49 Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v.

Reyes
No. L-3970 (1952)
Labrador, J. / Tita K
Subject Matter: Subsequent registration
Summary:
John owns a parcel of land covered by TCTs. The said land was mortaged by John to the respondents. Later on, John entered
into a contract of lease involving the same land with the petitioners. When the the terms of the lease contract was amended,
petitioners requested the respondents to allow them to take the TCTs to the Register of Deeds so that the contract of lease
may be annotated thereon. Respondents refused, hence petitioners filed a motion to have the TCTs delivered to them.
Respondents opposed the said motion arguing that the contract of lease is invalid and that it was entered into without their
knowledge. CFI ruled in favor of the petitioner. WON the petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated on
the TCTs. The SC still ruled in favor of the petitioners.

Doctrines:
The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons. It is not intended by the proceedings for
registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered rights over the land, subsisting or existing at the time of
the registration.

The law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. If the purpose of registration is merely
to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided after, not before,
registration.

Respondents’ argument/issues as to the invalidity and lack of knowledge are not passed upon by the court for the
order of the registration of petitioners' contract of lease.

Parties:
GURBAX SINGH PABLA & CO., GURBAX SINGH PABLA, BELA SINGH PABLA, OJAGAR SINGH,
Petitioner-Appellees
DHARAM SINGH, TALOK SINGH and CIPRIANO TAN ENG KIAT
Respondents-Appellants HERMOGENES REYES and TEODORA TANTOCO
Facts:
John Tan Chin Eng (John) is the owner of the land covered by transfer certificates of title (TCT) nos. 8071 and 8072.
23 July 1948 - John entered into a contract of lease with the petitioners under the following terms:
 petitioners were to construct thereon a three-story building of concrete and of strong materials.
 the building shall become the exclusive property of the owner (John) of the land, but the petitioners were to
occupy, hold, or possess it as lessees for 3 years and 6 months from its completion, without paying any
rentals as the sum spent in the construction being considered as the rentals
 after the 3 years and 6 months, petitioners were to continue occupying the said building for another 2 years
at a monthly rental of P2,000.
This contract of lease was filed and registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila.
At the time that the contract was entered into, there was an existing mortgage over the land in favor of Jose and Carlos
Calvo (Calvos).
8 March 1949 - This mortgage in favor of the Calvos was cancelled, and a new mortgage was executed by the owner
(John) in favor of the respondents. The new mortgage was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds.
14 May 1949 - The original contract of lease was amended to extend the original period to 7 years and 4 months (from
6yrs & 6mos.), and the rental for the additional two years thereafter reduced to P1,148 (from 2k). This amended contract
of lease was also registered in the office of the Register of Deeds of Manila.
25 May 1949 – Petitioners requested the respondents to allow them to take the certificates of title to the office of the
Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation of the contracts of lease entered into by the owner with them.
27 May 1949 – Respondents informed the petitioners did not grant the request.
 CFI
Petitioners filed a motion in the CFI praying that an order be issued for the delivery of the owner's duplicates of TCT 8071
and 8072 to the petitioners in order that the Register of Deeds may be able to annotate thereon the contract of lease.
Respondents filed an opposition, alleging that (1) they had no knowledge of the contract of leaseor of its amendment, and
(2)that the execution of the amendment violated the express provision 1 of the mortgage. At the hearing of the nfotion no
oral evidence was submitted; only documentary evidence was presented.
CFI issued an order directing the respondents to surrender the TCTs to the Register of Deeds in order that the contract
of lease may be noted thereon. It expressly found that respondents had knowledge of the lease contract, but the
respondents’ deed of mortgage of March 8, 1949, has priority over petitioner's amended contract of lease.
Issue/s: WON petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated on the TCTs. (YES)
Ratio:
YES– petitioners have the right to have the contract of lease annotated.
Respondents, as mortgagees, argue that they had no knowledge of the contract of lease and that the contracts of lease are
invalid because they violate the contracts of mortgage executed in favor of the owner of the land.
 The purpose of registering an instrument is to give notice thereof to all persons (section 51, Act No. 496); it is not
intended by the proceedings for registration to seek to destroy or otherwise affect already registered rights over
the land, subsisting or existing at the time of the registration. The rights of these parties, who have registered their
rights, are not put in issue when an instrument is subsequently presented for registration; nor are its effects on other
instruments previously registered put in issue by the procedure of registration.
o Thus, the objections raised by the respondents (i.e. lack of knowledge of the contract of lease and violation of contract
of mortgage) are not passed upon by the court for the order of the registration of petitioners' contract of
lease.
o The objections, as well as the relative rights of all parties who have registered their deeds, shall be decided in
the proper suit or proceeding when the opportune occasion arises. They are not now in issue, nor may they
be adjudicated upon.
 Furthermore, invalidity is not a proof of a contract’s non-existence or a valid excuse for denying their registration. The
law on registration does not require that only valid instruments shall be registered. If the purpose of registration is
merely to give notice, then questions regarding the effect or invalidity of instruments are expected to be decided
after, not before, registration. It must follow as a necessary consequence that registration must first be allowed,
validity or effect can be litigated afterwards.
o Thus, the alleged invalidity of the contracts of lease is not a valid objection to their registration.
 However, parties may, by mutual consent, submit issues for determination at the time of the proceeding to register a
document. But, the court should only proceed therewith (determination of the issues) upon giving all the parties
concerned sufficient opportunity to present their respective sides and the evidence in support thereof, and that if this
can not be done, the determination of the issues should be reserved in a subsequent proceeding and the registration
of the document ordered.
o Therefore, the issues raised by respondents were not properly investigated because respondents did not
have the opportunity to present evidence thereon and did not even present copy of their mortgage at the
hearing, and the trial court decided the questions without full and complete investigation.
o The ruling of the trial court on the above issues should, therefore, be set aside and their determination
reserved in a proper proceeding.
Order affirmed in part and reversed in part.

1
to the effect that the owner could not sell, assign, or encumber the mortgaged premises without the written consent of the mortgagees.
DISSENT was in Spanish. I’m sorry.