Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC.

69 TO 92
(1) CAVILES v. BAUTISTA The Court has repeatedly held that in involuntary registration, such as an attachment, entry thereof in the daybook or entry book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. FACTS: Caviles filed a case against Plata for the recovery of a sum of money. The complaint contained an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment over Platas property. The CFI issued the writ of attachment prayed for by Caviles and so the Notice of Attachment was entered in the Primary Entry Book on October 6, 1982, but was not annotated on the TCT. On October 18, 1982, Plata sold the property to Bautista, free from encumbrance. From then on, the respondents have taken over and resided in the property. Caviles, on the other hand, remained ignorant that the property had been sold and a new title was issued to Bautista. Several years later, after obtaining a favorable judgment in the Civil Case against Plata, Caviles attempted execution. The Certificate of Sale was entered in the Day Book but when its inscription was sought to be made, it was discovered that Platas certificate had been cancelled and a new one was issued to Bautista. ISSUE: Which interest will prevail, that of Caviles (which consists of a notice of attachment duly entered in the Day Book or Primary Entry Book on October 6, 1982, or that of respondents, which consists of a Deed of Sale executed on October 18,1982 entered in the Day Book? HELD: The Supreme Court first determined which of the parties was negligent. Bautista was not negligent because they relied on Platas certificate of title, free from notice of any attachment. The instrument was also free from notice of any defect. Likewise, Caviles was not negligent because he successfully obtained a writ of preliminary attachment and the notice of attachment was then entered in the Primary Entry Book of the Register of Deeds (it was, however, not annotated on the TCT). Given that both parties are in good faith, who between them has a better right to the property in question? Article 1544 of the New Civil Code states that Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. In the case at bar, the notice of attachment was annotated in the entry book of the Register of Deeds on October 6, 1982, while the new TCT in the name of Bautista was issued on October 18, 1982, the date when Plata sold the property to Bautista. The Court has repeatedly held that in involuntary registration, such as an attachment, entry thereof in the daybook or entry book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. Caviles lien of attachment was properly recorded when it was entered in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds. Therefore, CAVILES WINS. (2) SAJONES v. CA FACTS: * Spouses Uychocde agreed to sell a residential land located in Rizal to spouses Sajonas on installment basis as evidenced by a Contract to Sell * The property was registered in the names of Uychocde spouses while the Sajonas couple caused the annotation of an adverse claim based on the said Contract to Sell on the title of said property * Upon full payment of purchase price, the Uychocdes executed a Deed of Sale involving the property in favor of the Sajonas couple and was registered almost a year after * It appears that Pilares, (sheriff) filed an action for collection of sum of money against spouses Uychocde * A Compromise Agreement was entered into by the parties in the said case under which Uychocde acknowledged his monetary obligation to the sheriff amounting to 27,800 pesos and agreed to pay the same in two years * Upon Uychocdes failure to pay his obligation, Pilares moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the decision based on the compromise agreement, which the court granted * Pursuant to the order of execution, a notice of levy on execution was issued and the sheriff presented such notice of levy before the Register of Deeds, which was annotated at the back of the TCT * The notice of levy on execution was annotated over the new title of Sajonas couple * The petitioner then filed a third party claim with the sheriff hence the auction sale did not push through * They demanded the cancellation of the notice of levy on execution from the sheriff but the latter refused * TC in favor of petitioner, CA reversed TCs decision ISSUE: 1. 2. W/N petitioner spouses have a better right over the property over the sheriff by virtue of the notice on levy on execution W/N petitioners are buyers in good faith

RULING: Yes to both While it is the act of registration, which is the operative act, which conveys or affects the land insofar as third persons are concerned, it is likewise true, that the subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of title cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the certificate of title previous to the sale. While it is true that under the provisions of PD 1529, deeds of conveyance of property registered under the system, or any interest therein only take effect as a conveyance to bind the land upon its registration, and that a purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto, nonetheless, the rule is not absolute. Thus, one who buys from the registered owner need not have to look behind the certificate of title, he is, nevertheless, bound by the liens and encumbrances annotated thereon. One who buys without checking the
1!

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92


vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure The disputed inscription of adverse claim on the TCT under the name of Uychocde spouses was still in effect when the sheriff annotated the notice of levy on execution thereto. Consequently, he is charged with knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the petitioners. As to whether or not Sajones couple are buyers in good faith, the trial court is correct in saying that they are because they were not aware of the pending case filed by Pilares against Uychocde at the time of the sale of property by the latter in their favor. At any rate, PD 1529 guarantees to every purchaser of registered land in good faith that they can take and hold the same free from any and all prior claims, liens and encumbrances except those set forth in the certificate of tile and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as having been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of the conclusiveness of the certificate of title, which the Torrens system seeks to insure, would be futile and nugatory. levy was illegal, since they already acquired the property before it was levied. However on October 15, 1992, petitioner pointed out the contrary and asked Barrameda spouses to confer with them to amicably settle the controversy. On November 9, 1992, respondents Barrameda found a Notice of auction sale posted on their front gate, announcing the auction sale of their house and lot. On November 20, 1992, respondents Barrameda served a Notice of Third Party Claim upon Sheriff . And finally on December 2, 1992, respondents filed with the RTC of Makati a petition for quieting of title with prayer for preliminary injunction. The petition prayed, among others, that the execution sale of the property be enjoined, the notice of levy and attachment inscribed on the certificate of title be cancelled, and that respondents Barrameda be declared the lawful and sole owners of the property in question. The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Rodriguez and dismissed respondents Barramedas petition for quieting of title. It ruled that the respondents adverse claim was insufficient to establish their claim over the property. Furthermore respondents as buyers should have registered the title in their names. The court also said that respondents adverse claim had lost its efficacy after the lapse of thirty days in accordance with the provisions of the PD1529. Lastly the trial court found that there was collusion between barrameda and Calingo to transfer the property to defraud third parties who may have a claim against the Calingos. However upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court. It held that respondents Barramedas adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was still effective at the time the property was levied on execution. Consequently, petitioners are with knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas. Therefore, that the notice of levy could not prevail over respondents Barramedas adverse claim. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the appellate courts ruling, but the motion was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not the adverse claim inscribed by respondents prevail over the levy on execution issued by another court. RULING: The Court ruled that the adverse claim of respondent will not prevail over the levy on execution issued by another court. The Court in reversing the CA, states that respondents anchor their claim on the sale, which was never registered under the Torrens system; therefore it cannot affect third parties. The Court states that it is 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
2!

(3) RODRIGUEZ v. CA FACTS: Respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo were the registered owners of a house and lot, which was mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines, which mortgage was later absorbed by the Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF) or Pag-ibig. On April 27, 1992, Respondents Calingo and Respondents Barrameda entered into a contract of sale with assumption of mortgage where Respondents Barrameda issued two checks. Respondent Calingo then informed HMDF/Pag-ibig about the transaction on 4-23-91. However the letter and affidavit by respondents Calingo, was served upon HMDF/Pag-ibig on October 2, 1992. On the other hand, Respondents Barrameda filed with the RD of Paraaque an affidavit of adverse claim on the property on May 29, 1992. On June 1, 1992, Respondent Barrameda wrote HMDF, to confirm the transaction and sought assistance from said office as regards to the procedure for the full settlement of the mortgage. However on July 13, 1992, Spouses Rodriguez caused a notice of levy with attachment on real property was annotated at the back of the certificate of title of the property in question. Subsequently petitioners counsel sent a letter to respondents inquiring about the basis of their occupation of the property in question. On August 21, 1992, respondents Barrameda paid the final settlement for the sale to Calingo. Calingo guaranteed that the property was clear and free from any liens and encumbrances, except the real estate mortgage assumed by respondents. On October 7, 1992, respondents executed a joint affidavit claiming ownership over the property, and that

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92


of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies. In the case at bar, the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by respondents is a registrable instrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was not shown in this case that there was justifiable reason why the deed could not be registered. Hence, the remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for registration. According to SC, the annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed 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 for by the Land Registration Act, and serves as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the same or a better right than the registered owner thereof. together with such instrument, except in some cases or upon the order of the court for cause shown. In case the person in possession refuses or fails to surrender the same to the RD so that a voluntary document may be registered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529 states: Where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owners duplicate, 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, of if for any reason the outstanding owners duplicate 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. Pursuant to Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, the distinction between the RTCs general and the limited jurisdiction when acting merely as a cadastral court has been eliminated. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring upon the RTCs the authority to act not only on applications for original registration but also over petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition which can be filed by one who wants to compel another to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does not preclude a party to a pending case to include as incident therein the relief stated under said section, especially if the subject certificates of title to be surrendered are intimately connected with the subject matter of the principal action. The principal action is based on expediency and in accordance with the policy against multiplicity of suits. The order directing the surrender of the certificates to the RD in order that the deed be registered in favor of INK cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests as mortagee, since any lien annotated on the previous certificates which subsists shall be incorporated or carried over to the new certificates of title.

(4) LIGON v. CA FACTS: The Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP), by virtue of an absolute deed, sold to Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) 2 parcels of land in Tandang Sora, Barrio Culiat, QC. It was stipulated therein that IDP shall undertake to evict all squatters in the property within 45 days from the execution of the contract. IDP failed to do this, hence, INK sued for specific performance with damages. IDP, on the other hand, alleged that it was INK which violated the contract by delaying the payment of the purchase price and sought to have the contract of sale rescinded. Thereafter, INK filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that there was actually no genuine issue as to any material fact; the TC granted. A year after, INK filed a motion in the same case seeking to compel Leticia Ligon (petitioner), who was in possession of the certificates of title over the properties as mortgagee of IDP, to surrender said certificates to the RD of QC for the registration of the absolute deed of sale in its name. Ligon allegedly refused and/or failed to deliver the certificates despite repeated requests. To this, Ligon opposed saying that (a) IDP was not served copy of the motion, (b) ownership of INK over the property was still in issue, (c) and that the trial court had no jurisdiction as the motion involved the registrability of the document of sale, and she was not made a party in the main case. The TC granted INKs motion and ordered petitioner to surrender the certificates of title in open court for the registration of the absolute deed of sale in the latters name and the annotation of the mortgage executed in favor of petitioner on the new certificates (to be issued to INK). Upon Ligons motion, the TC redirected her to deliver the documents to the RD of QC. ISSUE: W/N INK has a superior right to the possession of the owners copies of the certificated of title. HELD: YES. Under our land registration law, no voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds unless the owners duplicate certificate is presented

(5) MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS v. CA FACTS: Magdalena Estate Inc. (MEI) owned a subdivision located at QC. It has a total area of 355,490 sq.m. The lot in question was lot 15, blk 18 measuring 21,460 sq.m. A part of this lot measuring 7,100 sq.m was initially set aside as the subdivisions open space which will be allotted to recreational zones such as parking, playground. Subsequently, the subdivision plan was amended by substituting the earlier designated open space with another lot covering the same area. This was approved by QC City Council. Lot 15 thereafter was approved to be alienated.

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES

3!

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92


A part of lot 15 was sold to DBP by way of dacion en pago and the remaining part was sold to third parties. The Magdalena homeowners association brought a suit to recover the original open space. They have caused a notice of lis pendens be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The lower court rendered a favorable decision for petitioner but was appealed to CA to obtain favorable modifications. While the case was pending, MEI and DBP filed in separate motions praying for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. These motions were favorably granted. ISSUE: W/N the CA had jurisdiction to take cognizance of and grant the motion to cancel notice of lis pendens since no motion had ever been filed in court a quo. HELD: CA has jurisdiction. Under Rule 14 sec 24 of the Rules of Court and Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens is proper in the following cases: a) an action to recover possession of real estate b) an action to quiet title thereto c) an action to remove clouds thereon d) an actionfor partition; and e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court directly affecting the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon. The notice of lis pendens- that the real property is involved in an action- is ordinarily recorded w/o the intervention of the court where it is pending. The notice is an incident in an action. The cancellation therefore is also a mere incident and may be ordered by the Court having jurisdiction over it at any time. In the case at bar, CA has jurisdiction by virtue of the perfection of the petitioners appeal. The issue of questions relating to merits cannot be raised for the first time in appeal does not apply to mere incidents such as cancellation of notice of lis pendens. again, Doronilla Resources sought to have a similar affidavit of adverse claim on Winmar's TCT registered. LRC rendered a decision denying the registration of the affidavit of adverse claim. Doronilla Resources appealed to the CA, which upheld the decision of the LRC. Thus the case at bar. ISSUE: W/N the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of the TCT precludes the subsequent registration on the same or successor TCT of an adverse claim HELD: NO. The two remediesnotice of lis pendens and adverse claimare NOT contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary, it would be the notice of lis pendens and not the annotation of adverse claim which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim involved. Both are intended to protect the interest of a claimant by posing as notices and caution to those involved with the property that it is subject to a claim. Moreover, the annotation at the back of Winmar's TCT that the property is subject to the resolution of the 2nd affidavit of adverse claim does NOT amply protect the rights and interests of Doronilla Resources. It cannot serve as notice and warning to third persons dealing with the property that someone is claiming an interest in the same or a better title than that of the registered owner. A consulta is the reference of a question to the Commissioner of Land Registration by a RD when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or instrument is presented to him for registration.

(7) LOPEZ v. ENRIQUEZ FACTS: Sandoval and Ozaeta filed an application for registration of title in the RTC. RTC subsequently granted their request. The heirs of Enriquez filed a motion alleging that Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots in question to their deceased father, Eugenio Lopez, Sr. However, the decision of the RTC on the application for registration of Sandoval and Ozaeta being final and executory, the LRA issued titles in their names. The petitioners (heirs) filed a motion to nullify said OCTs. They also applied with the Register of Deeds for the annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the back of the OCTs. The LRA denied said application on the basis of the notice not being registrable solely because of the motion to nullify the OCTs. CA affirmed the LRAs decision. ISSUE: W/N the petitioners motion to declare void the decrees issued by the LRA is a proper basis for filing the notice of lis pendens? HELD: No. As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens should contain a statement of the institution of
4!

(6) A. DORONILLA RESOURCES v. CA FACTS: Purita Landicho owned a parcel of land. Eventually, Blue Chips Projects, Inc purchased and registered in its own name said lot (1,256,269 sqm) in San Mateo, Rizal. In 1972, Doronilla Resources Development Inc. availed of the remedy of lis pendens, which was annotated on Blue Chips' TCT. A year after, Alfonso Doronilla (the president) filed an affidavit of adverse claim for registration on Blue Chips' TCT on the ground that the property is a portion of a big parcel of land which was purchased by Doronilla Resources from Alfonso Doronilla. However, RD of Rizal (resp) denied the registration of the affidavot of the adverse claim on the ground that a notice of lis pendens remain registered on the TCT involved. Doronilla Resources elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Commission, which denied the registration of the adverse claim as well. In 1973, Blue Chips sold the land in favor of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. Its TCT had an annotation at the back that the land is subject to a resolution by the LRC. Once

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES

LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92


an action or proceeding, the court where the same is pending, and the date of its institution. A notice of lis pendens should also contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the land, an adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner.l^vvphi1.net The Register of Deeds denied registration of the notice of lis pendens because "the application was bereft of the original petition or complaint upon which this office will base its action."

(8) SLDC v. CA FACTS: The Spouses Lu owned a parcel of land which they purportedly sold to Babasanta. He demanded the execution of a Final Deed of Sale in his favor so he may effect full payment of the purchase price; the Spouses declined to push through with the sale. They claim that hen he requested for a discount and they refused, he rescinded the agreement. Thus Babasanta filed a case for specific performance; San Lorenzo Development Corporation intervened claiming that the lots have been sold to it by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale with mortgage and that it was a purchaser in good faith. Both sale were not registered. ISSUE: Who has a better right between SLDC and Babasanta HELD: SLDC has a better right. There was no contract to sell in this case because the contract in favor of Babasanta was a mere contract to sell. Hence Article 1544 is not applicable. He ownership of the property was not to be transmitted in favor until the full payment of the purchase price. There was neither actual nor constructive delivery as his title is based on a mere receipt, Based on this alone, the right of SLDC must be preferred. While it is true that Babasanta was able to have a notice of lis pendens annotated in the title of the Spouses Lu, the same was accomplished already after the property has already been transferred to SLDC; thus it cannot affect the title and good faith of SLDC. * END *

FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES

5!

S-ar putea să vă placă și