Balbin vs RD of Ilocos

Facts
-On November 15, 1961 petitioners presented to the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the registered
owner's certificate of title (OCT No. 548) and an instrument entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos," with the request
that the same be annotated on the title. Under the terms of the instrument sought to be annotated one Cornelio Balbin,
registered owner of the parcel of land described in OCT No. 548, appears to have donated inter-vivos an undivided
two-thirds (/) portion thereof in favor of petitioners. Land area is 11.2225 hectares. Petitioners compel annotation of
said donation on the title.
[NOTE: Cornelio Balbin donated an undivided 2/3 portion of his property to the petitioners: Aurelio and Francisco]

-Petitioners went to the Commissioner of Land Registration who upheld the decision of the RD.

-The register of deeds denied the requested annotation for being "legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in
law." It appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of encumbrances on the certificate are three separate
sales of undivided portions of the land earlier executed by Cornelio Balbin in favor of three different buyers.
[Note: Sales made in 1952, 1953 and 1955 of 15T sq, 16T sq and 3T sq]

-Three reasons for refusal or denial by RD: Cornelio was married, 3 separate sales, and non-presentation of other
duplicate copies of OCT in possession of the buyers.

SC Ruling
-As correctly observed by the Land Registration Commissioner, petitioners' claim that the issuance of those copies
was unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its legality being presumed until otherwise declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction. There being several copies of the same title in existence, it is easy to see how their
integrity may be adversely affected if an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is annotated on one copy and not
on the others. The law itself refers to every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the original, which
means that both must contain identical entries of the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the
land covered by the title. If this were not so, if different copies were permitted to carry differing annotations,
the whole system of Torrens registration would cease to be reliable.

-It is not to be denied that, if the conjugal character of the property is assumed, the deed of donation executed by
the husband, Cornelio Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of its registration,
namely, the fact that the two-thirds portion of said property which he donated was more than his one-half
share, not to say more than what remained of such share after he had sold portions of the same land to three
other parties. [Note RSPol: The 2/3 donation plus the 3 separate sales constitute more than 1/2 of Cornelios share in
the conjugal property.]

-It appears that there is a case pending in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (CC No. 2221), wherein the civil
status of the donor Cornelio Balbin and the character of the land in question are in issue, as well as the validity of the
different conveyances executed by him. The matter of registration of the deed of donation may well await the
outcome of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the interested parties could be protected by filing the
proper notices of lis pendens.

Almirol vs RD of Agusan
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.
[Note RSPol: Almirol applies to register his property acquired through a deed of sale with Arcenio Abalo.]

-RD refused because: property is conjugal which requires signature of both houses in the document and since the wife
recently died, the property has to be liquidated through extrajudicial settlement.

-In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of First Instance of Agusan on a petition for mandamus (sp.
civ. case 151), to compel the Register of Deeds to register the deed of sale and to issue to him the corresponding
transfer certificate of title, and to recover P5,000 in moral damages and P1,000 attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation. [NOTE RSPol: from RD to CFI]
-It is Almirol's assertion that it is but a ministerial duty of the respondent to perform the acts required of him.

SC Ruling
-Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent evince 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. 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. [Determining the validity of the document is not the
function of the RD.]

-Indeed, 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. [Note RSPol: if parties disagree with the
Cmmissioner, they may appeal the decision to the SC within 30 days per Sec 4 of RA 1151]

-The foregoing notwithstanding, the court a quo correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus. Section 4
abovequoted provides that "where any party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds . . . the question
shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration," who thereafter shall "enter an order prescribing the
step to be taken or memorandum to be made," which shall be "conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds."
This administrative remedy must be resorted to by the petitioner before he can have recourse to the courts.