ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY

Ateneo Law School

LAND TITLES 2A
Atty. Lorenzo U. Padilla

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 25 MCQ EXERCISES.

1. In terms of the requirements for registration, what mainly

differentiates an involuntary dealing from a voluntary dealing is that -- (a)
an involuntary dealing is not consented to or arises against the will
of the registered owner, whereas a voluntary dealing is entered into
by the registered owner or arises with his consent; (b) an involuntary
dealing may be registered without need of surrendering the owners
duplicate certificate of title, whereas the registration of a voluntary
dealing requires surrender of the owners duplicate certificate of
title; (c) an involuntary dealing is registered merely by
corresponding entry on the certificate of title on file with the
Register of Deeds, whereas a voluntary dealing is registered by
similarly making such entry in the owners duplicate certificate of
title; (d) an involuntary dealing need only be entered in the primary
entry book to be considered registered, whereas a voluntary dealing
requires further annotation on the copy of the certificate of title on
file with the Register of Deeds.

2. Where documents or instruments to be registered with the

Register of Deeds are sent to said office by registered mail -- (a) the date
of mailing is considered the date of filing, receipt and registration
thereof; (b) the date of receipt thereof is regarded as its date of
presentation, which is to be entered in the primary entry book as its
date of filing and registration; (c) the date of mailing is considered
the date of filing but its date of registration is reckoned as of the
date of its actual entry in the primary entry book, which could only
be made after its receipt; (d) the date of mailing, as stamped on the
envelop, is regarded as its date of filing, receipt or registration
provided, depending upon the nature of the transaction as voluntary
or involuntary, the requirements are complete.

3. Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone [in the

primary entry book] produces the effect of registration, so long as the
registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry
and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent
solely on the register of deeds. This doctrine applies -- (a) to voluntary
transactions; (b) to involuntary transactions; (c) to both voluntary
and involuntary transaction; (d) to all types of transactions, provided
the process of registration is impossible of accomplishment by
reason of the absence of the certificate of title on file with the
Register of Deeds.

4. X bought property from H, who is married to W. Before doing

so, (1) X asked his nephew, P, to investigate the origin of the property and
the latter learned that the same formed part of the properties of W's first
husband; (2) X learned that the said sale was between the spouses; and (3)
X inspected the property, at which time X met all the lessees who informed
him that subject lands belong to W and they had no knowledge that the
same lots were sold to the husband. Considering that the sale between H
and W was invalid, can X nevertheless claim the sale to him of said property
1
by H was valid? (a) Yes, as a general rule, in a sale under the Torrens
system, a void title cannot give rise to a valid title, but the exception
is when the sale of a person with a void title is to a third person who
purchased it for value and in good faith; (b) No, because X cannot
claim the rights of an innocent purchaser for value as he had notice
of facts that would have led to the discovery of defects in Hs title
had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably
be required of a prudent man in a like situation; (c) Yes, because X
had the right to rely upon the certificate of title which appeared in
the name of H; (d) Yes, because X in fact investigated and the facts
indicated, as discovered by X, were not enough to excite suspicion
regarding the validity of Hs title.

5. May transactions entered into by impostors, who are able to

fraudulently secure a new copy of the owners duplicate certificate of title
while the real owner retains in his custody or control the genuine owners
duplicate certificate of title, pass on valid titles to their purchasers? (a)
No, because the real owner never parted with it; never handed or
delivered to anyone his owner's duplicate of the transfer certificate
of title; hence, he could not be charged with negligence in keeping
of its duplicate certificate of title or with act which could have
brought about the issuance of other certificate upon which a
purchaser in good faith and for value could rely; (b) Yes, because an
invalid title can become the root of a valid title in favor of innocent
purchasers for value; (c) Yes, for as long as the purchasers are not
guilty of negligence; (d) Yes, by proving negligence on the part of the
real owner.

6. Unless requested to be cancelled by the person who caused it to

be registered, a notice of adverse claim -- (a) may be cancelled without
need of court order upon the lapse of thirty [30] days after its
registration; (b) may be cancelled only by court order despite the
lapse of thirty [30] days after its registration; (c) may be cancelled
upon a verified petition filed with the Register of Deeds upon the
lapse of thirty [30] days after its registration; (d) may be ignored and
need not be cancelled upon the lapse of thirty [30] days following its
registration because it is effective only for that period.

7. Where, in connection with the registration of involuntary

transactions, the registered owner refuses to surrender the owners
duplicate certificate of title -- (a) the Register of Deeds, before
registering the transaction, must require the registered owner to
surrender the owners duplicate under the provisions of Section 71,
PD 1529; (b) the Register of Deeds, by a petition filed under Section
107, PD 1529 must compel the registered owner to surrender of the
owners duplicate before registering the transaction; (c) the Register
of Deeds need not do anything else but to register the transaction
since, after all, surrender of the owners duplicate certificate of title
is not required to register such transaction; (d) the Register of
Deeds is obligated to follow Section 71, PD 1529 and must,
therefore, proceed to register the transaction and require the
registered owner to surrender the owners duplicate afterwards ,
while any party in interest may avail of Section 107, as appropriate.

2
 8. Reconstitution of a certificate of title is distinguished from
replacement of a certificate of title in that -- (a) reconstitution is judicial,
while replacement is administrative; (b) reconstitution relates to the
copy on file with the Register of Deeds, while replacement relates to
the owners duplicate certificate of title; (c) reconstitution can be
administrative or judicial, but replacement is always administrative;
(d) replacement requires publication, while reconstitution does not.

9. An administratively reconstituted title is -- (a) preferable to a

judicially reconstituted title because its is less cumbersome to
obtain while being entitled to exactly like faith and credit as a
judicially reconstituted title; (b) less preferable to a judicially
reconstituted title because it is subject to reservations as to rights
or interests in the property duly noted on the original thereof at the
time it was lost or destroyed, although not appearing thereon; (c)
exactly like a judicially reconstituted title, as both are subject to
reservations as to rights or interests in the property duly noted on
the original thereof at the time it was lost or destroyed, although not
appearing thereon; (d) not entitled to like faith and credit as a
judicially reconstituted title because it is easy to obtain before a
mere administrative officer and from any sources.

10. As regards sources for reconstitution -- (a) what may serve as

source for judicial reconstitution may not serve as source for
administrative reconstitution; (b) what may serve as source for
administrative reconstitution may not serve as source for judicial
reconstitution; (c) both judicial and administrative reconstitution
follow an order of preference as to sources for reconstitution; (d)
administrative reconstitution is provided with a broader list of
sources for reconstitution than judicial reconstitution.

11. In judicial reconstitution proceedings, there is need for rigorous

compliance, with exactness and precision -- (a) with the requirements of
Section 12 only, as to the contents of a petition for reconstitution;
(b) with the requirements of Section 13 only, as to publication,
posting and service of the notice of the petition; (c) with the
requirements of both Section 12 and 13, as to contents of the
petition and the publication, posting and service of notice thereof;
(d) with the publication requirements only because, like in original
registration proceedings, the publication in the Official Gazette shall
be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, the proceedings
being in rem.

12. As regards the registration of transactions involving

unregistered lands, which according to Section 113, PD 1529 is subject to
better rights, the term better rights -- (a) means priority in time of
acquisition following the maxim, priority in time means priority in
rights; (b) means priority in time of acquisition coupled with facts
and circumstances showing better rights; (c) need not mean priority
in time of acquisition but such facts and circumstances as establish
better rights; (d) simply means priority in time of registration under
Section 113, PD 1529.

13. A deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the

Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the

3
land but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the
grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration. Once registered, however -- (a) the land involved is
automatically brought under the operation of the Torrens system and
is considered registered thereunder for all intents and purposes, by
virtue of Section 103, PD 1529; (b) the land involved, if unregistered,
may be brought under the operation of the Torrens system under
Section 14(a), PD 1529; (c) the land involved may be the subject of
subsequent dealings, in whole or in part, to be registered under
Section 113, PD 1529; (d) the land involved is regarded as
unregistered land until brought under the operation of the Torrens
system by virtue of section 3, PD 1529.

14. Can the principle that entry of the notice of lis pendens in the
day book (primary entry book) is sufficient to constitute registration and
such entry is notice to all persons thereof, be applied to protect persons
who caused the same to be registered but did not bother to follow up on its
annotation on the certificate of title for fifteen years while the property
subject thereto were, in the meantime, being transferred to several
purchaser who relied upon the certificate of title which did not bear such
annotation? (a) No, the persons who caused the registration of the
notice of lis pendens are guilty of laches, for sleeping on their rights
for almost fifteen years and should not be protected at the expense
of the persons who had the right to rely upon the certificate of title
that did not bear said annotation of lis pendens; (b) Yes, because
apparently the registrants have done all that is required of them for
purposes of registration and the annotation of the notice of lis
pendens on the corresponding certificate of title was a duty
incumbent solely upon the Register of Deeds; (c) Yes, because the
registrants can not be regarded as guilty of laches where they had
the right to expect that the Register of Deeds would perform what is
incumbent upon him; (d) Yes, because to consider the subsequent
transferees as innocent purchasers for having relied only upon an
examination of the certificate of title ignores the rule every that
person is charged with notice of every information which an
examination of the records of the Register of Deeds would reveal.

15. Can a bank record a notice of adverse claim for money claims
owing from debtors on unsecured loans on titles to lands registered in the
names of such debtors? (a) Yes, because such money claims simply
constitute "a claim or right of (the) bank to the properties of the
persons ... having a contractual obligation with the bank"; (b) Yes,
because such money claims are eventually liable to be satisfied out
of properties belonging to the debtors, including registered lands
belonging to them; (c) No, a mere money claim may not be
registered as an adverse claim on a torrens certificate of title
because to be registerable as such the claim asserted must affect the
title or be adverse to the title of the registered owner; (d) Yes,
provided that the loans are due and it fears that there would be a
fraudulent removal or disposition of the debtors' properties,
including lands registered in the name of their debtors.

16. May a notice of lis pendens be annotated on the basis of the

pendency of guardianship proceedings? (a) No, because the annotation
of a notice of lis pendens is available only in actions to recover
possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove
4
clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings
of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use or
occupation thereof or the buildings thereon; (b) No because a
guardianship proceeding is not a real action and, therefore,
obviously does not affect real property; (c) Yes, as when there is
clearly a need to warn any person interested in any property titled in
the name of the person sought to be placed under guardianship,
among others, of the pendency of the guardianship proceedings
which might eventually result in the invalidation of any transaction
made by said person affecting such property; (d) No, because in the
context of a guardianship case, albeit incidentally involving the
administration of registered properties belonging to the ward, such
a notice would have no other purpose than to molest or harass those
dealing or intending to deal with those properties.

17. In a suit for recovery of possession of land, can the validity of a

reconstituted title on which the plaintiff claims ownership thereof be
assailed, where the ground is lack of service of personal notice regarding
the institution of the reconstitution proceeding, although publication and
posting of notice, as well as the fact of reconstitution, is not in dispute? (a)
the fact of reconstitution of title to the land in question not being in
dispute, such a defense would not prosper, not being in the nature of
a direct attack on the legality of the issuance of the reconstituted
title, whereas a judicially reconstituted title has the same validity
and legal effect as the original thereof and there is presumption of
regularity in the issuance of the reconstituted title; (b) Since the
provisions of Section 13 of RA 26 requiring, inter alia, such personal
service of notice of the petition is mandatory and jurisdictional, the
reconstitution proceeding is void and the reconstituted title is
subject to collateral attack; (c) the issue of fraud in the
reconstitution proceedings having been raised, the court, in the case
for recovery of possession upon a claim founded on the reconstituted
title, should make a finding as to whether the reconstituted title was
procured in bad faith or fraudulently even if the record of the
reconstitution proceeding is not before it; (d) since compliance with
jurisdictional requirements need proof, there is no such thing as a
presumption of regularity in the issuance of a reconstituted title.

18. X, a lessee of registered land, plans to build an 8-storey hotel,

on such land. He seeks to protect his ownership over the hotel building,
which he intended to retain throughout the life of the lease and its
renewals. Under the circumstances: (a) he can protect his interest in
such building by registering the lease contract, thereby causing the
same to be annotated on the certificate of title; (b) he should cause
his interest over the building to be registered under Section 113, PD
1529; (c) he should institute a petition under section 108, PD 1529
to obtain a court order directing the annotation of his interest over
the building on the certificate of title covering the land; (d) it is
unnecessary for X to be concerned about protecting his interest over
the building since the lessor cannot run away with it.

19. X, a co-owner of registered land desires to sell his interest

therein, but his co-owners refused to agree to its partitition. There being a
willing buyer for his interest, X sells the same. Under the circumstances,
however -- (a) the Register of Deeds should not register the
transaction without requiring the surrender of all co-owners
5
duplicate certificates of title; (b) the Register of Deeds can, without
requiring the surrender of all co-owners duplicate certificates of
title, annotate the transaction as involving the sale of unsegregated
land; (c) the Register of Deeds should, before registering the
transaction, require partition of the land and suspend registration
until it is known which portion of the land pertains to X; (d) the
Register of Deeds should require the co-owners to partition and,
pending the same, as well as the submission of the corresponding
plans and technical descriptions, register the transaction by mere
memorandum on the certificates of title as a sale involving an
unsegregated portion thereof.

20. A parcel of land in Las Pinas, covered by TCT No. 1 in the

name of "V" Realty, was converted into a subdivision called Varfield. Block
4 of this subdivision had Lots 1 and 2. Last July 7, 2012 a certain "E"
caused to be annotated on TCT No. 1, which continued to cover all lots in
Varfield, a notice of lis pendens with reference to Lot 2 thereof. On July
10, 2012, "K" caused to be annotated on the same title a notice of adverse
claim over Lot 2. On July 12, 2012, a certain "G" caused to be annotated
on said title a notice of adverse claim over lot 1, based upon an agreement
to sell executed in his favor by "V" Realty. On July 20, 2012, a notice of lis
pendens was presented by a certain "B" involving Lot 2, while "D" presented
a notice of adverse claim affecting the same lot. On August 5, 2012, the
case filed by "B" involving Lot 2 was dismissed and was never appealed.
On September 12, 2004, "V" Realty and "G" executed a deed of absolute
sale over Lot 1. As buyer, "G" sought to have the sale registered and title
issued in his favor, free from any encumbrance. Under the circumstances:
(a) the Register of Deeds can refuse to issue a new certificate of title
to "G" unless all annotations on TCT No. 1 are carried over to the
new certificate of title over Lot 1, on the ground that inasmuch as
the mother title (TCT No. 1) had annotations thereon, so must any
title derived therefrom; (b) The Register of Deeds the Register of
Deeds can refuse to issue a new certificate of title to "G" unless all
annotations on TCT No. 1 are carried over to the new certificate of
title over Lot 1, on the ground that the Affidavit of Adverse Claim
registered by G was ineffective; (c) The Register of Deeds must
issue a new certificate of title over Lot 1 to "G" without of carrying
all annotations on TCT No. 1 because, after all, none of the
annotations on TCT No. 1 affect the Lot [1] sold by V Realty to G;
(d) The Register of Deeds must issue a new certificate of title to "G"
carrying over all annotations on TCT No. 1 which were subsequent
to the agreement to sell between V Realty and G.

21. In case of loss or theft of an owner's duplicate certificate of title,

the issuance of a new duplicate certificate may be ordered (a) by the
Register of Deeds after due notice under oath has been sent by the
owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the
province or city where the land lies after the loss, destruction or
theft is discovered; (b) by the Register of Deeds, upon a sworn
statement of the fact of such loss or destruction being filed by the
registered owner or other person in interest and registered with the
Register of Deeds; (c) upon a petition of the registered owner or
other person in interest, before an appropriate court, after notice
and due hearing; (d) after an appropriate reconstitution proceeding
under Republic Act No. 26, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732.

6
 22. Period of time within which to elevate by consulta to the Land
Registration Administrator, any matter involving denial of registration of an
instrument by the Register of Deeds, reckoned from date receipt of notice of
the denial of registration: (a) thirty [30] days; (b) fifteen [15] days; (c)
ten [10] days; (d) five [5]days.

23. A notice of adverse claim is appropriate where a person claims

any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner -- (a)
regardless of when such claim may have arisen; (b) provided only
that such claim arose subsequent to the date of the original
registration; (c) if no other provision is made in PD 1529 for
registering such claim; (d) where no provision of PD 1529 authorizes
the registration of such claim, although the claim arose after the
land was brought under the operation of the Torrens system.

24. Administrative reconstitution is certainly not available -- (a)

where the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged stands at
only ten percent (10%) of the total number in the possession of the
Office of the Register of Deeds; (b) where the number of certificates
in the possession of the Office of the Register of Deeds of titles lost
or damaged total only five hundred (500); (c) when the petition for
reconstitution is not based on sources enumerated in Section 2[a],
2[b], 3[a], and 3[b] of Republic Act No. 26, as amended by Republic
Act No. 6732; (d) whenever it is possible to institute judicial
reconstitution under the provisions of Republic Act No. 26, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6732.

25. In contrast to a judicially reconstituted title, an administratively

reconstituted title is subject to a statutory reservation under Sec. 7,
Republic Act No. 26, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732, established in
favor of any party whose right or interest in the property was duly noted in
the original or at the time it was lost or destroyed, but entry or notation of
which has not been made on the reconstituted certificate of title. Such
reservation is -- (a) effective throughout the life of an administratively
reconstituted title; (b) effective only for a period of 30 days, and may
be cancelled by the Register of Deeds thereafter upon request of any
interested party; (c) effective only for a period of two years from the
issuance of the administratively reconstituted certificate of title and
deemed automatically cancelled thereafter; (d) effective for a period
of two years from the issuance of the administratively reconstituted
certificate of title but may be cancelled, whether during the same
period or thereafter, by an appropriate proceeding in court .