Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. LAND TITLES:
ACTIONS INVOLVING TITLES
Ingusan vs. Hrs. of Reyes (531 SCRA 315) No collateral attack on title
allowed
Invoking the invalidity of an original certificate of title as an affirmative defense in
an answer and the prayer for the declaration of its nullity is a collateral attack on a
certificate of title and is not allowed.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda de Mende (512 SCRA 97) No collateral attack
on title
A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked. The question on the validity of a
Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, can be raised only in an action
expressly instituted for that purpose. The title represented by the certificate cannot
be changed, altered, modified, enlarged, diminished, or cancelled in a collateral
proceeding. The action for the declaration of nullity of deed of sale commenced by
the petitioners in the RTC is not the direct proceeding required by law to attack a
Torrens certificate of title.
Rodriguez vs. Rodriguez (532 SCRA 642) No collateral attack on title
A Torrens certificate of title is indefeasible. The power to pass upon the validity of
such certificate of title at first instance belongs to the Regional Trial Court in a direct
proceeding for the cancellation of title. The alleged invalidity of a Torrens certificate
of title may not be raised by way of a defense in an ejectment case where the
question of ownership may be provisionally ruled upon only for the sole purpose of
determining who is entitled to possession de facto.
Azana vs. Lumbo (518 SCRA 707) Quieting of Title
An action for quieting of title may be brought by the owner of a property who is
disturbed in any way in his right by an unfounded claim.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.]
The rules on quieting of title expressly provide that any declaration in a suit to quiet
title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.
An action for reconveyance prescribes 10 years from the date of registration of the
certificate of sale if the action is based on implied trust arising from a wrongful
foreclosure with iniquitous interest. The principal obligation still stands however the
interest is set at 12% per annum which should be paid.
LACHES
Hrs. of Dumaliang vs. Serban (516 SCRA 343)
It is the better rule that courts under the principle of equity will not be guided by the
doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice will result.
Llemos vs. Llemos (513 SCRA 128)
Laches cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud or injustice.
DOro Land Realty & Devt. Corporation vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681)
Squatters cannot invoke defense of laches
A squatter has no right of possession that may be prejudiced by his eviction. Unless
there are intervening rights of third persons which may be affected or prejudiced by
a decision ordering the return of the lots to the registered owner, the equitable
defense of laches will not apply as against the latter.
Although a registered owner may lose his right to recover possession of his
registered property by reason of laches, the equitable defense is unavailing to one
who has not shown any color of title to the property such as a squatter.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513)
An action to recover lands of the public domain is imprescriptible. Such right
however can be barred by laches/estoppel under Sec. 32 of P.D. 1529 which
recognizes the rights of innocent purchasers for value above the interests of the
government.
Taparuc vs. Loquellano vda. De Mende (512 SCRA 97)
A complaint for declaration of nullity of an alleged forged deed filed 29 years from
execution was held barred by laches.
MISCELLANEOUS
Life Homes Realty vs. Court of Appeals (516 SCRA 6) Corrections in Plans
The Court agrees with the CA that such defects in plans prepared in connection
with areas adjudicated in ordinary or voluntary registration proceedings may be
corrected after the cadastral survey in accordance with Sec. 108 of P.D. No. 1529,
thus:
SEC. 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. 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 by Register of
Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner or
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, may
apply by petition to the court upon the ground that registered interests of any
description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the
certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon
the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in
entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate
certificate; . . . or upon any other reasonable ground; and 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. . . .
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.
The last paragraph above provides that a petition for correction shall be filed and
entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered. As
stated by the CA, the jurisdiction to entertain the petition lies with the Land
Registration Court which heard and decided the voluntary registration proceedings
filed by private respondent. The rule aims to prevent confusion and to avoid
difficulty in tracing the origin of entries in the registry. (Noblejas, Registration of
Land Titles and Deeds, 1986 ed., p. 190.11)
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp. Jurisdiction of Cadastral
Courts
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.]
The reality that cadastral courts may have jurisdiction over lands already registered
in ordinary land registration cases was acknowledged by this Court in Pamintuan v.
San Agustin. 43 Phil. 558 (1922). Such jurisdiction is "limited to the necessary
correction of technical errors in the description of the lands, provided such
corrections do not impair the substantial rights of the registered owner, and that
such jurisdiction cannot operate to deprive a registered owner of his title." (Id. at
561.) It was further clarified in Timbol v. Diaz (44 Phil. 587 (1923))that the limited
jurisdiction of the cadastral court over such lands even extends to the
determination of "which one of the several conflicting registered titles shall prevail[,
as such] power would seem to be necessary for a complete settlement of the title to
the land, the express purpose of cadastral proceedings, and must therefore be
considered to be within the jurisdiction of the court in such proceedings." (Id. at
590.)
Alfonso vs Office of the President (520 SCRA 64) Duty of Register of Deeds
To Require Submission of Approved Subdivision Plan, Technical Description
& Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title Before Issuing New Titles
The observations of the LRA and the DOJ on petitioner's failure to require the
presentation of the subdivision plan for Rivera's three titles are in keeping with the
provisions of Sections 50 and 58 of P.D. No. 1529, as follows:
SEC. 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. Any owner subdividing a tract of
registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision project as defined and
provided for under P.D. 957, shall file with the Commissioner of Land Registration or
with the Bureau of Lands a subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries,
streets, passageways and waterways, if any, shall be distinctly and accurately
delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the Commissioner of
Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with the approved technical
descriptions and the corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title is presented
for registration, the Register of Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval
of said plan, register the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Registration Act, as amended. . . .
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. If a deed of
conveyance is for a part of the land described in a certificate of title, the Register of
Deeds shall not enter any transfer certificate of title to the grantee until a plan of
such land showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided and the
corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified and approved
pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree. . . .
Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of the plan,
together with a certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be filed with the
Register of Deeds for annotation in the corresponding certificate of title and
thereupon said officer shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for the
portion conveyed, and at the same time cancel the grantor's certificate partially
with respect only to the said portion conveyed. . . .
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is clearly evident from the above provisions that for petitioner- register of deeds
to issue a new certificate of title, she must require the submission of the approved
subdivision plan together with the approved technical descriptions and the
corresponding owner's duplicate certificate of title. Therefore, she could not have
dispensed with the submission of the subdivision plan and relied solely on the
technical descriptions provided in the court's Order.
Likewise, this Court holds that petitioner should have required proof of payment of
inheritance tax over the portions that were transferred to Rivera because these lots
were conveyances from the estate of her alleged grandmother, Maria Consolacion
Vidal, in whose name the lots were originally registered under OCT No. 994.
PATENTS/GOVERNMENT AWARD
Taguinod vs. Court of Appeals (533 SCRA 403)
The rights of a homestead patentee are superior to that of a tenant under the
Agrarian Reform Law.
Justalero vs. Gonzales (517 SCRA 341)
Where the predecessor of a free patent applicant did not avail of any legal remedy
to assail a decision adverse to him, his successors are bound thereby.
Estate of the Late Jesus Yujuico vs Republic (537 SCRA 513)
Reversion suits were originally utilized to annul titles/patents administratively issued
by the Director of the Lands Management Bureau or the Secretary of the DENR.
certificate of title and is sold and the sale is registered not under Land Registration
Act but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered registered as the term is used
under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
The loss of a certificate of title of a titled land does not convert the land into
unregistered land.
Hrs. of Zoilo Espiritu vs. Landrito (520 SCRA 385)
Registration of a foreclosure sale (where debtors were not given opportunity to
settle their debt at the correct amount without iniquitous interest) cannot transfer
any rights over mortgaged property even after the expiration of 1 year from
registration of sale.
Santos vs. Lumbao (519 SCRA 408)
The failure of a contracting party to have a document registered does not affect its
validity and enforceability as between the contracting parties for registration serves
chiefly to bind third persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving
the property has been entered into.
Pineda vs. Arcalas (538 SCRA 596) A levy on execution registered takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale a registered lien is entitled to
preferential consideration. An exception to the preference given to a registered lien
is the case where a party has actual knowledge of the claimants actual, open,
continuous and notorious possession of the disputed property at the time the levy
or attachment is registered.
The Court held that a registered writ of attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is
against a particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching
creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can
subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. An
exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has
actual knowledge of the claimants actual, open, continuous and notorious
possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] No registration is made in cases of
illegal transfers
The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it. Certainly, it cannot
be used to divest the lawful owner of his title for the purpose of transferring it to
another who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law.
It cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a
shield for the commission of fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at
the expense of another. Where such an illegal transfer is made, as in the case at
bar, the law presumes that no registration has been made and so retains title in the
real owner of the land.
Sanchez vs. Mapalad Realty Corporation
[G.R. No. 148516. December 27, 2007.] Buyer acquires no title if sale was
done with fraud
Where a deed of sale was attended by fraud and proved to be fictitious, the buyer
acquired no title to the subject property. The sale of four parcels of prime land along
Roxas Boulevard surrendered by a former associate of President Marcos to the
Aquino government bears the earmarks of a grand scam perpetrated by the very
same persons appointed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG) to safeguard the assets of the sequestered companies.
Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Hrs. of Fortunato Doronio
(G.R. No. 169454. December 27, 2007.] Conveyance of real estate must be
made in a proper instrument to transfer title
It is settled that a donation of real estate propter nuptias under the Old Civil Code,
is void unless made by public instrument. In the instant case, the donation propter
nuptias executed when the Old Civil Code was in effect, did not become valid.
Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument.
Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners' predecessors.
adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5)
put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6)
undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot will
be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties. Respondent Acero,
for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor David Victorio who
inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by another.
Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186) Unit Price Contract vs. Lump Sum
In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not conclusive and
the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually delivered. If
the vendor delivers less than the area agreed upon, the vendee may oblige the
vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the
proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If the
vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the
option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area, provided
he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum
for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price,
although there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.
In a contract of sale of land in a mass, it is well established that the specific
boundaries stated in the contract must control over any statement with respect to
the area contained within its boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a deed
or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is
sufficient if its extent is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one
to identify it. An error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of
the vendor is to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the
entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate object.
One who deals with property registered under Torrens system may safely rely on the
title and is charged only with burdens and claims annotated on the title.
Tanglao vs. Parungao (535 SCRA 123)
Indefeasibility of title does not extend to transferees who take the certificate of title
in bad faith.
DOro Land Realty & Devt Corp vs. Claunan (516 SCRA 681)
A certificate of title can not be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession
by third persons.
Ochoa vs. Apeta (533 SCRA 235)
No title to registered land in derogation to that of registered owner or his hereditary
successors (who merely step into the shoes of the decedent) shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession.
Barstowe vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148)
The Republic may not go after innocent purchasers of lots of a subdivision owner
(who is guilty of securing titles fraudulently) who looked into TCTs of developer and
found nothing to raise doubts as to their validity and authenticity.
Antonio vs. Santos (538 SCRA 1) When two certificates of title are issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail
and Holder of a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies
on a subsequent certificate.
This court has ruled that, when two certificates of title are issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier date must prevail;
and in case of successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued
over the same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as
against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.
II. LAND REGISTRATION:
P.D. 1529 SEC. 14 (1) AND (2)
Buenaventura vs. Republic (517 SCRA 271)
Limcoma Multipurpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233)
Applicant may acquire title by prescription under Sec. 14(2) of P.D. 1529
even if he cannot prove possession since June 12, 1945
Did the enactment of the Property Registration Decree and the amendatory P.D. No.
1073 preclude the application for registration of alienable lands of the public
domain, possession over which commenced only after June 12, 1945? It did not,
considering Section 14(2) of the Property Registration Decree, which governs and
authorizes the application of "those who have acquired ownership of private lands
by prescription under the provisions of existing laws."
It becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid ruling of the Court that even if the
possession of alienable lands of the public domain commenced only after 12 June
1945, application for registration of the said property is still possible by virtue of
Section 14 (2) of the Property Registration Decree which speaks of prescription.
Under the Civil Code, prescription is one of the modes of acquiring ownership.
Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides:
By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of
time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law.
Also in Article 1113 of the Civil Code, it is provided that:
All things which are within the commerce of men are susceptible of prescription,
unless otherwise provided. Property of the State or any of its subdivision not
patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription.
Likewise, Article 1137 of the Civil Code states that:
Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through
uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of
good faith. (Emphasis supplied.)
It is well-settled that properties classified as alienable and disposable land may be
converted into private property by reason of open, continuous and exclusive
possession of at least 30 years. Such property now falls within the contemplation of
"private lands" under Section 14 (2), over which title by prescription can be
acquired. Hence, because of Section 14 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1529, those
who are in possession of alienable and disposable land, and whose possession has
been characterized as open, continuous and exclusive for 30 years or more, may
have the right to register their title to such land despite the fact that their
possession of the land commenced only after 12 June 1945. 29
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE
Republic vs. San Lorenzo (513 SCRA 294)
Reyes vs. Republic (512 SCRA 217)
Section 48 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended (Public Land Act), and
Section 14 (1) of Presidential Decree 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, require that the applicants must prove that the land is
alienable and disposable public land; and that they or through their predecessors in
interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and
occupation of the alienable and disposable land of the public domain, under a bona
fide claim of acquisition or ownership, since June 12, 1945.
Republic vs. Sarmiento (518 SCRA 250 ) Applicant Under Act 141 must
prove how his title was acquired from State
It is well settled that no public land can be acquired by private persons without any
grant, express or implied, from the government, and it is indispensable that the
person claiming title to public land should show that his title was acquired from the
State or any other mode of acquisition recognized by law.
Limcoma Multi-Purpose Cooperative vs. Republic (527 SCRA 233)
Difference Between Registration Proceedings Under P.D. 1529 and Act 141
Notably, Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree and Section 48 (b) of the
Public Land Act, as amended, are original registration proceedings, against the
whole world, and the decree of registration issued for both is conclusive and final. It
is evident from the above-cited provisions that an application for land registration
must conform to three requisites: (1) the land is alienable public land; (2) the
applicant's open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation
thereof must be since June 12, 1945, or earlier; and (3) it is under a bona fide claim
of ownership.
The laws vary only with respect to their operation. Under the Property Registration
Decree, there already exists a title which the court need only confirm while the
Public Land Act works under the presumption that the land applied for still pertains
to the State, and the occupants and possessors merely claim an interest in the land
by virtue of their imperfect title or continuous, open, and notorious possession
thereof.
CERTIFICATE OF ALIENABILITY
Republic vs. Bibonia (525 SCRA 268) Land must be alienable and
disposable as of time of filing of application for registration of title not
necessarily as of June 12, 1945
Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of Section 14(1) of P.D. 1529 is that it
If what is sought to be registered are sublots of a bigger lot, the publication must
contain the technical descriptions of the smaller lots since the adjoining owners of
the mother lot are not the adjoining owners of the smaller lots.
EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION
A. TAX DECLARATIONS
Republic vs. Consunji (533 SCRA 269) Even if earliest tax declarations do
not date back to 1945, still if there is credible testimony, court will grant
petition for registration.
The fact that the earliest tax declarations of the lots were for the year 1955 will not
mitigate against respondent. In Recto v. Republic (440 SCRA 79) it was held that:
. . . the belated declaration of the lot for tax purposes does not necessarily mean
that possession by the previous owners thereof did not commence in 1945 or
earlier. As long as the testimony supporting possession for the required period is
credible, the court will grant the petition for registration.
Hrs. of Marina Regalado vs. Republic (516 SCRA 38) Delayed declaration
for tax purpose negates claim of continuous, exclusive and uninterrupted
possession as owner
While it is a good indication of possession in the concept of owner, delayed
declaration of property for tax purposes negates a claim of continuous, exclusive,
and interrupted possession in the concept of an owner.
the imposition of an additional burden on the owner after the judgment in the land
registration case had attained finality would simply frustrate such goal.
Estate of Late Jesus Yujuico vs. Republic (537 SCRA 513) Estoppel may lie against
the Government if it did not act to contest title for unreasonable length of time
Subject to its limitations, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against
public authorities when the lot is alienated to innocent purchasers for value and the
government did not undertake any act to contest the title for an unreasonable
length of time.
ISSUANCE OF A DECREE
Hrs. of Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
Petition for Review of Decree must be filed within 1 year from issuance of
decree otherwise title becomes indefeasible
When the petition for review of decree is filed after the expiration of one (1) year
from the issuance of the decree of registration, the certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears thereon. The certificate of title that was issued attained the status of
indefeasibility one year after its issuance. The aggrieved party cannot defeat title
previously issued by subsequently filing an application for registration of land
previous registered.
See also Esguerra vs. Trinidad (518 SCRA 186)
Heirs of Clemente Ermac v. Heirs of Vicente Ermac (403 SCRA 291, 297):
While it is true that Section 32 of PD 1529 provides that the decree of registration
becomes incontrovertible after a year, it does not altogether deprive an aggrieved
party of a remedy in law. The acceptability of the Torrens System would be impaired,
if it is utilized to perpetuate fraud against the real owners. 7
A more succinct explanation is found in Vda. De Recinto v. Inciong (77
SCRA 196, 201.) thus:
The mere possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens system does not
necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all the property described therein
for he does not by virtue of said certificate alone become the owner of the land
illegally included. It is evident from the records that the petitioner owns the portion
in question and therefore the area should be conveyed to her. The remedy of the
land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in
another's name is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the
decree, but, respecting the decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to review,
to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the
property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for
damages.
Manotok Realty Inc. vs. CLT Realty Devt. Corp.
[G.R. No. 123346. December 14, 2007.] It is from date of issuance of a title
when the decree of registration is transcribed that a certificate of title is
to take effect
With the plain language of the law as mooring, this Court in two vintage and sound
rulings made it plain that the original certificate of title is issued on the date the
decree of registration is transcribed. In the first ruling, it was held that there is a
marked distinction between the entry of the decree and the entry of the certificate
of title; the entry of the decree is made by the chief clerk of the land registration
and the entry of the certificate of title is made by the register of deeds. (Antiporda
v. Mapa, 55 Phil. 89, 91 (1930). Such difference is highlighted by Sec. 31 of Act No.
496 as it provides that the certificate of title is issued in pursuance of the decree of
registration. In the second, it was stressed that what stands as the certificate of the
title is the transcript of the decree of registration made by the registrar of deeds in
the registry. (PNB v. Tan, 51 Phil. 317, 321 (1927))
Otherwise stated, what is actually issued by the register of deeds is the certificate
of title itself, not the decree of registration, as he is precisely the recipient from the
land registration office of the decree for transcription to the certificate as well as the
transcriber no less. Since what is now acknowledged as the authentic OCT No. 994
indicates that it was received for transcription by the Register of Deeds of Rizal on 3
May 1917, it is that date that is the date of registration since that was when he was
able to transcribe the decree in the registration book, such entry made in the book
being the original certificate of title. (See Act No. 496, Sec. 41.) Moreover, it is only
after the transcription of the decree by the register of deeds that the certificate of
title is to take effect..
RES JUDICATA
Hrs. Tama Tan Buto vs. Luy (528 SCRA 522)
A previous final and executory judgment awarding the lot in favor of a party bars
the losing party from later filing an application for registration of title covering the
same lot.
RECONSTITUTION OF TITLES
Hrs. of Venturanza vs. Republic (528 SCRA 238)
A court has no jurisdiction to order the reconstitution of title over land which was
never registered. The records of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, do not
show how the land covered by TCT No. 140 supposedly in the name of Florencio
Mora was registered. A land may be considered as not having been originally
registered if there is no decree number, original certificate of title number or LRC
Record.
Barstowe Philippines Corporation vs. Republic (519 SCRA 148) Judicially
reconstituted titles are superior to administratively reconstituted titles.
Reconstituted titles shall have the same validity and legal effect as the originals
thereof" unless the reconstitution was made extrajudicially. In contrast to the
judicial reconstitution of a lost certificate of title which is in rem, the administrative
reconstitution is essentially ex-parte and without notice. The reconstituted
certificates of title do not share the same indefeasible character of the original
certificates of title for the following reason
The nature of a reconstituted Transfer Certificate Of Title of registered land is similar
to that of a second Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate Of Title. Both are issued,
after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that the
original of the said TCT or the original of the Owner's Duplicate TCT, respectively,
was lost and could not be located or found despite diligent efforts exerted for that
purpose. Both, therefore, are subsequent copies of the originals thereof. A cursory
examination of these subsequent copies would show that they are not the originals.
Anyone dealing with such copies are put on notice of such fact and thus warned to
be extra-careful. .