with the
decision of the court to issue a title and register
a property in the name of a certain person,
especially when the decision had attained
finality, as in this case.
Lanas title is the subject of a subsisting
mortgage, does the order of the court
directing the surrender of the title to Lois
affect the rights of Clark, as mortgagee?
No, because any lien annotated on the certificate
of title, like the existing mortgage, is carried over
to the new transfer certificate of title to whoever it
is issued. The mortgage subsists
notwithstanding a change in ownership; in short,
the personality of the owner is disregarded.
Pursuant to Art. 2126 of the Civil Code, a real
estate mortgage directly and immediately
subjects the property upon which it is imposed,
whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment
of the obligation for whose security it was
constituted. It is inseparable from the property
mortgaged as it is a right in rem, a lien on the
property whoever its owner may be. (Ligon vs.
Court of Appeals)
Amendment and Alteration of Certificates
(Sec. 108, P.D. 1529)
34
 Oliva vs. Republic
April 27, 2007
Since the property in this case was originally
alienable land of the public domain, the
application for free patent contained the
condition that a forty-meter legal easement from
the banks on each side of any river or stream
found on the land shall be demarcated and
preserved as permanent timberland. . .
In this case, the trial court properly took judicial
notice that Talamban, Cebu City is an urban
area. Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain
facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already know them.
A municipal jurisdiction, whether designated as
chartered city or provincial capital, is considered
as urban in its entirety if it has a population
density of at least 1,000 persons per square
kilometer. The City of Cebu was created on
October 20, 1934 under Commonwealth Act No.
58. It is a highly urbanized city classified as
entirely urban. Thus, all its barangays, including
Talamban, are considered urban.
Conformably with the foregoing considerations,
the reduction of the legal easement of forty
meters to three meters now is in order.
Cabaez v. Solano
G.R. No. 200180, [June 6, 2016])
. . . . changes in the citizenship of a person or in
his status from legitimate to illegitimate or from
married to not married are substantial as well as
controversial, which can only be established in
an appropriate adversary proceeding as a
remedy for the adjudication of real and justifiable
controversies involving actual conflict of rights
the final determination of which depends upon
the resolution of issues of nationality, paternity,
filiation or legitimacy of the marital status for
which existing substantive and procedural laws
as well as other rules of court amply provide.
Notice and Replacement of Lost or Destroyed
original of Torrens Title (Sec. 109, P.D. 1529)
Feliciano vs. Zaldivar
September 26, 2006
The CFI which granted respondent Aurelios
petition for the issuance of a new owners
duplicate copy of TCT No. T-8502 did not
acquire jurisdiction to issue such order. It has
been consistently ruled that "when the owners
duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but
is in fact in the possession of another person,
then the reconstituted certificate is void,
because the court that rendered the decision
had no jurisdiction.
xxx
The appellate courts reliance on the joint
affidavit of confirmation of sale purportedly
executed by Remegia and her uncle, Narciso
Labuntog, is not proper. In the first place,
respondent Aurelio cannot rely on the joint
affidavit of confirmation of sale to prove that they
had validly acquired the subject lot because, by
itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring
ownership.
Coombs v. Castaeda
G.R. No. 192353, [March 15, 2017]
In a long line of cases, the Court has held that
the RTC has no jurisdiction when the certificate
sought to be reconstituted was never lost or
destroyed but is in fact in the possession of
another person. In other words, the fact of loss
of the duplicate certificate is jurisdictional.
Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed Titles
(Sec. 110, P.D. 1529)
Where the original copy of the title in the files of
the Register of Deeds is lost or destroyed,
transactions may be accepted for entry and
provisional registration, pending reconstitution of
the original. (LRC Circular No. 3, Dec. 1988)
Republic vs. Versoza
March 28, 2008
It is not the ministerial function of the Register of
Deeds to record a right or an interest that was
not duly noted in the reconstituted certificate of
title the responsibility is lodged by law to the
proper court.
Heirs of Venturanza vs. Republic
528 SCRA 238
A court has no jurisdiction to order the
reconstitution of title over land which was never
registered. . . A land may be considered as not
having been originally registered if there is no
35
decree number, original certificate of title
number or LRC record.
Pascua vs. Republic
February 13, 2008
R.A. 26 presupposes that the property whose
title is sought to be reconstituted has already
been brought under the provisions of the
Torrens System.
Caero vs. University of the Philippines
437 SCRA 630
(citing Alabang Devt Corp vs. Valenzuela)
Upon examination of the subject petition for
reconstitution, the Court notes that some
essential data required in Sec. 12 and 13 of R.A.
26 have been omitted: the nature and
description of the buildings or improvements,
which do not belong to the owner of the land,
and the names and addresses of the owners of
such buildings or improvements, and the names
and addresses of the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, of the owners of the
adjoining properties and of all persons who may
have any interest in the property. Neither do
these data appear in the Notice of Hearing, such
that no adjoining owner, occupant or possessor
was ever served a copy thereof by registered
mail or otherwise.
xxx
[s]aid defects have not invested the Court with
the authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the
case because the manner or mode of obtaining
jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute which is
mandatory has not been strictly followed,
thereby rendering all proceedings utterly null
and void. We hold that the mere Notice that "all
interested parties are hereby cited to appear and
show cause if any they have why said petition
should not be granted" is not sufficient for the
law must be interpreted strictly; it must be
applied rigorously, with exactness and precision.
Republic vs. Sanchez
July 17, 2006
Respondents are correct in saying that the
service of notice of the petition for reconstitution
filed under RA 26 to the occupants of the
property, owners of the adjoining properties, and
all persons who may have any interest in the
property is not required if the petition is based
on the owner's duplicate certificate of title or on
that of the co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's.
..
Reconstitution involving Sections 12 and 13 of
RA 26], notices to adjoining owners and to the
actual occupants of the land are mandatory and
jurisdictional. But in petitions for reconstitution
falling under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 where,
as in the present case, the source is the owner's
duplicate copy, notices to adjoining owners and
to actual occupants of the land are not required.
When the law is clear, the mandate of the courts
is simply to apply it, not to interpret or to
speculate on it.
In sum, RA 26 separates petitions for
reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of
title into two main groups with two different
requirements and procedures. Sources
enumerated in Sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b),
and 4(a) of RA 26 are lumped under one group
(Group A); and sources enumerated in Sections
2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and 3(f) are
placed together under another group (Group B).
For Group A, the requirements for judicial
reconstitution are set forth in Section 10 in
relation to Section 9 of RA 26; while for Group B,
the requirements are in Sections 12 and 13 of
the same law.
Republic v. Lorenzo
G.R. No. 172338, December 10, 2012],
700 PHIL 584-597
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, we had
emphasized in Republic v. Holazo that the term
"any other document" in paragraph (f) refers to
reliable documents of the kind described in the
preceding enumerations and that the documents
referred to in Section 2 (f) may be resorted to
only in the absence of the preceding documents
in the list. Therefore, the party praying for the
reconstitution of a title must show that he had, in
fact, sought to secure such documents and
failed to find them before presentation of "other
documents" as evidence in substitution is
allowed.
36
 Reconstituted Titles:
Extrajudicial -vs- Judicial
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity
and legal effects as to the originals thereof
unless the reconstitution was made
extrajudicially. In contrast to the judicial
reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which is
in rem, the administrative reconstitution is
essentially ex-parte and without notice. The
reconstituted certificates of title do not share the
same indefeasible character of the original
certificates of title for the following reason: The
nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate of
Title of a registered land is similar to that of a
second Owners Duplicate Transfer Certificate of
Title. Both are issued, after the proper
proceedings, on the representation of the
registered owner that the original of the said
TCT, respectively, was lost and could not be
located or found despite diligent efforts exerted
for that purpose. Both, therefore, are
subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A
cursory examination of these subsequent copies
would show that they are not the originals.
Anyone dealing with such copies are put on
notice of such fact and thus warned to be extra
careful. (Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic 519
SCRA 238)
Rep vs Mancao
Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic
519 SCRA 148
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity
and legal effect as the originals thereof unless
the reconstitution was made extrajudicially. In
contrast to the judicial reconstitution of a lost
certificate of title which is in rem, the
administrative reconstitution is essentially ex-
parte and without notice. The reconstituted
certificates of title do not share the same
indefeasible character of the original certificates
of title xxx
Estoppel in Actions for Cancellation of Title
Barstowe Phils. Corp. vs. Republic
519 SCRA 238,
Republic vs. Mendoza 519 SCRA 203
Estoppels against the public are little favored.
They should not be invoked except in rare and
unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked
where they would operate to defeat the effective
operation of a policy adopted to protect the
public. They must be applied with
circumspection and should be applied only in
those special cases where the interests of
justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the
government must not be allowed to deal
dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and
must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby
thing; and subject to limitations . . . the doctrine
of equitable estoppel may be invoked against
public authorities as well as against private
individuals.
It is only fair and reasonable to apply the
equitable principle of estoppel by laches against
the government to avoid an injustice to the
innocent purchasers for value.
Estate of the Late Yujuico vs. Republic
537 SCRA 513
An action to recover lands of the public domain
is imprescriptible. Such right however can be
barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D.
1529 which recognizes the rights of innocent
purchasers for value above the interests of the
government. While it may be true that estoppel
does not operate against the State or its agents,
deviations have been allowed; The Government
must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or
capriciously with its citizens, and must not play
an ignoble part or do a shabby thing; Subject to
its limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel
may be invoked against public authorities as
well as against private individuals. xxx
The doctrine of equitable estoppel may be
invoked against public authorities when the lot is
alienated to innocent purchasers for value and
the government did not undertake any act to
contest the title for an unreasonable length of
time.
VIII. DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LAND
Applicable Provision
Section 113, P.D. 1529
37
Recording of Instruments relating to
unregistered lands. No deed, conveyance,
mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument
affecting land not registered under the Torrens
system shall be valid, except as between the
parties thereto, unless such instrument affecting
land not registered under the Torrens system
shall be valid, except as between the parties
thereto, unless such instrument shall have been
recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies.
(a) The Register of Deeds for each province or
city shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a
Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book
shall contain, among other particulars, the entry
number, the names of the parties, the nature of
the document, the date, hour and minute it was
presented and received. The recording of the
deed and other instruments relating to
unregistered lands shall be effected by any of
annotation on the space provided therefor in the
Registration Book, after the same shall have
been entered in the Primary Entry Book.
(b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears
that it is sufficient in law, the Register of Deeds
shall forthwith record the instrument in the
manner provided herein. In case the Register of
Deeds refuses its administration to record, said
official shall advise the party in interest in writing
of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and the
latter may appeal the matter to the
Commissioner of Land Registration in
accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of
this Decree. It shall be understood that any
recording made under this section shall be
without prejudice to a third party with a better
right/
(c) After recording on the Record Book, the
Register of Deeds shall endorse among other
things, upon the original of the recorded
instruments, the file number and the date as well
as the hour and minute when the document was
received for recording as shown in the Primary
Entry Book, returning to the registrant or person
in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with
appropriate annotation, certifying that he has
recorded the instrument after reserving one copy
thereof to be furnished the provincial or city
assessor as required by existing law.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis
pendens, adverse claim and other instruments in
the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to
unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient
in law, shall likewise be admissible to record
under this section.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the
Register of Deeds under this section, he shall
collect the same amount of fees prescribed for
similar services for the registration of deeds or
instruments concerning registered lands.
IX. REGISTRATION OF CHATTEL
MORTGAGES
Chattel Mortgage vis--vis Pledge
By a chattel mortgage, personal property is
recorded in the Chattel Mortgage Register as a
security for the performance of the obligation. If
the movable, instead of being recorded, is
delivered to the creditor or a third person, the
contract is a pledge and not a chattel mortgage.
Chattel Mortgage vis--vis Revised Motor
Vehicles Law
The Revised Motor Vehicles Law is a special
legislation enacted to amend and compile the
laws relative to motor vehicles whereas the
Chattel Mortgage Law is a general law covering
mortgages of all kinds of personal property.
The mortgage of any motor vehicle in order to
affect third persons should not only be
registered in the Chattel Mortgage Registry, but
the same should also be recorded in the Motor
Vehicles Office. The failure of the mortgagee to
report the mortgage executed in his favor has
the effect of making said mortgage ineffective
against a purchaser in good faith who registers
his purchase in the Motor Vehicles Office. The
recording provisions of the Revised Motor
Vehicles Law are merely complementary to
those of the Chattel Mortgage Law. Thus, as
between a chattel mortgagee, whose mortgage
is not recorded in the Motor Vehicles Office, and
an innocent purchaser for value of a car who
registers the car in his name, the latter is entitled
to preference.
2003 BAR
X constructed a house on a lot which he was
leasing from Y. Later, X executed a chattel
mortgage over said house in favor of Z as
38
security for a loan obtained from the latter.
Still later, X acquired ownership of the land
where his house was constructed, after
which he mortgaged both house and land in
favor of a bank, which mortgage was
annotated on the Torrens Certificate of Title.
When X failed to pay his loan to the bank, the
latter, being the highest bidder at the
foreclosure sale, foreclosed the mortgage
and acquired Xs house and lot. Learning of
the proceedings conducted by the bank, Z is
now demanding that the bank reconvey to
him Xs house or pay Xs loan to him plus
interests. Is Zs demand against the bank
valid and sustainable? Why?
Suggested Answer
No, Zs demand is not valid. A building is
immovable or real property whether it is erected
by the owner of the land, by a usufructuary, or
by a lessee. It may be treated as a movable by
the parties to a chattel mortgage but such is
binding only between them and not on third
parties. (Evangelista vs. Alto Surety Co., Inc.
103 Phil 401). In this case, since the bank is not
a party to the chattel mortgage, it is not bound
by it. As far as the bank is concerned, the
chattel mortgage does not exist. Moreover, the
chattel mortgage is void because it was not
registered. Assuming that it is valid, it does not
bind the Bank because it was not annotated on
the title of the land mortgaged to the bank. Z
cannot demand that the Bank pay him the loan Z
extended to X, because the Bank was not privy
to such loan transaction.
Another Suggested Answer
No, Zs demand against the bank is not valid.
His demand that the bank reconvey to him Xs
house presupposes that he has a real right over
the house. All that Z has is a personal right
against X for damages for breach of the contract
of loan.
The treatment of a house, even if built on rented
land, as movable property is void insofar as third
persons, such as the bank, are concerned. On
the other hand, the Bank already had a real right
over the house and lot when the mortgage was
annotated at the back of the Torrens Title. The
bank later became the owner in the foreclosure
sale.
Z cannot ask the bank to pay for Xs loan plus
interest. There is no privity of contract between
Z and the bank.
Alternative Answer
The answer hinges on whether or not the bank
is an innocent mortgagee in good faith or a
mortgagee in bad faith. In the former case, Zs
demand is not valid. In the latter case, Zs
demand against the bank is valid and
sustainable.
Under the Torrens system of land registration,
every person dealing with registered land may
rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
and the law will not in any way oblige him to look
behind or beyond the certificate in order to
determine the condition of the title. He is not
bound by anything not annotated or reflected in
the certificate. If he proceeds to buy the land or
accept it as a collateral relying on the certificate,
he is considered a buyer or a mortgagee in good
faith. On this ground, the Bank acquires a clean
title to the land and the house.
However, a bank is not an ordinary mortgagee.
Unlike private individuals, a bank is expected to
exercise greater care and prudence in its
dealings. The ascertainment of the condition of
a property offered as collateral for a loan must
be a standard and indispensable part of its
operation. The bank should have conducted
further inquiry regarding the house standing on
the land considering that it was already standing
there before X acquired title to the land. The
bank cannot be considered as a mortgagee in
good faith. On this ground, Zs demand against
the Bank is valid and sustainable.
X. CONSULTA
It is clear that the afore-quoted procedure
applies only when the instrument is already
presented for registration and: (1) the Register
of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper
step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
instrument presented to him for registration; or
(2) where any party in interest does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of Deeds
with reference to any such instrument; and (3)
when the registration is denied. None of these
situations is present in this case. (St. Mary of the
Woods School, Inc. vs. Office of the Registry of
39
Deeds, G.R. No. 174290, Jan. 20, 2009/St. Mary
of the Woods School, Inc. vs. Office of the
Registry of Deeds, G.R. No. 176116, Jan. 20,
2009)
XI. P.D. 957, Subdivision and Condominium
Protective Buyers Decree and
R.A. No. 4726, Condominium Act
Jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (Sec. 1, P.D. No. 1344)
(a) unsound real estate practices
(b) claims involving refund any other
claims filed by a subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the
project owner, developer, dealer,
broker or salesman
(c) cases involving specific performance of
contractual and statutory obligations
filed by buyers of subdivision lot or
condominium units, against the owner,
etc.
Summary of cases or actions over which the
HLURB has jurisdiction
(a) For a determination of the rights of
parties under a contract to sell a
subdivision lot
(b) For the delivery of title against the
subdivision owner
(c) For the refund of reservation fees for
the purchase of a subdivision lot
(d) For specific performance filed by a lot
buyer against the seller of a
subdivision lot
(e) For the annulment of the mortgage
constituted by the project owner
without the buyers consent, the
mortgage foreclosure sale and the
condominium certificate of title issued
to the highest bidder at the said
foreclosure sale
(f) For the collection of the balance of the
unpaid purchase price of a subdivision
lot filed by the developer of a
subdivision against the lot buyer; and
(g) For incidental claims for damages.
(Fajardo vs. Bautista, May 10, 1994)
(h) Between homeowners association and
their members (R.A. 8763)
2005 BAR
Don was the owner of an agricultural land
with no access to a public road. He had
been passing through the land of Ernie with
the latters acquiescence for over 20 years.
Subsequently, Don subdivided his property
into 20 residential lots and sold them to
different persons. Ernie blocked the
pathway and refused to let the buyers pass
through his land.
a) What are the rights of the lot buyers,
if any? Explain.
The lot buyers have the right to:
1) ask for a constitution of legal easement of
right of way;
2) require Don to provide for a right of way.
Under Sec. 29 of PD 957, the owner or
developer of a subdivision without access
to any existing road must secure a right of
way;
3) formally complain to the HLURB regarding
Dons failure to comply with PD 957
specifically,
i. failure to provide a right of way
ii. failure to convert the land from
agricultural to residential under agrarian
law
iii. failure to secure a license to sell
4.) commence criminal prosecution for violation
of the penal provisions of PD 957, Sec. 39.
Dulos Realty and Development Corp. vs.
Court of Appeals, Nov. 28, 2001
Where plaintiffs seek the specific performance of
alleged contractual and statutory obligations of
the defendant, e.g. the execution of contracts of
sale in favor of the plaintiffs and the introduction
in the disputed property of the facilities required
by subdivision laws, exclusive jurisdiction over
the case rests with the HLURB and not the RTC.
Realty Exchange Venture Corp.
vs. Sendino, G.R. No. 109703;
HLURB possesses adjudicatory powers which
include the power to hear and decide cases of
unsound real estate business practices and
cases of specific performance. In the exercise
of its powers and functions, the HLURB must
determine must interpret and apply contracts,
determine the rights of the parties under these
40
contracts and award damages whenever
appropriate.
Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals
Nov. 17, 2004, G.R. No. 148333
It should be stressed however, that, only when
there is a showing that the property subject of
the controversy is a subdivision lot or
condominium that the exercise of adjudicative
authority of the HLURB comes into play.
xxx
The mere relationship between the parties, i.e.,
that of being subdivision owner/developer and
subdivision lot buyer, does not automatically
vest jurisdiction in the HLURB. For the action to
fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
HLURB, the decisive element is the nature of
the action as enumerated in Section 1 of P.D.
No. 1344.
2009 BAR
The Ifugao Arms is a condominium project in
Baguio City. A strong earthquake occurred which
left huge cracks in the outer walls of the building.
As a result, a number of condominium units were
rendered unfit for use. May Edwin, owner of one
of the condominium units affected, legally sue for
partition by sale of the whole project? Explain.
(4%)
Yes. Under Section 8 of the Condominium Law;
When several persons own condominiums in a
condominium project, an action maybe brought
by one or more such persons for partition by sale
of the entire project as if the owners of all the
condominiums in such project were co-owners of
the entire project in the same proportion as their
interests in the common areas, provided that the
damage to the project has rendered 1/2 or more
of the units untenantable and that the condo
owners holding in aggregate more than 50%
interest in the common areas are opposed to the
repair or restoration of the project.
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:
Kakilla vs. Faraon
October 18, 2004
What is plain is that the parties are acting only
as ordinary sellers and buyers of a specific lot, a
portion of a big tract of land co-owned by certain
heirs. Neither are there undertakings specified
in the contract that respondents shall develop
the land, like providing for the subdivision
concrete roads and sidewalks, street lights,
curbs and gutters, underground drainage
system, independent water system, landscaping,
developed park and 24-hour security guard
service. Even the rights and obligations of the
sellers and buyers of a subdivision lot are not
provided in the agreement. All these provisions
are usually contained in a standard contract
involving a sale of a subdivision lot. Moreover,
although the receipts of payment delivered to
petitioners by respondents bear the name
Faraon Village Subdivision, the same does not
automatically convert the ordinary and isolated
sale of real property into a sale of subdivision
lot. Clearly the HLURB has no jurisdiction over
the case.
Multinational Village Homeowners
Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Oct. 17, 1991
The Association has admitted in its answer to
the complaint of the Corporation that the latter is
the owner of the disputed road. The Association
insists however, that the said road forms part of
the Village and is reserved for the exclusive use
of the residents. Such a submission surely
cannot have the effect of transferring the
controversy to the HLURB as the complaint is
not among the cases subject to its exclusive
jurisdiction under Section 1 of P.D. 957, as
amended. The matter is clearly resoluble by the
courts of justice under the provisions of the Civil
Code.
2005 BAR
Bernie bought on installment a residential
subdivision lot from DEVLAND. After having
faithfully paid the installment for 48 months,
Bernie discovered that DEVLAND had failed
to develop the subdivision in accordance
with the approved plans and specifications
within the time frame in the plan. He thus
wrote a letter to DEVLAND informing it that
he was stopping payment. Consequently,
DEVLAND cancelled the sale and wrote
41
Bernie, informing him that his payments are
forfeited in its favor.

a.) Was the action of DEVLAND proper?

Explain.

Assuming that the land is a residential

subdivision project under P.D. No. 957,
DEVLANDs action is not proper because under
Section 23 of said Decree, no installment
payment shall be forfeited to the owner or
developer when the buyer, after due notice,
desists from further payment due to the failure of
the owner-developer to develop the subdivision
according to the approved plans and within the
time limit for complying with the same.

b.) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the

circumstances.

Under the same section of the Decree, Bernie

may, at his option, be reimbursed the total
amount paid including amortization interests but
excluding delinquency interests at the legal rate.
He may also ask the HLURB to apply penal
sanctions against DEVLAND consisting of
payment of administrative fine of not more than
P20,000.00 and/or imprisonment for not more
than 20 years.

c.) Supposing DEVLAND had fully

developed the subdivision but Bernie failed
to pay further installments after 4 years due
to business reverses. Discuss the rights and
obligations of the parties.

Under R.A. No. 6552 (Maceda Law), DEVLAND

has the right to cancel the contract but it has to
refund Bernie the cash surrender value of the
payments on the property equivalent to 50% of
the total payments made.

Bernie has the right to pay, without additional

interest, the unpaid installments within the grace
period granted him by R.A. 6552 equivalent to
one-month for every year of installment
payments, or four months in this case. After the
lapse of four months, DEVLAND cancel the
contract after thirty days from and after Bernie
receives a notice of cancellation or demand for
rescission of the contract by notarial act (Sec. 4,
R.A. 6552). Bernie also has the right to sell or
assign his rights before the cancellation of the
contract (Sec. 5).

42