Almirol v.

Register of Deeds of Agusan

G.R. No. L-22486 March 20, 1968

Baranda vs. Gustillo

Facts:
FACTS: On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol purchased from Arcenio
Abalo a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Esperanza,
province of Agusan, and covered by original certificate of title P-1237
in the name of "Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo."
Sometime in May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of the Register of
Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to register the deed of sale and to
secure in his name a transfer certificate of title. Registration was
refused by the Register of Deeds upon the following grounds:

A petition for reconstitution of title was

filed with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo involving a parcel of land
known as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered
by OCT No. 6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.

The OCT was cancelled and TCT No.

106098 was issued in the names of petitioners Baranda and
Hitalia.

The Court issued a writ of possession

which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and Susana Silao
refused to honor on the ground that they also have TCT No.
25772 over the same Lot No. 4517.

1.
That Original Certificate of Title No. P1237 is registered in the name of Arcenio Abalo, married to
Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal presumption, is considered
conjugal property;

The Court found out that TCT No.

257772 was fraudulently acquired by Perez, Gotera and
Susana.

2.
That in the sale of a conjugal property
acquired after the effectivity of the New Civil Code it is
necessary that both spouses sign the document; but

Thereafter, the court issued a writ of

demolition which was questioned by Perez and others so a
motion for reconsideration was filed.

3.
Since, as in this case, the wife has
already died when the sale was made, the surviving husband
cannot dispose of the whole property without violating the
existing law.

Another case was filed by Baranda and

Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) for the execution of judgement in the
resolutions issued by the courts.

In the meantime, the CA dismissed a

civil case (GR. NO. 00827) involving the same properties.
(NOTE: This time three cases na ang involve excluding the
case at bar.)

In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of First Instance

of Agusan on a petition for mandamus to compel the Register of Deeds
to register the deed of sale and to issue to him the corresponding
transfer certificate of title. In its resolution of October 16, 1963 the
lower court, declaring that the Mandamus does not lie because the
adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of Rep. Act 1151
dismissed the petition, with costs against the petitioner. Hence, this
present appeal.

The petitioners prayed that an order be

released to cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title
to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To cancel
No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T-106098 and once
cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo
S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.

In compliance with the order or the RTC,

the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the
order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the
same and issued new certificate of titles in the name of
petitioners.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Register of Deeds was justified in refusing

to register the transaction appealed to by the petitioner.

However, by reason of a separate case

pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was
annotated in the new certificate of title.

This prompted the petitioners to move

for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the new
certificates.

HELD: No. Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent show a
sincere desire on his part to maintain inviolate the law on succession
and transmission of rights over real properties, these do not constitute
legal grounds for his refusal to register the deed.

Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the

Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of the notice of
lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion
for reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

Whether a document is valid or not, is not for the register of deeds to

determine; this function belongs properly to a court of competent
jurisdiction.
A
register of deeds is entirely precluded by section 4 of Republic
Act 1151 from exercising his personal judgment and discretion when
confronted with the problem of whether to register a deed or
instrument on the ground that it is invalid. For under the said section,
when he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken with respect to
any deed or other instrument presented to him
for registration
all that he is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall, after notice and hearing,
enter an order prescribing the step to be taken on the doubtful
question.

Issue: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to

annotate or annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.

Held:

Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the
duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument
presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which

complies with all the requisites for registration. ... 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 reasons
therefore, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
accordance with Section 117 of this Decree."

Petitioner Cheng expressed interest over the property and paid 50K
check with the assurance that the contract between Genato and the
spouses Da Jose will be annulled. Da Jose spouses protested with the
annulment and persuaded Genato to continue the contract. Genato
returned the check to Cheng and hence, this petition.

Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
regard to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to
him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with
the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such
instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land
Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru
the Register of Deeds. ... ."

HELD:
The contract between Genato and spouses Da Jose was a contract to
sell which is subject to a suspensive condition. Thus, there will be no
contract to speak of, if the obligor failed to perform the suspensive
condition which enforces a juridical relation. Obviously, the foregoing
jurisprudence cannot be made to apply to the situation in the instant
case because no default can be ascribed to the Da Jose spouses since
the 30-day extension period has not yet expired.

The function of ROD is ministerial in nature

The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of
deeds encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature.
The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not have any legal
standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's
Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the
certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land.

In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any

deed ... or other instrument presented to him, he should have asked
the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration now, the
Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds Registration
Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree
No. 1529.

No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD

The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words
and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning
must be determined from the language employed and the statute must
be taken to mean exactly what it says. The statute concerning the
function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens
certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for construction.

Even assuming that the spouses defaulted, the contract also cannot be
validly rescinded because no notice was given to them. Thus, Cheng's
contention that the Contract to Sell between Genato and the Da Jose
spouses was rescinded or resolved due to Genato's unilateral
rescission finds no support in this case.

The contract between Genato and Cheng is a contract to sell not a

contract of sale. But But even assuming that it should be treated as a
conditional contract of sale, it did not acquire any obligatory force
since it was subject to a suspensive condition that the earlier contract
to sell between Genato and the Da Jose spouses should first be
cancelled or rescinded.

Art.1544 should apply because for not only was the contract between
herein respondents first in time; it was also registered long before
petitioner's intrusion as a second buyer (PRIMUS TEMPORE, PORTIOR
JURE). (Spouses made annotation on the title of Genato). Since Cheng
was fully aware, or could have been if he had chosen to inquire, of the
rights of the Da Jose spouses under the Contract to Sell duly annotated
on the transfer certificates of titles of Genato, it now becomes
unnecessary to further elaborate in detail the fact that he is indeed in
bad faith in entering into such agreement.

Capitol Subdivisions vs. Province of Negros Oriental

CHENG V. GENATO (December 29, 1998)
7 SCRA 60 (1963)

FACTS:
Respondent Genato entered a contract to sell to spouses Da Jose
pertaining to his property in Bulacan. The contract made in public
document states that the spouses shall pay the down payment and 30
days after verifying the authenticity of the documents, they shall pay
the remaining purchase price.

FACTS: Lot 378, which is the subject matter of this case, is part of
Hacienda Madalagan, registered under the name of Agustin Amenabar
and Pilar Amenabar, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1776
issued in the name of the aforementioned in 1916.

Da Jose spouses was not able to finish verifying the documents and as
such asked for a 30 day extension. Pending the extension and without
notice to the spouses, Genato made a document for the annulment of
the contract.

Sometime in 1920, the Amenabars sold the aforementioned Hacienda

to Jose Benares for the purchase price of P300,000, payable in
instalments. In 1924, the Original Certificate of Title issued in the name
of the Amenabars was cancelled, and in lieu thereof, Benares obtained
a Transfer Certificate of Title under his name.

Meanwhile, in 1921, Benares mortgaged the Hacienda including Lot

378 to Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. And then later in 1926, he again
mortgaged the Hacienda, including said Lot 378, on the Philippine
National Bank, subject to the first mortgage held by the Bacolod-Murcia
Milling Co.

These transactions were duly recorded in the office of the Register of

Deeds of Negros Occidental.

or on October 4, 1949, plaintiff made representations with the proper

officials to clarify the status of said occupation. Not being satisfied with
the explanations given by said officials, it brought the present action
on June 10, 1950.

In its answer, defendant maintained that it had acquired the lot in

question in the year 1924-1925 through expropriation proceedings and
that it took possession of the lost and began the construction of the
provincial hospital thereon. They further claimed that for some reason
beyond their comprehension, title was never transferred in its name
and it was placed in its name only for assessment purposes.

The mortgage in favor of the Bank was subsequently foreclosed and

the Bank acquired the Hacienda, including Lot 378, as purchaser at the
foreclosure sale.
And that defendant acted in bad faith in purchasing the lot knowing
that the provincial hospital was situated there and that he did not
declare such property for assessment purposes only until 1950.
Accordingly, the TCT in the name of Benares was cancelled and
another TCT was issued in the name of the Bank.

In 1935, the Bank agreed to sell the Hacienda to the son of Jose
Benares, Carlos Benares, for the sum of P400,000, payable in annual
installments, subject to the condition that the title will remain with the
Bank until full payment.

Thereafter, Carlos Benares transferred his rights, under his contract

with the Bank, to plaintiff herein, which completed the payment of the
installments due to the Bank in 1949.

ISSUE: Whether or not defendant herein had acquired the lot in

question in the aforementioned expropriation proceedings.

HELD: The Court held that defendant was not able to sufficiently prove
that they have acquired the legal title over Lot 378. Several
circumstances indicate that the expropriation had not been
consummated.

Hence, the Bank executed the corresponding deed of absolute sale to

the plaintiff and a transfer certificate of title covering Lot 378 was
issued.

It should be noted that, despite the acquisition of the Hacienda in 1934

by the Bank, the latter did not take possession of the property for Jose
Benares claimed to be entitled to retain it under an alleged right of
lease.

For this reason, the deed of promise to sell, executed by the Bank in
favour of Carlos P. Benares, contained a caveat emptor stipulation.

When, upon the execution of the deed of absolute sale 1949, plaintiff
took steps to take possession the Hacienda and it was discovered that
Lot 378 was the land occupied by the Provincial Hospital of Negros
Occidental. Immediately thereafter, plaintiff made representations with

First, there, the entries in the docket pertaining to the expropriation

case refer only to its filing and the publication in the newspaper of the
notices. Second, there was an absence of a deed of assignment and of
a TCT in favour of the Province as regards Lot 378. Third, the property
was mortgaged to Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Lot 378 could not have
been expropriated without the intervention of the Milling Co. And yet,
the latter was not made a party in the expropriation proceedings. And
fourth, a second mortgage was constituted in favour of the Back, which
would not have accepted the mortgage had Lot 378 not belonged to
the mortgagor. Neither could said lot have been expropriated without
the Banks knowledge and participation.

Furthermore, in the deed executed by the Bank promising to sell the

Hacienda Mandalagan to Carlos Benares, it was explicitly stated that
some particular lots had been expropriated by the Provincial
Government of Negros Occidental, thus indicating, by necessary
implication, that Lot 378 had not been expropriated.