Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

1

G.R. No. 97282 August 16, 1991


ATTY. PLARIDEL M. MINGOA, petitioner,
vs.
LAND REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR, respondent

Facts: Petition for Certiorari. A deed of donation of several parcels of land was executed by
petitioner in favor of his children on July 15, 1987. The deed was forwarded to the Register of
Deeds of Romblon for registration by registered mail on September 9, 1988. It was entered in the
primary entry book of the Register of Deeds on September 20, 1988 under Entry No. 181. Said
Register of Deeds suspended registration of the donation until the petitioner has secured the
proper clearances from the Department of Agrarian Reform on the ground that under Section 6
of Republic Act 6657, any disposition of private agricultural lands made prior to June 15, 1988,
when the Act took effect, must be registered within three (3) months from said date or on before
September 13, 1988 to be valid.

The matter was elevated by petitioner en consulta with the Administrator of the Land
Registration Authority LTA. On November 27,1990 the LTA Administrator issued a resolution
sustaining the stand of the Register of Deeds that unless the proper clearances from the
Department of Agrarian Reform are secured, the deed of donation may not be registered.

Issue: Whether or not Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of court should apply in a suppletory
manner in that the date of the mailing should be considered the date of filing of the document in
the office of the Register of Deeds.

Ruling: The petition is impressed with merit.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides, among others:
SEC. 6. Retention Limits.Except as otherwise provided in its Act, no person
may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land,
the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size
farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created
hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner,
subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of
age, and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm:
Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree
No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder:
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of its Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous,
shall pertain to the landowner; Provided, however, That in case the area selected
for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to
choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to
remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his
right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the
land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option with a period
of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for
retention.
In all cases the security of tenure of the farmers or farm workers on the land prior
to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract
or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in
violation of this Act shall be null and void; Provided, however, That those
executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of
Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act.
Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural
lands in excess of five (5) hectares. (Emphasis supplied)
2

Section 56 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 also provides:
SEC. 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies.Each Register of Deeds
shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he shall
enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writs and
processes filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary
process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute of reception of
all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded
as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument,
when made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date:
Provided, that the national government as well as the provincial and city
governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees in advance in order
to be entitled to entry and registration.
Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with
the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a
reference to the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to
registered land in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in
the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable relations as the
Register of Deeds, No. 97282 under the direction of the Commissioner of Land
Registration, may prescribe.
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective
copies and shall be attend and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with the
file number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them.
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from
the Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.

Section 34 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 likewise provides:
SEC. 34. Rules of procedure.The Rules of Court shall, insofar as not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree, be applicable to land registration
and cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient.

Ruling (IMPORTANT):
Consequently, Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court is applicable to this case in a suppletory
character as it provides:
SEC. 1. Filing with the court, defined.The filing of pleadings, appearances,
motions, notices, orders and other papers with the court as required by these rules
shall be made by filing them personally with the clerk of the court or by sending
them by registered mail. In the first case, the clerk shall endorse on the pleading
the date and hour of filing. In the second case, the date of the mailing of motions,
pleadings, or any other papers or payments or deposits as shown by the post office
stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt, shall be considered as the date of
their filing, payment, or deposit in court. The envelope shall be attached to the
record of the case.

The foregoing rule clearly provides that the date of mailing of the motion, pleading, or any other
papers, which may include instruments as the deed of donation, is considered the date of filing as
shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or registry receipt.
The Court therefore finds and so holds that the date of mailing of an instrument to the Register of
Deeds for purposes of registration should be considered the date of filing and receipt thereof by
the Register of Deeds. It is this date that should be entered in the primary entry book of the
Register of Deeds which shall be regarded as the date of its registration.
Since in this case, the deed of donation was admittedly sent by registered mail to the Register of
Deeds on September 9, 1988, said date is in effect the date of filing, receipt and registration of
the instrument, although the instrument was actually received by said office only on September
20, 1988.

WHEREFORE, the petition is given due course and is hereby GRANTED. The questioned
resolution of the public respondent Administrator of the Land Registration Authority dated
November 27,1990 is hereby SET ASIDE and it is hereby directed that the registration of deed
of donation subject of this petition be effected by the Register of Deeds of Romblon.


3



G.R. No. L-14676 January 31, 1963
CANDIDA VILLALUZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
JUAN NEME and FELICISIMA VILLAFRANCA, defendants-appellees.

Facts: This case was elevated to this Court "on purely questions of law." The record discloses
that Maria Rocabo died intestate on February 17, 1937, leaving a parcel of land granted her
under Homestead Patent No. 185321, issued on May 20, 1930, and covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 217 (Exh. A), of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Norte. She left three
(3) daughters, named Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz and grandchildren,
Candida, Emilia, Clemencia, Roberto and Isidra Villaluz, legitimate children of her deceased son
Pedro Villaluz; Isabelo and Teodoro Napoles, legitimate sons of a deceased daughter; Severina
Villaluz and Sinforosa and Leonor Napoles, legitimate daughters of another deceased daughter,
Gregoria Villaluz.
After the approval of her application, but before granting of the patent, on March 6, 1926, Maria
Rocabo donated the southern portion of the land to Maria, and the northern portion to Patricia, in
two notarial deeds donation (Exhibits 1 and 7), giving them the right to present their deeds of
donations to the Bureau of Lands. The said donees accepted the donations and took actual
possession of their respective portions, but only Maria Villaluz remained on the entire land
because Patricia left. Maria cultivated and improved the land from 1927 to 1938, inclusive.
Maria and Patricia, however, forgot and cared not to present the deeds of donation to the Bureau
of Lands. On March 27, 1930, the patent was granted and O.C.T. No. 217 was issued in the name
of Maria Rocabo. Realizing that the deeds of donation were not in accordance with the
formalities required by law, and because Sinforosa Villaluz, who had the custody of the title
would not surrender it to the donees, unless given a share, upon the advise of a Notary Public,
Carlos de Jesus, Maria, Patricia and Sinforosa, on September 1, 1939, executed a deed of
extrajudicial partition (Exh. 2) among themselves, to the exclusion and without the knowledge
and consent of their nephews and nieces, the herein plaintiffs-appellants, and in virtue thereof,
O.C.T. No. 217 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in their
names (Exh. 5) after having made representations that they were the only heirs of their mother,
Maria Rocabo. On September 2, 1939, the 3 sisters declared the land for taxation purposes (Exh.
4). On September 11, 1939, they sold the land to Ramona Pajarillo, wife of Adriano Mago and
Angela Pajarillo, wife of defendant Juan Neme (Exh. 3). Ramona and Angela declared land for
taxation purposes in their names (Exh. 6). On August 3, 1953, the heirs of Adriano and Ramona
sold the undivided interest of the latter to Juan Neme (Exh. 8), who, on August 8, 1953, sold the
southern half portion of the property in favor of defendant Felicisima Villafranca (Exh. 13).
Thereafter, the plaintiffs-appellants came to know that the land which was in the administration
of their aunts, Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, was already in the possession of the defendants.
After attempts of amicable settlement had failed, the plaintiffs on June 3, 1954, filed a complaint
for partition of said land and recovery of their respective shares on the property and accounting
of the fruits thereof.
It also appears that the deeds of sale of the land in question executed in favor of the defendants,
had not been registered in favor of the defendants and had not been recorded in accordance with
Public Land Act No. 141 and the Land Registration Law, Act No. 496; that the vendees failed to
have their deed of sale (Exh. 3), annotated on said T.C.T. No. 269, or have the title thereof
transferred in their names.

Issues: Whether or not the lower court erred:
(1) In not finding that the extrajudicial paritition (Exh. 2), only affected the partition of
Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria, surnamed Villaluz, on the land in question and not the
participation of the plaintiffs- appellants, as compulsory heirs of Maria Rocabo
(2) In finding that the plaintiffs- appellants are already barred from claiming their
participation thereon;
(3) In finding that defendants- appellees are owners, with right of possession of the said land.

Ruling (Trial Court): The lower court rendered judgment, dismissing the complaint, with costs
against the plaintiffs, and declaring the defendants the owners of the land described in the
complaint and in the T.C.T. No. 269. The trial court held that under Sec. 4, Rule 73 of the Rules,
the plaintiffs cause of action had already prescribed. This section, however, refers only to the
4

settlement and distribution of the estate of the deceased by the heirs who make such partition
among themselves in good faith, believing that they are the only heirs with the right succeed.

In the case at bar, however, the surviving sisters could not have ignored that they had co-
heirs, the children of the 3 brothers who predeceased their mother. Considering that
Maria Rocabo died during the regime of the Spanish Civil Code, the distribution of her
properties should be governed by said Code, wherein it is provided that between co-heirs,
the act to demand the partition of the inheritance does not prescribe. (Art 1965 [Old Civ.
Code]; Baysa, et al. v. Baysa, 53 Off. Gaz., 7282). Verily the 3 living sisters were
possessing the property as administratrices or trustees for and in behalf of the other co-
heirs, plaintiffs-appellants herein, who have the right to vindicate their inheritance,
regardless of the lapse of time (Sevilla v. De los Angeles, L-7745; 51 Off. Gaz., 5590,
and case cited therein).

Moreover, the acquisition of the land in question is governed by the Public Land Act No. 141
and the Land Registration Law Act No. 496. And considering that the deed of sale had not been
registered in accordance with the said laws, the same did not constitute a conveyance which
would bind or affect the land, because the registration of a voluntary sale of land is the operative
act that transmits or transfers title (Tuason v. Raymundo, 28 Phil.635).

The contention of the plaintiffs-appellants is meritorious. The decision found to be an
incontrovertible fact that the land in question should be divided among the heirs of the decedent
Sinforosa, Patricia and Maria Villaluz and her grandchildren. Thus, the trial Court said:
... The settlement of the estate of Maria Rocabo was summarily effected by the
extrajudicial partition executed September 1, 1939, by the three surviving children to the
exclusion of the plaintiffs who were entitled to inherit by representation. By virtue of the
extrajudicial partition, Exhibit 1, the Original Certificate of Title No. 217 in the name of
Maria Rocabo was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269 was issued in lieu
thereof in favor of Sinforosa Villaluz, Patricia Villaluz and Maria Villaluz on September
6, 1939, to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. . . .

Furthermore, Maria having left no testament or last will, her heirs succeeded to the possession
and ownership of the land in question from the time of her death (Art. 440, Old Civil Code, Art.
533, New Civil Code; Lubrico v. Arbado, 12 Phil. 391). The deed of extrajudicial partition (Exh.
2), was fraudulent and vicious, the same having been executed among the 3 sisters, without
including their co-heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the same. The partition,
therefore, did not and could not prejudice the interest and participation of the herein plaintiffs-
appellants, and the sale of the land to the defendants did not and could not also prejudice and
effect plaintiffs-appellants' interest and participation thereon. The cancellation of O.C.T. No. 217
and the issuance of T.C.T. No. 269, did not likewise prejudice the interest and the participation
of the plaintiffs-appellants. The three sisters could not have sold what did not belong to
them. Nemo dat quod non habet

Ruling (IMPORTANT):
Having held that the three sisters were mere trustees of the property for the benefit of the
appellants, and it appearing that they had not repudiated the trust, defendants-appellees'
pretension in this respect is without merit. The finding in the appealed decision that "there is no
evidence that the said defendants are not innocent purchasers and for value" (good faith), is of no
moment in the case at bar. As heretofore adverted to, there was no effective sale at all, which
would affect the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. Moreover, the lack of good faith on the part of
the defendants-appellees can reasonably be inferred from thier conduct in not presenting for
registration the supposed deed of sale in their favor; in failing to annotate the sale on the T.C.T.
of the alleged donees, and in not asking that a transfer certificate of title be issued in their
(vendees') names. It may also be reasonably concluded that if they did not present the deed of
sale for registration, it was because they knew that their vendors were not the sole and only heirs
so as to entitle them to the ownership of the land in question.
IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded to
the court of origin, for further and appropriate proceedings.


5

G.R. No. L-40105 November 11, 1985
NESTOR L. CENTENO, BONIFACIO GUTIERREZ, ARTEMIO GUTIERREZ,
GREGORIO FERNANDEZ, ZENAIDA DE LA CRUZ, FRANCISCO GOMEZ,
RICARDO ADRAO, AMPARO RAYOS and OFELIA SANTOS, Petitioners, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS, RUFINA C. VICTORIA and DANIEL O. VICTORIA, Respondents.

Facts:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen