LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC.

69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 1
(1) CAVILES v. BAUTISTA

The Court has repeatedly held that in involuntary
registration, such as an attachment, entry thereof
in the daybook or entry book is a sufficient notice
to all persons of such adverse claim.

FACTS: Caviles filed a case against Plata for the recovery
of a sum of money. The complaint contained an
application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment over Platas property. The CFI issued the writ
of attachment prayed for by Caviles and so the Notice of
Attachment was entered in the Primary Entry Book on
October 6, 1982, but was not annotated on the TCT.
On October 18, 1982, Plata sold the property to
Bautista, free from encumbrance. From then on, the
respondents have taken over and resided in the property.
Caviles, on the other hand, remained ignorant that the
property had been sold and a new title was issued to
Bautista.
Several years later, after obtaining a favorable
judgment in the Civil Case against Plata, Caviles
attempted execution. The Certificate of Sale was
entered in the Day Book but when its inscription was
sought to be made, it was discovered that Platas
certificate had been cancelled and a new one was issued
to Bautista.

ISSUE: Which interest will prevail, that of Caviles (which
consists of a notice of attachment duly entered in the
Day Book or Primary Entry Book on October 6, 1982, or
that of respondents, which consists of a Deed of Sale
executed on October 18,1982 entered in the Day Book?

HELD: The Supreme Court first determined which of the
parties was negligent. Bautista was not negligent because
they relied on Platas certificate of title, free from
notice of any attachment. The instrument was also free
from notice of any defect. Likewise, Caviles was not
negligent because he successfully obtained a writ of
preliminary attachment and the notice of attachment
was then entered in the Primary Entry Book of the
Register of Deeds (it was, however, not annotated on the
TCT). Given that both parties are in good faith, who
between them has a better right to the property in
question?
Article 1544 of the New Civil Code states that
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall
belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
recorded it in the Registry of Property. In the case at
bar, the notice of attachment was annotated in the entry
book of the Register of Deeds on October 6, 1982, while
the new TCT in the name of Bautista was issued on
October 18, 1982, the date when Plata sold the property
to Bautista. The Court has repeatedly held that in
involuntary registration, such as an attachment, entry
thereof in the daybook or entry book is a sufficient
notice to all persons of such adverse claim. Caviles lien
of attachment was properly recorded when it was
entered in the primary entry book of the Register of
Deeds. Therefore, CAVILES WINS.



(2) SAJONES v. CA

FACTS:
* Spouses Uychocde agreed to sell a residential land
located in Rizal to spouses Sajonas on installment basis
as evidenced by a Contract to Sell
* The property was registered in the names of Uychocde
spouses while the Sajonas couple caused the annotation
of an adverse claim based on the said Contract to Sell on
the title of said property
* Upon full payment of purchase price, the Uychocdes
executed a Deed of Sale involving the property in favor
of the Sajonas couple and was registered almost a year
after
* It appears that Pilares, (sheriff) filed an action for
collection of sum of money against spouses Uychocde
* A Compromise Agreement was entered into by the
parties in the said case under which Uychocde
acknowledged his monetary obligation to the sheriff
amounting to 27,800 pesos and agreed to pay the same in
two years
* Upon Uychocdes failure to pay his obligation, Pilares
moved for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce
the decision based on the compromise agreement, which
the court granted
* Pursuant to the order of execution, a notice of levy on
execution was issued and the sheriff presented such
notice of levy before the Register of Deeds, which was
annotated at the back of the TCT
* The notice of levy on execution was annotated over the
new title of Sajonas couple
* The petitioner then filed a third party claim with the
sheriff hence the auction sale did not push through
* They demanded the cancellation of the notice of levy
on execution from the sheriff but the latter refused
* TC in favor of petitioner, CA reversed TCs decision

ISSUE:
1. W/N petitioner spouses have a better right over
the property over the sheriff by virtue of the
notice on levy on execution
2. W/N petitioners are buyers in good faith

RULING: Yes to both
While it is the act of registration, which is the
operative act, which conveys or affects the land insofar
as third persons are concerned, it is likewise true, that
the subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate
of title cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn
to and annotated on the certificate of title previous to
the sale.
While it is true that under the provisions of PD 1529,
deeds of conveyance of property registered under the
system, or any interest therein only take effect as a
conveyance to bind the land upon its registration, and
that a purchaser is not required to explore further than
what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates in quest
for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right thereto, nonetheless, the
rule is not absolute.
Thus, one who buys from the registered owner need
not have to look behind the certificate of title, he is,
nevertheless, bound by the liens and encumbrances
annotated thereon. One who buys without checking the
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 2
vendors title takes all the risks and losses consequent to
such failure
The disputed inscription of adverse claim on the TCT
under the name of Uychocde spouses was still in effect
when the sheriff annotated the notice of levy on
execution thereto. Consequently, he is charged with
knowledge that the property sought to be levied upon on
execution was encumbered by an interest the same as or
better than that of the registered owner thereof. Such
notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse
claim inscribed on the certificate of title in favor of the
petitioners.
As to whether or not Sajones couple are buyers in good
faith, the trial court is correct in saying that they are
because they were not aware of the pending case filed
by Pilares against Uychocde at the time of the sale of
property by the latter in their favor.
At any rate, PD 1529 guarantees to every purchaser of
registered land in good faith that they can take and hold
the same free from any and all prior claims, liens and
encumbrances except those set forth in the certificate of
tile and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as having
been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of the
conclusiveness of the certificate of title, which the
Torrens system seeks to insure, would be futile and
nugatory.


(3) RODRIGUEZ v. CA

FACTS: Respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo
were the registered owners of a house and lot, which was
mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines,
which mortgage was later absorbed by the Home Mutual
Development Fund (HMDF) or Pag-ibig.
On April 27, 1992, Respondents Calingo and
Respondents Barrameda entered into a contract of sale
with assumption of mortgage where Respondents
Barrameda issued two checks.
Respondent Calingo then informed HMDF/Pag-ibig
about the transaction on 4-23-91. However the letter and
affidavit by respondents Calingo, was served upon
HMDF/Pag-ibig on October 2, 1992.
On the other hand, Respondents Barrameda filed with
the RD of Paraaque an affidavit of adverse claim on the
property on May 29, 1992.
On June 1, 1992, Respondent Barrameda wrote HMDF,
to confirm the transaction and sought assistance from
said office as regards to the procedure for the full
settlement of the mortgage.
However on July 13, 1992, Spouses Rodriguez caused a
notice of levy with attachment on real property was
annotated at the back of the certificate of title of the
property in question. Subsequently petitioners counsel
sent a letter to respondents inquiring about the basis of
their occupation of the property in question.
On August 21, 1992, respondents Barrameda paid the
final settlement for the sale to Calingo. Calingo
guaranteed that the property was clear and free from
any liens and encumbrances, except the real estate
mortgage assumed by respondents.
On October 7, 1992, respondents executed a joint
affidavit claiming ownership over the property, and that
levy was illegal, since they already acquired the property
before it was levied.
However on October 15, 1992, petitioner pointed out
the contrary and asked Barrameda spouses to confer with
them to amicably settle the controversy.
On November 9, 1992, respondents Barrameda found a
Notice of auction sale posted on their front gate,
announcing the auction sale of their house and lot.
On November 20, 1992, respondents Barrameda served
a Notice of Third Party Claim upon Sheriff .
And finally on December 2, 1992, respondents filed
with the RTC of Makati a petition for quieting of title
with prayer for preliminary injunction. The petition
prayed, among others, that the execution sale of the
property be enjoined, the notice of levy and attachment
inscribed on the certificate of title be cancelled, and
that respondents Barrameda be declared the lawful and
sole owners of the property in question.

The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Rodriguez and
dismissed respondents Barramedas petition for quieting
of title.
It ruled that the respondents adverse claim was
insufficient to establish their claim over the property.
Furthermore respondents as buyers should have
registered the title in their names. The court also said
that respondents adverse claim had lost its efficacy
after the lapse of thirty days in accordance with the
provisions of the PD1529.
Lastly the trial court found that there was collusion
between barrameda and Calingo to transfer the property
to defraud third parties who may have a claim against
the Calingos.
However upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision of
the trial court. It held that respondents Barramedas
adverse claim inscribed on the certificate of title was
still effective at the time the property was levied on
execution.
Consequently, petitioners are with knowledge that the
property sought to be levied upon on execution was
encumbered by an interest the same as or better than
that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy
cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed
on the certificate of title in favor of the Barramedas.
Therefore, that the notice of levy could not prevail
over respondents Barramedas adverse claim.
Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the
appellate courts ruling, but the motion was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the adverse claim inscribed by
respondents prevail over the levy on execution issued by
another court.

RULING: The Court ruled that the adverse claim of
respondent will not prevail over the levy on execution
issued by another court.
The Court in reversing the CA, states that respondents
anchor their claim on the sale, which was never
registered under the Torrens system; therefore it cannot
affect third parties.
The Court states that it is the act of registration shall
be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar
as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 3
of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where
the land lies.
In the case at bar, the deed of sale with assumption of
mortgage executed by respondents is a registrable
instrument. In order to bind third parties, it must be
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It
was not shown in this case that there was justifiable
reason why the deed could not be registered. Hence, the
remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for
registration.
According to SC, the annotation of an adverse claim
is a measure designed to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property where the
registration of such interest or right is not otherwise
provided for by the Land Registration Act, and serves
as a notice and warning to third parties dealing with
said property that someone is claiming an interest on
the same or a better right than the registered owner
thereof.


(4) LIGON v. CA

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

ISSUE: W/N INK has a superior right to the possession of
the owners copies of the certificated of title.

HELD: YES. Under our land registration law, no voluntary
instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds
unless the owners duplicate certificate is presented
together with such instrument, except in some cases or
upon the order of the court for cause shown. In case the
person in possession refuses or fails to surrender the
same to the RD so that a voluntary document may be
registered and a new certificate issued, Sec. 107 of P.D.
No. 1529 states:
Where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered
by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
surrender the owners duplicate, the party in
interest may file a petition in court to compel
surrender of the same to the RD. The court, after
hearing, may order the registered owner or any
person withholding the duplicate certificate to
surrender the same and direct the entry of a new
certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If
the person withholding the duplicate certificate is
not amenable to the process of the court, of if for
any reason the outstanding owners duplicate cannot
be delivered, the court may order the annulment of
the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate
of title in lieu thereof.
Pursuant to Sec. 2 of P.D. No. 1529, the distinction
between the RTCs general and the limited jurisdiction
when acting merely as a cadastral court has been
eliminated. Aimed at avoiding multiplicity of suits, the
change has simplified registration proceedings by
conferring upon the RTCs the authority to act not only on
applications for original registration but also over
petitions filed after original registration of title, with
power to hear and determine all questions arising upon
such applications or petitions.
Even while Sec. 107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition
which can be filed by one who wants to compel another
to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does
not preclude a party to a pending case to include as
incident therein the relief stated under said section,
especially if the subject certificates of title to be
surrendered are intimately connected with the subject
matter of the principal action. The principal action is
based on expediency and in accordance with the policy
against multiplicity of suits.
The order directing the surrender of the certificates to
the RD in order that the deed be registered in favor of
INK cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests
as mortagee, since any lien annotated on the previous
certificates which subsists shall be incorporated or
carried over to the new certificates of title.


(5) MAGDALENA HOMEOWNERS v. CA

FACTS: Magdalena Estate Inc. (MEI) owned a subdivision
located at QC. It has a total area of 355,490 sq.m. The
lot in question was lot 15, blk 18 measuring 21,460 sq.m.
A part of this lot measuring 7,100 sq.m was initially set
aside as the subdivisions open space which will be
allotted to recreational zones such as parking,
playground.
Subsequently, the subdivision plan was amended by
substituting the earlier designated open space with
another lot covering the same area. This was approved
by QC City Council. Lot 15 thereafter was approved to be
alienated.
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 4
A part of lot 15 was sold to DBP by way of dacion en
pago and the remaining part was sold to third parties.
The Magdalena homeowners association brought a suit to
recover the original open space. They have caused a
notice of lis pendens be recorded at the Registry of
Deeds.
The lower court rendered a favorable decision for
petitioner but was appealed to CA to obtain favorable
modifications. While the case was pending, MEI and DBP
filed in separate motions praying for the cancellation of
the notice of lis pendens. These motions were favorably
granted.

ISSUE: W/N the CA had jurisdiction to take cognizance of
and grant the motion to cancel notice of lis pendens
since no motion had ever been filed in court a quo.

HELD: CA has jurisdiction. Under Rule 14 sec 24 of the
Rules of Court and Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis
pendens is proper in the following cases:
a) an action to recover possession of real
estate
b) an action to quiet title thereto
c) an action to remove clouds thereon
d) an actionfor partition; and
e) any other proceedings of any kind in Court
directly affecting the title to the land or
the use or occupation thereof or the
buildings thereon.
The notice of lis pendens- that the real property is
involved in an action- is ordinarily recorded w/o the
intervention of the court where it is pending. The notice
is an incident in an action. The cancellation therefore is
also a mere incident and may be ordered by the Court
having jurisdiction over it at any time. In the case at bar,
CA has jurisdiction by virtue of the perfection of the
petitioners appeal. The issue of questions relating to
merits cannot be raised for the first time in appeal does
not apply to mere incidents such as cancellation of
notice of lis pendens.


(6) A. DORONILLA RESOURCES v. CA

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

ISSUE: W/N the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at
the back of the TCT precludes the subsequent
registration on the same or successor TCT of an adverse
claim

HELD: NO. The two remediesnotice of lis pendens and
adverse claimare NOT contradictory or repugnant to
one another; nor does the existence of one automatically
nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be
considered unnecessary, it would be the notice of lis
pendens and not the annotation of adverse claim which is
more permanent and cannot be cancelled without
adequate hearing and proper disposition of the claim
involved. Both are intended to protect the interest of a
claimant by posing as notices and caution to those
involved with the property that it is subject to a claim.
Moreover, the annotation at the back of Winmar's TCT
that the property is subject to the resolution of the 2nd
affidavit of adverse claim does NOT amply protect the
rights and interests of Doronilla Resources. It cannot
serve as notice and warning to third persons dealing with
the property that someone is claiming an interest in the
same or a better title than that of the registered owner.
A consulta is the reference of a question to the
Commissioner of Land Registration by a RD when he is in
doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or
instrument is presented to him for registration.


(7) LOPEZ v. ENRIQUEZ

FACTS:
Sandoval and Ozaeta filed an application for registration
of title in the RTC. RTC subsequently granted their
request. The heirs of Enriquez filed a motion alleging
that Sandoval and Ozaeta sold the lots in question to
their deceased father, Eugenio Lopez, Sr.

However, the decision of the RTC on the application for
registration of Sandoval and Ozaeta being final and
executory, the LRA issued titles in their names. The
petitioners (heirs) filed a motion to nullify said OCTs.
They also applied with the Register of Deeds for the
annotation of the notice of lis pendens on the back of the
OCTs. The LRA denied said application on the basis of the
notice not being registrable solely because of the motion
to nullify the OCTs. CA affirmed the LRAs decision.

ISSUE:
W/N the petitioners motion to declare void the decrees
issued by the LRA is a proper basis for filing the notice of
lis pendens?

HELD:
No.
As decreed by Section 76 of PD 1529, a notice of lis
pendens should contain a statement of the institution of
LAND TITLES CASE DIGESTS | ATTY. CADIZ | SEC. 69 TO 92
FABIA K | ZARAGOSA | ANG | SIRON | MENDOZA J | HIPOLITO | NOEL | FAJARDO | MULI | NOGRALES 5
an action or proceeding, the court where the same is
pending, and the date of its institution. A notice of lis
pendens should also contain a reference to the number of
the certificate of title of the land, an adequate
description of the land affected and its registered
owner.l^vvphi1.net
The Register of Deeds denied registration of the notice of
lis pendens because "the application was bereft of the
original petition or complaint upon which this office will
base its action."


(8) SLDC v. CA

FACTS: The Spouses Lu owned a parcel of land which
they purportedly sold to Babasanta. He demanded the
execution of a Final Deed of Sale in his favor so he may
effect full payment of the purchase price; the Spouses
declined to push through with the sale. They claim that
hen he requested for a discount and they refused, he
rescinded the agreement. Thus Babasanta filed a case for
specific performance; San Lorenzo Development
Corporation intervened claiming that the lots have been
sold to it by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale with
mortgage and that it was a purchaser in good faith. Both
sale were not registered.

ISSUE: Who has a better right between SLDC and
Babasanta

HELD: SLDC has a better right.
There was no contract to sell in this case because the
contract in favor of Babasanta was a mere contract to
sell. Hence Article 1544 is not applicable. He ownership
of the property was not to be transmitted in favor until
the full payment of the purchase price. There was
neither actual nor constructive delivery as his title is
based on a mere receipt, Based on this alone, the right
of SLDC must be preferred.
While it is true that Babasanta was able to have a
notice of lis pendens annotated in the title of the
Spouses Lu, the same was accomplished already after the
property has already been transferred to SLDC; thus it
cannot affect the title and good faith of SLDC.

* END *