Land Titles

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY
VI. Non-registrable Properties

- The following things are property of public dominion: 1. Santulan vs. Exec. Secretary (G.R. No. L-28021, 107 Phil 567, Dec. 15, 1977)
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, o Foreshore lands Non-registrable property
ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
roadsteads and others of similar character;
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and
are intended for some public service or for the development of the
national wealth.
o The above-mentioned properties are parts of the public domain 2. Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Lastimado (G.R. No. L-39473, April 30, 1979)
intended for public use or public service, are outside the commerce - Doctrine:
of men and, therefore, not subject to private appropriation. o If the land in question, indeed, forms part of the public forest, then,
- Land may be alienated when declared no longer needed for public use or possession thereof, however long, cannot convert it into private
service property as it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of
- NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES: Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of the cadastral
o Property of Public domain Court to register under the Torrens System.
o Forest Lands 3. Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority (G. R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002)
o Watesheds - Doctrine:
o Mangrove swamps o In the hands of the government agency tasked and authorized to
o Mineral Lands dispose of alienable or disposable lands of the public domain, these
o Natural resources within ancestral domains lands are still public, not private lands.
o National Parks 4. Chavez vs. NHA and Regis Romero (G.R. No. 164527, Aug 15, 2007)
o Military or Naval reservation - Doctrine:
o Foreshore lands and reclaimed lands o Secs. 2 and 3, Art. XII of the Constitution declare that all natural
o Lakes resources are owned by the State and they cannot be alienated
o Navigable Rivers except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain
o Creeks
o Reservation for public and semi-public prupose
o
Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Page 1 Bukidnon State University College of Law
VII. Remedies c. Gasataya vs. Mabasa (G.R. No. 148147, Feb. 16, 2007)
- Reconveyance is available not only to the legal owner of a property
B. Action for Reconveyance but also to the person with a better right than the person under
whose name said property was erroneously registered.
i. Section 53 and Section 96 While respondent is not the legal owner of the disputed lots,
ii. Cases she has a better right than petitioner to the contested lots on the
a. Roque vs. Aguada (G.R. No. 193767, April 7, 2014) following grounds:
- for Reconveyance, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to show that he
has a legal claim on the property superior to that of the registered owner o first, the deed of conditional sale executed by DBP vested on
and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an innocent her the right to repurchase the lots and
purchaser for value o Second, her right to repurchase them would have subsisted had
they (the Gasatayas) not defrauded her.
b. Emma Ver Reyes vs. Montemayor (G.R. No. 166516, Sept. 3, 2009)
- Doctrine: Re: 4-yr period and 10-yr period to file action
o It has long been established that the sole remedy of the landowner b. Amerol vs. Bagumbayan (G.R. No. L-33261, Sept 30, 1987)
whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in - An action for Reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four years from
another's name is to bring an ordinary action in an ordinary court of the discovery of the fraud and if it is based on an implied or a constructive
justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of trust it prescribes ten (10) years from the alleged fraudulent registration or
an innocent purchaser for value, for damages. "It is one thing to protect date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
an innocent third party; it is entirely a different matter and one devoid - However, an action for Reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust
of justification if deceit would be rewarded by allowing the perpetrator is imprescriptible if the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is in
to enjoy the fruits of his nefarious deed." Reconveyance is all about the possession of the property. In effect, the action for Reconveyance is an
transfer of the property, in this case the title thereto, which has been action to quiet the property title, which does not prescribe
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its
rightful and legal owner, or to one with a better right. Evidently,
petitioners, being the rightful owners of the subject property, are
entitled to the reconveyance of the title over the same.

c. Sanjorjo vs. Quijano (G.R. No. 140457, Jan. 19, 2005) VIII. Subsequent Registration
A Torrens title issued on the basis of the free patents became as 1. Voluntary Dealings with Registered Lands
indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the expiration of one year a. DBP vs. Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988)
from date of issuance of the patent. However, an aggrieved party may still file an
action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in 1. (Primary) Entry alone produces the effect of registration, whether the
ten years from the date of the issuance of the Certificate of Title over the property transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one, so long as the registrant
provided that the property has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of entry and annotation,
value. and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent solely on the register of
deeds.
The presence of fraud or mistake creates an implied trust for the benefit of
the rightful and legal owner giving him the right to seek reconveyance of the 2. The qualms implicit in the query of the respondent (and present appellee)
property. All that must be alleged in the complaint are two acts: (1) that the plaintiff register of deeds about making annotation of an entry effected before he assumed
was the owner of the land and, (2) that the defendant had illegally dispossessed him that office are more imagined than real. He would only be making a memorandum
of the same. of an instrument and of its entry based on or reciting details which are already of
indubitable record and, pursuant to the express command of the law, giving said
In their complaint, the petitioners clearly asserted that their predecessors-
memorandum the same date as the entry. No part of that function is exclusive to
in-interest have long been the absolute and exclusive owners of the lots in question
the incumbent of the office at the time entry was made or is forbidden to any of his
and that they were fraudulently deprived of ownership thereof when the private
successors.
respondents obtained free patents and certificates of title in their names. Article
1456 of the New Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud b. National Housing Authority vs. Augusto Basa (G.R. No. 149121, April 20, 2010)
becomes by operation of law a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real
owner of the property. The presence of fraud in this case created an implied trust in The prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the registrant
favor of the petitioners, giving them the right to seek reconveyance of the property has filed all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and annotation, so that what
from the private respondents. is left to be accomplished lies solely on the register of deeds. The Court thus once
held:
However, because of the trial courts dismissal order, the petitioners have Current doctrine thus seems to be that entry alone produces the effect of
been unable to prove their charges of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners registration, whether the transaction entered is a voluntary or an involuntary one,
action for reconveyance may not be said to have prescribed, for, basing the present so long as the registrant has complied with all that is required of him for purposes of
action on implied trust, the prescriptive period is ten years. entry and annotation, and nothing more remains to be done but a duty incumbent
solely on the register of deeds.

c. Durawood vs. Candice Bona (G.R. No. 179884, Jan. 25, 2012) b. Melencio vs. CA (G.R. No. 148846, Sep. 25, 2007)
1. Registration contemplated in this provision (1544) refers to registration
Since there was still no compliance of "all that is required . . . for purposes of under the Torrens System, which considers the act of registration as the operative
entry and annotation" of the Deed of Sale as of June 25, 2004, we are constrained act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. This rule
to rule that the registration of the Notice of Levy on Attachment on June 17, 2004 precisely applies to cases involving conflicting rights over registered property and
should take precedence over the former. Considering that the Notice of Levy on those of innocent transferees who relied on the clean title of the properties. Thus,
Attachment was deemed registered earlier than the Deed of Sale, the TCT issued we held that registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the
pursuant to the latter should contain the annotation of the Attachment. same. In the case at bench, it is uncontroverted that the subject property was under
the operation of the Torrens System even before the respective conveyances to
2. Double Sales AZNAR and Go Kim Chuan were made. AZNAR knew of this, and admits this as fact.
a. Rodriguez vs. Sioson (G.R. No. 199180, July 27, 2016) Yet, despite this knowledge, AZNAR registered the sale in its favor under Act 3344
on the contention that at the time of sale, there was no title on file. We are not
No double sale in a contract to sell. The court held that, "the contract persuaded by such a lame excuse. Act 3344 provides for the system of recording of
between Thelma and Neri was a mere contract to sell, the transfer of ownership transactions or claims over unregistered real estate without prejudice to a third
over Lot 398-A being conditioned on Thelma's full payment of the purchase price. party with a better right.
Having failed to pay the purchase price in full, Thelma cannot claim ownership over 2. For the law is clear: mere registration of title is not enough. Good faith
Lot 398-A and Neri is not legally proscribed from alienating the same lot to other must accompany the registration.
buyers." 3. Thus, to be able to enjoy priority status, the second purchaser must be in
Rule when there were 2 deeds of sale over the same property: good faith, i.e., he must have no knowledge of the previous alienation of the
property by the vendor to another. Notably, what is important for this purpose is
If the property is movable property, the ownership shall be transferred to not whether the second buyer is a buyer in good faith, but whether he registers the
the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith. second sale in good faith, meaning, he does so without knowledge of any defect in
If the property is immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the the title over the property sold.
person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of property. Before buying the subject property, Go Kim Chuan made verifications with
the Office of the City Assessor of Lapu-Lapu City and the Register of Deeds. He
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person likewise visited the premises of the subject property and found that nobody
who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the interposed any adverse claim against the Amodias. After he decided to buy the
person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. subject property, he paid all taxes in arrears, caused the publication of the Deed of
Extra-Judicial Settlement with Absolute Sale in a newspaper of general circulation,
caused the reconstitution of the lost certificate of title and caused the issuance of
the assailed TCT in his name.

c. Antonio vs. Santos (G.R. No. 149238, 538 SCRA 1, Nov. 22, 2007) since the property is already in the hands of Luminlun, an innocent purchaser for
When two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the value, it can no longer be returned to its original owner by Cabrera, much less by
Cathay itself. Another point to consider, though not raised as an issue in this case, is
same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of
the fact that Cabrera was impleaded as a party-respondent only on August 12, 1991,
successive registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the
after the promulgation of the Gancayco decision. The dispositive portion itself
same land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as ordered Cathay, instead of Cabrera, to reconvey the property to Legarda. Cabrera
against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate. was never a party to this case, either as plaintiff-appellee below or as respondent in
the present action. Neither did he ever act as Cathay's representative. As we held in
3. Buyer in Good Faith the recent case of National Power Corporation v. NLRC, et al., "(j)urisdiction over a
a. LBP vs. Poblete (G.R. No. 196577, Feb. 25, 2013) party is acquired by his voluntary appearance or submission to the court or by the
coercive process issued by the court to him, generally by service of summons." 10 In
This is the doctrine of "the mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that
other words, until Cabrera was impleaded as party respondent and ordered to file a
buyers or mortgagees dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title
comment in the August 12, 1991, resolution, the Court never obtained jurisdiction
are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. However, it has
over him, and to command his principal to reconvey a piece of property which used
been consistently held that this rule does not apply to banks, which are required to
to be HIS would not only be inappropriate but would also constitute a real
observe a higher standard of diligence. A bank whose business is impressed with
deprivation of one's property without due process of law.
public interest is expected to exercise more care and prudence in its dealings than a
private individual, even in cases involving registered lands. A bank cannot assume The fact that Cabrera is an officer of Cathay does not make him a purchaser
that, simply because the title offered as security is on its face free of any in bad faith. His act in representing the company was never questioned nor disputed
encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the responsibility of taking further steps to by Legarda. And while it is true that he won in the bidding, it is likewise true that
verify the title and inspect the properties to be mortgaged said bidding was conducted by the book. There is no call to be alarmed in case an
official of the company emerges as the winning bidder since in some cases, the
b. Legarda vs CA, et al (G.R. No. 94457, Oct. 16, 1997)
judgment creditor himself personally participates in the bidding. Neither Cathay nor
The transfers were valid and the successors of interest of Cabrera are
Cabrera should be made to suffer for the gross negligence of Legarda's counsel. If
innocent purchasers of good faith. The successors relied on the clean title of the
she may be said to be "innocent" because she was ignorant of the acts of negligence
subject land that were presented by the predecessors. The successive owners were
of her counsel, with more reason are respondents truly "innocent." As between two
each armed with their own indefeasible titles which automatically brought them
parties who may lose due to the negligence or incompetence of the counsel of one,
under the aegis of the Torrens System. In the case at bar, it is not disputed that no
the party who was responsible for making it happen should suffer the
notice of lis pendens was ever annotated on any of the titles of the subsequent
consequences. This reflects the basis common law maxim, so succinctly stated by
owners. And even if there were such a notice, it would not have created a lien over
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, that ". . . Between two innocent parties, the one who made it
the property because the main office of a lien is to warn prospective buyers that the
possible for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss."
property they intend to purchase is the subject of a pending litigation. Therefore,

c. Gabutan vs. Nacalaban (G.R. No. 185857-53, June 29, 2016) 2. The petitioners were shown to have been deficient in their vigilance as
buyers of the property. It was not enough for them to show that the property was
To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show unfenced and vacant; otherwise, it would be too easy for any registered owner to
that he relied on the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that he lose her property, including its possession, through illegal occupation. Nor was it
made further inquiry for he is not obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the safe for them to simply rely on the face of Sy's TCT No. 186142 in view of the fact
title. that they were aware that her TCT was derived from a duplicate owner's copy
reissued by virtue of the loss of the original duplicate owner's copy. That
Such degree of proof of good faith, however, is sufficient only when the circumstance should have already alerted them to the need to inquire beyond the
following conditions concur: face of Sy's TCT No. 186142. There were other circumstances, like the almost
simultaneous transactions affecting the property within a short span of time, as well
1. the seller is the registered owner of the land; as the gross undervaluation of the property in the deeds of sale, ostensibly at the
2. the latter is in possession thereof; and behest of Sy to minimize her liabilities for the capital gains tax, that also excited
3. at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or suspicion, and required them to be extracautious in dealing with Sy on the property.
interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect or
restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to 3. In Barstowe Philippines Corporation v. Republic, "the nature of a
the property reconstituted Transfer Certificate of Title of registered land is similar to that of a
second Owner's Duplicate Transfer Certificate of Title," in that "both are issued,
after the proper proceedings, on the representation of the registered owner that
d. Cusi vs. Domingo (G.R. No. 195825, Feb. 27, 2013) 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
1. One of the guiding tenets underlying the Torrens system is the curtain exerted for that purpose;" and that both were "subsequent copies of the originals
principle, in that one does not need to go behind the certificate of title because it thereof," a fact that a "cursory examination of these subsequent copies would
contains all the information about the title of its holder. This principle dispenses show" and "put on notice of such fact anyone dealing with such copies who is thus
with the need of proving ownership by long complicated documents kept by the warned to be extra-careful.
registered owner, which may be necessary under a private conveyancing system,
and assures that all the necessary information regarding ownership is on the 4. Another circumstance indicating that the Cusis and the De Veras were not
certificate of title. innocent purchasers for value was the gross undervaluation of the property in the
deeds of sale at the measly price of P1,000,000.00 for each half when the true
(Note: This should be Mirror Principle Right? Because the Curtain closes after one market value was then in the aggregate of at least P14,000,000.00 for the entire
year. Remember.) property. (FOR VALUE)

e. Saberon vs. Ventanilla (G.R. No. 192669, April 21, 2014) 4. Real Estate Mortgage
1. In cases of voluntary registration of documents, an innocent purchaser a. Home Bankers Savings vs CA, et al (G.R. No. 128354, April 26, 2005)
for value of registered land becomes the registered owner, and, in contemplation of
law the holder of a certificate of title, the moment he presents and les a duly 1. Section 17 of P.D. No. 957 provides that the seller shall register the
notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the contracts to sell with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. Thus, it is Garcia's
same time he surrenders or presents the owners duplicate certificate of title responsibility as seller to register the contracts and petitioner should not blame
covering the land sold and pays the registration fees, because what remains to be private respondents for not doing so. As we have said earlier, considering
done lies not within his power to perform. The Register of Deeds is duty bound to petitioner's negligence in ascertaining the existence or absence of authority from
perform it. HLURB for Garcia/TransAmerican to mortgage the subject lots, petitioner cannot
In cases of involuntary registration, an entry thereof in the day book is a claim to be an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith. Petitioner is bound
sufficient notice to all persons even if the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not by private respondents' contracts to sell executed with Garcia/TransAmerican.
presented to the register of deeds. Therefore, in the registration of an attachment,
levy upon execution, notice of lis pendens, and the like, the entry thereof in the day 2. Last paragraph of Section 18 of P.D. No. 957 provides that respondents
book is a sufficient notice to all persons of such adverse claim. who have not yet paid in full have the option to pay their installment for the lot
directly to the mortgagee (petitioner) who is required to apply such payments to
2. In the case at bench, the notice of levy covering the subject property was the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit
annotated in the entry book of the ROD QC prior to the issuance of a TCT in the being paid for, with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit
name of the Saberons. Clearly, the Ventanillas' levy was placed on record prior to promptly after full payment thereof. Thus, petitioner is obliged to accept the
the sale. This shows the superiority and preference in rights of the Ventanillas over
payment of remaining unpaid amortizations, without prejudice to petitioner
the property as against the Saberons. In AFP, the Court upheld the
bank's seeking relief against the subdivision developer.
registration of the levy on attachment in the primary entry book as a senior
encumbrance despite the mistake of the ROD, the Court must, a fortiori, sustain the 3. Under Section 18 of P.D. No. 957, it is provided that no mortgage on any
notice of levy registered by the Ventanillas notwithstanding the nonfeasance of ROD unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written
Cleofe. Again, the prevailing rule is that there is effective registration once the approval of the authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that
registrant has fulfilled all that is needed of him for purposes of entry and the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the
annotation, so that what is left to be accomplished lies solely on the Register of
condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have been provided to
Deeds.
ensure such utilization. As in the Union Bank, the mortgage was constituted on the
Suffice it to say, no bad faith can be ascribed to the parties alike. Nevertheless,
the equal footing of the parties necessarily tilts in favor of the superiority of the subject lots in favor of petitioner without the prior written approval from the
Ventanillas' notice of levy. HLURB, thus HLURB has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the mortgage.

Since the lot was mortgaged in violation of Section 18 of P.D. No. 957, b. De La Merced vs. GSIS, et al (G.R. No. 16740, Nov. 23, 2011)
HLURB has jurisdiction to declare the mortgage void insofar as private respondents
are concerned and to annul the foreclosure sale. 1. Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction,
power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending
4. While the cases cited by petitioner held that the mortgagee is not under the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy
obligation to look beyond the certificate of title when on its face, it was free from and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the
lien or encumbrances, the mortgagees therein were considered in good faith as they power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the
were totally innocent and free from negligence or wrongdoing in the transaction. In judgment or decree by subsequent alienation.
this case, petitioner knew that the loan it was extending to Garcia/TransAmerican The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a twofold effect: (1) to keep the
was for the purpose of the development of the eight-unit townhouses. Petitioner's subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the
insistence that prior to the approval of the loan, it undertook a thorough check on final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive
the property and found the titles free from liens and encumbrances would not alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona de or not, of the land subject of the
litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.
suffice. It was incumbent upon petitioner to inquire into the status of the lots which
This registration, therefore, gives the court clear authority to cancel the
includes verification on whether Garcia had secured the authority from the HLURB
title, since the sale of the subject property was made after the notice of lis pendens.
to mortgage the subject lots. Petitioner failed to do so. We likewise find petitioner 2. Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any cancellation or
negligent in failing to even ascertain from Garcia if there are buyers of the lots who issuance of the title of the land involved as well as any subsequent transaction
turned out to be private respondents. Petitioner's want of knowledge due to its affecting the same, would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation. In
negligence takes the place of registration, thus it is presumed to know the rights of other words, upon the termination of the litigation there can be no risk of losing the
respondents over the lot. The conversion of the status of petitioner from mortgagee property or any part thereof as a result of any conveyance of the land or any
to buyer-owner will not lessen the importance of such knowledge. Neither will the encumbrance that may be made thereon posterior to the ling of the notice of lis
conversion set aside the consequence of its negligence as a mortgagee. pendens.
Judicial notice can be taken of the uniform practice of banks to investigate, 3. An action is binding on the privies of the litigants even if such privies are
examine and assess the real estate offered as security for the application of a loan. not literally parties to the action. Their inclusion in the writ of execution does not
We cannot overemphasize the fact that the Bank cannot barefacedly argue that vary or exceed the terms of the judgment. In the same way, the inclusion of the
simply because the title or titles offered as security were clean of any encumbrances "derivative titles" in the writ of execution will not alter the Decision in G.R. No.
or lien, that it was thereby relieved of taking any other step to verify the over- 140398 ordering the cancellation of GSIS's title.
reaching implications should the subdivision be auctioned on foreclosure.

c. Ruiz vs. Dumailig (G.R. No. 204280, Nov. 9, 2016) 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
Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith presupposes "that the mortgagor, who for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if delivery is not possible. If
is not the rightful owner of the property, has already succeeded in obtaining a the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract, the vendee has the
Torrens title over the property in his name and that, after obtaining the said title, he option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area,
succeeds in mortgaging the property to another who relies on what appears on the provided he pays for the additional area at the contract rate.
said title." In short, the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith assumes that the title to
the subject property had already been transferred or registered in the name of the In the case where the area of the immovable is stated in the contract based
on an estimate, the actual area delivered may not measure up exactly with the area
impostor who thereafter transacts with a mortgagee who acted in good faith. In the
stated in the contract. According to Article 1542 of the Civil Code, in the sale of real
case at bench, it must be emphasized that the title remained to be registered in the
estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum for a unit of
name of Bernardo, the rightful and real owner, and not in the name of the impostor. measure or number, there shall be no increase or decrease of the price, although
The burden of proof that one is a mortgagee in good faith and for value lies with there be a greater or less areas or number than that stated in the contract.
the person who claims such status. A mortgagee cannot simply ignore facts that
Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared,
should have put a reasonable person on guard, and thereafter claim that he or she
the area covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated
acted in good truth under the belief that the mortgagor's title is not defective. And,
area. In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should
such good faith entails an honest intention to refrain from taking unconscientious prevail. What really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more
advantage of another. or less certainty, mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid
down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits. In a contract of sale of land in
5. Sale Involving Real Estate a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract must
a. Esguerra vs. Trinidad (G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007) 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
1. In sales involving real estate, the parties may choose between two types indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it. An error as to the
of pricing agreement: a unit price contract wherein the purchase price is superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is to deliver
determined by way of reference to a stated rate per unit area (e.g., P1,000 per everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that
square meter), or a lump sum contract which states a full purchase price for an distinguishes the determinate object.
immovable the area of which may be declared based on an estimate or where both
the area and boundaries are stated (e.g., P1 million for 1,000 square meters, etc.). 3. Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity,
which correlatively carries a strong presumption that the provisions of the law
2. In a unit price contract, the statement of area of immovable is not governing the registration of land which led to its issuance have been duly followed.
conclusive and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area Fraud being a serious charge, it must be supported by clear and convincing proof.

b. Del Prado vs. Caballero (G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010) valid defense. The subsequent sale of the property to petitioner's husband cannot
Article 1542 is not hard and fast and admits of an exception. A caveat is in order, defeat the rights of PNB as the mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the
however. The use of "more or less" or similar words in designating quantity covers only a auction sale whose rights were derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.
reasonable excess or deficiency. A vendee of land sold in gross or with the description
"more or less" with reference to its area does not thereby ipso facto take all risk of quantity 6. Caveat Emptor Principle
in the land.
Numerical data are not of course the sole gauge of unreasonableness of the excess or a. Sy vs. Capistrano, Jr. (G.R. Nno. 154450, July 28, 2008)
deficiency in area. Courts must consider a host of other factors. A person who deals with registered land through someone who is not the
In this case, the discrepancy of 10,475 sq m cannot be considered a slight difference registered owner is expected to look beyond the certificate of title and examine all
in quantity. The difference in the area is obviously sizeable and too substantial to be the factual circumstances thereof in order to determine if the vendor has the
overlooked. It is not a reasonable excess or deficiency that should be deemed included in the capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He has the duty to ascertain the
deed of sale. identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter's legal authority to
convey.
c. Agatep vs. Rodriguez (G.R. No. 170540, Oct. 28, 2009) b. Domingo Realty vs. CA (G.R. No. 126236, Jan. 26, 2007)
It is settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a
world. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of a reasonably
instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the legality of the title and the
the Office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land to which it accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title.
relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity,
filing or entering. Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has and validity of the title with the Office of the Register of Deeds and the Land
examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption may not Registration Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic
be rebutted. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is engineer to verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title
presumed to know every fact shown by the record and to know every fact which an based on the technical description in the said title and the approved survey plan in
the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4)
examination of the record would have disclosed. This presumption cannot be
inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true
overcome by any claim of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and
and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being
object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to make
be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more the general public aware that said lot will be subject to alienation, lease, or
than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the encumbrance by the parties.
law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor
contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute; any variation would lead to David Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by
endless confusion and useless litigation. In the present case, since the mortgage another.
contract was registered, petitioner may not claim lack of knowledge thereof as a

c. Locsin vs. Hizon (G.R. No. 304369, Sept. 17, 2014) adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the certificate of title previous to
A person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens the sale.
certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further except when
3. The law, taken together, simply means that the cancellation of the
the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has
will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. For if the
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce
adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the lapse of said period, its
a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of cancellation would be a
litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should useless ceremony.
then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of 4. Notice of levy cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on
the vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the the certificate of title in favor of the petitioners. This can be deduced from Section
exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a 16, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit the protection of the law.
ii. Rodriguez vs. CA (G.R. No. 142587, July 20, 2006)
7. Involuntary Dealings Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the
a. Attachments interest of a person over a piece of property where the registration of such interest
or right is not otherwise provided for by the law on registration of real property.
b. Adverse Claim
Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 is clear:
i. Sajonas vs. CA (G.R. No. 102377, July 5, 1996)
1. Annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the Sec. 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered
interest of a person over a piece of real property where the registration of such land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the
interest or right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for
496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth his alleged
third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the
the same or a better right than that of the registered owner thereof. Such notice is number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the
registered by filing a sworn statement with the Register of Deeds of the province registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest
where the property is located, setting forth the basis of the claimed right together
is claimed. . . .
with other dates pertinent thereto. The registration of an adverse claim is expressly
The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by respondents
recognized under Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529.
Calingo and Barrameda is a registrable instrument. In order to bind third parties, it
2. 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 must be registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds. It was not shown in this
subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of Title cannot prevail over an case that there was justifiable reason why the deed could not be registered. Hence,
the remedy of adverse claim cannot substitute for registration.

iii. Golden Haven Memorial Park vs. Filinvest (G.R. No. 188265, Nov. 17, 2010) iv. Martinez vs. Garcia (G.R. No. 166356, Feb. 4, 2010)
1. The annotation of an adverse claim is intended to protect the claimant's 1. The annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest
interest in the property. The notice is a warning to third parties dealing with the of a person over a piece of real property, where the registration of such interest or
property that someone claims an interest in it or asserts a better right than the right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act No. 496
registered owner. Such notice constitutes, by operation of law, notice to the (now P.D. No. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves a warning to
whole world. third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest on the
same or a better right than that of the registered owner thereof.
Here, although the notice of adverse claim pertained to only one lot and
Filinvest wanted to acquire interest in some other lots under the same title, the Petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith. A purchaser in
notice served as warning to it that one of the owners was engaged in double selling. good faith and for value is one who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and
fair price for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the
2. Filinvest was on notice that GHM had caused to be annotated on TCT claims or interest of some other person in the property. Here, petitioner admitted
67462 RT-1, the mother title, as early as August 4, 1989 a notice of adverse claim on cross-examination that when she registered her notice of attachment in 1981
covering Lot 6. This notwithstanding, Filinvest still proceeded to buy Lots 1, 2, 6, and and the levy on execution on July 11, 1988, she already saw respondent Garcia's
12. adverse claim inscribed on respondent Brua's title on June 23, 1980.
2. Levy does not make the judgment creditor the owner of the property levied
upon. He merely obtains a lien. Such levy on execution is subject and subordinate to
3. One who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such all valid claims and liens existing against the property at the time the execution lien
inquiry and investigation cannot claim that he has acquired title to the property in attached, such as real estate mortgages.
good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest in it. The Court
upholds the validity of the contracts between GHM and its sellers. As the trial court
aptly observed, GHM entered into valid contracts with its sellers but the latter
simply and knowingly refused without just cause to honor their obligations. The
sellers apparently had a sudden change of heart when they found out that Filinvest
was willing to pay more.

8. Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land and Application of New Section 78 of Act 496 reads:
Certificate Upon Expiration of Redemption Period Sec. 78. Upon the expiration of the time, if any allowed by law for redemption
after registered land has been sold on any execution, or taken or sold for the
a. Padilla, Jr. vs. Phil. Producers Cooperative (G.R. No. 141256, July 15, enforcement of any lien of any description, the person claiming under the execution
2005) or under any deed or other instrument made in the course of the proceedings to
levy such execution or enforce any lien, may petition the court for the entry of a
The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, new certificate to him, and the application may be granted: Provided, however, That
for the issuance of new titles. every new certificate entered under this section shall contain a memorandum of the
Sec. 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption nature of the proceeding on which it is based: Provided, further, That at any time
period. Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for prior to the entry of a new certificate the registered owner may pursue all his lawful
redemption after the registered land has been sold on execution, or taken remedies to impeach or annul proceedings under execution or to enforce liens of
or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage any description.
lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition
the court for the entry of a new certificate to him.
Ratio: The reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a 9. Lis Pendens
registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent or a. Viewmaster Construction vs. Maulit, et al (G.R. No. 136283, Feb. 29,
mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment 2000)
obligation.
1. A notice of lis pendens, which literally means "pending suit," may involve
Note: The petition can be filed in the same case to prevent multiplicity of suits.
actions that deal not only with the title or possession of a property, but even with
b. Reyes vs. Tang Soat Ing (G.R. No. 185620, Dec. 14, 2011) the use or occupation thereof. Thus, Section 76 of PD 1529 reads:
SECTION 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real

Section 75 of PD 1529 provides:
estate, or to quite title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or
Sec. 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption period. - for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the
Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption after the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no
registered land has been sold on execution, or taken or sold for the enforcement of judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have
a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or any effect upon registered land as against persons other than the parties
anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating the institution of such
to him. action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is pending, as well as

the date of the institution thereof, together with a reference to the number within the power of the court until the judgment or decree shall have been
of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected entered; otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or
and the registered owner thereof, shall have been filed and registered. decree shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution. Purchasers
2. According to Section 24, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court and Section 76 of pendente lite of the property subject of the litigation after the notice of lis pendens
Presidential Decree No. 1529, a notice of lis pendens in the following cases, viz.: is inscribed in the Office of the Register of Deeds are bound by the judgment against
their predecessors. . . . ." Without a notice of lis pendens, a third party who acquires
a. An action to recover possession of real estate; the property after relying only on the Certificate of Title would be deemed a
b. An action to quite title thereto; purchaser in good faith. Against such third party, the supposed rights of petitioner
c. An action to remove clouds thereon;
cannot be enforced, because the former is not bound by the property owner's
d. An action for partition; and
undertakings not annotated in the TCT.
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 b. Atlantic Erectors, Inc. vs. Herbal Cove Realty (G.R. No. 148568, March 20,
thereon.
2003)
3. All suits or actions which directly affect real property and not only those
which involve the question of title, but also those which are brought to establish an 1. As a general rule, the only instances in which a notice of lis pendens may
equitable estate, interest, or right, in specific real property or to enforce any lien, be availed of are as follows: (a) an action to recover possession of real estate; (b) an
charge, or encumbrance against it, there being in some cases a lis pendens, action for partition; and (c) any other court proceedings that directly affect the title
although at the commencement of the suit there is no present vested interest, to the land or the building thereon or the use or the occupation thereof.
claim, or lien in or on the property which it seeks to charge. It has also been held to Additionally, this Court has held that resorting to lis pendens is not necessarily
apply in the case of a proceeding to declare an absolute deed of mortgage, or to confined to cases that involve title to or possession of real property. This annotation
redeem from a foreclosure sale, or to establish a trust, or to suits for the settlement also applies to suits seeking to establish a right to, or an equitable estate or interest
and adjustment of partnership interests. in, a specific real property; or to enforce a lien, a charge or an encumbrance against
it.
4. The purposes of lis pendens is (1) to protect the rights of the party
causing the registration thereof and (2) to advise third persons who purchase or 2. By express provision of law, the doctrine of lis pendens does not apply to
contract on the subject property that they do so at their peril and subject to the attachments, levies of execution, or to proceedings for the probate of wills, or for
result of the pending litigation. administration of the estate of deceased persons in the Court of First Instance.
One who deals with property subject of a notice of lis pendens cannot Also, it is held generally that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a
acquire better rights than those of his predecessors-in-interest. proceeding in which the only object sought is the recovery of a money judgment,
The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and though the title or right of possession to property be incidentally affected.
necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation

It is essential that the property be directly affected, as where the relief The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is to protect the rights of the
sought in the action or suit includes the recovery of possession, or the enforcement registrant while the case is pending resolution or decision. With the notice of lis
of a lien, or an adjudication between conflicting claims of title, possession, or the pendens duly recorded and remaining uncancelled, the registrant could rest secure
right of possession to specific property, or requiring its transfer or sale" that he/she will not lose the property or any part thereof during litigation.
Even if a party initially avails itself of a notice of lis pendens upon the filing The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon reason of public policy and
of a case in court, such notice is rendered nugatory if the case turns out to be a necessity, the purpose of which is to keep the subject matter of the litigation within
purely personal action. the Court's jurisdiction until the judgment or the decree have been entered;
Thus, when a complaint or an action is determined by the courts to be in otherwise, by successive alienations pending the litigation, its judgment or decree
personam, the rationale for or purpose of the notice of lis pendens ceases to exist. shall be rendered abortive and impossible of execution.
To be sure, this Court has expressly and categorically declared that the annotation
of a notice of lis pendens on titles to properties is not proper in cases wherein the d. Casim vs. RD of Las Pias (G.R. No. 168655, July 2, 2010)
proceedings instituted are actions in personam. SEC. 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. -- Before final judgment, a notice of lis
pendens may be cancelled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the
3. Article 2242 finds application when there is a concurrence of credits, i.e., notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to
when the same specific property of the debtor is subjected to the claims of several protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be
creditors and the value of such property of the debtor is insufficient to pay in full all cancelled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the
the creditors. In such a situation, the question of preference will arise, that is, there registration thereof.
will be a need to determine which of the creditors will be paid ahead of the others. At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant, or other
Fundamental tenets of due process will dictate that this statutory lien should then disposition of the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and
only be enforced in the context of some kind of a proceeding where the claims of all to the land and/or buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice
the preferred creditors may be bindingly adjudicated, such as insolvency of lis pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding section, the notice
proceedings. of lis pendens shall be deemed cancelled upon the registration of a certificate of the
clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of
c. Homeowners Savings vs. Delgado (G.R. No. 189477, Feb. 26, 2014)
disposal thereof.
Lis pendens is a Latin term which literally means, "a pending suit or a Contents of Lis pendens
pending litigation" while a notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole 1. A statement of the institution of an action or proceedings
world that a real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that anyone who 2. The court where the same is pending
acquires an interest over the property does so at his/her own risk, or that he/she 3. The date of its institution
gambles on the result of the litigation over the property.[22] It is a warning to 4. A reference to the number of certificate of title of the land
prospective buyers to take precautions and investigate the pending litigation. 5. An adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner

10. Levies on Execution which nothing can subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the
attachment or levy itself. Such a proceeding, in effect, means that the property
a. Pineda vs. Arcalas (G.R. No. 170172, Nov. 23, 2007)
attached is an indebted thing and a virtual condemnation of it to pay the owner's
Before a purchaser of land causes the registration of the transfer of the debt. The lien continues until the debt is paid, or sale is had under execution issued
subject property in her favor, third persons cannot be bound thereby. Insofar as on the judgment, or until the judgment is satisfied, or the attachment discharged or
third persons are concerned, what validly transfers or conveys a person's interest in vacated in some manner provided by law.
real property is the registration of the deed.
As the deed of sale was unrecorded, it operates merely as a contract
between the parties, namely Victoria Tolentino as seller and Pineda as buyer, which
IX. Registration of Judgments, Orders, Partitions
may be enforceable against Victoria Tolentino through a separate and independent 1. Surrender of Owners Duplicate
action. On the other hand, Arcalas's lien was registered and annotated at the back a. Toledo Banaga vs. CA, et al (G.R. No. 127941, Jan. 28, 1990)
of the title of the subject property and accordingly amounted to a constructive
notice thereof to all persons, whether or not party to the original case filed before 1. One who redeems in vain a property of another acquires notice that
the Quezon City RTC. there could be a controversy.
IOW, the doctrine is well settled that a levy on execution duly registered At the time of the sale, petitioner Tan was buying a property not registered
takes preference over a prior unregistered sale. A registered lien is entitled to in the seller's name. This is clear from the deed of absolute sale which even
preferential consideration. mentioned that the Certificates of Title is still in the name of private respondent. It
is settled that a party dealing with a registered land need not go beyond the
b. Valdevieso vs. Damalerio (G.R. No. 133303, Feb. 17, 2005) Certificate of Title to determine the true owner thereof so as to guard or protect her
interest. She has only to look and rely on the entries in the Certificate of Title. By
The settled rule is that levy on attachment, duly registered, takes
looking at the title, however, petitioner Tan cannot feign ignorance that the
preference over a prior unregistered sale. This result is a necessary consequence of property is registered in private respondent's name and not in the name of the
the fact that the property involved was duly covered by the Torrens system which person selling to her. Such fact alone should have at least prompted, if not impelled
works under the fundamental principle that registration is the operative act which her to investigate deeper into the title of her seller petitioner Banaga, more so
gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land. when such effort would not have entailed additional hardship, and would have been
quite easy, as the titles still carried the two notices of lis pendens.
The preference created by the levy on attachment is not diminished even by
the subsequent registration of the prior sale. This is so because an attachment is a 2. A transferee pendente lite stands exactly in the shoes of the transferor
proceeding in rem. It is against the particular property, enforceable against the and must respect any judgment or decree which may be rendered for or against the
whole world. The attaching creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property transferor.

that judicial deposit had been made in favor of respondents prior to the City's
possession of the lots.
Her interest is subject to the incidents or results of the pending suit, and her Respecting petitioners' claim that they have been named beneficiaries of
Certificates of Title will, in that respect, afford her no special protection. To repeat, the lots, the city ordinance authorizing the initiation of expropriation proceedings
at the time of the sale, the person from whom petitioner Tan bought the property is does not state so. 13 Petitioners cannot thus claim any right over the lots on the
neither the registered owner nor was the former authorized by the latter to sell the basis of the ordinance. Even if the lots are eventually transferred to the City, it is
same. She knew she was not dealing with the registered owner or a representative non sequitur for petitioners to claim that they are automatically entitled to be
of the latter. One who buys property with full knowledge of the flaws and defects in beneficiaries thereof. For certain requirements must be met and complied with
the title of his vendor is enough proof of his bad faith and cannot claim that he before they can be considered to be beneficiaries.
acquired title in good faith as against the owner or of an interest therein. When she
nonetheless proceeded to buy the lot, petitioner Tan gambled on the result of
litigation. She is bound by the outcome of her indifference with no one to blame XII. Certification of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patent
except herself if she loses her claim as against one who has a superior right or
interest over the property. Being a buyer in bad faith, petitioner Tan cannot acquire 1. Notice and Replacement of Lost Duplicate Certificate
a better right than her predecessor in interest, for she merely stepped into the a. Coombs vs. Castaeda (G.R. No. 192353)
shoes of the latter. Section 2. Grounds for annulment The annulment may be based only on the
3. Possession is a necessary incident of ownership. The adjudication of grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction Extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid
ownership to private respondent includes the delivery of possession since the ground if it was availed of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or
defeated parties in this case has not shown by what right to retain possession of the petition for relief.
land independently of their claim of ownership which was rejected. It is doctrinal that jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subject
matter is conferred by law. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 26 vests the RTC with
jurisdiction over the judicial reconstitution of a lost or destroyed owner's duplicate
of the certificate of title. However, the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the
b. Abad, et al vs. Filhomes Realty (G.R. No. 189239, Nov. 24, 2010) subject matter of LRC Case No. 04-035 was within the RTC's jurisdiction, being a
court of general jurisdiction.
As a general rule, ejectment proceedings, due to its summary nature, are
Since the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 6715 is not lost or destroyed,
not suspended or their resolution held in abeyance despite the pendency of a civil
but is in fact in the possession of the petitioner, there is no necessity for the petition
action regarding ownership.
In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the filed in the trial court. The Regional Trial Court Branch 206 in Muntinlupa City never
expropriation proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City. acquired jurisdiction to entertain the petition and order the issuance of a new
Such issuance was only the first stage in expropriation. There is even no evidence owner's duplicate certificate. Hence, the newly issued duplicate of TCT No. 6715 is
null and void.

b. Tan Po Chu vs. CA (G.R. No. 184348, April 4, 2016) place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to
like faith and credit as the original duplicate for all the purposes of this act."
When the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in In view of the existence of the complete record in the register of Deeds of
fact in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void Zamboanga del Sur, of the original of the certificate of title in question and of the
because the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter the fact that the present petition is not one for reconstitution as provided by Republic
allegedly lost owner's duplicate. The correct remedy for the registered owner Act No. 26, there is no necessity for publishing notice of the hearing thereof. And
against an uncooperative possessor is to compel the surrender of the owner's the petition, coming as it does, under the provisions of Section 109, aforequoted,
duplicate title through an action for replevin. there is likewise no need to first secure the appointment of a legal representative of
A judgment void for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It has been the estate and the declaration of the lawful heirs of the deceased Paulino P.
held to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or Gocheco. The petition does not at all seek the distribution of the decedent's estate.
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its ugly head. It may be attacked at any The owner's duplicate copy to be issued will be only an owner's duplicate copy of
time. O.C.T. No. O-1385 and the petitioner is a person in interest as he is a legal heir,
If Tan's allegation were true, then the RTC's judgment would be void and according to his uncontroverted verified petition.
the CA would have been duty-bound to strike it down. The oppositors have no personality to intervene and their grounds of
intervention, namely, that they have been in public, continuous, peaceful, adverse
c. Gocheco vs. Estacio (G.R. No. L-15183, Oct. 30, 1962) and lawful possession of the property is immaterial, impertinent and of no
consequence, in the present proceeding. Their claim of ownership or possession of
Notice of the hearing of a petition for the issuance of an owner's duplicate
the property can be properly instituted in a separate, independent and ordinary civil
copy of a certificate of title need not be published if the complete record of the
original of the certificate of title is intact in the Register of Deeds. Likewise, there is action.
no need to first secure the appointment of a legal representative of the estate and
the declaration of the lawful heirs of the decedent if the petition, which does not
seek the distribution of the estate comes under the provisions of Section 109 of Act
No. 496.
SEC. 109. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced
by a grantee, heir, devisee, assignee, or other person applying for the entry
of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a
suggestion of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the
registered owner or other person in interest and registered. The court may
thereupon, upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in
interest, after notice and hearing direct the issue of a new duplicate
certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in

2. Reconstitution of Lost or Destroyed original Torrens Title c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
a. Saint Mary Crusade vs. Riel (G.R. No 176508, Jan. 12, 2015) d. The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of
deeds, containing the description of the property, or an
Section 2 and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26 expressly listed the acceptable bases
authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been
for judicial reconstitution of an existing Torrens title, to wit:
registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer
Sec. 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources certificate of title was issued;
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order: e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property,
the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged,
a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;
leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document
b. The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate
showing that its original had been registered; and
of title;
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
c. A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
certificate of title.
d. An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the
case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was Petitioner had no factual and legal bases for reconstitution due to its failure
issued; to prove the existence and validity of the certificate of title sought to be
e. A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, reconstituted. No duplicate or certified copy of OCT No. 1609 was presented and
the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, thereby, it disobeyed Section 2 and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26, the provisions
leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document that expressly listed the acceptable bases for judicial reconstitution of an existing
showing that its original had been registered; and Torrens title.
f. Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is
sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
certificate of title.
Sec. 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources
hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

b. The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate
of title;

b. Republic vs. Sanchez (G.R. No. 146081, Jul 17, 2006) c. Heirs of Venturanza (G.R. No. 149122, Jul 27, 2007)
In the instant case, the change in the number of the certificate of title Land Registration Act is not applicable considering that the land covered by
sought to be reconstituted from TI12/79 to TCT No. 42449 rendered at once the TCT No. 2574 had never been within the operation of the Land Registration Act
authenticity or genuineness of respondent's certificate of title under suspicion or because of the irregularities attending the issuance of the reconstituted title.
cloud of doubt. And since respondent alleges that the technical descriptions under
Aside from the fact that no court could have ever acquired jurisdiction to
both certificates of title are identical and the same, x x x, We hold that the instant
order the reconstitution of Mora's title over the property which has never been
petition for judicial reconstitution falls squarely under Section 3(f), Republic Act No.
originally registered, the judgment in CA-G.R. No. 20681-R did not operate as res
26, because the Director of Lands claims that the respondent's duplicate of the
judicata which would bar the Republic's action because there was no identity of
Certificate of Title No. TI12/79 or TCT No. 42449 are [sic] both fake and fictitious.
cause of action between CA-G.R. No. 20681-R and the instant case.
Consequently, we applied Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and held that for
A certificate of title covering inalienable lands of the public domain is void
non-compliance with these provisions, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
and can be cancelled in whosever hand said title may be found. Thus, we have ruled
over the petition for reconstitution.
that a certificate of title is void when it covers property of the public domain
Therefore, it is Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 which applies to classified as forest or timber and mineral lands. And any title issued on non-
LRC Case No. QI96I8296. Hence, in addition to its posting and publication, the notice disposable lands even if in the hands of alleged innocent purchaser for value, shall
of hearing of LRC Case No. QI96I8296 should also have been served through mail on be cancelled.
the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have any interest in
the property.
Further, in the case at bar, the jurisdiction or authority of the Court of First
Instance is conferred upon it by Republic Act 26 entitled "An Act providing a special
procedure for the reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title lost or destroyed,"
approved on September 25, 1946. The Act specifically provides the special
requirements and mode of procedure that must be followed before the court can
act on the petition and grant to the petitioner the remedy sought for. These
requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for reconstitution must
allege the jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing must also be published and
posted in particular places and the same sent to specified persons. Specifically, the
requirements and procedure are set forth in detail under Sections 12 and 13.

d. Republic vs. Lorenzo (G.R. No. 172338, Dec 10, 2012) 3. Estoppel in Action for Cancellation of Title
Paragraph (f) of Section 2, RA 26 Any other document which, in the judgment of a. Barstowe Phils vs. Republic (G.R. No. 133110, Mar 28, 2007)
the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed
The general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes
certificate of title."
or errors of its officials or agents. However, like all general rules, this is also subject
The term "any other document" in paragraph (f) refers to reliable to exceptions:
documents of the kind described in the preceding enumerations and that the "Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should not be invoked
documents referred to in Section 2(f) may be resorted to only in the absence of the except in rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked where
preceding documents in the list. Therefore, the party praying for the reconstitution they would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to
of a title must show that he had, in fact, sought to secure such documents and failed protect the public. They must be applied with circumspection and should be
to find them before presentation of "other documents" as evidence in substitution applied only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly
is allowed. require it. Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to deal
dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble
What should be shown before an order for reconstitution can validly issue:
part or do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations x x x the doctrine of
a. That the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as well as
b. That the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to against private individuals."
warrant reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title;
Estoppel lies against the Republic for granting BPC governmental permits
c. That the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an
and licenses to subdivide, develop, and sell to the public the subject lots as
interest therein;
Parthenon Hills. Relying on the face of the certificates of title of BPC and the licenses
d. That the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed;
and permits issued to BPC by government agencies, innocent individuals, including
and
intervenors Nicolas-Agbulos and Abesamis, purchased subdivision lots in good faith
e. That the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially
and for value.
the same and those contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Though estoppel by laches may lie against the Republic when titles to the
subdivision lots are already in the names of the respective innocent purchasers for
value from BPC, it may not be used by BPC to defeat the titles of the Republic as
regards the subdivision lots which remain unsold and the titles to which are still in
the name of BPC. It must be recalled that BPC is not a purchaser in good faith.
Estoppel, being an equitable principle, may only be invoked by one who comes to
court with clean hands.

b. Republic vs. CA and Santos (G.R. No. 116111, Jan 21, 1996) XIII. Dealings with Unregistered Land
Time-settled is the doctrine that where innocent third persons, relying on a. Radiowealth vs. Palileo (G.R. No. 83432, May 20, 1991)
the correctness of the certificate of title, acquire rights over the property, courts
Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands
cannot disregard such rights and orders the cancellation of the certificate. Such
is "without prejudice to a third party with a better right". The aforequoted phrase
cancellation would impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for everyone
has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one's
dealing with property registered under the Torrens system would have to inquire in
favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the
every instance whether the title has been regularly issued or not. This would be
owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the
contrary to the very purpose of the law, which is to stabilize land titles. Verily, all
earlier sale was unrecorded.
persons dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefor, and the law or the courts do not oblige them to Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application to land not registered under
go behind the certificate in order to investigate again the true condition of the Act No. 496. Article 1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the
property. They are only charged with notice of the liens and encumbrances on the purchaser at the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even
property that are noted on the certificate if this second sale was registered. It was explained that this is because the
purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff's execution sale only steps into the shoes
"The Torrens System was adopted in this country because it was believed to
of the judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter's interest in the property
be most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect
sold as of the time the property was levied upon.
their indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a
person purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to
valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person
ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse is that if who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it
this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be eroded and land should be movable property.
transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong
conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would
to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
be that land conflicts could be even more abrasive, if not even violent. The
Registry of Property.
Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of the Torrens System, should be the
first to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain
by the law are satisfied." to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in
the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.

XVI. The Condominium Act (R.A. 4726) From the foregoing it is clear that upon full payment, the seller is duty-bound to
deliver the title of the unit to the buyer. Even with a valid mortgage over the lot, the
1. Definition (Sec. 2, R.A. 4726) seller is still bound to redeem said mortgage without any cost to the buyer apart
2. Warranties and Representations from the balance of the purchase price and registration fees.
a. BPI vs. ALS Management Corp. (G.R. No. 151821, April 14, 2204) 2. The act of mortgaging the condominium project without the knowledge and
consent of the buyer of a unit therein, and without the approval of the NHA (now
The brochure that was disseminated indicated features that would be provided HLURB) as required by P.D. No. 957, is not only an unsound real estate business
each condominium unit; and that, under Section 19 of PD No. 957, would form part practice but also highly prejudicial to the buyer, (who) has a cause of action for
of the sales warranties of petitioner. Respondent relied on the brochure in its annulment of the mortgage.
decision to purchase a unit. Since the former failed to deliver certain items stated
therein, then there was a clear violation of its warranties and representations.
4. Suspension of Monthly Amortization
a. Gold Loop Properties Inc. vs. CA (G.R. No. 122088, Jan 26, 2001)
3. Redemption of Mortgaged Amortization
1. The private respondents are entitled to a copy of the contract to sell, otherwise
a. De Vera vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 132869, Oct. 18, 2001)
they would not be informed of their rights and obligations under the contract.
When the Sadhwanis parted with P878,366.35 or more than one third of the
purchase price for the condominium unit, the contract to sell, or what it represents
1. Sec. 25 of PD 957 provides: Sec. 25. Issuance of Title The owner or developer
is concrete proof of the purchase and sale of the condominium unit.
shall deliver the title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or
unit. No fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the 2. Private respondents were indeed justified in suspending payment of their
Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the event a monthly amortizations. The failure of petitioners to give them a copy of the Contract
mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of the title to Sell sued upon, despite repeated demands therefor, and notwithstanding the
to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the private respondents' payment of P878,366.35 for the subject condominium unit was
corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that a valid ground for private respondents to suspend their payments.
the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in
accordance herewith.

5. Alteration of Plans XVII. Subdivision and Condominium Protective Buyers Decree (P.D.
a. G.O.A.L. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 118822, Jul 28, 1997) 957)
1. As required by Sec. 22 of P.D. 957 which provides Sec. 22. Alteration of 1. Jurisdiction of the HLURB
Plans. No owner or developer shall change or alter the roads, open spaces, a. Ortigas vs CA (G.R. No. 129822, June 20, 2012)
infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision 1. According to P.D. No. 1344, 23 the National Housing Authority (now the HLURB)
development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or represented in shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the written
conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in the a. Unsound real estate business practices;
absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision. b. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,
The provision is clear. The written approval of the National Housing Authority alone broker or salesman; and
is not sufficient. It must be coupled with the written conformity or consent of the b. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
duly organized homeowners association or the majority of the lot buyers. Failing in
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
this, the construction of the fifth floor is violative of the decree invoked.
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
2. Upon full payment of the agreed price, petitioner is mandated by law to deliver
the title of the lot or unit to the buyer. 2. P.D. No. 957 provides that a subdivision owner "shall refer to the registered
owner of the land subject of a subdivision or a condominium project." Also, a
Sec. 25. P.D. 957 "Issuance of Title. The owner or developer shall deliver the subdivision developer "shall mean the person who develops or improves the
title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit . . . . In the
subdivision project or condominium project for and in behalf of the owner thereof."
event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the issuance of
the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the mortgage or the The law clearly defines who is considered a subdivision owner or developer,
corresponding portion thereof within six months from such issuance in order that and the petitioners are neither. They are merely owners of a number of lots within
the title over any paid lot or unit may be secured and delivered to the buyer in the subdivision owned and developed by Pasig Properties, Inc. But even if
accordance herewith." Upon full payment of a unit, petitioner loses all its rights and petitioners were subdivision owners or developers, this would not bar them from
interests to the unit in favor of the buyer.
seeking redress from the Courts.
3. Common areas and facilities are "portions of the condominium property not
included in the units," whereas, a unit is "a part of the condominium property (Note particularly pars. (b) and (c) as worded, where the HLURB's jurisdiction
which is to be subject to private ownership." Inversely, that which is not concerns cases commenced by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers. As to par.
considered a unit should fall under common areas and facilities. Hence, the parking (a), concerning "unsound real estate practices," it would appear that the logical
spaces not being subject to private ownership form part of the common area over complainant would be the buyers and customers against the sellers (subdivision
which the condominium unit owners hold undivided interest.
owners and developers or condominium builders and realtors), and not vice versa.)

Requisites: Real Estate Mortgage Contents: Lis Pendens

1. To secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation
2. The mortgagor should be the absolute owner of thing mortgaged 1. A statement of the institution of an action or proceedings
3. The mortgagor should have free disposal of the thing 2. The court where the same is pending
4. When the principal obligation becomes due, the thing mortgaged may 3. The date of its institution
be alienated to secure payment 4. A reference to the number of certificate of title of the land
5. For a mortgage to be validly constituted and to prejudice third persons, 5. An adequate description of the land affected and its registered owner
the mortgage should be recorded with the Registry of Property
Note: No validly constituted mortgage if the deed of mortgage is a mere private

document
Art. 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is

indispensable, in order that a mortgage may be
validly constituted, that the document in which it appears be
recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is
not recorded, the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the
parties. The persons in whose favor the law establishes a mortgage
have no other right than to demand the execution and the
recording of the document in which the mortgage is formalized.
Requisites: Adverse Claims

1. The adverse claimant must state the following in writing
a. His alleged right or interest
b. How and under whom such alleged right or interest is acquired
c. The description of the land in which the riht or interest is claimed
d. The number of the certificate of title
2. The statement must be signed and sworn to before a notary public or other
officer authorized to administer oath
3. The claimant should state his residence or the place to which all notices may
be served upon him


Land Titles

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Land Titles

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS | BUKIDNON STATE UNIVERSITY

VI. Non-registrable Properties

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

SECTION 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

a. The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Requisites: Real Estate Mortgage Contents: Lis Pendens

Note: No validly constituted mortgage if the deed of mortgage is a mere private

Art. 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is

Requisites: Adverse Claims

Compiled by: Rob Jane M. Solito

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen