Page 1 of 42

I. Land Registration in General

A. Importance of Land Registration
Provide order and stability in society by creating security in property ownership not
only for landowners but also for investors, bankers, government, etc.
The systems of land registration are frequently directed at protecting the interests of
individual landowners but they are also instruments of national land policy and
mechanisms to support economic development.

B. Function of Land Registration

Every land administration system should include some form of land registration,
which is a process for recording, and in some countries guaranteeing, infor.mation
about the ownership of land.
Land registration is a process of official recording of rights in land through deeds or
as title on properties. It means that there is an official record (land register) of rights
on land or of deeds concerning changes in the legal situation of defined units of
land. It gives an answer to the questions who and how. In some countrys, this
information regarding ownership of identifiable parcel units are contained in a
cadastre
The function of land registration is to provide a safe and certain foundation for the
acquisition, enjoyment and disposal of such rights in land.

C. General Legal Principles in Land Registration

1. The Identity of the Object and the Subject
The concerned subject (owners and rights holders) and object (real property defined
as a parcel) is unambiguously and clearly identified.
What is owned by who or who owns what?

2. The Consent
The real entitled person who is booked as such in the register must give his consent
for a change of the inscription in the land register.
Exception - Involuntary actions

3. The Booking
The change in real rights on an immovable property, especially by transfer, is not
legally effected until the change or the expected right is booked or registered in the
land register.

4. The Publicity
The legal registers are open for public inspection, the published facts can be upheld
as being correct by third parties in good faith and can be protected by law.
Page 2 of 42

RD obligated to report certain transaction to the anti-money laundering council:

Republic Act No. 10365 "An Act Strenthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law,
Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9160 Othersie known as the "AntiMoney Laundering Act of 20011", as amended:

SEC. 7. Creation of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The AntiMoney Laundering Council is hereby created and shall be composed of the
Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as Chairman, the Commissioner
of the Insurance Commission and the Chairman of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, as members. The AMLC shall act unanimously in the
discharge of its functions as defined hereunder:
(12) to require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds
to submit to the AMLC, reports on all real estate transactions involving an
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within
fifteen (15) days from the date of registration of the transaction, in a form to
be prescribed by the AMLC. The AMLC may also require the Land
Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds to submit copies of
relevant documents of all real estate transactions.

D. Title and Deed Registration System

1. Deed Registration
In Deed Registration, the deed executed by the parties, being a document which
describes an isolated transaction on a piece of land, is registered. This deed is
evidence that a particular transaction took place between the parties, but it is in
principle not in itself a proof of the legal rights of the transacting parties to deal with
the land. Thus before any dealing can be safely effected, the ostensible owner must
trace his ownership back to a good root of title.
In Deed Registration, the initial enrolment or original registration of a parcel of land
to the system is not necessary. The determination of the rights of the holder of the
ostensible title is not material to the registrar as what he is recording are not titles
that his office guarantees but only the transactions or dealings of the parties.

2. Title Registration
In Title Registration, it is not the deed describing the transfer of rights but the legal
consequence of the transaction or the right itself that is registered. The registrar
modifies, cancels and issues new titles in accordance with the deed executed by the
parties to a transaction. To be able to effectively register and issue titles, the
registrar only accepts titles that has been determined and declared by the State as
indefeasible titles or those titles has been adjudicated in a proceeding that binds
everyone. This indefeasible titles are then registered and a certificate of title issued
to the owner with a guarantee from the State that the person holding the same is the
true and lawful owner of the property described and that any person can transact
with the registered owner with confidence that the land is not subject to any
unregistered claim coming from third persons.
Title Registration system shifts the balance significantly towards facility of transfer. It
provides a public register of interests in land and enables a purchaser who complies
Page 3 of 42

with the system to acquire ownership free of a prior interest which is not recorded in
the register.

3. Difference
Deed registration is concerned with the registration of the legal fact and while title
registration is concerned with the legal consequence of that fact. In other words, in
deed registration, the registrar only records the fact that there was a transaction on a
piece of land between the parties by recording the deed evidencing said
transaction while in title registration, the registrar records the effect of the deed
executed by the parties and correspondingly makes modification on the title to the
land subject of the transaction. Thus, if the deed that was executed by the parties
effectively transferred the land to the buyer, the title registry will cancel the title of the
registered owner and issue a new title to the buyer as the new owner of the land
since this cancellation of the title and issuance of a new one is the legal
consequence of the such sale.

E. Torrens System of Land Registration

1. Purpose of the Torrens System in General
Provide security of ownership, that is, it should protect an owner against being
deprived of ownership except by his or her own act or by specific operation of a legal
process such as expropriation or debt collection.
Provide facility of transfer, that is, it should enable anyone, particularly a purchaser,
to acquire ownership easily, quickly, cheaply and safely. Unfortunately, the measure
designed to achieve one of these purposes is likely to militate against achieving the
other.

2. Principles Behind the Torrens System

Under the torrens system was devise to make transfer of title effective, efficient and
simple. In order to do this, title to land are initially acquired only by enrolling the land into
the system (original registration) and thereafter all subsequent transfers and dealings on
the land have to be registered to have an effect against third persons should be
registered.

The Mirror Principle

The register is supposed to reflect the correct legal situation on the parcel; the
register should reflect as accurately as possible the true state of title to land so
that persons who propose to deal with land can discover all the facts relative to the
tile

The Curtain Principle

No further historical investigation on the title "beyond what is stated register is
necessary; a purchaser should not need to go behind the register to investigate
the root of the title

Page 4 of 42

The Insurance or Guarantee Principle

The State guarantees that what is registered is true for third parties in good faith
and that a bona fide rightful claimant who is contradicted by the register is
reimbursed from an insurance fund of the state.

F. Kinds Title Registration

1. Original Registration
It deals with the initial compilation of land titles in the registers through the
determination of tenurial right holder to the land.
In the Philippines, this is done through the registration of patents and registration of
decrees after original disposition of the State of lands from the public domain.
Adjudication, as it is called in other countries, of private ownership on lands is the
first function that the system of land registration has to fulfil. The conferment of first
time ownership of the land by the State to a private individual or entity creates titles
that are registered with the land registry. These original titles made up the initial
compilation of land rights in a land registration system.

2. Subsequent Transactions and Transfers of Right

After the original registration of titles conferred by the State, registered owners may
transact their rights on the lands with other persons through deeds and other pubic
instruments. Such deed or public instrument affecting registered land is made of public
record through registration of such deed or sale with the land registry.

a) Simple transfer of rights

A person takes the interest of the registered owner of a parcel of land as the
same well-defined parcel.

C. Transfers of rights with changes in the Property Unit

The transaction caused the formation of new parcels of land. In this kind of
transfer, the parcel as a property as a unit and the interest thereat changes as
a result of the transfer. This changes are caused by subdivision or
consolidation of land parcels and involves an elaborate procedure of
delineation of the new property unit/s. The new owner and his interest will have
to be connected to the newly formed parcels. This means that the existing
registers have to be updated due to subsequent changes in the boundaries of
the parcels.

Page 5 of 42

II. Land Registration in the Philippines

In the Philippines, there are presently only two (2) systems of registration of real
property or rights therein, namely, the Torrens system, and the system of recording of
unregistered real estate. The Spanish Mortgage Law system of registration has been
discontinued with the enactment of P.D. 892, dated February 16, 1976 and P.D. 1529
dated June 11, 1978. Section 1 of P.D. 892 provides that the system of registration
under the Spanish Mortgage Law is discontinued and all lands recorded under said
system which are not yet covered by Torrens Titles shall be considered unregistered
lands under Section 113 of PD No. 1529.

A. Operation of the Torrens System in the Philippines

Introduced under Act 496 and Presidential Decree No. 1529

1. The Mirror Principles

The register is supposed to reflect the correct legal situation on the parcel.

a) Certainty as to the Identity of the Land

Land identification is done through survey; survey is a requirement before a land
can be registered.
Survey of the land before approval of public land application (Section 8 of
CA No. 141)
Survey of the land before registration (Section 15 for original voluntary
registration and Section 35 and 36 for Cadastral)
Approval of the subdivision survey of the land before issuance of new
derivative titles (Section 50, PD No. 1529)
Exception: Mistakes in the resurvey or subdivision of registered land
resulting in the expansion of the area in the certificate of title is not a
recoverable loss from the Assurance fund (Section 101 of PD No. 1529)

b) Certainty as to the Ownership of the Land

The identity of the owner of the registered land is ensured during the original
registration proceedings, cadastral registration proceedings or through the
processing of public land application under the Public Land Act; the personal
circumstances of applicants are secured during the proceedings;
The proceedings in original registration by operations of law is in rem and
adversarial, thus, the whole world is given an opportunity to contest ownership of
the applicant. In public lands where the state (as owner) directly confers the land
to the grantee who has to be qualified by the lands department.
Statement of personal circumstances in public land applications;
Statement of personal circumstances in ordinary and cadastral registration
proceedings;
Page 6 of 42

Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate of title. (Section 45 of

PD No. 1529)
Posting of Notice of the Applications
Publications

2. The Curtain Principle - The Creation of an Indefeasible Titles

No further historical investigation on the title beyond what is stated in the certificate of
title issued by the title registry is necessary; a purchaser should not need to go behind
the certificate of title to investigate the root of the title; indefeasible titles on land are
created by registration under the system.
Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of
registration and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of
title for value and in good faith holds the same free form all encumbrance except
those noted in the certificate. (Section 44, PD No. 1529);
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 (Section
48, PD No. 1529)
No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquire by prescription. (Section 47, PD No. 1529)

3. Exception to Indefeasibility
Every registered owners and subsequent purchasers of registered lands are
subject to the following encumbrances on the title even if these does not appear
on the certificate of title.
Liens, claims or rights under the law which are not required to appear of record
in the Registry of Deeds
Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within 2 years
Public high ways/canals or private way if the title does not state that the
boundaries of such highway have been determined
Disposition pursuant to agrarian reform law
Registered land are subject to burdens and incident as any arise by operation
of law.
Rights incident to marital relation
Landlord and tenant relationship
Liability to attachment or levy on execution
Liability to any lien of any description established by law on the land and the
buildings
Change the laws of descent
Rights of partition between co-owners
Page 7 of 42

Right to take the same by eminent domain

Liability to be recovered by an assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankruptcy
under the laws relative to preferences
Change or affect in any way other rights or liabilities created by law and
applicable to unregistered land, except as otherwise provided under PD No.
1529.
Deferred indefeasibility
In Decree - the case cannot be reopened except if such decree was
obtained by actual fraud, action should be filed within 1 year after the
issuance of decree. (Section 32, PD No. 1529)
In Patents - the date of the issuance of patents corresponds to the date of
the issue of the decree in ordinary registration cases, because the decree
finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitle to it and the
patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards and
conveys the land applied for to the applicant. The purpose and effect of both
the decree and the patent is the same

4. Action for Reconveyance

A legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful land owner of land which has
been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another for purpose of
compelling the latter to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
A person who has been wrongfully or fraudulently deprived of his real property or
interest therein may file an action for reconveyance of said property against the
person who perpetuated the fraud. Instances: mistake, fraud, forgery, breach of
trust, misrepresentation, illegality, lack of marital consent, erroneous inclusion of the
land, registration in bad faith, double titles, double sales, exclusion of co-heirs,
expanded areas, equity, re issuable contracts, voida le contracts, up enforceable
contracts, void and in existent contracts.
Effect - it operates as an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code. Thus, an
action to enforce an implied trust is an action based upon an obligation created by
law. (Villagonzago vs IAC, GR No. 71110
November 22, 1988)

February 22, 1961, Juan C. Villagonzalo purchased Lot No. 7429 of the
Ormoc Cadastre containing an area of 97,213 sq. meters covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 24611 of the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City, from the
Heirs of Roman Matuguina for Pl,500.00. It was made to appear however that
the sale was in the name of his daughter, Cecilia Villagonzalo, who was single,
since he borrowed from her the sum of P500.00 to complete the full payment
of the price of the lot. Consequently, TCT No. 4259 was issued in the name of
Cecilia A. Villagonzalo as the registered owner on July 18, 1962. A complaint
for was filed on April 2, 1975 thirteen (13) years after the issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 4259 on the subject land in the name of the defendant
Cecilia Villagonzalo by Juan C. Villagonzalo and Felicisima A. Villagonzalo
who claims inheritance.
Instances:
Page 8 of 42

a. Forgery
(1) Cannot be presumed (Aznar Brother Realty Co. v. CA, 327 SCRA 359)

Lot No. 4399 containing an area of 34,325 square meters located in LapuLapu City, was acquired by AZNAR from the heirs of Crisanta Maloloy-on by
virtue of an Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale
dated 3 March 1964. This deed was registered with the Register of Deeds of
Lapu-Lapu City on 6 March 1964 as shown on the face thereof. Luis Aying et
al, were allegedly allowed to occupy portions of Lot No. 4399 by mere
tolerance. Later, AZNAR entered into a joint venture with Sta. Lucia Realty
Development Corporation for the development of the subject lot into a multimillion peso housing subdivision and beach resort. AZNAR filed a unlawful
detainer. Aying are in possession of the land and claimes that the Extrajudicial
Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is void ab initio for being
simulated and fraudulent, and they came to know of the fraud only when
AZNAR entered into the land in the last quarter of 1991 and destroyed its
vegetation. They then filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu-Lapu
City a complaint seeking to declare the subject document null and void.

It is worthy to note that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale
is a notarized document. As such, it has in its favor the presumption of
regularity, and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect
to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of
authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. He who denies
its due execution has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the
Acknowledgment he never appeared before the notary public and
acknowledged the deed to be his voluntary act. It must also be stressed that
whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same. Forgery cannot
be presumed but should be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Private
respondents failed to discharge this burden of proof; hence, the presumption
in favor of the questioned deed stands.

Note: deed was registered under Act 3344; title was reconstituted in 1988;
conveyance of the land is different from the conveyance of the title (?)
(2) The rule is that the registration procured by the presentation of a forged
duplicate certificate of titles forged deed of sale or other instruments is null
and void (Sec. 53 of PD 1529)
(a) Fule v. De Lagare (7 SCRA 351)

Emilia E. de Legare, was the owner of a parcel of land with house

situated at No. 146 Sta. Mesa Boulevard Extension, San Juan, Rizal,
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21253, issued by the Office of
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal. She was living in that
house together with defendant John W. Legare, her adopted son, and a
maid named Purita Tarrosa. On September 26, 1951, the land was
mortgaged to Tomas Q. Soriano to guarantee the payment of a loan in
the amount of P8.000.00. This and recorded in the Office of the Register
of Deeds of the province of Rizal. Sometime May 1953, John made Emila
to sign a deed of sale in a fraudulent scheme (Huk Balahap and Hotel
story). John offered the property in sale to Conrado C. Fule and Lourdes
Page 9 of 42

F. Aragon. Conrado C. Fule read the title papers in the hand of John W.
Legare and inspected the premises, and satisfied with the result of his
inspection, he agreed to purchase the property for P12,000.00 on
condition that the sum of P7,000, the unpaid balance to Tomas Q.
Soriano secured by a mortgage thereon, would be deducted from the
price, and that he would assume said mortgage. The deed of sale
executed by the Emilia in favor of defendant John W. Legare issued in
the name of the latter transfer certificate of title No. 30126 which
cancelled transfer for certificate of title No. 21253 then the deed of sale
executed by John W. Legare in favor of the spouses Conrado C. Fule
and Lourdes F. Aragon and issued in favor of the latter transfer certificate
of title No. 30127 , which cancelled transfer certificate of title No. 30126,
and then annotated on the memorandum of encumbrances of transfer
certificate of title No. 30127 the deed of mortgage executed in favor of
Tomas Q. Soriano by said spouses. .

Court said that Fule exercise all caution while Emilia Aragon was not
prudent. Although the deed of sale in favor of John W. Legare was
fraudulent, the fact remains that he was able to secure a registered title
to the house and lot. It was this title which he subsequently conveyed to
the herein petitioners. We have indeed ruled that a forged or fraudulent
deed is a nullity and conveys no title (Director of Lands vs. Addison, 49
Phil., 19). However, we have also laid down the doctrine that there are
instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a
valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and while it
remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared
in the certificate (Inquimboy vs. Cruz, 108 Phil., 1054).
(b) Deed executed by an impostor (Tenorio-Obsequio v. CA, 230 SCRA 550)

On September 10, 1986, Alimpuos filed a complaint in the court a quo

against herein petitioners Consorcia Tenio and her husband, Orlando
Obsequio, and the heirs of Eduardo Deguro for recovery of possession
and ownership.

in 1964, they mortgaged the land to Eduardo Deguro for P10,000.00;

that to guaranty the loan they delivered to the latter the original
certificate of title to the land; that in the meantime, they continued to
cultivate the same and, at the end of the harvest season, they gave
two-thirds (2/3) of the harvest to Eduardo Deguro; that on June 25,
1965, Eduardo Deguro and his wife, without the knowledge and
consent of herein private respondents, prepared a document of sale
and through misrepresentation and other manipulations made it appear
that private respondents sold the land to them.

This deed of sale was annotated at the back of the said certificate of
title as Entry No. 16007. By virtue thereof, Original Certificate of Title
No. P-1181 in the name of Eufronio Alimpoos was cancelled and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1360 was correspondingly issued in
favor of Eduardo Deguro. After the death of Eduardo Deguro, his heirs
sold the land to Consorcia Tenio-Obsequio. On September 22, 1970,
Page 10 of 42

Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1421 was issued in her name. It was
allegedly only in 1982, when Eufronio Alimpoos received a Certificate
of Agricultural Leasehold of his land from the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), that he learned that the land was already titled in the
name of another.
(c) Duty of the buyer to ascertain the identity of the seller especially when he
is not a registered owner (Treasurer of the Philippines v. CA, 153 SCRA
359)

Sometime in 1965, a person identifyin himself as Lawaan Lopez

offered to sell to the Ocson a parcel of land located in Quezon City.
The sale was deferred because Lopez said his certificate of title had
been burned in his house in Divisoria, and he would have to file a
petition in court for a duplicate certificate of title.

Following the issuance of the new duplicate certificate of title, the

said person executed a deed of sale in favor of the Ocson, who paid
him the stipulated purchase price of P98,700.00 in full. The
corresponding transfer certificate of title was subsequently issued to
them after cancellation of the duplicate certificate of Lawaan Lopez.

Two years the real Lawaan Lopez, filed a petition in the court of first
instance of Quezon City to declare as null and void the transfer of
her land in favor of the private respondents, on the ground that it had
been made by an impostor. After trial, the questioned deed of sale
was annulled, (together with the duplicate certificate of title issued to
the impostor and the transfer certificate of title in the name of the
Ocson) and the real owner's duplicate certificate of title was
revalidated. Neither the Solicitor General nor the private respondents
appealed the decision, but Lawaan Lopez did so, claiming that the
defendants should have been required to pay damages to her and
the costs.

Ocson filed a case against the Assurance Funds.

Court said :
Ocson were not exactly diligent in verifying the credentials of the
impostor whom they had never met before he came to them with his
bogus offer. The fact alone that he claimed to have lost his duplicate
certificate of title in a fire, not to mention the amount of the
consideration involved, would have put them on their guard and
warned them to make a more thorough investigation of the seller's
Identity

The applicable law is Section 101 of Act No. 496 (before its revision
by P.D. No. 1529) providing as follows:

Sec. 101. Any person who without negligence on his part sustains
loss or damage through any omission, mistake or misfeasance of the
clerk, or register of deeds, or of any examiner of titles, or of any
deputy or clerk or of the register of deeds in the performance of their
respective duties under the provisions of this Act, and any person
Page 11 of 42

who is wrongfully deprived of any land or any interest therein,

without negligence on his part, through the bringing of the same
under the provisions of this Act or by the registration of any other
person as owner of such land, or by any mistake, omission, or
misdescription in any certificate or owner's duplicate, or in any entry
or memorandum in the register or other official book, or by any
cancellation and who by the provisions of this Act is barred or in any
way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such land
or interest therein, or claim upon the same, may bring in any court or
competent jurisdiction an action against the Treasurer of the
Philippine Archipelago for the recovery of damages to be paid out of
the Assurance Fund.
(d) Failure to exercise caution is equivalent to bad faith (Egao v. CA, 283
SCRA 484)

Lot 662 (Egao) Lot 661 (Conejos) ----transferred to Roberto Marfori

---- to Dignos and Bolitao

Prohibition on Sale - Deeds of sale of patented lands, perfected

within the prohibited five (5) year period are null and void (Sec. 124,
Public Land Act). No title passed from the Egaos to Marfori which
could be validly transferred to Bontilao and Dignos. Nemo dat quod
non habet (nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to
him).

The law requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys
from a person who is not the registered owner, when the land object
of the transaction is registered land. While one who buys from the
registered owner need not look behind the certificate of title, one who
buys from another who is not the registered owner is expected to
examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances
necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of
the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land. Failing to
exercise caution of any kind whatsoever is tantamount to bad faith.
Furthermore, a private individual may not bring an action for
reversion or any action which would have the effect of cancelling a
free patent and the corresponding certificate of title issued on the
basis thereof, with the result that the land covered thereby will again
form part of the public domain, as only the Solicitor General or the
officer acting in his stead may do so.

Egao as registered owners are entitled to remain in physical

possession of the disputed property. Dignos and Bontillao are
ordered to deliver the owner's duplicate copy of the OCT (No.
P-3559) to petitioners, without prejudice to an action for reversion of
the land, which may be instituted by the Solicitor General for the
State.
(e) Not applicable when the land is already titled in the name of the forger or
such name indicated by the forger - fraudulent deed maybe a root of a
valid title. The right of an innocent purchaser for value will have to be
respected.
Page 12 of 42

(f) But this does not apply when the real owner had in her possession her
own certificate of title to the land all the time.
(g) It is applicable only when the forger acquires the owner's duplicate,
acquires a new certificate of title in his name and then sell it to an
innocent purchaser for value

b. Forgery
(a) Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing with registered
land need not go beyond its certificate of Title, it is expected from the
purchaser of a valued property to inquire first into the status or nature of
possession of the occupant, whether or not the occupants possess the
land en concepto de dueo, in concept of an owner.
(b) The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchasers 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.
Possession by people other than the vendor without making inquiry,
cannot be regarded as bona fide purchaser in good faith
(c) Dacasin v. Court of Appeals, Capua, et al. GR No. L-32723, Oct 28,
1977

Florentina Quijanon to Emilia Abad (1929) to Jose Maramba (1958)

land is unregistered land

None of the deeds of sale evidencing the ownership of Gualberto

Calulot and Felipe Capua were registered in the Registry of Property,
hence they cannot prevail over the rights of the petitioner who holds in
his favor the instrument of sale duly registered.

The claim of the respondents based on acquisitive prescription is,

therefore, without merit. What remains, therefore, is the sole question
of ownership which as respondent court itself held - if respondents'
claim of acquisitive prescription is defeated - must unquestionably be
rendered in favor of petitioner Jose Maramba and his co-petitioners by
right of res judicata.

Under the law, Article 709 of the New Civil Code, titles of ownership or
of other rights over immovable property duly inscribed or annotated in
the Registry of Property constitute notice to third persons and affords
protection in favor of him who in good faith relies upon what appears in
the registry. As between two parties relying on their respective
instruments of sale of the same property, law and justice command that
he who has registered his deed must prevail over his adversary who
has not done so. The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to
be aware of the supposed title of the vendor and he who buys without
checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to
such failure.
(d) Roxas v. Court of Appeals and Magueson Management, GR No.
138660, February 5, 2004). Related to Heirs of Manuel A. Roxas v. Court
of Appeals, 337 Phil. 41 (1997).
Page 13 of 42

 Meycauayans predecessor-in-interest, Maguesun, committed actual

fraud in obtaining the decree of registration of the subject properties.
The Decision in G.R. No. 118436 binds Meycauayan under the
principle of privity of interest since it was a successor-in-interest of
Maguesun. Meycauayan, however, insists that it was a purchaser in
good faith because it had no knowledge of any pending case involving
the lots. Meycauayan claims that the trial court had already canceled
the notice of lis pendens on the titles when it purchased the lots from
Maguesun. In its Memorandum, Meycauayan stresses that to ensure
the authenticity of the titles and the annotations appearing on the titles,
particularly the cancelation of the notice of lis pendens, Meycauayan
checked with the Register of Deeds and the Regional Trial Court of
Tagaytay City. Since Meycauayan checked with the Regional Trial
Court of Tagaytay City, Meycauayan then had actual knowledge,
before it purchased the lots, of the pending case involving the lots
despite the cancelation of the notice of lis pendens on the titles.

Furthermore, the Roxas family has been in possession of the property

uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez, who resided on
the property. Where the land sold is in the possession of a person
other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificates of
title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual possessor.
Meycauayan therefore cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good
faith and could not have acquired a better right than its predecessor-ininterest. This Court has already rejected Meycauayans claim that it
was a purchaser in good faith when it ruled in G.R. No. 118436 that
there had been no intervening rights of an innocent purchaser for value
involving the lots in dispute.R
(e) Caram v. Laureta, GR No. L-28740, Feb. 24, 1981

Generally, circumstances which would have reasonably require the

purchaser to investigate defects in title

On June 10, 1945, Marcos Mata conveyed OCT No. 3019 in favor of
Claro Laureta. The deed of absolute sale was not registered because it
was not acknowledged before a notary public. At the time the sale was
executed, there was no authorized officer before whom the sale could
be acknowledged inasmuch as the civil government in Tagum, Davao
was not as yet organized.

Marcos Mata delivered to Laureta the peaceful and lawful possession

of the premises of the land together with the pertinent papers thereof
such as the Owner's Duplicate Original Certificate of Title. Since June
10, 1945, Laureta had been and is still in continuous, adverse and
notorious occupation of said land, without being molested, disturbed or
stopped by any of the defendants or their representatives. In fact,
Laureta had been paying realty taxes due thereon and had introduced
improvements worth not less than P20,000.00 at the time of the filing of
the complaint.

On May 5 1947, the same land covered by Original Certificate of Title

No. 3019 was sold by Marcos Mata to Fermin Z. Caram Jr.. The deed
Page 14 of 42

of sale in favor of Caram was acknowledged before Atty. Abelardo

Aportadera. On May 22, 1947, Marcos Mata, through Attys. Abelardo
Aportadera and Gumercindo Arcilla, filed with the Court of First
Instance of Davao a petition for the issuance of a new Owner's
Duplicate of Original Certificate of Title No. 3019, alleging as ground
therefor the loss of said title in the evacuation place of defendant
Marcos Mata in Magugpo, Tagum, Davao. On June 5, 1947, the Court
of First Instance of Davao issued an order directing the Register of
Deeds of Davao to issue a new Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title
No. 3019 in favor of Marcos Mata and declaring the lost title as null and
void.

On December 9, 1947, the second sale between Marcos Mata and

Fermin Caram Jr. was registered with the Register of Deeds. On the
same date, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 140 was issued in favor of
Fermin Caram Jr.

Decision: Laureta was already in possession of the land. Irespe and

Aportadera (agents of Caram) should have investigated the nature of
Laureta's possession. If they failed to exercise the ordinary care
expected of a buyer of real estate they must suffer the consequences.
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
vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such
failure.The principle that a person dealing with the owner of the
registered land is not bound to go behind the certificate and inquire into
transactions the existence of which is not there intimated should not
apply in this case.

Irespe and Aportadera, acting as agents of Ceram, purchased the

property of Mata in bad faith. Applying the principle of agency, Ceram,
as principal, should also be deemed to have acted in bad faith.
(f) Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals, Norma San Jose and Diana Torres,
GR No. 91383, May 31, 1991

Finally, when Torres herself visited the property she carefully evaded
seeing Crisostomo personally, the actual occupant thereof, who could
have easily enlightened her as to the true owner (Rollo, p. 116). Such
unnatural behavior points more convincingly to the fact that she was
aware that San Jose was not its real owner.

A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely upon the fact of
the Torrens Certificate of Title and to dispense with the need of
inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make further inquiries (Gonzales v. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 587 [1988]).

It is a well-settled rule that a purchaser or mortgagee cannot close his

eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and
then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no
defect in the title of the vendor or mortgagor. His mere refusal to
believe that such defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the
Page 15 of 42

possibility of the existence of a defect in the vendor's or mortgagor's

title, will not make him an innocent purchaser or mortgagee for value, if
it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears
that he had such notice of the defects as would have led to its
discovery had he acted with the measure of precaution which may be
required of a prudent man in a like situation.

c. Lack of Marital Consent

(a) Embrado v. C and Cimafranca, 233 SCRA 335

A deed of sale of a conjugal property executed by the wife without her

husband's consent is null and void

On 2 July 1946, Carpitanos sold Lot No. 564 to Lucia Embrado. The
sale was registered and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-99 was
issued on 13 February 1948 in the name of Lucia Embrado alone, who
was by then already married to petitioner Oreste Torregiani since 1943.

However, by virtue of a court order in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 2330 of the
then Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, the word single
appearing in TCT No. T-99 was canceled and replaced on 19 October
1970 by the phrase married to Oreste Torregiani. The Torregianis
then made their conjugal abode on the lot and in 1958 constructed a
residential/commercial building thereon.

On May 1971, Lucia Embrado Torregiani sold Lot No. 564, described
as her own paraphernal property, to her adopted daughter, herein
private respondent Eda Jimenez, for the sum of P1,000.00. Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-99 was canceled to give way to TCT No.
T-17103 in the name of Eda Jimenez, married to Santiago Jimenez.

In 1972, Eda Jimenez portion of Lot 564 to Marcos Salimbagatfor and

to Pacifico Cimafranca for P30,000. Both sales were duly annotated on
TCT No. T-17103. On 25 September 1972, the Torregianis instituted an
action for declaration of nullity of contract, annulment of sales,
reconveyance and damages against the spouses Santiago and Eda
Jimenez, Marcos Salimbagat and Pacifico Cimafranca alleging that the
sale of Lot 564 by Lucia Embrado to Eda Jimenez was void not only for
lack of consideration but also because Oreste Torregiani did not
consent to the sale, which consent was necessary because Lot 564
was conjugal property.

The deed of sale is null and void since its object, Lot 564, is conjugal
property which was sold by Lucia Embrado without her husbands
conformity. The present vendees, Marcos Salimbagat and Pacifico
Cimafranca, who bought the property from Eda Jimenez have failed to
persuade us that they acquired the property in good faith.

d.

Defects, Errors, on identity of Land

(a) Section 50 par (4) - The Commission may not order or cause any change,
modification, or amendment in the contents of any certificate of title, or of
any decree or plan, including the technical description therein, covering

Page 16 of 42

any real property registered under the Torrens system, nor order the
cancellation of the said certificate of title and the issuance of a new one
which would result in the enlargement of the area covered by the
certificate of title.
(b) Can be corrected; the long and continued possession of petitioners under
a claim of title cannot be defeated by the claim of a registered owner
whose title is defective from the very beginning (Agne v. Director of
Lands, 181 SCRA 793)

On April 17, 1937 Herminigildo Agpoon received a free patent and on

May 21, 1937 the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan issued Original
Certificate of Title No. 2370 to him.

On April 6, 1960, Presentacion Agpoon Gascon inherited the said

parcel of land and was issued TCT No. 32209.

During the Japanese occupation, Agne, et al., took possession of

said land by means of fraud, stealth, strategy and intimidation and
thereafter refused to give possession of the land to Agpoon. Agne
claims possession since 1920, the land being part of a river bed that
they acquire by accretion under Article 370 of the old Civil Code.

March 6, 1974, Agner, et al. filed a complaint against the Director of

Lands and spouses Agpoon for annulment of title, reconveyance of
and/or action to clear title to a parcel of land.

The rule on the incontrovertibility of a certificate of title does not

apply where an action for the cancellation of a patent/certificate of
title is instituted on the ground of jurisdiction (private land). Such an
action is different from a review of the decree of title on the ground of
fraud. Moreover, since herein petitioners are in possession of the
land in dispute, an action to quiet title is imprescriptible. Their action
for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to property in
one's possession is imprescriptible. Their undisturbed possession for
a number of years gave them a continuing right to seek the aid of a
court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claims of a
third party and the effect on her title. As held in Caragay-Layno vs.
Court of Appeals, et al., an adverse claimant of a registered land,
undisturbed in his possession thereof for a period of more than fifty
years and not knowing that the land he actually occupied had been
registered in the name of another, is not precluded from filing an
action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to
property as against the registered owner who was relying upon a
Torrens title which could have been fraudulently acquired. To such
adverse claimant, the remedy of an action to quiet title is
imprescriptible.

The Torrens system was not established as a means for the

acquisition of title to private land. It is intended merely to confirm and
register the title which one may already have on the land. Where the
evidence show the true owner of the land subject of the free patent
and title granted to another and that the registered owner and his
predecessor in interest were never in possession, the Court, in the
Page 17 of 42

exercise of its equity jurisdiction and without ordering the

cancellation of said title issued upon the patent, may direct the
defendant registered owner to reconvey the property to the true
owner.
(c) Golloy v. CA, 173 SCRA 26

Mere possession of certificate of title under the Torrens system is not

conclusive as to the holder's true ownership of all the property
described therein for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone
become the owner of the land illegally included.

Galicia Galloy has been the registered owner and in possession parcel
of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 45764 for 20 years.
The Southwest portion of this land is bounded by Valdez et al. land
which is covered by Certificate of Title No. 8565. Sometime in
February, 1966, Valdez subdivided their land among themselves. In the
course of the subdivision, Valdez caused to be placed two (2)
monuments inside the Southwest portion of petitioner's land. Galloy
filed an action for quieting of title.

Golloy and his predecessor or predecessors have been in continuous

possession in the concept of an owner, for almost fifty (50) years (from
August 15, 1919, when the property was registered, up to February,
1966, when Valdez caused the placement of two (2) monuments inside
his land), the latter if they have any right at all to the overlapped
portion, are guilty of laches.

Citing: Caragay-Layno vs. Court of Appeals and Devera (133 SCRA

718, 723-724 [1984]) and Lola vs. Court of Appeals (145 SCRA 439,
449 [1986])
(d) Caragay-Layno v. CA and Devera 133 SCRA 718

Devera's instituted a suit against Caragay for the recovery of the land
that is included in his title but is under the possession of Caragay.
According to Caragau, the disputed portion had been fraudulently or
mistakenly included in OCT No. 63, so that an implied or constructive
trust existed in her favor. She filed a counterclaim-claim for
reconveyance of property. Devera claims that Caragay's assertion of
an implied trust has prescribed since the registration has been for more
than 10 years.

Prescription cannot be invoked against Caragay-Layno for the reason

that as lawful possessor and owner of the Disputed Portion, her cause
of action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the
property, falls within settled jurisprudence that an action to quiet title to
property in one's possession is imprescriptible.

Her undisturbed possession over a period of fifty two (52) years gave
her a continuing right to seek the aid of a Court of equity to determine
the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and the effect on her
own title.
Page 18 of 42

 De Vera is guilty of laches since he and his successors did not do

anything to contest the possession of Caragay for 20 years.
(e) The inclusion is null and void, land registration cannot be made a shield
(Vda. De Recinto v. Inciong, 77 SCRA 196)

In 1946 Ruperto Inciong acquired a land by purchase from Matias

Amurao. The land was was registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title No. Rt-379 (T-211) of the Register of Deeds of Batangas. The land
was formerly identified as Lot No. 8151 of the Cadastral Survey in the
area during the cadastral proceedings from 1936 to 1940.

In 1961, after a relocation survey of the land was effected it was

discovered that its southern boundary covering an area of 8,591
square meters was in the possession of petitioner, Consuelo Malaluan
Vda. de Recinto.

Inciong filed an action for recovery of possession of the portion held by

the De Recinto who claims to be the owner of the area in question and
as counter-claim demanded the reconveyance of the land from Inciong.

The area in question has been erroneously included in the cadastral

survey of Lot No. 8151 and in the original certificate of title without the
knowledge of the parties concerned. As a result, the same description
in the original certificate of title was carried over into the succeeding
transfer certificates of title of the subsequent owners covering the
same parcel of land.

Inciong's and his predecessors-in-interest and later have all along

treated the area in question as belonging to De Recinto. What
prompted him to get interested over the disputed area was when he
came to learn after the relocation survey in 1961 that said disputed
area was included in his title.

The inclusion of said area in the title of Lot No. 8151 is void and of no
effect for a land registration Court has no jurisdiction to decree a lot to
persons who have put no claim in it and who have never asserted any
right of ownership over it. The Land Registration Act as well as the
Cadastral Act protects only the holders of a title in good faith and does
not permit its provisions to be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud, or that one should enrich himself at the expense of another.
Resort to the provisions of said Acts do not give one a better title than
he really and lawfully has.

But was Inciong an innocent purchaser for value?

No because at the time he purchased the land he was aware that the
disputed portion was not included in the area conveyed to him by
Matias Amurao. A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property
of another without notice that some other person has a right to, or
interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the same, at
the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or
interest of some other person in the property.
Page 19 of 42

(f) Republic v. De Los Angeles, [ G.R. No. L-30240, March 25, 1988 ]

Republic and fishpond permittee vs Judge and Cia y Ayala

Hacienda Calatagan caused the survey and preparation of a composite
plan of Hacienda Calatagan, increasing its area from 9,652.583
hectares (as evidenced by TCT No. 722) to 12,000 hectares, by taking
or including therein lands of public dominion.

The Republic seeks recovery of possession of such areas in excess of

those covered by TCT No. 722, and for which fishpond permits were
already issued in favor of Tolentino, et al.;

Hacienda Calatagan while admitting that there really existed a

difference between the area (of the Hacienda) as appearing in TCT No.
722 and the plan prepared by the commissioned private surveyor for
the company, contend that the excess of the area was insignificant in
nature and attributable to the inaccuracy of the magnetic survey that
was used in the preparation of the plan upon which OCT No. 20 (and
later, TCT 722) was based.

A Resurvey Plan delineating the expanded areas covered by

subdivision titles derived from TCT No. 722 has been prepared by a
Committee created by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources wherein Ayala and/or Hacienda Calatagan was represented
by Engineer Tomas Sanchez, Jr. and approved by the Director of
Lands. Well to recall that under G.R. No. 26112 (44 SCRA 255, 263),
this Honorable Court, in a Resolution dated April 11, 1972, declared
that as soon as said resurvey is completed the proper writ of execution
for the delivery of possession of the portion found to be public land
should issue.

The SC declared that respondent judges gratuitous disapproval of

the Resurvey Plan and Report duly approved by the Director of Lands
and the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as null
and void for being ultra vires and lack of jurisdiction over the same.

It is well-recognized principle that purely administrative and

discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. In
general, courts have no supervising power over the proceedings and
actions of the administrative departments of government. This is
generally true with respect to acts involving the exercise of judgment or
discretion, and findings of fact. There should be no thought of
disregarding the traditional line separating judicial and administrative
competence, the former being entrusted with the determination of legal
questions and the latter being limited as a result of its expertise to the
ascertainment of the decisive facts.

e.

Double Title
(a) Prior title prevails
(b) Heirs of Gonzaga v. CA, 261 SCRA 327

Page 20 of 42

 The land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration

of the land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land
registration case.
(c) Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. V. IAC, Morris Carpo and QC
Development, G.R. No. 67451, September 28, 1987

Applies to subsequent owners who derives his title from the earlier title
Two (2) adjacent parcels of land located in Almanza, Las Pinas, Metro
Manila, having an aggregate area of 373,868 sq. m., situated in the
vicinity of the Ayala Alabang Project and BF Homes Paranaque are
covered by three (3) distinct sets of Torrens titles to wit:

OCT No. 1609, issued on May 21, 1958 from which TCT No. 20408,
issued on May 29, 1975 in the name of Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc.,
was derived.

OCT No. 8629 issued on October 13, 1970 from which TCT No.
303961 issued on October 13, 1970 in the name of Morris G. Carpo,
was derived.

OCT No. 8391 from which TCTs Nos. 333982 and 333985, issued on
July 27, 1971 in the name of Quezon City Development and Financing
Corporation was derived.

Carpo filed a complaint

OCT No. 1609 in the name of Dominador Mayuga, from whom Realty
derived its title, was issued in 1958, or twelve years before the
issuance of the title in the name of the Baltazars in 1970.

In this jurisdiction, it is settled that "(t)he general rule is that in the case
of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the
earlier in date prevails. . . . In successive registrations, where more
than one certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest
in land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the
estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior
certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or
indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate
issued in respect thereof. . . . " (Legarda and Prieto v. Saleeby, 31 Phil
590 [1915] at 595-596; Garcia v. CA, Nos. L-48971 and 49011,
January 22, 1980, 95 SCRA 380.)

TCT No. 20408, derived from OCT 1609, is therefore superior to TCT
No. 303961, derived from OCT 8629.
(d) Azarcon v. Vallarta, G.R. No. L-43679, October 28, 1980

Exception: when there is infirmity in the prior title

iIn 1932, Dr. Cajucom, father of Azarcon, sold a parcel of land to
Vallarta. There were other deeds executed to conform to some errors
in the land area sold, the last was in 1959. In the sales document, it
was mentioned that the property was unregistered land and that it was
Page 21 of 42

the "paraphernal" property of Dr. Cajucom having been inherited by

him from his father Nicolas Sarenas Cajucom.

In 1961, Azarcon filed a Free Patent Application over the disputed

property. In support of her application, ROSA presented the affidavits
of Antonio Puno, Antonio de la Cruz, she Santos and Emilio Sanguesa
attesting to the actual occupation and cultivation of the land in dispute
since 1934 by herself and/or her predecessors in-interest. The Free
Patent Application was approved and on May 8, 1961, the Register of
Deeds of Nueva Ecija issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-2815 in
the name of the Azarcons.

In 1965, the Vallartas, filed with the the court an application for
registration of the disputed property. A decision was rendered on April
18, 1966 affirming the title of the Vallartas and ordering registration in
their names. On July 18, 1966, the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija
issued Original Certificate of Title No. 0-3093 in the name of the
Vallartas.

We are fully cognizant of the well-settled rule that where two

certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same
land in whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail as between the
original parties, and in case of successive registration where more than
one certificate is issued over the land the person holding under the
prior certificate is entitled to the land as against the person who relies
on the second certificate. This presupposes, however, that the prior
title is a valid one. Where, as in the case at bar, it is evident that the
prior title of the Azarcons suffers from an inherent infirmity, such a rule
cannot be invoked in their favor.

A free patent which purports to convey land to which the government

did not have any title at the time of its issuance does not vest any title
in the patentee as against the true owner (Suva vs. Ventura, 40 Off.
Gaz., pp. 47-48, 4th Supp., Aug. 2341, Ct. App; Ramoso v. Obligado,
70 Phil. 86; Director of Lands v. Reyes, 69 Phil. 497; Vital vs. Anora,
G.R. No. L-4176, February 29, 1952). Plaintiffs were fully aware that on
February 26, 1961 when their application was approved, the land in
question was not a part of the public domain as to be disposable by the
Director of Lands, because as early as October 20, 1959, by virtue of
their. Where a person, who obtained free patent, knowingly made a
false statement of material and essential facts in his application, by
stating that the land applied for was part of the public domain not
occupied or claimed by any other person, when in fact, the same had
formally belonged to another as his private property from whom he
alleged to have acquired it, it was held that in accordance with Section
91 of Com. Act No. 141 his title is ipso facto cancelled, and
consequently, rendered null and void.
(e) DBP v. Mangawang, 11 SCRA 405

Gavino Amposta applied for a homestead patent over a parcel of land.

Pending action on his application, cadastral proceedings were
instituted by the government. On November 2, 1920, the government
Page 22 of 42

issued in favor of Amposta Homestead Patent No. 2388 covering the

same land, and on November 29, 1920, Original Certificate of Title No.
100 was issued to him. On December 20, 1922, the cadastral court
issued a decree of registration and on July 5, 1924, Original Certificate
of Title No. 2668 was issued to Amposta covering the same property.

On November 24, 1941, Amposta sold the land to Santos Camacho

surrending to him Original Certificate of Title No. 100, and because of
this transfer said title was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No.
5506 was issued in the name of Camacho.

On November 18, 1946, Santos Camacho sold the land to Bonifacio

Camacho as a result of which Transfer Certificate of Title No. 218 was
issued to the latter.

On April 28, 1948, Bonifacio Camacho mortgaged the land to the

Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the
Philippines), and having failed to pay the loan as agreed upon the land
was sold at public auction to said bank as the highest bidder. The
period of redemption having elapsed without Camacho being able to
redeem the property, a final deed of sale was executed in favor of the
bank, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6961 was issued in its name
on June 29, 1957.

Meanwhile, or on June 11, 1947, Gavino Amposta again sold the same
property to Lazaro and Arsenio Mangawang for the sum of P2,500.00,
the vendees executing a mortgage on the land to secure the payment
of the balance. On March 17, 1948, the vendees paid the balance of
the purchase price, and an absolute deed of sale was executed in their
favor. In connection with this transaction, Amposta surrendered to the
vendees the title that was issued to him in the cadastral case, which
was later substituted by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1098 issued in
the name of the vendees.

As a consequence of their purchase of the land, the Mangawang

brothers took possession thereof, and upon learning of this transfer,
the Development Bank of the Philippines, which as already stated
became the owner of the property, commenced the present action
against them in the Court of First Instance of Bataan to recover its
possession and damages. In this case, the parties submitted a
stipulation of facts, and on the strength thereof, the court a quo
rendered decision awarding the land to the Mangawang brothers.
Seasonably, this bank appealed to this Court.

Appellees contend that their right over the property in litigation should
be respected because the certificate of title they are holding is derived
from that issued pursuant to a decision rendered by a cadastral court.

On this score, it is important to consider the facts that led to the sale of
the land to the parties herein. Note that Amposta first sold the land to
Santos Camacho on the same date. And seven years thereafter, or on
March 17, 1018, Amposta again sold the land to the Mangawang
brothers, who also registered it in their name on the same date. Since
both purchasers apparently have acted in good faith, as there is
Page 23 of 42

nothing in the evidence to show that they did otherwise, We cannot hut
conclude that the sale made by Amposta to Santos Camacho is the
valid one considering that when Amposta sold the same land to the
Mangawang brothers he had nothing more to sell even if the title he
surrendered to them is one issued covering the same property. In legal
contemplation, therefore, Amposta sold a property he no longer owned,
and hence the transaction is legally ineffective.

On the other hand, the case under consideration can also be viewed
under a different angle. It can also be treated as one of double sale,
where a person sells the same land to two different persons who are
unaware of the flaw that lies in its title, and where the law adjudicates
the property to the purchaser who first registers the transaction in his
name in the registry of property. And applying this principle, we cannot
but conclude that the title should likewise be adjudicated to appellant
whose predecessor-in-interest acquired and registered the property
much ahead in point of time than the appellees. Verily, the title
acquired by the latter is invalid and ineffective, contrary to the finding of
the court a quo.

f.

Double Sale
General Rule: Article 1544. Should an immovable property, the ownership
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded the
transaction in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the
ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
possession and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the
oldest title, provided there is good faith.

g.

Exclusion of co-heirs
Vda. De Jacinto v. Vda de Jacinto, 5 SCRA 371

A co-heir who, through fraud, obtained a certificate of title in his name to

the prejudice of his co-heirs, is deemed to hold the land in trust for the
latter. The action does not prescribe.

h.

Faulty Registration
A certificate of title is not conclusive where it is a product of a faulty
registration. (Widows and Orphans Associations, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals, GR No. 919797)

5. Prescription of Action for Reconveyance

Registration of certificate of title from a fraudulent conveyance is constructive
notice - Annulment of deed of sale prescribes in four years on eh ground that the
defendant had obtained a certificate of title by means of fraudulent deed of sale is
virtually an action for annulment of the deed by reason of fraud which action should
be filed within a period of four (4) years from the time the deed of sale was
registered at the RoD. From said date, it is considered as a constructive notice of the
existence of the deed of sale (Armentia v. Patricia, 18 SCRA 1253; Gatioan v.
Tapucar, 140 SCRA 311)
Page 24 of 42

Registration of certificate of title from a fraudulent conveyance is an implied

trust - Civil Code Article 1114 (10 years to bring action; upon a written contract,
obligation created by law and judgements)
(a) Title acquired by fraud creates constructive trust - the legal principle is that if the
registration of the land is fraudulent, the person in whose name the land is
registered holds it as a mere trustee; and the real owner is thus entitled to file an
action for reconveyance within a period of ten (10) years (Pajarillo vs. IAC); there
is an obligation to reconvey (Caro vs. CA, 180 SCRA 401)
(b) Ten years from the cause of action accrued which is not necessarily the date of
execution of the contact, Naga Telephone Co., Inc. v. cA, 230 SCRA 351)
(c) Action base on Fraud - 10 years from the issuance of title or date of registration
of deed. (Caro v. CA, GR No. 76148, Dec. 201989; Leyson v. Bontuyan, GR
No. 156357, Feb. 18, 2005; Casipit v. CA, GR No. 96829, Dec. 9, 1991)
(d) Action base on implied trust - 10 years after issuance of title or date of
registration (Villagonzalo v. IAC, GR No. 71110, Nov. 22, 1988; Amerol v.
Bagumbaran)
(e) Action base on void contract - Imprescriptible (Solid State Multi-Products
Corp. v. CA GR No. 8338, May 6, 1991)
(f) Action based on fictitious deed - imprescriptible (Lacsamana vs. CA, GR No.
121658, March 27, 1988)
(g) Action to quiet title - imprescriptible when in possession (Sapto v. Fabiana,
GR No. L-11285, May 16, 1958; Caragay-Layno v. CA GR No. 52064, Dec. 26,
1984; Leyson vs. Buntuyan)
(h) Laches - is one of estoppel because it prevents people who have slept on their
rights from prejudicing the rights of third parties who have placed reliance on the
inaction of the original patentee and his successors in interest (Lucas vs.
Gamponia, GR No. L-9335, Oct. 31, 1956)
(i)

Res Judicata - Court cancels the title (Roxas v. Court of Appeals, GR No.
138660, Feb. 5, 2004)

(j)

State not bound by prescription (Republic v. Ruiz, GR No. L-23712, April 29,
1968)

(k) Laches - There is no statutory limit for recovery of a registered land base on
laches. A a long list of cases were decided upholding the doctrine. A word of
caution, however, is necessary because the Supreme Court has decided on a
case by case basis and it has not categorically set a specific time which could
serve as a precedent.

6. Insurance Principle
Section 93 to 102 of PD No. 1529 The Assurance Fund is an indemnity fund
created for the purpose of compensating a person who sustains loss or damage,
or is deprived of land or any interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the
land under the operation of the Torrens system or arising after original registration
of the land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or
Page 25 of 42

misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the

registration book. The Fund is sourced from the amount collected by the register of
deeds upon the entry of a certificate of title in the name of registered owner, as
well as upon the original registration on the certificate of title of a building or other
improvement on the land covered by said certificate equivalent to one-fourth of
one per cent of the assessed value of the real estate on the basis of the last
assessment for taxation purposes. All the money received by the register of deeds
shall be paid to the National Treasurer who shall keep the same in an Assurance
Fund which may be invested in the manner and form authorized by law.

7. Booking Principle
The act of registration from the time of such registering, filing or entering before the
register of deeds is the constructive notice and operative act to affect land that
affects third persons (Sections 51-52, PD No. 1529).
Presentation of owners duplicate necessary to transact voluntary registration
(Section 54, PD No. 1529).
Registration of the transaction in the primary entry book (Section 53, PD No. 1529).

8. Publicity
Notice Requirement in Original and Cadastral proceedings - publication, mailing and
posting.
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the
Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees. (Section 56, PD No. 1529)

B. Registration of Deeds and Instruments

1. Meaning
Registration of Deeds and other Instruments or subsequent registration takes place
when a deed or instrument affecting land is made of public record after the date of its
original registration. Thus, the registration of a sale, mortgage, lease, attachment,
notice of levy or other encumbrances falls within the purview of subsequent
registration.

2. Kinds of Deed Registration

Deed registration is either voluntary of involuntary registration of instruments.

a. Voluntary
Are contracts or agreements willfully executed by the land owner or his duly
authorized representative such as sales, leases, mortgages, donations,
exchanges, trusts or variations thereof affecting real estate.

Page 26 of 42

b. Involuntary
Refers to those executed against the will or without the consent of the landowner
contrary to his interest or will affect him adversely such as attachments, levy on
execution, adverse claim, lis pendens and other liens

3. Registration of Voluntary Dealings and Transactions

a. Compliance with the essential requisites of a contract
Consent - meeting of the minds;
Object Certain - subject of the contract; within the commerce of man and
lawful; and
Cause - consideration; prestation, services, benefits, pure beneficence or
liberality.

b. Observance of the Formal requirements of a public instrument

When the law requires that some contracts be in some form in order for it to
be valid or enforceable, i.e. must be in writing (agreements in marriage,
lease of more than one year, agency to sell real property, donations intervivos, etc.)
The contract must be executed in the form of a public instrument;
Signed by the person/s executing the same;
In the presence of two witnesses who shall likewise sign and acknowledge
to be their free act and deed of the parties;
Before a notary public or other public officer authorized by law to take
acknowledgement. Documents executed in a foreign country should be
acknowledged before a Philippine diplomatic or consular official. If
acknowledged before a foreign notary public, it should be authenticated by
the Philippine diplomatic or consular official before it can be registered.
All pages of the deed must be signed.
The documents presented shall contain the full name, nationality, residence
and postal address of the grantee or other person acquiring or claiming
interest; and
Must state marital status and name of wife/husband if married.

c. Submission of supporting documents for certain transactions

before registration as provided by special laws
Certified true copy of the Tax Declaration in transaction involving transfer of
ownership;
Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR) or Certificate of Exemption from
the BIR in case of sale, exchange or other disposition of real property;
Certification from the BIR that the documentary stamp tax has been paid;
Page 27 of 42

Certification from the LGU Treasurer that the property is not delinquent in
the payment of real estate taxes in case of alienation, transfer or
encumbrance of real property (Sec. 209, RA 7160, LGC1991);
Certification for the LGU Treasurer that the land transfer tax due on the
transaction has been paid in case of sale, donation, barter or any other
mode of transferring ownership or title of real property (Sec. 135, LGC
1991);
Clearance from Department of Agrarian Reform and Affidavit of Total
Landholdings by the vendee in case of sale of agricultural lands;
An Order fro the DAR Regional Director approving the sale in case the
property sold is covered by an Emancipation Patent;
Duly approved subdivision plan and its corresponding Technical Description
where the property to be titled by virtue of the transaction is a resulting lot of
a subdivision;
Special Power of Attorney - if the transaction is through an agent;
Court Order - if made through a guardians or administrators; and
For Corporations - Secretary Certificate or a copy of the Board Resolution
authorizing the transaction (sale, purchase, exchange) designating the
officer authorize to sign the deed.

d. Performance of the jurisdictional requisites for registration

Entry of the document in the primary entry book;
Payment of entry and registration fees; and
Production of the owners duplicate of title

e. Registration Procedure in Voluntary Transaction in General

1. Entry of the document in the primary entry or day book, accompanied by all
supporting documents applicable to the transaction; All supporting documents
applicable to the transaction should also be submitted together with the basic
instruments.
2. Section 56 of PD 1529 require each register of deeds to keep a primary entry
book where all instruments relating to registered land shall be entered in the
order of their reception. Entry in the day book is the preliminary step in
registration. The annotation of memorandum or the issuance of a new
certificate of title is the final step to accomplish registration. While the
preliminary step and the final step may not be accomplished in the same day,
this however, is of no consequence because if actual registration is
accomplished its effect retroacts to the date of entry in the day book. Thus, it
has been held that when a sale is registered in the name of the purchase
registration takes effect on the date when the deed was noted in the entry book
and not when final registration was accomplished.
3. To be noted in this book is the date, hour and minute of reception of all
instrument in the order they were received.
Page 28 of 42

4. Payment of the entry and registration fee - Upon entry of the document, the
corresponding entry and registration fees should be paid. In default of
payment, the entry in the primary entry book will ipso fact become null and
void.
5. Surrender of the owners duplicate certificate and al co-owners duplicate if any
had been issued.
a) No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the registry of deeds, unless
the owners duplicate certificate is presented with such instruments,
b) Exception in cases expressly provided for in PD 1529 or upon order of the
court, for cause shown.
c) If co-owners duplicate certificates has been issued, all outstanding
certificates so issued shall be surrendered whenever the register of deeds
shall register any subsequent voluntary transaction affecting the whole land
or part thereof or any interest therein
6. Examination of the document, certificate of title and supporting papers by the
deeds examiner.
a) Registrability of an instrument is initially determined by the deeds examiner
of the registry. If the document is found to comply with all requirements the
examiner recommends its registration to the register of deeds. Otherwise, he
recommends denial of registration.
b) The deeds examiner, on his own, is generally not allowed to register or deny
registration.
7. Review by the Register of Deeds of the action taken by the deeds examiner.
a) The authority to register or deny registration being lodge with the register of
deeds, he is required to review the action taken by the deeds examiner.
b) He may either adopt, alter, modify or reverse such action depending upon
his own appraisal of registrability of the instrument filed for registration.
8. Registration of the document or denial of registration by the register of deeds.
a) If the register of deeds finds that the document presented complies with all
the requisites for registration, it is his duty to immediately register the same.
b) 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 therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
accordance with Section 117 of P.D. 1529
c) Where the documents conveys the simple title, such as in sales, donations,
barter and other conveyances, the register of deeds shall make out in the
registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee and shall prepared
and deliver to him as owner an owners certificate, noting the original and
owners duplicate certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the
registration book in which the new certificate is registered and a reference
by number to the last preceding certificate. The original and owners
duplicate of the grantors certificate shall be stamped cancelled.
Page 29 of 42

d) In case the instrument does not divest the ownership or title from the owner
or from the transferee of the registered owner, now new certificate of title
shall be issued. The instrument creating such interests less than ownership
shall be registered by a brief memorandum thereof made by the register of
deeds upon the certificate of title and signed by him. The cancellation or
extinguishment of such interests shall be registered by a brief memorandum
thereof made the the register of deeds upon the certificate of the title and
signed by him. The cancellation or extinguishment of such interests shall be
registered in the same manner. In case the conveyance affects only a
portion of the land described in the certificate of title, no new certificate shall
also be issued until a plan of the land showing all the portions or lots into
which it has been subdivided and the corresponding technical descriptions
shall have been verified and approve. The instrument shall only be
registered by annotation on the grantors title and its owners duplicate.
Pending approval of the plan, no further registration or annotation of any
subsequent deed or other voluntary instrument involving the unsegregated
portion conveyed shall be affected, except where such unsegregated portion
was purchase from the government or any of its instrumentalities.
e) Should there be subsisting encumbrance or annotation on the grantors title,
they shall be carried over and stated in the new certificate of title except so
far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.

4. Involuntary Registration
a. Attachment and Execution
A juridical institution which has for its purpose to secure the outcome of the trial;
the chief purpose is to secure a contingent lien on defendants property until
plaintiff can, by appropriate proceedings, obtain a judgment and have a property
applied to tis satisfaction or to make some provision for unsecured debts in case
where the means of satisfaction thereof are liable to be removed beyond the
jurisdiction or improperly disposed of or concealed or otherwise placed beyond he
reach of creditors.
1. Preliminary Attachment - issued at the institution or the during the progress of
an action commanding the sheriff or other proper officer to attach property
rights, credits or effects of defendant to satisfy the demand of plaintiff; an
auxiliary remedy and cannot have an independent existence apart form the
main claim
2. Garnishment - attachment for credits belonging to the judgement debtor and
owing to him from a stranger to the litigation; does not usually involve actual
seizure of the property;
3. Levy on execution - is the attachment issued to enforce the writ of execution
of a judgment which has become final and executory.
2. Registration of Attachments and Execution
a) Statutory Provisions - Section 69 of PD 1529 and Section 7, Rule 57 of the Rules
of Court
b) Documents to be Registered
Page 30 of 42

(1) Writ of Attachment or Execution;

(2) Notice of Attachment or levy on the execution; and
(3) Description of the Property;
c) Forms and Contents
(1) The Notice of Attachment or levy on execution should contain a reference to the
number of the Certificate of Title, the volume and page of the registration book where
the certificate is registered and the name of the registered owner; not applicable in
case of unregistered lanD.
(2) If the attachment is not claimed on all the land, a description sufficiently accurate for
the identification of the land or interest must be made
d) Registration Procedure
(1) Entry in the Day Book or Primary Entry Book;
(2) Payment of entry and registration fee;
(3) A memorandum of the attachment shall be made on the Original of the Certificate of
Title;
(4) Indexing - the Register of deeds shall index attachments in the name of the applicant,
the adverse party, and the person by whom the property is held or in whose name it
stands in the records.
e) Effects of Registration
(1) Notice of the attachment is a notice that the property is taken in the custody of the law
as security for the satisfaction of any judgement;
(2) Title still be subject to subsequent transaction but subject to the attachment lien

C.

Actions after Registration

All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision
of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case
in which the decree or registration was entered.

A. Re-issuance of Lost Owners Duplicate

1. The Replacement of Lost Duplicate certificate is governed by Section 109, PD
No. 1529 which states:
SEC. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss
or theft of an owners duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be
sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies 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 filed
by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Page 31 of 42

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court
may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate
certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in
place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respect be entitled to like
faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as
such for all purposes of this decree.
2. The Petition for the Issuance of New Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title in lieu
of the lost owners copy is initiated by the Petitioner if the owners copy is lost
but the original copy of the same is available on file in the Registry of Deeds.
3. Procedure
a) As soon as the loss of the copy of the title is discovered, the registered
owner or other person in interest shall notify the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies by filing an Affidavit of Loss in said office.
The notice shall be annotated on the copy of the original in file in the Registry
of Deeds. Once it is annotated, a certified copy of the title containing the
annotation shall be secured from the concerned office of the Registry of
Deeds and this copy forms part of the Petition for the Issuance of New
Owners Duplicate Certificate of title that will be eventually filed in court. The
process in Court is as follows:
b) The Petition for the Issuance of New Owners Duplicate Certificate of title is
filed in Court.
c) If the Court finds the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
Judge issues an Order Setting the Date of Initial Hearing and directs the
Petitioner to cause the Posting of the Notice at their expense by the Sheriff
or Process Server of the court in the bulletin boards of the RTC, Office of the
Register of at Deeds, the city/municipal hall and Barangay Hall which has
jurisdiction over the property subject of the petition and in conspicuous
places near the vicinity of the subject lot for at least two (2) weeks before the
hearing. After the posting has been accomplished, a Certificate of Posting is
issued by the Sheriff/Process Server. (Note: sometimes, there are situations
when the judge would schedule a classificatory hearing before issuing the
order for the setting of the date of initial hearing that the issuance of the
order takes a longer period of time (i.e.5 months) or even dismissed without
prejudice for various reasons mostly attributed to the fault of the petitioner).
d) During the Initial Hearing, the Counsel for the Petitioner should provide proof
of compliance with jurisdictional requirement such as: Petition, Order of the
Court Setting the Date of Initial Hearing, Notice of Hearing, Certificate of
Posting, and proof that the Register of Deeds is provided with a copy of the
Petition before the filing of the Petition in Court.
e) After the Jurisdictional requirement is established and no opposition to the
Petition is filed, the Counsel for the Petitioner may request that the
presentation of evidence be allowed Ex-Parte before the Clerk of Court who
is designated as Commissioner of the Court. For brevity and convenience of
the parties, the Commissioner advises the Counsel of the Petitioner before
the ex-parte hearing to submit a Judicial Affidavit of the Petitioner in lieu of a
direct testimony.
Page 32 of 42

f) During the Ex-Parte Hearing, the Commissioner asks questions directed to

the Petitioner concerning his testimony in the Judicial Affidavit, and the Court
Stenographer takes note of the proceedings.
g) Finding the transcript in order upon review, the Commissioner approves it
and submits to the Court his own report on the matter taken up during the exparte proceedings.
h) A Hearing of the Commissioners Report is scheduled and the Counsel for
Petitioner is notified and enjoined to submit his comments or objection, if any.
i) After the hearing, the Court approves the Commissioners Report.
j) The Court admits the exhibits formally offered and the instant Petition is
submitted for Decision.
k) A Decision is issued and if there is no Motion for Reconsideration or Notice
of Appeal the Decision becomes final and executory.
l) A Certificate of Finality is issued by the Clerk of Court. (Note: The Certificate
of Finality is issued only upon request of the Petitioner).
m) Republic vs Court of Appeals, GR No.128531, Oct. 26, 1999
B. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title
1. Lost or Destroyed original certificates of title in the offices of the Register of
deeds may be reconstituted either judicially or administratively.
a) Judicial Reconstitution is availed of under two (2) situations: (1) when both
the Owners Duplicate Copy and the Original Copy on file in the Register of
Deeds are lost or Destroyed; (2) when the Owners Duplicate Copy is
available but the Original Copy on file in the Register of Deeds is lost or
destroyed. The procedure for the reconstitution of title is governed by
Republic Act No. 26 and Section 110. P.D. No. 1529, which states that,
b) Section.110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title.
Original copies of the certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of the
Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands
covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with
this Decree. The procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or
destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated.
c) Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to
the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the
Commissioner of Land Registration. No order or judgment ordering the
reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of thirty
days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of
Land Registration of the notice of such order or judgment without any appeal
having been filed by any of such officials.
d) Its implementation is guided by instructions (1) Circular No. 17, dated 19
February 1947, as amended by Administrative Order No.195 dated 24 May
1979; (2) LRC Circular No.35 dated 13 June 1983.
Page 33 of 42

2. The Court procedure for judicial reconstitution is as follows:

a) Before a Petition for Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens
title could be filed in Court a certification shall be issued by the Register of
Deeds certifying that the Original Copy of the title is NOT AVAILABLE on file
in the office of the Registry of Deeds. Attachments shall also include a copy
of the Tax Declaration duly certified by the Assessors Office and a copy of
the most recent real estate tax payment.
b) A copy of the petition shall be provided to the following: (1) Regional
Executive Director (DENR); (2) the Register of Deeds; (3) the Solicitor
Generals Office; (4) the Land Registration Authority; (5) Prosecutors Office;
and (5) all the adjoining owners; however, this is dispensed with if the basis
for the Petition for Reconstitution of the Lost Original copy of Title on file in
the Registry of Deeds is the copy of the Owners Duplicate in the possession
of the Petitioner.
c) If the basis of the Petition for Reconstitution is the plan and technical
description of the subject lot, the Petitioner shall provide the LRA with the
petition accompanied by a certified copy of the Technical Description of the
Lot and a corresponding plan prepared by a licensed Geodetic Engineer.
Any plan approved by the DENR or the LRA to support the petition will be
most advantageous to the petition.
d) If the Court finds the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
Judge would issue an Order Setting the Date of Initial Hearing and direct the
Petitioner to cause the Publication of the notice in two (2) successive
publications of the Official Gazette and the Posting of the Notice by the
Sheriff or Process Server of the court, in the bulletin boards of the RTC,
Office of the Register of at Deeds, the City/Municipal/ Barangay Hall which
has jurisdiction over the property subject of the petition, and in conspicuous
places near the vicinity of the subject lot for at least two (2) weeks before the
hearing. The publication in the Official Gazette and the Posting of the Notice
shall be at the expense of the petitioner and the copy of the Notice for
publication shall already be submitted to the Government Printing Office for
printing not more than ninety (90) days before the date of the Hearing.
e) After publication and posting, the following shall be submitted to the court: (1)
a Certificate of Publication issued by the Government Printing Office; (2) a
copy of each of the corresponding two (2) successive publications in the
Official Gazette, together with a copy of a Certificate of Posting issued by the
Sheriff/Process Server (Note: there are situations when the judge would
schedule a clarificatory hearing before issuing the order for the setting of the
date of initial hearing that the issuance of the order takes a longer period of
time or even dismissed without prejudice for various reasons mostly
attributed to the fault of the Counsel of the Petitioner).
f) If no opposition to the Petition is presented, the Counsel of the Petitioner files
a motion requesting the court to allow the presentation of the evidence ExParte before the Clerk of Court who will be designated as Commissioner of
the Court. (NOTE: For brevity and convenience of the parties, before the exparte hearing is conducted, the Commissioner sometimes advises the
Counsel of the Petitioner to submit a Judicial Affidavit of the Petitioner in lieu
Page 34 of 42

of a direct testimony. During the Ex-Parte Hearing the Commissioner would

ask questions directed to the Petitioner concerning his testimony in the
judicial affidavit and the Court Stenographer takes note of the proceedings.
Thereafter, the Court Stenographer submits the copy of the transcript for the
approval of the Commissioner. Finding the transcript in order upon review,
the Commissioner approves the transcript and thereafter submits to the
Court his own Report regarding the matter taken during the ex-parte
proceedings.)
g) A Hearing of the Commissioners Report is scheduled and the Counsel of the
Petitioner is notified and enjoined to submit his comments or objection, if any.
h) The Counsel of the Petitioner submits FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE.
i) The Court admits the exhibits formally offered and the instant Petition is
submitted for Decision.
j) A Decision is rendered by the Court within ninety (90) days from the
admission of the exhibits and if there is no Motion for Reconsideration or
Notice of Appeal, the Decision becomes final and executory.
k) A Certificate of Finality is issued by the Clerk of Court. (Note: The Certificate
of Finality can be issued only upon the request of the Counsel of the
Petitioner).
3. The following describes the process of availing Administrative Reconstitution:
a) An Application/Petition (for Reconstitution) which must be properly
accomplished with:
(1) Original of the Owners Duplicate copy or Co-owners Duplicate Copy
and three (3) clear/legible reproduction/Xerox copy filed in the Registry of
Deeds together with a reproduction (Xerox copy) of the same. After
comparing the Xerox copies to be faithful reproductions of the Owners
Duplicate or Co-Owners Duplicate Copy of the original presented, the
latter is immediately returned to the filer; and the Register of Deeds
retains only the Xerox copies.
(2) Tax Declaration
(3) Real Estate Tax receipt representing at least two (2) years before filing
(4) Others (i.e. Special Power of Attorney if Filer is not the Owner).
b) Application/Petition forms (for reconstitution) can be obtained FREE of
CHARGE from the Office of LRA or the Office of the Registry of Deeds of the
place. The duly accomplished Application/Petition duly can be filed anytime
without any time limitation after R.A. No. 6732 dated 20 July 1989, at the
office of the Register of Deeds enumerated above where the land is situated.
c) The Application/Petition together with the accompanying documents is
transmitted to the LRA in Quezon City where it will undergo the prescribed
technical verification at the Reconstitution Division of that office. This division
is headed by the Reconstituting Officer and Chief, Reconstitution Division.
Page 35 of 42

d) Once the verification process is completed, the Reconstituting Officer issues

an Order of Reconstitution Directing the Register of Deeds to Reconstitute
the Title.
e) A notice is sent by furnishing the Filer/Applicant with a copy of the Order of
Reconstitution with an advise that a reconstituted title can be withdrawn at
the office of the Register of Deeds upon presentation of the original copy of
the Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title subject of application/Petition for
Reconstitution.
C. Amendment to the Certificate
1. Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates.
2. Rule: No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration
book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the
attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the court.
3. Who may file: A registered owner of 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
4. Grounds:
a)

That the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent,

expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and
ceased; or

b)

That a new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been
created;

c)

that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any

memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate;

d)

That the same or any person on the certificate has been changed; or

e)

That the registered owner has married, orif registered as married, that the
marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors
will thereby be affected; or

f)

that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has
not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or

g)

upon any other reasonable ground;

5. The court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in
interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or
cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon
such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may
consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to
give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and
that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or
other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or
his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner's
duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided
in the preceding section.
Page 36 of 42

6. All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other
provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the
original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
7. Procedure - The process in Court is as follows:
a) The Petition for Correction of the Certificate of title is filed in Court.
b) If the Court finds the Petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
Judge issues an Order Setting the Date of Initial Hearing and directs the
Petitioner to cause the posting of the Notice of Initial Hearing by the Sheriff
or Process Server of the court at the expense of the Petitioner. Posting shall
be made in the bulletin boards of the RTC, Office of the Register of at Deeds,
the city/municipal hall and Barangay Hall which has jurisdiction over the
property subject of the petition, and in conspicuous places near the vicinity of
the subject lot for at least two (2) weeks before the hearing. After posting, a
Certificate of Posting is issued by the Sheriff/Process Server.
c) During the Initial Hearing, the Counsel of the Petitioner must provide proof of
compliance with jurisdictional requirement such as: copies of the Petition
furnished to all concerned parties or agencies in Government such as LRA
and the Register of Deeds, the Order of the Court Setting the Date of Initial
Hearing, Notice of Hearing, and Certificate of Posting.
d) If there is no opposition to the Petition, the Counsel of the Petitioner may
request the Court to allow the presentation of evidence Ex-Parte before the
Clerk of Court who is designated as Commissioner of the Court. (Note:
Sometimes, the Commissioner would advise the Counsel of the Petitioner
before the ex-parte hearing to submit a Judicial Affidavit of the Petitioner in
lieu of a direct testimony. During the Ex-Parte Hearing, the Commissioner
would ask questions directed to the Petitioner concerning his testimony in the
Judicial affidavit and the Court Stenographer takes notes of the proceedings.
Thereafter, the Court Stenographer submits the copy of the transcript for the
approval of the Commissioner. If upon review the Commissioner finds the
transcript in order, the transcript is approved and thereafter submits to the
Court his own report regarding the matter taken during the ex-parte
proceedings).
e) A Hearing of the Commissioners Report is scheduled and the Counsel of the
Petitioner is notified and enjoined to submit his comments or objection, if any.
f) The Court admits the exhibits formally offered and the instant Petition is
submitted for Decision.
g) Decision is issued and if there is no Motion for Reconsideration or Notice of
Appeal, the Decision will become final and executory.
h) A Certificate of Finality is issued by the Clerk of Court. (Note: The Certificate
of Finality is issued only upon request of the Petitioner).
D. Consulta
1. Consulta or Reference of doubtful matter to the Administrator of Land
Registration.
Page 37 of 42

2. Section 117. P.D. No. 1529 - Procedure - When the Register of Deeds is in
doubt with regards to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in
pursuance to any deed, mortgage, or other instrument presented to him for
registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of
Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to
the Administrator of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party
in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
3. Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify
the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects in writing setting forth the
defects of the instrument or legal ground relied upon, and advising him that if he
is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from
the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of
notice of denial of registration to the Administrator of Land Registration upon
payment of a consulta fee in such amount as shall be prescribed by the
Administrator of Land Registration.
4. The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on
the certificate of title which shall be cancelled motu proprio by the Register of
Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn
by petitioner.
5. The Administrator of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records
certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or
ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all the Registers of
Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final
resolution, ruling or order of the Administrator relative to the consultas may
appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period in Republic Act No.5434.
6. Requisites - The following are the requisites so that a Consulta may be properly
availed of:
a) There must be a document pending registration in the office of the Register
of Deeds.
b) Before a consulta could be considered on its merits, there must be a
document pending registration in the Office of the Register of Deeds.
Pending consulta, the document should not be withdrawn, otherwise it
cannot serve as the basis for consulta. This is due to the fact that under
these circumstances, a consulta takes the nature of an appeal on the action
taken by the Register of Deeds who has to certify the records to the Land
Registration Authority for consideration.
c) That the Register of Deeds is in Doubt or the Party in interest does not agree
on the action taken by the Register of Deeds.
d) If the Register of Deeds is in doubt as to what steps to be taken, he takes the
matter under advisement by submitting the matter en consulta to the
Administrator of Land Registration. If he is not in doubt, he simply advises
the party in interest of the difficulty preventing the registration of the
document. If the interested party does not agree with the action taken by the
Register of Deeds, then he may apply to the Administrator for resolution of
the registrability of the document for registration.
Page 38 of 42

7. Binding force of resolutions or rulings in consultas - The decisions or rulings of

the Administrator of Land Registration shall be conclusive and binding upon all
the Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with
the final resolution, ruling or order of the Administrator relative to the consultas
may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period prescribed in Republic Act
No.5434.
8. Appeal - The Register of Deeds is expressly precluded from making any appeal
on the decision or resolution on consultas; only the interested party may appeal
the decision of the Administrator of Land Registration.
9. Procedure
a) The following is the process involved in the resolution of Consultas:
b) Records Officer accepts annotation of transaction
c) Documents is examined by Examiner for completeness and registrability and
forwards the same with his findings to the Register of Deeds
d) The Register of Deeds either approves, in doubt, or denies registration.
e) If the Register of Deeds is in doubt on the registrability of the document an
Endorsement letter addressed to the Administrator is prepared together with
the copy of the position paper on the reason of the doubt together with a
copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and the supporting documents.
f) If the Register of Deeds denies the registration, the Register of Deeds issues
a Notice of Denial indicating the grounds for denial and advising the
Registrant to write a letter containing his desire to appeal the denial. The
letter of the Registrant together with the copy of the position paper of the
Register of Deeds regarding his reason for denial, the copy of the TCT and
the supporting documents are transmitted to the Office of the LRA
Administrator.
g) Upon receipt, all the documents are forwarded to the Clerk of Court Division
of LRA and the same is examined for completeness. If the documents is not
complete a letter is prepared addressed to the Register of Deeds for
compliance. Action is taken upon compliance, otherwise it is held pending.
h) The Clerk of Court forwards all the documents to the Law Division.
i) A Hearing Officer is assigned
j) Hearing Officer prepares a Notice of Hearing and sends a copy to both the
RD and the Registrant
k) After the Hearing the Hearing Officer prepares a draft of the Resolution.
l) The draft is reviewed by the Chief, Law Division and forwards it to the
Director on Legal Affairs for review.
m) The Director forwards the clean draft to the Administrator for signature.
n) The copy of the Resolution is served to both the RD and the Registrant.
Page 39 of 42

E. Adverse Claim
1. An adverse claim is a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the
validity of which is yet to be stablished in court at some future date, and is no
better than a notice of lis pendens already pending in court (Acap v. CA, 251
SCRA 30).
2. Purpose: to give notice to third persons dealing with the said property that
someone is claiming an interest on the subject.
3. Judicial determination is still necessary (Garbin v. CA, 253 SCRA 187)
4. Examples
a)

Seller refused to deliver the owner's duplicate

b)

Claim of heirs who were excluded (Carantes v. CA, 76 SCRA 514)

5. Cancellation by petition in court after 30 days by way of a petition in Court; after

said petition, no second claim is allowed.
F. Reversion - restoration of public land fraudulently awarded or disposed of to
the mass of the public domain
Section 101 of the Public Land Act in relation to Section 35, Chapter XII, Title III
of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO No. 292);
Action for reversion is instituted by the Solicitor General.
Action is imprescriptible
Grounds:
Violation of the Constitution, disposition of inalienable land
Falsehood in the application for a patent
Section 91 of the PLA
Director of Lands may investigate even if the patent is already registered and
indefeasible (Republic v. De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267)

IV. DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS

A. Registration Under Act 3344 - In order to provide for the registration of instruments
affecting unregistered lands, the Administrative Code in Section 194 established a
system of registration under which all documents, affecting lands not registered
under the Spanish Mortgage Law nor under the Torrens system, be recorded in the
land records of the province or city where the land lies. This section of the
Administrative Code was subsequently amended by Act No. 2837 and later on
December 8, 1926, Act No. 3344 was passed revising to a considerable extent the
provisions of the Administrative Code. Rights acquired under this system are not
absolute. By express provision of the governing law they must yield to better rights
(See Legayde vs. Sullano, 49 O.G., pp. 603-609, February, 1953). These were
again subsequently amended by the provisions of Section 3 of Presidential Decree
Page 40 of 42

1529 pertinent portion of which are herein quoted, to wit: The books of registration
for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative
Code, as amended by Act 3344, shall continue to remain in force provided all
instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under
Section 113 of this Decree (Section 3, P.D. 1529)
B. 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 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
V.

Foreign Ownership
A. In general- only Filipino citizens may own land in the Philippines except if the
acquisition of the land was through hereditary succession. This is a constitutional
restriction that was placed under the 1935 Constitution. However, property rights of
American citizens existing prior to the 1935 Constitution are respected. The
provisions was modified in the 1987 Constitution to exempt natural-born citizens
who had lost his citizenship subject to certain conditions. The 1973 Constitution did

Page 41 of 42

not explicitly allows former natural born citizens to own land, nonetheless, Batas
Pambansa Bilang 185 allows concession to former Filipinos under the general
power of the Prime Minister under Section 15 of Article XIII. The present
Constitution only allows two exception to the prohibition against foreign ownership:
(1) hereditary succession; and (2) former natural born-citizens. However, property
rights of alien prior to the 1936 Constitution and the special privileges given to
American citizens granted by the 1936 Constitution are respected.
B. Two (2) laws were enacted to implement the rules regarding exceptions of former
natural born citizens to own land.
1. Batas Pambansa Bilang 185 on residential lands; and
2. Republic Act No. 8179 on commercial and industrial lands, amending certain
provisions of the Foreign Investment Act of 1991.

Page 42 of 42