Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
WON the sale of the land was for a lump sum or not
RULING:
In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types of
pricing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the purchase price is
determined by way of reference to a stated rate per unit area (e.g., P1,000
per square meter), or a lump sum contract which states a full purchase
price for an immovable the area of which may be declared based on the
estimate or where both the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., P1 million
for 1,000 square meters, etc.).
In the case where the area of an immovable is stated in the contract based
on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not measure up exactly with
the area stated in the contract. According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in
the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain
sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease
of the price, although there be a greater or less areas or number than that
stated in the contract. . .
However, the rule laid down in Article 1542 is not hard and fast and admits of
an exception. A caveat is in order, however. The use of "more or less" or
similar words in designating quantity covers only a reasonable excess or
deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description "more or
less" with reference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of
quantity in the land.
In the instant case, the deed of sale is not one of a unit price contract. The parties
agreed on the purchase price of P40,000.00 for a predetermined area of 4,000 sq m,
more or less, bounded on the North by Lot No. 11903, on the East by Lot No. 11908,
on the South by Lot Nos. 11858 & 11912, and on the West by Lot No. 11910. In a
contract of sale of land in a mass, the specific boundaries stated in the contract
must control over any other statement, with respect to the area contained within its
boundaries.
More importantly, we find no reversible error in the decision of the CA.
Petitioner's recourse, by filing the petition for registration in the same
cadastral case, was improper.
IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IN LAND REGISTRATION THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SERVES AS EVIDENCE OF AN INDEFEASIBLE AND
INCONTROVERTIBLE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON
WHOSE NAME APPEARS THEREIN. SUCH INDEFEASIBILITY COMMENCES
AFTER ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY OF THE DECREE OF
REGISTRATION. INASMUCH AS THE PETITION FOR REGISTRATION OF
DOCUMENT DID NOT INTERRUPT THE RUNNING OF THE PERIOD TO FILE
THE APPROPRIATE PETITION FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERING THAT THE
PRESCRIBED ONE-YEAR PERIOD HAD LONG SINCE EXPIRED, THE DECREE OF
ii.
Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the judgment
directing the registration of title to land has become final, the court shall, within
fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order directing the Commissioner to
issue the corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title. The clerk of
court shall send, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies of the
judgment and of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate stating
that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor appealed, and has
become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause to be prepared the decree
of registration as well as the original and duplicate of the corresponding original
certificate of title. The original certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree
of registration. The decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner,
entered and filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original
certificate of title shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be sent,
together with the owner's duplicate certificate, to the Register of Deeds of the city
or province where the property is situated for entry in his registration book.
Section 40. Entry of Original Certificate of Title. Upon receipt by the Register of
Deeds of the original and duplicate copies of the original certificate of title the same
shall be entered in his record book and shall be numbered, dated, signed and
sealed by the Register of Deeds with the seal of his office. Said certificate of title
shall take effect upon the date of entry thereof. The Register of Deeds shall
forthwith send notice by mail to the registered owner that his owner's duplicate is
ready for delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.
Under the Torrens system, a certificate of title may be an original
certificate of title, which constitutes a true copy of the decree of
registration, or a transfer certificate of title, issued subsequent to the
original registration. The original certificate of title is the transcript of the
decree of registration made by the Registration of Deeds in the registry. It
accumulates in one document a precise and correct statement of the exact
status of the fee simple title which an owner possess. The certificate, once
issued, is the evidence of the title which the owner has. What appears on
the face of the title is controlling on questions of ownership since the
certificate of title is an absolute and indefeasible evidence of ownership of
the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SERVES AS EVIDENCE OF AN INDEFEASIBLE AND
INCONTROVERTIBLE TO THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON WHOSE
NAME APPEARS THEREIN. Such indefeasibility commences after the lapse
or expiration of one year from the date of entry of the decree of
registration when all persons are considered to have constructive notice
of the title to property. After the lapse of one year, title to the property
can no longer be contested.
A person dealing with registered property need not go beyond, but only
has to rely on, the title of his predecessor-in-interest. Since the act of
registration is the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as
third persons are concerned, it follows that where there is nothing in the
certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the
property, or any encumbrance thereon, the
and
conclusiveness
of
the
certificate
of
title
which
the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile and nugatory.
The public shall then be denied of its foremost motivation for respecting
and observing the Torrens system of registration. In the end, the business
community stands to be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.
Contrary to the assertion of respondents, OCT No. 404 was expressly cancelled by
TCT No. T-8241. The alleged non-signature by the Register of Deeds Soliman
Achacoso, does not affect the validity of TCT No. T-8241 since he signed TCT No. T8242 and issued both titles on the same day. There is a presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty. The presumption is further
bolstered by the fact that TCT No. T-8241 was certified to be on file with
the Registry of Deeds and registered in the name of Cipriano. It is enough
that petitioner had examined the latest certificate of title which in this
case was issued in the name of the immediate transferor, the spouses
Rodolfo. THE PURCHASER IS NOT BOUND BY THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
BUT ONLY BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM HE
HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
Secondly,
while
the
Extrajudicial
Settlement
of
Sole
Heir
and
IS
WHERE
THE
CERTIFICATE
OF
TITLE
WAS
ALREADY
REYES vs RAVAL-REYES
While we agree with the court a quo that the disputed lots are subjects in litigation
in 'Civil Case No. 3659, it appearing that respondent, as defendant therein, had
presented a counterclaim for partition of the lots covered by the titles, we see no
valid and plausible reason to justify, on this ground, the withholding from the
registered owners, such as the petitioners-appellants herein, the custody and
possession of the owners' duplicates of certificates of title.
In a decided case, this Court has already held that: THE OWNER OF THE LAND IN
WHOSE FAVOR AND IN WHOSE NAME SAID LAND IS REGISTERED AND
INSCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HAS A MORE PREFERENTIAL
RIGHT TO THE POSSESSION OF THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE THAN ONE
WHOSE NAME DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CERTIFICATE AND HAS YET TO
ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO THE POSSESSION THEREOF.
LITAM vs ESPIRITU
FURTHER STRONG PROOFS THAT THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION ARE THE
PARAPHERNAL PROPERTIES OF MARCOSA RIVERA, ARE THE VERY
TORRENS TITLES COVERING SAID PROPERTIES. ALL THE SAID PROPERTIES
ARE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF 'MARCOSA RIVERA, MARRIED TO
RAFAEL LITAM.' THIS CIRCUMSTANCE INDICATES THAT THE PROPERTIES IN
QUESTION BELONG TO THE REGISTERED OWNER, MARCOSA RIVERA, AS
HER PARAPHERNAL PROPERTIES, FOR IF THEY WERE CONJUGAL, THE
TITLES COVERING THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAMES
OF RAFAEL LITAM AND MARCOSA RIVERA. THE WORDS 'MARRIED TO
RAFAEL LITAM' WRITTEN AFTER THE NAME OF MARCOSA RIVERA, IN EACH
OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLES ARE MERELY DESCRIPTIVE OF THE
CIVIL STATUS OF MARCOSA RIVERA, THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE
PROPERTIES COVERED BY SAID TITLES.
ACQUIRED
DURING
THE
REPUBLIC vs MENDOZA
A DECREE OF REGISTRATION IS CONCLUSIVE UPON ALL PERSONS, INCLUDING THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC AND ALL ITS BRANCHES, WHETHER OR NOT
MENTIONED BY NAME IN THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OR ITS NOTICE.
INDEED, TITLE TO THE LAND, ONCE REGISTERED, IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE. NO ONE
MAY ACQUIRE IT FROM THE REGISTERED OWNER BY ADVERSE, OPEN, AND
NOTORIOUS POSSESSION.
THUS, TO A REGISTERED OWNER UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, THE RIGHT TO
RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE REGISTERED PROPERTY IS EQUALLY
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE SINCE POSSESSION IS A MERE CONSEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP.
Here, the existence and genuineness of the Mendozas' title over the property has not been disputed.
While the consolidation and subdivision plan of Lots 1923 and 1925 shows that a 1,149 square
meter lot had been designated to the City Government, the Republic itself admits that no new title
was issued to it or to any of its subdivisions for the portion that PPS had been occupying since 1957.
THAT THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF LIPA TAX-DECLARED THE PROPERTY AND ITS
IMPROVEMENTS IN ITS NAME CANNOT DEFEAT THE MENDOZAS' TITLE. This Court has
allowed tax declarations to stand as proof of ownership only in the absence of a certificate of title.
Otherwise, they have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership.
B.
IT IS A WELL-ENTRENCHED RULE IN THIS JURISDICTION THAT NO TITLE TO
REGISTERED LAND IN DEROGATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE REGISTERED
OWNER SHALL BE ACQUIRED BY PRESCRIPTION OR ADVERSE POSSESSION.
PRESCRIPTION IS UNAVAILING NOT ONLY AGAINST THE REGISTERED
OWNER BUT ALSO AGAINST HIS HEREDITARY SUCCESSORS. POSSESSION IS
A MERE CONSEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP WHERE LAND HAS BEEN
REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, THE EFFICACY AND INTEGRITY
OF WHICH MUST BE PROTECTED. PRESCRIPTION IS RIGHTLY REGARDED AS
A STATUTE OF REPOSE WHOSE OBJECTIVE IS TO SUPPRESS FRAUDULENT
AND STALE CLAIMS FROM SPRINGING UP AT GREAT DISTANCES OF TIME
AND SURPRISING THE PARTIES OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WHEN THE
FACTS HAVE BECOME OBSCURE FROM THE LAPSE OF TIME OR THE
DEFECTIVE MEMORY OR DEATH OR REMOVAL OF WITNESSES.
CARAAN vs CA
Answer with Counterclaim
A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SERVES AS EVIDENCE OF AN INDEFEASIBLE TITLE
TO THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS
THEREIN."
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS having presented TCT No. RT-71061, which is the
reconstituted title of TCT No. 214949, they HAVE THUS PROVEN THEIR
ALLEGATION OF OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE BURDEN
OF PROOF THEN SHIFTED TO PETITIONERS WHO MUST ESTABLISH BY
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THEIR ALLEGATION THAT THEY HAVE A
BETTER RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND, HOWEVER, THAT SECTION 48,
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529 (P.D. NO. 1529), PROVIDES THAT "A
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK. IT
CANNOT BE ALTERED, MODIFIED, OR CANCELLED EXCEPT IN A DIRECT
PROCEEDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW."
Petitioners' defense takes the form of a collateral attack on private
respondents' certificate of title.
When is an action an attack on a title?
It is when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title,
and thus challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was
decreed. The attack is direct when the object of an action or
proceeding is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its
LEYSON vs BONTUYAN
NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET
COUNTERCLAIM
A.
WHILE SECTION 47 OF ACT NO. 496 PROVIDES THAT A CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.
THE RULE IS THAT AN ACTION IS AN ATTACK ON A TITLE IF ITS OBJECT IS
TO NULLIFY THE SAME, AND THUS CHALLENGE THE PROCEEDING
PURSUANT TO WHICH THE TITLE WAS DECREED.
THE ATTACK IS CONSIDERED DIRECT WHEN THE OBJECT OF AN ACTION IS
TO ANNUL OR SET ASIDE SUCH PROCEEDING, OR ENJOIN ITS
ENFORCEMENT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, AN ATTACK IS INDIRECT OR COLLATERAL WHEN, IN
AN ACTION TO OBTAIN A DIFFERENT RELIEF, AN ATTACK ON THE
PROCEEDING IS NEVERTHELESS MADE AS AN INCIDENT THEREOF. SUCH
ACTION TO ATTACK A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE MAY BE AN ORIGINAL ACTION
OR A COUNTERCLAIM IN WHICH A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IS ASSAILED AS
VOID.
A COUNTERCLAIM IS CONSIDERED A NEW SUIT IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT
IS THE PLAINTIFF AND THE PLAINTIFF IN THE COMPLAINT BECOMES THE
DEFENDANT. IT STANDS ON THE SAME FOOTING AND IS TO BE TESTED BY
THE SAME RULES AS IF IT WERE AN INDEPENDENT ACTION. FURTHERMORE,
SINCE ALL THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE DETERMINATION
OF THE TITLE'S VALIDITY ARE NOW BEFORE THE COURT, TO REQUIRE THE
PARTY
TO
INSTITUTE
CANCELLATION
PROCEEDINGS
WOULD
BE
POINTLESSLY CIRCUITOUS AND AGAINST THE BEST INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
B.
Case law has it that an action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years,
the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the
date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property. In an action
for reconveyance, the decree of registration is highly regarded as
incontrovertible. What is sought instead is the transfer of the property or
its title, which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another
person's name, to its rightful or legal owner, or to one who has a better
right.
HOWEVER, IN A SERIES OF CASES, THIS COURT DECLARED THAT AN ACTION
FOR RECONVEYANCE BASED ON FRAUD IS IMPRESCRIPTIBLE WHERE THE
PLAINTIFF IS IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF THE ACTS.
THE PARAMOUNT REASON FOR THIS EXCEPTION IS BASED ON THE THEORY
THAT REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS COULD NOT BE USED AS A SHIELD FOR
FRAUD. MOREOVER, TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO PUT PREMIUM ON
LAND-GRABBING AND TRANSGRESSING THE BROADER PRINCIPLE IN
HUMAN RELATIONS THAT NO PERSON SHALL UNJUSTLY ENRICH HIMSELF AT
THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER.
OO vs LIM
IS AN ACTION FOR QUIETING OF TITLE CONSTITUTE A COLLATERAL ATTACK
IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 48 OF PD 1529
An action or proceeding is deemed an attack on a title when its objective
is to nullify the title, thereby challenging the judgment pursuant to which
the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the objective is to annul
or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand,
the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different
relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident
thereof.
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud,
doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property. Whenever there is a
cloud on title to real property or any interest in real property by reason of
any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is
apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid,
ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
In such action, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective
rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things
in their proper places, and to make the claimant, who has no rights to said
immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the
benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of
doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly
ABRIGO vs DE VEYRA
BETWEEN TWO BUYERS OF THE SAME IMMOVABLE PROPERTY REGISTERED UNDER
THE TORRENS SYSTEM, THE LAW GIVES OWNERSHIP PRIORITY TO (1) THE FIRST
REGISTRANT IN GOOD FAITH; (2) THEN, THE FIRST POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH;
AND (3) FINALLY, THE BUYER WHO IN GOOD FAITH PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE.
THIS PROVISION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT
REGISTERED UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM.
Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of immovables transfers
ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in
good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.
This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no
deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument -- except a will -- purporting
to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land until its registration.
THUS, IF THE SALE IS NOT REGISTERED, IT IS BINDING ONLY BETWEEN THE SELLER
AND THE BUYER BUT IT DOES NOT AFFECT INNOCENT THIRD PERSONS.
In the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent registered the sale of
the property. Since neither petitioners nor their predecessors (Tigno-Salazar and
Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered by the Torrens system, they
registered their respective sales under Act 3344.
For her part, respondent registered the transaction under the Torrens system
because, during the sale, Villafania had presented the transfer certificate of title
(TCT) covering the property.
The purchaser is not required to explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon
its face, indicates. The only exception is where the purchaser has actual
knowledge of a flaw or defect in the title of the seller or of such liens or
encumbrances which, as to him, is equivalent to registration.
JOAQUIN vs MADRID
WHEN THE INSTRUMENT PRESENTED IS FORGED, EVEN IF ACCOMPANIED
BY THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE, THE REGISTERED
OWNER DOES NOT THEREBY LOSE HIS TITLE, AND NEITHER DOES THE
ASSIGNEE IN THE FORGED DEED ACQUIRE ANY RIGHT OR TITLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
THE INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE PROTECTED BY LAW IS ONE WHO
PURCHASES A TITLED LAND BY VIRTUE OF A DEED EXECUTED BY THE
MONUZ vs YABUT
IT HAS LONG BEEN INGRAINED IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE THAT A VOID TITLE
MAY BECOME THE ROOT OF A VALID TITLE IF THE DERIVATIVE TITLE WAS
OBTAINED IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE. FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF
INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TITLE, EVERY PERSON DEALING WITH REGISTERED
LANDS MAY SAFELY RELY ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE OF THE VENDOR/TRANSFEROR, AND HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO GO
BEYOND THE CERTIFICATE AND INQUIRE INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES
CULMINATING IN THE VENDORS ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. THE
RIGHTS OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSONS WHO RELIED ON THE CORRECTNESS
OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND ACQUIRED RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERTY
COVERED THEREBY CANNOT BE DISREGARDED AND THE COURTS CANNOT
ORDER THE CANCELLATION OF SUCH CERTIFICATE FOR THAT WOULD
IMPAIR OR ERODE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE SYSTEM OF LAND
REGISTRATION.
DURAN vs IAC
While it is true that under Art. 2085 of the Civil Code, it is essential that
the mortgagor be the absolute owner of the property mortgaged, and
while as between the daughter and the mother, it was the daughter who
still owned the lots, STILL insofar as innocent third persons are concerned
the owner was already the mother (Fe S. Duran) inasmuch as she had
already become the registered owner (Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
2418 and 2419).
The mortgagee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate
of title, and did not have to inquire further. If the rule were otherwise, the
efficacy and conclusiveness of Torrens Certificate of Titles would be futile
and nugatory. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent and forged document
of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate has already
been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name indicated
by the forger (See De la Cruz v. Fable, 35 Phil. 144; Blondeau et al. v. Nano et al.,
61 Phil. 625; Fule et al. v. Legare et al., 7 SCRA 351; see also Sec. 55 of Act No.
496, the Land Registration Act).
The fact that at the time of the foreclosure sale proceedings (1970-72) the
mortgagees may have already known of the plaintiffs' claim is immaterial.
What is important is that at the time the mortgage was executed, the
mortgagees in good faith actually believed Fe S. Duran to be the owner, as
evidenced by the registration of the property in the name of said Fe S.
Duran.
THE DOCTRINE TO FOLLOW IS SIMPLE ENOUGH: A FRAUDULENT OR
LAGROSA vs PANGILINAN
Petitioner Lagrosa's right to possess the subject property is clearly
inferior to or inexistent in relation to Evelyn Arizapa Banua.
As correctly held by the lower courts, the "Deed of Real Estate Mortgage"
executed by Julio Arizapa is null and void, the property mortgaged by Julio
Arizapa being then owned by the City of Manila under Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 91120.
For a person to validly constitute a valid mortgage on real estate, he must
be the absolute owner thereof as required by Article 2085 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines.
GONZALES vs IAC
The mortgage was duly constituted and registered with the Register of
Deeds on May 28, 1971. The ejectment case which was filed by petitioner
against the said spouses which petitioner claims should have put the
respondent bank on its guard was annotated at the back of the subject
title only on March 29, 1973. There was therefore nothing on the face of
the title of the Panzos which would arouse the suspicion of the respondent
bank. The certificate of title was in the name of the mortgagors when the
land was mortgaged by them to respondent bank.
We agree with the trial court that the respondent Bank was not negligent
in failing to consult a lawyer. The loan application of the Panzos was
subjected to the rigid requirements of the bank. There was a physical
inspection of the property. The loan application passed thru the scrutiny
of the Credit Committee, the members of which are also the Directors of
the Bank. The mortgage was then duly registered with the Register of
Deeds.
and thus refrain from confirming it (Anderson and De Mesa vs. Reyes and Gutierrez
Saenz, 54 Phil. 944, citing Grimalt vs. Velasquez and Sy Quio, 36 Phil. 936 and La
Urbana vs. Belando, 54 Phil. 930).
LexLib
If after the foreclosure sale and before the confirmation thereof, the mortgagee, as
purchaser at the auction sale, sold the mortgaged property to another person, that
subsequent sale does not render the foreclosure sale more effective. That subsequent
sale does not prevent the trial court from granting the mortgagor a period within which
to redeem the mortgaged lot by paying the judgment debt and the expenses of the sale
and costs (Anderson and De Mesa vs. Reyes and Gutierrez Saenz, 54 Phil. 944).
"Whatever may have been the old rule by all of the modern authorities, it is the policy of
the courts to assist rather than to defeat the right of redemption" (De Castro vs. Olondriz
and Escudero, 50 Phil. 725, 732).
After the confirmation of the sale, made after hearing and with due notice to the
mortgagor, the latter cannot redeem anymore the mortgaged lot (unless the
mortgagee is a banking institution) (Piano vs. Cayanong, 117 Phil. 415).
It is after the confirmation of the sale that the mortgagor loses all interest in the
mortgaged property (Clemente vs. H. E. Heacock Co., 106 Phil. 1163; Clemente vs.
Court of Appeals, 109 Phil. 798; Clemente vs. H.E. Heacock Co., L-23212, May 18,
1967, 20 SCRA 115).
In the instant case, where the foreclosure sale has not yet been confirmed but the
statutory one-year period for redemption expired and the mortgaged lot was sold by
the mortgagee (as the only bidder at the auction sale) to a third person, the trial
court should give the purchaser a chance to be heard before requiring the
mortgagee-bank to accept the redemption price tendered by the mortgagors.
SPS. BORROMEO vs CA
IN THIS CASE, PETITIONERS' RIGHTS TO THEIR PROPERTY IS RESTRICTED
BY THE REM THEY EXECUTED OVER IT. UPON THEIR DEFAULT ON THE
MORTGAGE DEBT, THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE THE PROPERTY WOULD BE
VESTED UPON THE CREDITOR-MORTGAGEE. NEVERTHELESS, THE RIGHT OF
FORECLOSURE CANNOT BE EXERCISED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY ANY
PERSON OTHER THAN THE CREDITOR-MORTGAGEE OR ITS ASSIGNS.
AN EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE INSTITUTED BY A THIRD PARTY TO THE
LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE REM WOULD, THEREFORE, BE A VIOLATION
OF PETITIONERS' RIGHTS OVER THEIR PROPERTY.
It is clear that under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts take effect
only between the parties who execute them. Where there is no privity of
contract, there is likewise no obligation or liability to speak about.
ACTED
WITHOUT
If only to stress the writ's ministerial character, we have, in a case more recent than
Cometa, disallowed injunction prohibiting its issuance, just as we have held that its
issuance may not be stayed by a pending action for annulment of mortgage or the
foreclosure itself.
GUIDED BY THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES, UNTIL THE FORECLOSURE SALE
OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS ANNULLED BY A COURT OF COMPETENT
JURISDICTION, PETITIONERS ARE BEREFT OF VALID TITLE AND RIGHT TO
PREVENT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF POSSESSION TO RESPONDENT
CORPORATION. UNTIL THEN, IT IS THE TRIAL COURT'S MINISTERIAL
FUNCTION TO GRANT THE POSSESSORY WRIT TO SAID CORPORATION.
DE VERA vs AGLORO
Section 6 of Act No. 3135 provides that the mortgagor or his successor-in-interest
may redeem the foreclosed property within one (1) year from the registration of the
sale with the Register of Deeds.
Under Section 7 of the law, if the mortgagor fails to redeem the property, the buyer
at public auction may file, with the RTC in the province or place where the property
or portion thereof is located, an ex parte motion for the issuance of a writ of
possession within one (1) year from the registration of the Sheriff's Certificate of
Sale, and the court shall grant the said motion upon the petitioner's posting a bond
in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve (12)
months.
ON THE STRENGTH OF THE WRIT OF POSSESSION, THE SHERIFF IS
DUTY-BOUND TO PLACE THE BUYER AT PUBLIC AUCTION IN ACTUAL
POSSESSION OF THE FORECLOSED PROPERTY. AFTER THE ONE-YEAR
PERIOD, THE MORTGAGOR LOSES ALL INTEREST OVER IT. THE
PURCHASER, WHO HAS A RIGHT TO POSSESSION THAT EXTENDS AFTER
THE EXPIRATION OF THE REDEMPTION PERIOD, BECOMES THE
ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WHEN NO REDEMPTION IS
MADE.
The purchaser can demand possession at any time following the consolidation of
ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer certificate of title.
AFTER THE CONSOLIDATION OF TITLE IN THE BUYER'S NAME FOR
FAILURE OF THE MORTGAGOR TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY, THE WRIT
CAVEAT EMPTOR- The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware
of the supposed title of the vendor and one who buys without checking the
vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
Filinvest of course contends that, although the title carried a notice of adverse claim,
that notice was only with respect to seller Yap's interest in Lot 6 and it did not affect
Lots 1, 2, 12, and the remaining interests in Lot 6. The Court disagrees.
THE ANNOTATION OF AN ADVERSE CLAIM IS INTENDED TO PROTECT
THE CLAIMANT'S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. THE NOTICE IS A
WARNING TO THIRD PARTIES DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY THAT
SOMEONE CLAIMS AN INTEREST IN IT OR ASSERTS A BETTER RIGHT
THAN THE REGISTERED OWNER. SUCH NOTICE CONSTITUTES, BY
OPERATION OF LAW, NOTICE TO THE WHOLE WORLD. Here, although the
notice of adverse claim pertained to only one lot and Filinvest wanted to acquire
interest in some other lots under the same title, the notice served as warning to it
that one of the owners was engaged in double selling.
Respondent alleges that it resorted to filing the contested motion because it could
not obtain new certificates of title, considering that petitioner refused to surrender
his owner's duplicate TCTs.
THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO FILE A PETITION IN COURT,
RATHER THAN MERELY MOVE, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NEW TITLES. This
was the procedure followed in Blancaflor by Sarmiento Trading which was in more or
less the same situation as the respondent in this case:
Petitioners' reliance on prescription and laches is unavailing in this instance. It
was proper for Sarmiento Trading Corporation to file a petition with the
Court of First Instance of Iloilo, acting as a cadastral court, for the
cancellation of TCT No. 14749 in the name of Gaudencio Blancaflor and the
issuance of another in its name. This is a procedure provided for under Section
78 of Act No. 496 and Section 75 of PD No. 1529. . .
VIEWMASTER vs MAULIT
The respondent Register of Deeds of Las Pias denied the request for annotation of
the Notice of Lis Pendens on the following grounds:
1. the request for annotation and the complaint [do] not contain an
adequate description of the subject property;
2. petitioner's action only has an incidental effect on the property in
question.
The Court did not confine the availability of lis pendens to cases involving the title to
or possession or real property. Thus, it held:
"According to Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and Section 76 of
Presidential Decree No. 1529, a notice of lis pendens in the following cases,
viz.:
a) An action to recover possession of real estate;
b) An action to quite title thereto;
c) An action to remove clouds thereon;
d) An action for 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."
Considering that the dismissal of private respondent's Complaint by the RTC was appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which Complaint refers to the properties covered by TCTs No. 175209, No. 220977, and No. 220978
that bear the annotations of lis pendens, and such properties therefore are irrefragably still the subject matter
of litigation, the appellate court rightly saw the need for giving notice to the public of such a fact. The
necessity becomes even more compelling considering that petitioner SMWSI had already entered into
transactions with third parties involving the subject properties.
DE LA MERCED
A TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE OF REGISTERED LAND, WHOSE TITLE BEARS
A NOTICE OF A PENDING LITIGATION INVOLVING HIS TRANSFEROR'S TITLE
TO THE SAID LAND, IS BOUND BY THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION,
WHETHER IT BE FOR OR AGAINST HIS TRANSFEROR.
Given this principle, the modification of the final decision against the
transferor in order to include the transferee pendente lite does not violate
the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. His inclusion does not add
to or change the judgment; it is only a legal consequence of the
established doctrine that a final judgment binds the privy of a litigating
party.
It is not disputed that petitioners caused the annotation of lis pendens on TCT No.
23554, which covers Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, as early as September 21, 1984. 52 On
July 29, 1985 and August 24, 1998, TCT No. 23554 was cancelled with respect to
Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2 and new individual titles were issued to Victorino and
Dimaguila. Both titles had the notice of lis pendens which was carried over from TCT
No. 23554. Ineluctably, both Victorino and Dimaguila had notice of the litigation
involving GSIS's ownership over the subject properties, and were bound by the
outcome of the litigation.
WHEN A TRANSFEREE PENDENTE LITE TAKES PROPERTY WITH NOTICE OF
LIS PENDENS, SUCH TRANSFEREE UNDERTAKES TO RESPECT THE OUTCOME
OF THE LITIGATION. As held in Selph v. Vda. de Aguilar, 53 an order to cancel the
transferor's title may be enforced against his transferee, whose title is expressly
subject to the outcome of the litigation by the fact of the annotation of lis pendens.
The existence of these entries on Dimaguila's and Victorino's titles bars any defense
of good faith 54 against petitioners and effectively makes Dimaguila and Victorino
mere privies of GSIS and subject to whatever rights GSIS might have in the subject
properties, which (as it turns out) is none at all. What Dimaguila and Victorino
possess are derivative titles of the GSIS's title over Lots 7 and 8 of Block 2, which
this Court has finally adjudicated to be null and void. Given the legal maxim that a
spring cannot rise higher than its source, it follows that Dimaguila's and Victorino's
titles, or any other title over the subject properties that are derived from TCT No.
23554 of the GSIS, are likewise null and void. As explained by this Court in another
case, the title obtained by the transferee pendente lite affords him no special
protection; he cannot invoke the rights of a purchaser in good faith and cannot
acquire better rights than those of his predecessor-in-interest. 55
Admittedly, during the pendency of the case, respondents timely registered a
notice of lis pendens to warn the whole world that the property was the
subject of a pending litigation.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction,
power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit,
pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded
upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the
properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is
terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by
subsequent alienation. . . . cAHIaE
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a twofold effect: (1) to keep the
subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of
the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive
alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject
of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate
subsequently.
This registration, therefore, gives the court clear authority to cancel the title of the
spouses Vaca, since the sale of the subject property was made after the notice of lis
pendens
TORRES vs CA
Moreover, even if We grant Mota the status of an innocent mortgagee, the doctrine relied
upon by the appellate court 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.
The doctrine would apply rather when, as in the case the forger thru insidious means
obtains the owner's duplicate certificate of title, converts it in his name, and subsequently
sells or otherwise encumbers it to an innocent holder for value, for in such a case the new
certificate is binding upon the owner.
But if the owner holds a valid and existing certificate of title, his would be indefeasible as
against the whole world, and not that of the innocent holder's. "Prior tempore potior
jure"
The doctrine is that:
"The claim of indefeasibility of the petitioner's title under the Torrens land title
system would be correct if previous valid title to the same parcel of land did not
exist. The respondent had a valid title . . . It never parted with it; it never handed