VIII Subsequent Registration Final v2

SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
Voluntary Dealings with Registered Lands
DBP vs. Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,

UDK No. 7671, June 23, 1988
FACTS:
Development Bank of the Philippines presented for registration before the

Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, a sheriff’s certificate of sale in its favor for
two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. NT – 149033 and NT – 149034, both
in the names of spouses Andres Bautista and Marcelina Calson. DBP acquired
said property as the highest bidder at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale. The
transaction was entered as ENTRY No. 8191 in the Registry’s Primary Entry
Book (day book in PD 1529) and DBP paid the requisite registration fees on the
same day but annotation of the sale on the certificates of title could not be
effected because the originals of such certificates were missing from the Registry
Files. On the advice of the Register of Deeds, DBP instituted reconstitution
proceedings which was granted on June 15, 1982 but for some reason, the
certificates were only reconstituted on June 19, 1984.
DBP then sought to annotate on the reconstituted titles the certificate of

sale as per entry no. 8191, a four year old entry, the acting Register of Deeds,
unsure as to what to do, elevated the matter en consulta to the Commissioner on
Land Registration who held that the entry of four years ago was ineffective due
to the impossibility of accomplishing the registration because of the non –
availability of the certificate of title sought to be annotated. DBP went to Court
of Appeals who certified the case to the Supreme Court as a question purely of
law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not entry into the day book is considered registration that
attaches all legal effects even without the annotation of the original certificate of
titles.
HELD:
In section 56, of PD 1529 the Register’s act of making a primary entry as a

preliminary process of registration and a consideration of its entire context
provides that the instrument subject of primary entry is registered from the time
GROUP 4 - LTD
so noted and gives the entry the effect of putting the whole world on notice of the
existence of the instrument entered.
It is clear that the four (4) – year hiatus between the primary entry and
proposed annotation was not DBP’s pretensions. Though it was under necessity
to present the owner’s duplicates of the certificates of title affected for the
purposes of primary entry since the transaction sought to be recorded was an
involuntary one and the record is silent as to whether it presented them or not,
there is every probability that it presented said owners duplicate as a matter of
course in mortgages where usually the owner’s duplicates of the encumbered
titles are yielded into the custody of the mortgage. The requisites registration
fees were already paid and certificate of sale was registrable on its face, therefore
DBP has complied with all the requirements for purposes of both primary entry
and the annotation of the certificate of sale into the certificate of titles, only that
said certificate of titles were missing in the records of the Registry for no fault on
the part of DBP.
National Housing Authority vs. Augusto Basa

GR No. 149121 April 20, 2010
FACTS:
Spouses Basa loaned from National Housing Authority secured by a real
estate mortgage over their properties. They did not pay the loan despite repeated
demands. For them to pay, NHA filed a validated petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure of mortgage before the Sheriff’s Office in Quezon City.
After notice and publication, the properties were bid at the public auction
and bought by NHA as the highest bidder. On April 16, 1991, the sheriff’s
certificate of sale was registered and annotated only on the owner’s duplicate
copies of the titles on the hands of Spouses Basa, since the titles in the custody of
the Register of Deeds were among those burned down when a fire gutted the City
Hall of Quezon City on June 11, 1988. The redemption period then expired on
April 16, 1992 and that time, the respondents did not redeemed the properties,
then the NHA executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of Ownership over the
foreclosed properties and said properties was inscribed by the Register of Deeds
on the certificates of titles in the hand of NHA.
NHA moved for issuance of an alias writ of possession, before the RTC
could resolve the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of possession,
respondents, filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene and Petition in Intervention.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Respondents theorized that the instrument deemed registered only upon actual
inscription on the certificate of title in the custody of the civil registrar. Thus, the
respondents asked the RTC, among others, to declare the foreclosure sale null
and void, to allow the respondents to redeem the mortgaged properties.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of sale in the

primary entry book of the register of deeds and on the owner’s duplicate title is
sufficient compliance with the requirement of law on registration.
HELD:
The law provides that there is effective registration once the registrant has
fulfilled all that is required of him for the purpose of entry and annotation, what
is left is to be accomplished solely on the register of deeds. NHA followed the
procedure to have its sheriff’s certificate of sale annotated in the transfer
certificates of title, it was not NHA’s fault that the certificate of sale is not
annotated on the transfer of certificates of title which should be in the custody of
the Registrar, since the same were burned. The NHA cannot be blamed also
since there were no reconstituted titles available during the time of inscription as
it had taken the necessary steps in having the same reconstituted as early as July
15, 1988. NHA had done everything they could under its power to assert their
rights.
Since the registration of certificate of sale was valid, the redemption period
on the part of the respondents starts from then on, as the period of one – year
redemption is counted from the date of registration of the certificate of sale.
Durawood vs. Candice Bona

GR No. 179884, January 25, 2012
FACTS:
On June 3, 2004 petitioner Durawood Construction and Limber Supply,

Inc. (Durawood) filed an action for sum of money plus damages with a prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against LBB Construction
and Development Corporation (LBB Construction) and its president Leticia
Barber (Barber) before RTC of Antipolo. Durawood prayed for the sum of P
665,385.50 as payment for construction materials delivered to LBB Construction
GROUP 4 - LTD
as state in the suit. On June 17, 2004, Sheriff Rolando C. Leyva (Sheriff Leyva)
levied on a 344 – square meter parcel of land in Richdale Subdivision, Antipolo
City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. R – 17571 in the name
of LBB Construction. A Notice of Levy on Attachment was annotated in TCT
No. R – 17571’s Memorandum of Encumbrances on the same day, June 17,
2004. Respondent Candice S. Bona claimed that she is a co – owner of the
property covered by TCT No. R – 17571 since it was sold to her by the LBB
Construction together with her siblings, through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
June 2, 2004. Candice asserted that the sale is the subject of Entry No. 30590
dated June 17, 2004. But it was proven by the Registrar that Candice failed to
complete the payment of required registration fees within the required time.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s order to
reinstate the notice of levy on attachment in TCT No. R – 22522.
HELD:
Petition granted. A part of Section 56 of PD 1529 provides that:

SEC. 56. Primary Entry Books; fees; certified copies. – Each Register of Deeds
shall keep an entry book in which, upon payment of the filing fee, he shall enter
in the order of their reception all deeds and other voluntary instruments, and all
copies of writs or other process filed with him relating to registered land. He
shall note in such book the year, month, day, hour, and minute of reception of all
instruments in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as
registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument when
made on the certificate of title to which refers shall bear the same date; provided
however, that no registration, annotation, or memorandum on a certificate of title
shall be made unless the fees prescribed therefor by this Act are paid within
fifteen (15) days’ time after the date of the registration of the deed, instrument,
order or document in the entry book or day book, and in case said fee is not paid
within the time above mentioned, such entry shall be null and void.
Since there was still no compliance of “all that is required for purposes of
entry and annotation” of the Deed of Sale as of June 25, 2004, the court is
constrained to rule that the registration on the Notice of Levy on Attachment on
June 17, 2004 should take precedence over the former. Considering that the
Notice of Levy on Attachment was deemed registered earlier than the Deed of
Sale, the TCT issued pursuant to the latter should contain the annotation of the
GROUP 4 - LTD
Attachment. The court find that the RTC was indeed, acting properly when it
ordered the reinstatement of the Notice of Levy on Attachment in TCT No. R –
22522.
Double Sales
Rodriguez vs. Sioson

GR No. 199180, July 27, 2016
FACTS:
Sometime in 1997, the Municipality of Orani, Bataan (Municipality)

purchased from Neri an area of about 1.7 hectare of Lot 398, to be used for the
extension of the Municipality’s public market. Among other things, it was agreed
that upon full payment of purchase price, Neri will surrender the mother title to
the Municipality for subdivision of the property on the condition that Neri will
equitably share in the expense thereof. Lots 398 – C and D were sold to the
Municipality while Lot 398 – E was a road Lot. Lots 398 – A and B were left as
the remaining portions over which Neri retained absolute title and were both
registered in the name of Neri Delos Reyes, married to Violeta Lacuata. The
owner’s duplicate copies of the said Lots were retained by the Municipality
pending Neri’s payment of his share in the expenses incurred for the subdivision
of Lot 398. These were placed under the custody of the Municipal Treasurer,
where they continue to remain.
Neri, however, alleged that then Municipal Mayor Mario Zuniga suggested
that he sell Lot 398 – A to his aunt, petitioner Thelma Rodriguez (Thelma). The
Municipality would then expropriate the same from Thelma. Neri agreed to the
suggestion. Then, the amount of P1, 243,000.00 as the selling price, Thelma
issued a check for said amount payable to Neri. When it fell due, no sufficient
funds were available to cover the check. Thelma, however was able to only pay P
442,293.50. At about the same time, Thelma saw an announcement that a new
Orani Common Terminal would be built on Lot 398 – A. Thelma filed a
Complaint for Injunction against the incumbent mayor Efren Pascual, Jr. and the
Municipality for claim of ownership. Neri then in 2002 executed affidavits
claiming that the owner’s copies of Lot 398 – A and Lot 398 – B were lost. Neri
caused the cancellation of Thelma’s adverse claim. Neri then made another sale
to Spouses Sioson and Spouses Camacho of the same alleged Lots.
GROUP 4 - LTD
ISSUE:
Whether or not Thelma’s allegation that there was double sale is correct.
HELD:
The court ruled that the determination of this case rests on whether the
transaction between Neri and Thelma is a contract to sell. The rule on double
sale, as provided in Article 1544 of the Civil Code, does not apply to a case
where there was a sale to one party of the land itself while the other contract was
a mere promise to sell the land or at most an actual assignment of the right to
repurchase the same land.
Despite the denomination of their agreement as one of sale, the

circumstances tend to show that Neri agreed to sell the subject property to
Thelma on the condition that title and ownership would pass or be transferred
upon full payment of purchase price, which is the very nature of a contract to sell
where the seller expressly reserves the ownership of a property to a prospective
buyer upon the fulfillment of the condition, the full payment of the purchase
price.
Therefore, there was no double sale since the contract between Thelma and
Neri was only a contract to sell and Thelma can only claim of the property upon
completely paying the exact amount as stated in there agreement and Thelma
failed to completely paid the amount of P 1, 243,000.00 and was only able to pay
P 442,293.50. Thus, the petition of Thelma was denied.
Melencio vs. Court of Appeals

GR No. 148846, September 25, 2007
FACTS:
The subject property is a 30, 351 sq. meter parcel of land particularly
denominated as Lot No. 3368, located at Suba – basbas, Marigondon, Lapu –
lapu City, Cebu, and part of total area of 30, 777 square meters covered by TCT
No. 20626 in the name of the late petitioner Go Kim Chuan. The entire property
was originally owned by Esteban Bonghanoy who had only one child, Juana
Bonghanoy – Amodia, mother of the late Leoncia Amodia and petitioners
Amodias. The entire property was brought under the operation of the Torrens
System. However, the title thereto was lost during the Second World War.
GROUP 4 - LTD
On July 10, 1964, the Amodias allegedly executed an Extra – Judicial
Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they extra –
judicially settled the estate of Esteban Bonghanoy and conveyed the subject
property to respondent Aznar Brothers Realty Company for a consideration of
P10, 200.00. On August 10, 1964, the said Extra – Judicial Partition of Real
Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered under Act 3344 as there was no
title on file at the Register of Deeds of Lapu – lapu City. Thereafter, AZNAR
made some improvements and constructed a beach house thereon. On February
1989, petitioners executed a Deed of Extra – Judicial Settlement with Absolute
Sale, conveying the subject property in favor of Go Kim Chuan for and in
consideration of P70,000.00. Aznar then filed a case against petitioners Amodias
and Go Kim Chuan for annulment of Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. 20626
alleging that the sale to Go Kim was an invalid second sale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a valid certification and verification by only one of

the plaintiffs.
HELD:
In the case at bench, the petitioners in the amended petition are Heirs of the
late Go Kim Chuan. They represent their predecessor – in – interest in whose
favor a title was issued covering the subject property and said title is sought to be
canceled by AZNAR.
Under the circumstances, the rules may be reasonably and liberally

construed to avoid a patent denial of substantial justice, because it cannot be
denied that the ends of justice are better served when cases are determined on the
merits after all parties are given fill opportunity to ventilate their causes and
defenses rather than on technicality or some procedural imperfections.
Therefore, the instant petition is granted.
GROUP 4 - LTD
ANTONIO VS. SANTOS
GR NO. 149238 NOVEMBER 22, 2017
FACTS:
On September 19, 1988, petitioner filed a complaint for Reconveyance,

Annulment of title and Damages against respondent spouses alleging that he is
the absolute owner of a 13,159 sq.m. parcel of land situated in Cainta, Rizal. He
filed before branch 71, RTC, Antipolo, Rizal an application for the registration
which was docketed as Land Registration case no. 142-A (LRC No. 142-A) and
was declared as true and absolute owner. He then discovered that his lot was
already titled in the name of the respondents. He then filed the complaint for
Reconveyance, Annulment, of Title and Damages against respondents, averred
that respondents committed fraud in their application. Respondents averred that
they were duly issued on OCT dated May 20, 1977 and had always been in
peaceful possession of the property and at no time had Antonio possessed the
property, nor did he ever make any claim against said property.
ISSUES:
1. W/N petitioner has a better claim of ownership over the subject

property in case of double sale.
2. W/N the Court of Appeals and RTC erroneously treat petitioner’s
action for reconveyance as one for titling of a parcel of land.
RULING:
1. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, even if a title had been issued
to petitioner based on said decision, his title would be of a later date than the title
of respondents, hence inefficacious and ineffective. This court has ruled that,
when two certificates of title are issued to different persons covering the same
land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail; and in case of successive
registrations where more than one certificate is issued over the same land, the
person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who
relies on a subsequent certificate.
2. Petitioner contends that it is very apparent the RTC and Court of

Appeals had the notion that his case a quo was not an action for reconveyance,
but rather an application for registration of land where the applicant and
oppositor had to prove their respective registerable titles. This, he adds, could be
GROUP 4 - LTD
gleaned from the RTC’s findings that “the claim of plaintiff on the basis of said
documents cannot prevail over the subject property,” and that ‘it was indubitably
shown that the defendants have occupied said property since time immemorial
while plaintiff has never at anytime taken possession of said property.”
Buyer in Good Faith
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. POBLETE

G.R. No. 196577 February 25, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) is a banking

institution organized and existing under Philippine laws. Respondent Barbara
Sampaga Poblete (Poblete) is the registered owner of a parcel of land, known as
Lot No. 29, with an area of 455 square meters, located in Buenavista, Sablayan,
Occidental Mindoro, under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-12026. In
October 1997, Poblete obtained a ₱300,000.00 loan from Kabalikat ng
Pamayanan ng Nagnanais Tumulong at Yumaman Multi-Purpose Cooperative
(Kapantay). Poblete mortgaged Lot No. 29 to Kapantay to guarantee payment of
the loan. Kapantay, in turn, used OCT No. P-12026 as collateral under its Loan
Account No. 97-CC-013 with Land Bank-Sablayan Branch.
In November 1998, Poblete decided to sell Lot No. 29 to pay her loan.
Maniego agreed to buy Lot No. 29 for ₱900,000.00, but Maniego suggested that
a deed of absolute sale for ₱300,000.00 be executed instead to reduce the taxes.
Thus, Poblete executed the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 9 November 1998
(Deed dated 9 November 1998) with ₱300,000.00 as consideration.In the Deed
dated 9 November 1998. In an Affidavit dated 19 November 1998, Poblete stated
that she agreed to have the payment deposited in her Land Bank Savings
Account.
Based on a Certification issued by Land Bank-Sablayan Branch

Department Manager Marcelino Pulayan on 20 August 1999, Maniego paid
Kapantay’s Loan Account No. 97-CC-013 for ₱448,202.08. On 8 June 2000,
Maniego applied for a loan of ₱1,000,000.00 with Land Bank, using OCT No. P
12026 as collateral. Land Bank alleged that as a condition for the approval of the
loan, the title of the collateral should first be transferred to Maniego.
GROUP 4 - LTD
On 14 August 2000, pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 August
2000 (Deed dated 11 August 2000),the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro
issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-20151 in Maniego’s name. Land
Bank released the ₱1,000,000.00 loan proceeds to Maniego. Subsequently,
Maniego failed to pay the loan with Land Bank. On 4 November 2002, Land
Bank filed an Application for Extra-judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
stating that Maniego’s total indebtedness amounted to ₱1,154,388.88.
ISSUE:
W/N Land Bank is a mortgagee in good faith.
RULING:
This is the doctrine of "the mortgagee in good faith" based on the rule that
buyers or mortgagees dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of
Title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title.
However, it has been consistently held that this rule does not apply to banks,
which are required to observe a higher standard of diligence. A bank whose
business is impressed with 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 that, simply because the title offered as
security is on its face free of any encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the
responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the properties
to be mortgaged. Applying the same principles, we do not find Land Bank to be
a mortgagee in good faith.
Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of intention. In ascertaining

intention, courts are necessarily controlled by the evidence as to the conduct and
outward acts by which alone the inward motive may, with safety, be determined.
Based on the evidence, Land Bank processed Maniego’s loan application

upon his presentation of OCT No. P-12026, which was still under the name of
Poblete. Land Bank even ignored the fact that Kapantay previously used
Poblete’s title as collateral in its loan account with Land Bank. In Bank of
Commerce v. San Pablo, Jr., we held that when "the person applying for the loan
is other than the registered owner of the real property being mortgaged, [such
fact] should have already raised a red flag and which should have induced the
Bank x x x to make inquiries into and confirm x x x [the] authority to mortgage x
x x. A person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create
GROUP 4 - LTD
suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person is not an innocent purchaser for
value."
Where the mortgagee acted with haste in granting the mortgage loan and
did not ascertain the ownership of the land being mortgaged, as well as the
authority of the supposed agent executing the mortgage, it cannot be considered
an innocent mortgagee.
LEGARDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 94457 March 18, 1991
FACTS:
Petitioner Victoria Legarda was the owner of a parcel of land and the
improvements thereon located at 123 West Avenue, Quezon City. On January
11, 1985 respondent New Cathay House, Inc. filed a complaint against the
petitioner for specific performance with preliminary injunction and damages in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for Quezon City alleging, among others, that
petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the private respondent through its
representative, Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr., of the aforestated property of petitioner
effective January 1, 1985 until December 31, 1989 or for a period of five (5)
years.
Petitioner engaged the services of counsel to handle her case. Said counsel
filed his appearance with an urgent motion for extension of time to file the
answer within ten (10) days from February 26, 1985. However, said counsel
failed to file the answer within the extended period prayed for. Counsel for
private respondent filed a motion to declare petitioner in default. This was
granted by the trial court on March 25, 1985 and private respondent was allowed
to present evidence ex parte. Thereafter, on March 25, 1985, the trial court
rendered its decision. Copy of said decision was duly served on counsel for the
petitioner but he did not take any action. Thus, the judgment became final and
executory. On May 8, 1985, upon motion of private respondent, a writ of
execution of the judgment was issued by the trial court.
At public auction, the sheriff sold the aforestated property of petitioner to

Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr. for the sum of P376,500.00 to satisfy the judgment. The
sheriff issued a certificate of sale dated June 8, 1985 covering the said property.
After the one-year redemption period expired without the petitioner redeeming
the property, ownership was consolidated in the name of Roberto V. Cabrera, Jr.
GROUP 4 - LTD
The sheriff issued a final deed of sale on July 8, 1986 in his favor. Cabrera
registered the same in the office of the Register of Deeds on July 11, 1986.
Upon learning of this unfortunate turn of events, petitioner prevailed upon her
counsel, to seek the appropriate relief. On November 6, 1986 said counsel filed
in the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment calling attention to
the unjust enrichment of private respondent in securing the transfer in its name of
the property valued at P 2.5 million without justification. the appellate court
nevertheless dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment with costs against
the petitioner. A copy of the said judgment appears to have been served on
counsel for the petitioner. However, said counsel did not file a motion for
reconsideration or appeal therefrom, so it became final.
ISSUE:
W/N the negligence of petitioners’ Lawyer renders New Cathay House Inc.
a buyer in good faith.
RULING:
NO, The Court cannot allow such a grave injustice to prevail. It cannot
tolerate such unjust enrichment of the private respondent at the expense of the
petitioner. Private respondent went to court, and that because of the gross
negligence of the counsel for the petitioner, she lost the case as well as the title
and ownership of the property, which is worth millions. The mere lessee then
now became the owner of the property. Its true owner then, the petitioner, now is
consigned to penury all because her lawyer appears to have abandoned her case
not once but repeatedly.
GABUTAN, vs. DANTE D. NACALABAN, HELEN N. MAANDIG, SUSAN

N. SIAO, and CAGAYAN CAPITOL COLLEGE
GR No. 185857-58 JUNE 29,2016
FACTS:
On January 25, 1957, Godofredo Nacalaban purchased an 800-square meter

parcel of prime land (property) in Poblacion, Cagayan de Oro City from Petra, F
ortunata, Francisco and Dolores, all surnamed Daamo. Pursuant to the sale,
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-2259 covering the property was issued
in the name of Godofredo. He thereafter built a house on it.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Godofredo died on January 7, 1974. He was survived by his wife,
Baldomera, and their children, Dante, Helen, and Susan. On March 19, 1979,
Baldomera issued a Certification in favor of her mother, Melecia. It provided, in
effect, that Baldomera was allowing her mother to build and occupy a house on
the portion of the property. Accordingly, the house was declared for taxation
purposes. The tax declaration presented in evidence showed that Melecia owned
the building on the land owned by Godofredo.
Baldomera died on September 11, 1994. On July 3, 1996, her children

executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person with Sale
(Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale) where they adjudicated unto themselves the
property and sold it to the Cagayan Capitol College. On August 22, 1996, TCT
No. T-2259 was cancelled and TCT No. T-111846 covering the property was
issued in the name of the College.
Melecia died on April 20, 199718 and was survived by her children,
Trifonia, Buna, Felisia, Crisanta, and Tirso.
In a letter dated May 5, 1997, the College demanded Trifonia D. Gabutan,

Mary Jane Gilig, Allan Ubaub, and Evelyn Dailo, the heirs of Melecia who were
occupying the house on the property, to vacate the premises.
On July 7, 1997, Gabutan, et al. filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of

Real Property, Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Partition and Damages with
Writ of Preliminary Attachment and Injunction against Nacalaban, et al. and the
College. They alleged that: (1) Melecia bought the property using her own
money but Godofredo had the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in his name
instead of his mother-in-law; (2) Godofredo and Baldomera were only trustees of
the property in favor of the real owner and beneficiary, Melecia; (3) they only
knew about the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale upon verification with the
Registry of Deeds; and (4) the College was a buyer in bad faith, being aware they
were co-owners of the property.
In its Answer with Affirmative Defenses, the College claimed that it is a

buyer in good faith and for value, having "made exhaustive investigations and
verifications from all reliable sources" that Melecia and her heirs were staying in
the property by mere tolerance. It alleged that: (l) in the tax declaration of the
residential house, Melecia admitted that the lot owner is Godofredo; (2) the
occupancy permit of Melecia was issued only after Godofredo issued a
certification to the effect that Melecia was allowed to occupy a portion of the
GROUP 4 - LTD
property;and (3) the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale was published in three
consecutive issues of Mindanao Post, a newspaper of general circulation.
ISSUE:
W/N Cagayan Capitol College is a Buyer In Good Faith.
RULING:
The College is a buyer in bad in bad faith. To prove good faith, a buyer of
registered and titled land need only show that he relied on the face of the title to
the property. He need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is not obliged
to explore beyond the four comers of the title. Such degree of proof of good
faith, however, is sufficient only when the following conditions concur: first, the
seller is the registered owner of the land; second, the latter is in possession
thereof; and third, at the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of any claim or
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 the property.
Firstly, as correctly pointed out by Gabutan, et al., Nacalaban, et al. are not the
registered owners of the property, but Godofredo. In Bautista v. Court of
Appeals, we held:
Where a purchaser buys from one who is not the registered owner himself:
the law requires a higher degree of prudence even if the land object of the
transaction is registered. One who buys from one who is not the registered owner
is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of
the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land.
Secondly, the College was aware that aside from Nacalaban, et al., the
Heirs of Melecia, were also in possession of the property. The College cited the
tax declaration which bore an annotation that Melecia owned a residential
building and Godofredo owned the lot. Also, apart from filing an ejectment case
against the Heirs of Melecia, the College retained part of the purchase price for
the demolition of Melecia's building as well.
Although the College in its Answer alleged that it made an exhaustive

investigation and verification from all reliable sources and found that the
possession of Melecia and her heirs was merely tolerated, it failed to specify who
or what these sources were. There is no evidence that the College did inquire
GROUP 4 - LTD
from Melecia or her heirs themselves, who were occupying the property, the
nature and authority of their possession. It is not far-fetched to conclude,
therefore, that the College merely relied on the representations of the sellers and
the documents they presented. In this regard, the College is not a buyer in good
faith.
The "honesty of intention" which constitutes good faith implies a freedom

from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry. If the
land purchased is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the
purchaser must be wary and must investigate the rights of the actual possessor.
Without such inquiry, the purchaser cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot
have any right over the property.
CUSI vs. DOMINGO

G.R. No. 195825 February 27, 2013
FACTS:
Under review in these consolidated appeals is the Decision promulgated on

July 16, 2010, whereby the court of Appeals affirmed the revised decision
rendered on March 2007 by the Regional Trial Court in Quezon city against the
petitioners and their seller.
The property in dispute was a vacant unfenced lot situated in White Plains,
Quezon City and covered by TCT No. N-165606, issued in the name of
respondent Lilia V. Domingo by the Registry of Deeds og Quezon City. In July
1999, Domingo learned that construction activities were being undertaken on her
property without her consent and soon unearthed the series anomalous
transactions affecting her property.
On July 18, 1997, Radelia Sy represented thet she is the owner of the
property and petitioned the Regional Trial Court for the issuance of a new
owner’s copy of Domingo’s TCT. Appending to Sy’s petition a deed of absolute
sale purportedly executed in her favor by Domingo and an affidavit of loss where
she claimed that her bag containing the owner’s copy of TCT had been snatched.
Regional Trial Court granted Sy’s petition.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City issued new owner’s duplicate copy of
TCT which was later cancelled by virtue of the Deed of Sale and in its stead the
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City issued another TCT in Sy’s name.
Sy subsequently subdivided the property into two and sold each half by
way of contract to sell to spouses Edgardo and Ramona Liza de Vera and to
spouses Alfonso and Maria Angeles Cusi. TCT in the name of Sy was cancelled
by virtue of deeds of sale executed between Sy and spouses De Vera, and
between Sy and spouses Cusi, to whom were respectively issued TCT. All the
while, the transactions between Sy and Spouses were unknown to Domingo
whose TCT no.N-165606 remained in her undisturbed possession. The
construction were upon the initiative of the deVera in the exercise of their
dominical and possessory rights.
Domingo filed action against sy and her spouse, the Veras and the Cusis in
the Regional Trial Court. The RTC granted Domingo’s application for the TRO
enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the construction activities on the
property. RTC later granted her application for the writ of preliminary
injunction. RTC declared the spouses de Vera and spouses Cusi to be purchasers
in good faith and for value. Sy and Domingo filed separately a motion for
reconsideration. RTC rendered new decision declaring the spouses De Vera and
Cusi not purchasers in good faith. TCT of the two spouses were declared and
declared void ab initio and the TCT in the name of Lilia Domingo is hereby
revalidated.
On appeal, the CA promulgated its decision on July 16, 2010 affirming the
RTC with modification of the damages paid by the Sy’s to Domingo.The instant
appeal is denied. The decision of RTC is affirmed. The CA held that the sale of
the property from domingo to Sy was null and void and conveyed no title to the
latter for being effected by forging the signature of Domingoand that Sy thereby
acquired no right in the property that she could convey to the Cusis and De Veras
as her buyers.
Although acknowledging that a purchaser could rely on what appeared on

the face of the certificate of title, the Cusis and De Veras did not have the status
of purchasers in good faith and for value by reason of their being aware of Sy’s
TCT being a reconstituted owner’s copy, thereby requiring then to conduct an
inquiry or investigation into the status of the title of Sy and not simply rely on
the face of TCT No. 186142.
GROUP 4 - LTD
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitionerd are buyers in good faith and for value.
RULING:
The Court concurs with the finding by the CA that the spouses Cusi and
spouses De Vera were not purchasers for value and in good faith. The records
simply do not support their common contention in that respect. The Cusis and De
Vera commonly contend that the CA gravely erred in not considering them to be
purchasers in good faith and for value. They argue that Sy’s TCT No. 186142
was free of any liens or encumbrances that could have excited their suspicion;
and that they nonetheless even went beyond the task of examining the face of
Sy’s TCT No. 186142, recounting every single detail of their quest to ascertain
the validity of Sy’s title, but did not find anything by which to doubt her title.
One of the guiding tenets underlying the Torrens system is the curtain
principle, in that one does not need to go behind the certificate of title because it
contains all the information about the title of its holder. This principle dispenses
with the need of proving ownership by long complicated documents kept by the
registered owner, which may be necessary under a private conveyancing system,
and assures that all the necessary information regarding ownership is on the
certificate of title. Consequently, the avowed objective of the Torrens system is
to obviate possible conflicts of title by giving the public the right to rely upon the
face of the Torrens certificate and, as a rule, to dispense with the necessity of
inquiring further; on the part of the registered owner, the system gives him
complete peace of mind that he would be secured in his ownership as long as he
has not voluntarily disposed of any right over the covered land.
SABERON vs. VENTANILLA

G.R. No. 192669 April 21, 2014
FACTS:
On March 3, 1970, Manila Remnant Co., Inc. (MRCI) and A.U. Valencia
& Co. Inc. (AUVC) executed two (2) contracts to sell in favor of Oscar C.
Ventanilla, Jr. and Carmen Gloria D. Ventanilla (Ventanillas). MRCI resold the
same property to Carlos Crisostomo (Crisostomo). Aggrieved, the Ventanillas
commenced an action for specific performance, annulment of deeds and damages
against MRCI, AUVC, and Crisostomo with the Court of First Instance. The CFI
GROUP 4 - LTD
Quezon City rendered a decision in favor of the Ventanillas. The CA sustained
the CFI Quezon City’s decision in toto. The Ventanillas moved for the issuance
of a writ of execution. The writ was issued and served upon MRCI. However,
MRCI alleged that the subject properties could not longer be delivered to the
Ventanillas because they had already been sold to Samuel Marquez (Marquez)
The case was elevated to this Court where MRCI argued that the sale of the
properties to Marquez was valid because at the time of the sale, the issue of the
validity of the sale to the Ventanillas had not yet been resolved. Further, there
was no specific injunction against it re-selling the property. As a buyer in good
faith, Marquez had a right to rely on the recitals in the certificate of title. The
subject matter of the controversy having been passed to an innocent purchaser
for value, the execution of the absolute deed of sale in favor of the Ventanillas
could not be ordered by the trial court. Yet the court ruled in favor of the
Vetanillas. As it turned out, the execution of the judgment in favor of the
Ventanillas was yet far from fruition. Samuel Cleofe, Register of Deeds for
Quezon City (ROD Cleofe) revealed to them, that on March 11, 1992, MRCI
registered a deed of absolute sale to Marquez who eventually sold the same
property to the Saberons, which conveyance was registered in July 1992. ROD
Cleofe opined that a judicial order for the cancellation of the titles in the name of
the Saberons was essential before he complied with the writ of execution in Civil
Case No. 26411. Apparently, the notice of levy, through inadvertence, was not
carried over to the title issued to Marquez, the same being a junior encumbrance
which was entered after the contract to sell to Marquez had already been
annotated. Once again, the Ventanillas were constrained to go to court to seek
the annulment of the deed of sale executed between MRCI and Marquez as well
as the deed of sale between Marquez and the Saberons, as the fruits of void
conveyances. RTC ruled in favor of the Ventanillas Meanwhile, the Saberons
filed a case in the CA relying on one central argument—that they were
purchasers in good faith, having relied on the correctness of the certificates of
title covering the lots in question; and therefore, holders of a valid and
indefeasible title. CA ruled in favor of the Ventanillas. The Saberons filed the
present petition. Unknown to the Saberons, the former owner of the properties
had entered into contracts to sell with the Ventanillas, way back in 1970. It was
only upon receipt of the summons in the case filed by the Ventanillas with the
RTC that they learned of the present controversy. With the RTC and the CA
rulings against their title over the properties, the Saberons now come to the Court
with their vehement insistence that they were purchasers in good faith and for
value. Before purchasing the lots, they exercised due diligence and found no
encumbrance or annotations on the titles. At the same time, the Ventanillas also
failed to rebut the presumption of their good faith as there was no showing that
GROUP 4 - LTD
they confederated with MRCI and its officers to deprive the Ventanillas of their
right over the subject properties. According to the Saberons, the CA likewise
erred in ruling that there was no constructive notice of the levy made upon the
subject lands.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Saberon can be considered builders in good faith.
RULING:
The Court finds the Saberons to be builders in good faith.

No less than the court a quo observed that "no actual evidence that the
Saberons connived with the MRCI and Marquez to have the titles registered in
their names to the prejudice of the (Ventanillas)" and that what was obvious was
that "the Saberons dealt with clean certificates of titles." Also quite telling on this
point is the finding that MRCI, Krohn, Tabalingcos, and Marquez are liable to
the Saberons. The RTC reasoned out in the following wise:
This Court is not convinced, however that defendants Saberon took part in
the fraudulent scheme employed by the other defendants against the plaintiffs.
Although they may not be considered as innocent purchasers for value shown in
the discussion above, this Court is not ready to conclude that the Saberons joined
the other defendants in their efforts to frustrate plaintiffs’ rights over the disputed
properties. On the contrary, they may be considered victims of the same
fraudulent employed by defendants MRCI and Marquez, and thus can rightfully
claim damages from the same.
Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

The appealed March 12, 2010 Decision and the June 18, 2010 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 85520 are AFFIRMED with modification
in that the Ventanillas are given a period of sixty ( 60) days from finality of this
Resolution to decide whether to pay the Saberons the value of the improvements
and the necessary and useful expenses defrayed on the 2 lots or to oblige the
Saberons to pay them the "price" of said lots. Depending on the option exercised
by the Ventanillas, the case is hereby remanded to the court of origin for further
proceedings as to the determination of reimbursement due to the petitioners or of
the "price" of the subject lots due to the Ventanillas.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Real Estate Mortgage
HOME BANKERS SAVINGS & TRUST CO., vs. THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS,
G.R. No. 128354 April 26, 2005
FACTS:
Each of private respondents entered into separate contracts to sell with

TransAmerican Sales and Exposition (TransAmerican) through the latter’s
Owner/General Manager, Engr. Jesus Garcia, involving certain portions of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 19155, located at No. 45 Gen.
Lim Street, Heroes Hill, Quezon City, together with one unit three-storey
townhouse to be built on each portion.
On May 30, 1989, Engr. Garcia and his wife Lorelie Garcia obtained from
petitioner Home Bankers Savings and Trust Company (formerly Home Savings
Bank and Trust Company) a loan in the amount of P4,000,000.00 and without
the prior approval of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), the
spouses mortgaged eight lots covered by TCT Nos. 3349 to 3356 as collateral.
Petitioner registered its mortgage on these titles without any other encumbrance
or lien annotated therein. The proceeds of the loan were intended for the
development of the lots into an eight-unit townhouse project. However, five out
of these eight titles turned out to be private respondents’ townhouses subject of
the contracts to sell with Garcia/TransAmerican.
Petitioner filed its Answer contending that private respondents have no

cause of action against it; that at the time of the loan application and execution of
the promissory note and real estate mortgage by Garcia, there were no known
individual buyers of the subject land nor annotation of any contracts, liens or
encumbrances of third persons on the titles of the subject lots; that the loan was
granted and released without notifying HLURB as it was not necessary.
Petitioner filed its Answer contending that private respondents have no

cause of action against it; that at the time of the loan application and execution of
the promissory note and real estate mortgage by Garcia, there were no known
individual buyers of the subject land nor annotation of any contracts, liens or
encumbrances of third persons on the titles of the subject lots; that the loan was
granted and released without notifying HLURB as it was not necessary.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Private respondents filed their Reply and a motion for the judgment on the
pleadings. Petitioner did not file a rejoinder. The case against
Garcia/TransAmerican was archived for failure to serve summons on him/it
despite efforts to locate his whereabouts or its office. The case was then
considered submitted for decision.
On August 16, 1991, OAALA rendered its Decision in favor of the

petitioner. Petitioner filed an appeal with the Board of Commissioners of the
HLURB which dismissed the same in a decision dated June 15, 1992. Petitioner
then elevated the case to the Office of the President which rendered a decision
dated June 30, 1995 dismissing the appeal and affirming the June 15, 1992
decision of the HLURB. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied
in a Resolution dated May 7, 1996.
Petitioner filed a petition for review with the CA which, in the herein assailed
decision dated November 28, 1996, denied the petition and affirmed the decision
of the Office of the President.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Office of the President erred in ruling that HLURB has
jurisdiction to nullify or declare unenforceable the real estate mortgage validly
constituted by the owner.
HELD:
Petitioner cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value and in good

faith. Indeed it was negligent, as found by the Office of the President and by the
CA. Petitioner should not have relied only on the representation of the
mortgagor that the latter had secured all requisite permits and licenses from the
government agencies concerned. The former should have required the
submission of certified true copies of those documents and verified their
authenticity through its own independent effort.
Petitioner’s admission that it granted and released the loan without

notifying the HLURB because of its belief that it was not necessary to do so, is
fatal to petitioner’s defense. As a consequence thereof, the mortgage constituted
in favor of petitioner can be declared invalid as against private respondents even
without the presence of Garcia/TransAmerican. This petition was DISMISSED.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Dela Merced v. GSIS
G.R. No. 167140; November 23, 2011
FACTS:
This case involves five registered parcels of land located within the
Antonio Subdivision, Pasig City Lots 6, 7, 8, and 10 of Block 2 and Lot 8 of
Block 8 (subject properties). These lots were originally owned by, and titled in
the name of, Jose C. Zulueta (Zulueta), as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 26105 which contains several lots other than the subject
properties within the Antonio Subdivision.
Later, the Zulueta spouses mortgaged several lots contained in TCT No.
26105 to the GSIS, which eventually foreclosed on the mortgaged properties,
including the subject properties. Upon consolidation of GSISs ownership, TCT
No. 26105 in Zuluetas name was cancelled, and TCT No. 23554 was issued in
GSISs name.
Upon learning of the foreclosure, petitioners predecessor, Francisco Dela

Merced (Dela Merced), later on substituted by his heirs, filed a complaint
praying for the nullity of the GSIS foreclosure on the subject properties (Lots 6,
7, 8, and 10 of Block 2 and Lot 8 of Block 😎 on the ground that he, not the
Zuluetas, was the owner of these lots at the time of the foreclosure. Dela Merced
also impleaded Victor and Milagros Manlongat, who were claiming Lot 6, Block
2 by virtue of a sale executed by the GSIS in their daughters (Elizabeth
Manlongat) favor. Dela Merced argued that, due to the nullity of GSISs
foreclosure over the subject properties, it had no ownership right that could be
transferred to Elizabeth Manlongat.
After a protracted litigation, the SC rendered a Decision in the petitioners

favor and nullified GSISs foreclosure of the subject properties because these lots
were never part of its mortgage agreement with the Zulueta spouses. Pursuant to
the finality of the Decision, petitioners filed a Motion for Execution which GSIS
opposed on the basis of Section 39 of the GSIS Act of 1997 (RA 8291 which
allegedly exempts GSIS funds and properties from attachment, garnishment,
execution, levy and other court processes. A writ of execution was finally issued,
however, first by the RTC and then by the CA. The GSIS filed a petition for
review before the SC which was denied by the latter.
GROUP 4 - LTD
After the resolution of the issue of GSISs exemption, petitioners
encountered more problems with the execution of the Decision. According to the
RD of Pasig City, Policarpio Espenesin, he could not cancel the titles of GSIS
over Lots 7 and 8 because it no longer had title over these two lots and had
already conveyed the same to two other persons. Hence, the RD claimed that the
writ of execution must first be modified to include the cancellation of derivative
titles of the GSIS title.
ISSUES:
1. Can the GSIS still raise the issue of exemption?

2. Can a final and executory judgment against GSIS and Manlongat be
enforced against their successors-in-interest or holders of derivative titles?
3. Does an order to cancel title to a particular property include an order to
provide technical descriptions and segregate it from its mother title?
HELD:
1. The issue of GSIS's alleged exemption under RA 8291 had been finally
decided against when this Court denied GSIS's petition for review. GSIS's
attempt to resurrect the same issue by interjecting the
same in this proceeding is barred by the principle of "law of the case,"
which states that "determinations of questions of law will generally be held to
govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has
already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort."
2. A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a

particular real property is in litigation, serving as a warning that one who
acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles
on the result of the litigation over the said property. It is not disputed that
petitioners caused the annotation of lis pendens on TCT No. 23554 of the lots in
question. The current holders of the derivative titles to these lots were aware of
such annotation when the individual titles were issued to them. Ineluctably, both
were bound by the outcome of the litigation.
3. The order contained in the Decision in G.R. No. 140398 is for the RD to
cancel GSIS's titles over Lot 10, Block 2 and Lot 8, Block 8, inter alia. Whether
these titles are individual or contained in a mother title is of no consequence. The
RD has to cause their cancellation. If the cancellation can only be carried out by
requiring GSIS or the Bureau of Lands to provide the necessary information,
GROUP 4 - LTD
then they can be compelled to do so. Otherwise, the Courts decision would be
rendered inefficacious, and GSIS would retain ostensible ownership over the lots
by the simple expedience that they are included in a mother title, instead of
individual titles. That result is manifestly contrary to the Courts ruling and would
subvert the very purpose of bringing this case for a complete resolution.
Ruiz vs. Dumailig

G.R. No. 204280, Nov. 9, 2016
FACTS:
Respondent Bernardo F. Dimailig (Bernardo) was the registered owner of a

parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-361747 located in Alapan, Imus, Cavite. In
October 1997, he entrusted the owner's copy of the said TCT to his brother,
Jovannie, who in turn gave the title to Editha Sanggalang (Editha), a broker, for
its intended sale. However, in January 1998, the property was mortgaged to
Evelyn V. Ruiz (Evelyn) as evidenced by a Deed of REM without Bernardo's
knowledge and consent. Hence, Bernardo instituted this suit for annulment of the
Deed of REM.
In her Answer, Evelyn contended that she met Jovannie when she inspected
the subject property and assured her that Bernardo owned the property and his
title thereto was genuine. She further claimed that Jovannie mortgaged the
property to her. She also insisted that as a mortgagee in good faith and for value,
the REM cannot be annulled and that she had the right to keep the owner's copy
of TCT No. T-361747 until the loan was fully paid to her.
Bernardo testified that when he went abroad on October 19, 1997, he left
the owner's copy of the TCT of the subject property to Jovannie as they intended
to sell the subject property. However, on January 26, 1998, a REM was executed
on the subject property. Bernardo argued that his alleged signature appearing
therein was merely forged as he was still abroad at that time. When he learned in
September or November 1998 that Editha mortgaged the subject property, he
personally told Evelyn that the REM was fake and demanded the return of his
title.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner acquired any right or title to the said property
GROUP 4 - LTD
RULING:
No. The Court observes that Evelyn hastily granted the loan and entered
into the mortgage contract. As also testified by Corazon, a day after the supposed
ocular inspection on the property, Evelyn and "Bernardo" executed the Deed of
REM even without Evelyn verifying the identity of the property's occupant as
well as the right of the mortgagor, if any, over the same. Indeed, where the
mortgagee acted with haste in granting the loan, without first determining the
ownership of the property being mortgaged, the mortgagee cannot be considered
as an innocent mortgagee in good faith.
Thus, considering that the mortgage contract was forged as it was entered
into by Evelyn with an impostor, the registered owner of the property, Bernardo,
correspondingly did not lose his title thereon, and Evelyn did not acquire any
right or title on the property and cannot invoke that she is a mortgagee in good
faith and for value.
Sale Involving Real Estate
Esguerra vs Trinidad
G.R. No. 169890, March 12, 2007
FACT:
Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (Esguerra spouses) owned several

parcels of land half of which they sold to their grandchildren Feliciano, Canuto,
Justa, Angel, Fidela, Clara and Pedro, all surnamed Esguerra. The spouses sold
half the remaining land were sold their other grandchildren, the brothers Eulalio
and Julian Trinidad.. Subsequentlly, the Esguerra spouses executed the necessary
Deeds of Sale before a notary public. They also executed a deed of partitioning
of the lots , all were about 5,000 square meteres each.
Eulalio Trinidad (Trinidad) later sold his share of the land to his daughters.
During a cadastral survey conducted in the late 1960s, it was discovered that the
5,000-square meter portion of Esguerra‘s parcel of land sold to Trinidad actually
measured 6,268 square meters.
Feliciano Esguerra (Feliciano), who inhabits the lot bordering Trinidad,

subsequently filed a motion for nullification of sale between the Esguerra
spouses and Trinidad on the ground that they were procured through fraud or
GROUP 4 - LTD
misrepresentation. Feliciano contended that the stipulations in the deed of sale
was that Trinidad was sold a 5,000 square meter lot. The boundaries stipulated in
the contract of sale which extend the lot‘s area
Both cases were consolidated and tried before the RTC which, after trial,
dismissed the cases. On appeal, the appellate court also dismissed the cases; and
subsequently, the motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Appellate Court erred in holding that the description
and boundaries of the lot override the stated area of the lot in the deed of sale.
HELD:
Where both the area and the boundaries of the immovable are declared, the
area covered within the boundaries of the immovable prevails over the stated
area. In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which
should prevail.
What really defines a piece of ground is not the area, calculated with more
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 a mass, it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract
must control over any statement with respect to the area contained within its
boundaries. It is not of vital consequence that a deed or contract of sale of land
should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy. It is sufficient if its extent
is objectively indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it. An
error as to the superficial area is immaterial. Thus, the obligation of the vendor is
to deliver everything within the boundaries, inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof
that distinguishes the determinate object.
Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity, which

correlatively carries a strong presumption that the provisions of the law
governing the registration of land which led to its issuance have been duly
followed. Fraud being a serious charge, it must be supported by clear and
convincing proof. Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof, however.
The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovables are sold for
a single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is indispensable
GROUP 4 - LTD
in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number should be designated in the
contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that is included within said
boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contract;
and, should he not be able to do so, he shall suffer a reduction in the price, in
proportion to what is lacking in the area or number, unless the contract is
rescinded because the vendee does not accede to the failure to deliver what has
been stipulated.
In fine, under Article 1542, what is controlling is the entire land included
within the boundaries, regardless of whether the real area should be greater or
smaller than that recited in the deed. This is particularly true since the area of the
land in OCT No. 0-6498 was described in the deed as “humigit kumulang,” that
is, more or less.
A caveat is in order, however. The use of “more or less” or similar words in

designating quantity covers only a 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 in the land.
Del Prado vs Caballero

G.R. No. 148225, March 3, 2010
FACTS:
In a judgment rendered in Cadastral Case, Regional Trial Court (RTC),

adjudicated in favor of Spouses Antonio L. Caballero several parcels of land, one
of which was the subject of this controversy.
On May 25, 1987, the same court, ordered the National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration to issue the decree of registration and the
corresponding titles of the lots in favor of the Caballeros.
On June 11, 1990, respondents sold to petitioner, Carmen del Prado, the
said lot.
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering the lot was issued only on
November 15, 1990, and entered in the "Registration Book" of the City of Cebu
on December 19, 1990.
Within 1 year from date of entry of decree of registration, (On March 20,
1991), petitioner filed in the same cadastral proceedings a "Petition for
GROUP 4 - LTD
Registration of Document Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1529"7 in order that
a certificate of title be issued in her name.
Respondents opposed, on the main ground that the claimed area was
substantially excessive than that originally agreed upon. They moved for the
outright dismissal of the petition on grounds of prescription and lack of
jurisdiction.
RTC found in favor of petitioner
CA reverse RTC, because the latter has no jurisdiction. “Petition for

registration of document” is not a remedy under PD 1529. One year period has
lapsed.
ISSUE:
WON prescription has set in.
HELD:
Yes. For filing wrong remedy, the 1 year period had expired.
Petitioner’s recourse, by filing the petition for registration in the same

cadastral case, was improper. It is a fundamental principle in land registration
that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. Such indefeasibility commences after one year from the date of entry of
the decree of registration. Inasmuch as the petition for registration of document
did not interrupt the running of the period to file the appropriate petition for
review and considering that the prescribed one-year period had long since
expired, the decree of registration, as well as the certificate of title issued in favor
of respondents, had become incontrovertible.
Agatep vs Rodriguez
G.R. No. 170540, G.R. No. 170540, Oct. 28, 2009
FACTS:
Respondent Natalia Vda Lim owned a parcel of land in Zinundungan,

Lasam, Cagayan. Lim mortgaged said lot to the PNB to secure a loan worth
GROUP 4 - LTD
30,000 and the mortgage was duly annotated on the TCT of the land. While the
mortgage was in effect, Lim sold the property to the husband (Isaac Agatep) of
the petitioner Eufemia Balatico Vda De Agatep for 18,000.
The sale was not registered on the TCT and Lim also did not deliver the
title to Balatico or her husband Agatep. In spite of this, Agatep still took
possession of the same and fenced said lot. When Agatep died, his heirs
including petitioner continued possession of said property.
PNB foreclosed the said property when Lim could not pay her loan. Lim
also failed to redeem her property during the one year period of redemption.
PNB thus consolidated ownership over the land and a new TCT was issued in
PNBs name. PNB subsequently put up some of its acquired assets for sale which
included the subject lot. Roberta Rodriguez (the daughter of respondent Lim)
bought the same during the sale.This prompts Balatico to file a complaint for
reconveyance and/or damages with the RTC.
RTC- dismissed complaint but awarded damages to Balatico

CA- affirmed decision of RTC
ISSUE/S:
Whether PNB is a mortgagee, buyer and later seller in good faith

Whether PNB acquired ownership over the property
RULING:
PNB was a mortgagee, buyer, and later on, seller in good faith.
Petitioner insists that PNB is not a mortgagee in good faith asserting that, if
it only exercised due diligence, it would have found out that petitioner and her
husband were already in adverse possession of the subject property as early as
two years before the same was sold to them. This claim, however, is contradicted
by no less than petitioner's averments in her Brief filed with the CA wherein she
stated that "[i]mmediately after the sale, the land was delivered to Isaac Agatep .
. . Since that timeup to the present, Isaac Agatep and after his death, the
Appellant have been in continuous, uninterrupted, adverse and public possession
of the said parcel of land". The foregoing assertion only shows that petitioner's
husband took possession of the subject lot only after the same was sold to him.
GROUP 4 - LTD
In any case, the Court finds no error in the findings of both the RTC and the CA
that PNB is indeed an innocent mortgagee for value. When the lots were
mortgaged to PNB by Lim, the titles thereto were in the latter's name, and they
showed neither vice nor infirmity. In accepting the mortgage, PNB was not
required to make any further investigation of the titles to the properties being
given as security, and could rely entirely on what was stated in the aforesaid title.
The public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as
evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon,
protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relies upon what appears on
the face of the certificate of title.
PNB acquired ownership over the land.
Petitioner contends that PNB did not acquire ownership over the disputed
lot because the said property was not delivered to it. Petitioner asserts that the
execution of a public document does not constitute sufficient delivery to PNB,
considering that the subject property is in the adverse possession, under claim of
ownership, of petitioner and her predecessor-in-interest.
The court finds the argument untenable.
When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof
shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract,
if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred.(Art
1498, CC) Therefore, prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required
since the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to delivery. Thus,
the execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of PNB, after the expiration of the
redemption period, is deemed equivalent to delivery.
Petitioner avers that she and her husband were not aware of the mortgage
contract which was executed between PNB and Lim prior to the sale of the
subject property by the latter to her husband. The fact remains, however, that the
mortgage was registered and annotated on the certificate of title covering the
subject property.
It is settled that registration in the public registry is notice to the whole

world. Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined
every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption may not be
rebutted. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is
GROUP 4 - LTD
presumed to know every fact shown by the record and to know every fact which
an examination of the record would have disclosed.
In the present case, since the mortgage contract was registered, petitioner
may not claim lack of knowledge thereof as a valid defense. The subsequent sale
of the property to petitioner's husband cannot defeat the rights of PNB as the
mortgagee and, subsequently, the purchaser at the auction sale whose rights were
derived from a prior mortgage validly registered.
Caveat Emptor Principle
Sy vs Capistrano
G.R. No. 154450, July 28, 2008
FACTS:
Sometime in 1980, Nenita Scott (Scott) approached respondent Nicolas

Capistrano, Jr. (Capistrano) and offered her services to help him sell his 13,785
square meters of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 76496
of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City. Capistrano gave her a temporary
authority to sell which expired without any sale transaction being made. To his
shock, he discovered later that TCT No. 76496, which was in his name, had
already been cancelled on June 24, 1992 and a new one, TCT No. 249959, issued
over the same property on the same date to Josefina A. Jamilar. TCT No. 249959
likewise had already been cancelled and replaced by three (3) TCTs (Nos.
251524, 251525, and 251526), all in the names of the Jamilar spouses. TCT Nos.
251524 and 251526 had also been cancelled and replaced by TCT Nos. 262286
and 262287 issued to Nelson Golpeo and John B. Tan, respectively.
Thus, the action for reconveyance filed by Capistrano, alleging that his and
his wife's signatures on the purported deed of absolute sale in favor of Scott were
forgeries; that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496 in his name had
always been in his possession; and that Scott, the Jamilar spouses, Golpeo, and
Tan were not innocent purchasers for value because they all participated in
defrauding him of his property.
RTC:
Decided in favor of Capistrano.
GROUP 4 - LTD
1. Declaring plaintiff herein as the absolute owner of the parcel of land
located at the Tala Estate, Bagumbong, Caloocan City and covered by
TCT No. 76496;
CA: Affirmed the Decision of the trial court with the modification that the
Jamilar spouses were ordered to return to Sy, Golpeo, and Tan the amount
of P1,679,260.00 representing their full payment for the property, with
legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint until full
payment.
ISSUE(S):
(1) Whether the purported sale from Capistrano to Scott was a forgery
(2) Whether the petitioners were innocent purchasers for value
RULING:
Yes. The CA was correct in upholding the finding of the trial court that the
purported sale of the property from Capistrano to Scott was a forgery, and resort
to a handwriting expert was not even necessary as the specimen signature
submitted by Capistrano during trial showed marked variance from that found in
the deed of absolute sale.
The technical procedure utilized by handwriting experts, while usually

helpful in the examination of forged documents, is not mandatory or
indispensable to the examination or comparison of handwritings.
By the same token, we agree with the CA when it held that the deed of sale
between Scott and the Jamilars was also forged, as it noted the stark differences
between the signatures of Scott in the deed of sale and those in her handwritten
letters to Capistrano. DTESIA
No, they were not innocent purchasers for value.
The Jamilar spouses were not innocent purchasers for value of the subject
property. The CA properly held that they should have known that the signatures
of Scott and Capistrano were forgeries due to the patent variance of the
signatures in the two deeds of sale shown to them by Scott, when Scott presented
to them the deeds of sale, one allegedly executed by Capistrano in her favor
covering his property; and the other allegedly executed by Scott in favor of
Capistrano over her property, the P40,000.00 consideration for which ostensibly
GROUP 4 - LTD
constituted her initial and partial payment for the sale of Capistrano's property to
her.
The CA also correctly found the Gilturas not innocent purchasers for value,
because they failed to check the veracity of the allegation of Jamilar that he
acquired the property from Capistrano.
In ruling that Sy was not an innocent purchaser for value, we share the
observation of the appellate court that Sy knew that the title to the property was
still in the name of Capistrano, but failed to verify the claim of the Jamilar
spouses regarding the transfer of ownership of the property by asking for the
copies of the deeds of absolute sale between Capistrano and Scott, and between
Scott and Jamilar. Sy should have likewise inquired why the Gilturas had to affix
their conformity to the contract to sell by asking for a copy of the deed of sale
between the Jamilars and the Gilturas. Had Sy done so, he would have learned
that the Jamilars claimed that they purchased the property from Capistrano and
not from Scott.
We also note, as found by both the trial court and the CA, Tan's testimony
that he, Golpeo and Sy are brothers, he and Golpeo having been adopted by Sy's
father. Tan also testified that he and Golpeo were privy to the transaction
between Sy and the Jamilars and the Gilturas, as shown by their collective act of
filing a complaint for specific performance to enforce the contract to sell.
Also noteworthy — and something that would have ordinarily aroused suspicion
— is the fact that even before the supposed execution of the deed of sale by Scott
in favor of the Jamilars, the latter had already caused the subdivision of the
property into nine (9) lots, with the title to the property still in the name of
Capistrano.
Notable likewise is that the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496 in
the name of Capistrano had always been in his possession since he gave Scott
only a photocopy thereof pursuant to the latter's authority to look for a buyer of
the property. On the other hand, the Jamilars were able to acquire a new owner's
duplicate copy thereof by filing an affidavit of loss and a petition for the issuance
of another owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 76496. The minimum requirement
of a good faith buyer is that the vendee of the real property should at least see the
owner's duplicate copy of the title. A person who deals with registered land
through someone who is not the registered owner is expected to look beyond the
certificate of title and examine all the factual circumstances thereof in order to
determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He
GROUP 4 - LTD
has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing and
the latter's legal authority to convey.
Finally, there is the questionable cancellation of the certificate of title of

Capistrano which resulted in the immediate issuance of a certificate of title in
favor of the Jamilar spouses despite the claim that Capistrano sold his property to
Scott and it was Scott who sold the same to the Jamilars.
In light of the foregoing disquisitions, based on the evidence on record, we find
no error in the findings of the CA as to warrant a discretionary judicial review by
this Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE for failure to

establish reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Domingo Realty, Inc vs Court of Appels

G.r. No.. 126236; January 26, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner Domingo Realty filed a complaint for recovery of possession of

three parcels of land against private repondent acero, who had constructed a
factory building on a portion of said lots. During the pendency of the case, both
pertioner and acero executed a compromise agreement in which the latter
admitted that the property he is occupying by way lease is encroaching on a
portion of the property of petioner and undertakes to clear all structures within
the period of 60 days.
The RTC rendered a decison based on the compromise agreeement. Acero

then filed a motion to nullify the compromise agreement on the ground of
vagueness and mistake. The motion was denied. The court of appeals set aside
the decision of the RTC. Thus, petitioner filed this petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
Acero alleges that the compromise agreement is vague as there is still a

need to determine the exact metes and bounds of the encroachment on the
petitioner’s lot. Moreover, the agreement is mistaken as it is anchored on his
belief that the encroachment on the property of petitioner is only a portion and
not the entire lot he is occupying.
GROUP 4 - LTD
ISSUE:
WON should the compromise agreement entered into between petitioner

and private repondent be set aside on the ground of vaguenesss and mistake.
RULING:
No, the compromise agreement is valid. Artivle 1349 of the civil code
provieds that in order for the object of the contract to be considered as certain, it
is enough that the object is determinable. Here, the title over the subject property
contains a technical description that provides the metes and bounds of the
property of petitioner. Acero was also aware of the bounderies of the lot he
leased. Thus, the area of the encroachment is determinable without the need of a
new contract between the parties. Before consenting to the agreement, acero
could have simply hired a geodetic engineer to conduct a verification survey and
determine the actual enchoachment of the area he was leasing on the titles lot of
petitioner. Moreover, acero admitted that the property he is presently occupying
by way of leased is encroaching on a portion of the property of the plaintiff.
Thus, wheter it is only a portion or the entire lot acero is leasing that will be
affected by the agreement is of no importance. What controls is encroachment on
the lot of petitioner regardless of whatever the entire lot or only a porion
occupied by acero will be covered by the encroachment. Therefore, the
compromise agreement cannot be set aside on the ground of vagueness and
mistake.
LOCSIN v. HIZON
G.R. No. 204369 September 17, 2014
A purchaser of property under the Torrens system cannot simply invoke

that he is an innocent purchaser for value when there are attending circumstances
that raise suspicions.
FACTS:
Locsin filed an ejectment case against Aceron to recover possession over

the land. Eventually, they entered into a compromise agreement. Locsin later
went to the United States without knowing whether Aceron has complied with
his part. In spite of her absence, she continued to pay the real property taxes on
GROUP 4 - LTD
the subject lot. Later on, she discovered that the property was sold by one
Marylou Bolos to Bernardo but it was titled under his son, Carlos.
Locsin sent Carlos a letter requesting the return of the property since her
signature in the purported deed of sale in favor of Bolos was a forgery but Carlos
denied Locsin’s request, claiming that he was unaware of any defect or flaw in
the title and he is, thus, an innocent purchaser for value and good faith. Locsin
filed an action for reconveyance. The RTC dismissed the complaint holding that
Locsin cannot simply rely on the apparent difference of the signatures in the
deed and in the documents presented by her to prove her allegation of forgery
and that respondents are all buyers in good faith.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents are innocent purchasers for value.
RULING:
No. Bolos’ certificate of title was free from liens and encumbrances on its
face. However, the failure of Carlos and the spouses Guevara to exercise the
necessary level of caution in light of the factual milieu surrounding the sequence
of transfers from Bolos to respondents bars the application of the mirror doctrine.
The presence of anything which excites or arouses suspicion should prompt the
vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can
neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good
faith.
Bernardo and Carlos should have investigated the reason behind the
arrangement. They should have been pressed to inquire into the status of the title
of the property in litigation in order to protect Carlos’ interest. It should have
struck them as odd that it was Locsin, not Bolos, who sought the recovery of
possession by commencing an ejectment case against Aceron, and even entered
into a compromise agreement with the latter years after the purported sale in
Bolos’ favor. Instead, Bernardo and Carlos took inconsistent positions when they
argued for the validity of the transfer of the property in favor of Bolos, but in the
same breath prayed for the enforcement of the compromise agreement entered
into by Locsin.
Entering into a compromise agreement is an act of strict dominion. If Bolos
already acquired ownership of the property as early as 1979, it should have been
GROUP 4 - LTD
her who entered into a compromise agreement with Aceron in 1993, not her
predecessor-in-interest, Locsin, who, theoretically, had already divested herself
of ownership thereof.
Involuntary Dealings – Adverse Claim
Sajonas vs. Court of Appeals

G.r. No. 102377 July 5, 1996
FACTS:
The case is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of Levy on

Execution from a certificate of Title covering a parcel of real property. The
inscription was caused to be made by the private respondent on Transfer
Certificate of Title No. N-79073 of the Register of Deeds of Marikina, issued in
the name of the spouses Uychocde, and was later carried over to and annotated
on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the same registry, issued in the
name of the spouses Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land from the
Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in this case.
The subject property was bought by Sajonas spouses on September 1983

and caused the annotation of their adverse claim on August 1984. The Deed of
Sale was executed upon the full payment of the purchase price and the same was
registered only on August 1985.
Meanwhile, without the petitioners' knowledge, there has been a

compromise agreement between the spouses Uychocde and Pilares (Uychocde's
judgment creditor), and a notice of levy on execution was issued on February 12,
1985. On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto Garcia of Quezon City
presented said notice of levy on execution before the Register of Deeds of
Marikina and the same was annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry
No. 123283.
ISSUE:
WON the Deed of Absolute Sale is preferred than the notive of levy. The
Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on September 4, 1984, but was registered
only on August 28, 1985, while the notice of levy on execution was annotated six
(6) months prior to the registration of the sale on February 12, 1985.
GROUP 4 - LTD
DECISION:
The annotation of the adverse claim is equivalent to notice to third persons

of the interest of the claimant. The provision of the law (PD 1529) that the
adverse claim is only valid for 30 days cannot be upheld. Clearly, the intention of
the law is otherwise as may be gleaned on the following discussion:
“Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land
adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original
registration, may, if no other provision is made in this decree for registering the
same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest,
and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of certificate of title
of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of
the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s
residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This
statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of
title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date
of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim
may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in
interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim
based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a
petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the
cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon
the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as
may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the
registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after
notice and hearing shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous,
it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos, nor more
than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the
claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a
sworn petition to that effect.”
Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the apparent

inconsistency between the portions of the law such that the provision on
cancellation of adverse claim by verified petition would serve to qualify the
provision on the effectivity period. The law, taken together, simply means that
the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary to render it ineffective,
otherwise, the inscription will remain annotated and shall continue as a lien upon
GROUP 4 - LTD
the property. For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective upon the
lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer necessary and the process of
cancellation would be a useless ceremony.
To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as absolute and

without qualification limited to thirty days defeats the very purpose for which the
statute provides for the remedy of an inscription of adverse claim, as the
annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a
person over a piece of real property where the registration of such interest or
right is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or Act 496 (now
P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree), and serves as a warning to third
parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an interest or the
same or a better right than the registered owner thereof.
Petition was granted. The inscription of the notice of levy on execution on

TCT No. N-109417 is ordered CANCELLED.
Rodriguez vs. CA
G.R. No. 142587, July 20, 2006
FACTS:
Respondent Spouses Antonio and Maridel Calingo (respondents Calingo)

were the registered owners of a house and lot located at No. 7903 Redwood
Street, Marcelo Green Village, Parañaque, Metro Manila. The property was
mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines, which mortgage was
later absorbed by the Home Mutual Development Fund (HMDF) or Pag-ibig.
respondents Calingo and respondent Spouses Christopher and Ma. Angelica
Barrameda (respondents Barrameda) entered into a contract of sale with
assumption of mortgage where the former sold to the latter the property in
question and the latter assumed to pay the outstanding loan balance to the
Development Bank of the Philippines.respondents Barrameda executed a joint
affidavit stating that they are the owners of the property in question by virtue of a
deed of sale with assumption of mortgage; that they registered an affidavit of
adverse claim with the Register of Deeds of Parañaque; that the Sheriff of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati, Sheriff Manuel C. Dolor, levied said
property despite their adverse claim; and that they have acquired the property
long before the levy was made, and therefore, said levy was illegal. They served
a copy of the affidavit on petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Loyola, who made a reply
thereto on October 15, 1992.
GROUP 4 - LTD
In his letter to Christopher Barrameda dated October 15, 1992, Atty.

Loyola pointed out that the alleged deed of sale with assumption of mortgage
was not registered with the Register of Deeds and that the records of the HMDF
show that the property is owned by the Calingo spouses. He urged the Barrameda
spouses to confer with the petitioners to amicably settle the controversy.8
On November 9, 1992, respondents Barrameda found a Notice of Sheriff’s Sale
posted on their front gate, announcing the auction sale of their house and lot
ISSUE:
W/N respondents Barrameda’s adverse claim on the property should

prevail over the levy on execution issued by another court in satisfaction of a
judgment against respondents Calingo.
RULING:
Respondents Barrameda anchor their claim on the property on the deed of

sale with assumption of mortgage executed by them and respondents Calingo on
April 27, 1992. The Property Registration Decree13 requires that such document
be registered with the Register of Deeds in order to be binding on third persons.
The law provides:
Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of

registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the
same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds,
mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no
deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to
convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies. (emphasis supplied)
It is admitted in this case that the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage
was not registered, but instead, respondents Barrameda filed an affidavit of
adverse claim with the Register of Deeds.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Filinvest Dev. Corp. vs. Golden Haven Digest

G.R. No. 187824: November 17, 2010
GOLDEN HAVEN MEMORIAL PARK, INC., Petitioner v. FILINVEST

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 188265: November 17, 2010
FACTS:
Yap, Vivar, Cruz, Aquino, Corpuz and Sobremesana and other relatives
inherited a parcel of land in Las Pinas. They had it judicially divided into 13
parcels Lots 1 and 12 went to Aquino, 2 went to Corpuz and Sobremesana, 6
went to Yap, Cruz and the Vivars. Others went to other relatives.
Yap, acting for herself and for Cruz and the Vivars, executed an agreement
to sell Lot 6 in favor of Golden Haven Memorial Park, Inc. (GHM), payable in
three installments. Another heir, Aquino, acting for himself and for Corpuz and
Sobremesana, also executed an agreement to sell Lots 1, 2, and 12 in favor of
GHM, payable in the same manner.In both instances, GHM paid the
firstinstallment upon execution of the contract. GHM stated that it was waiting
for the title to be consolidated in their names for it to pay the 2nd instalment.
Filinvest Development Corporation (Filinvest) applied for the transfer in its

name of the titles over Lots 2, 4, and 5 but the Las Pic Register of Deeds
declined its application.Upon inquiry, Filinvest learned that Lot 8, a lot
belonging to some other heir or heirs and covered by the same mother title, had
been sold to Household Development Corporation (HDC), a sister company of
GHM, and HDC held the owners duplicate copy of that title. Filinvest alleged
that it bought Lots 1, 2, 6, and 12 of the property from their respective owners as
evidenced by three deeds of absolute sale in its favor dated September 10,
November 18, and December 29, 1989 and that Filinvest was entitled to the
registrations of such sales.
GHM filed against the sellers and Filinvest a complaint for the annulment
of the deeds of sale issued in the latters favor before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Las Pis City in Civil Case 91-098.On March 16, 2006 the RTC
rendered a decision after trial, declaring the contracts to sell executed by some of
the heirs in GHMs favor valid and enforceable and the sale in favor of Filinvest
null and void.Only Filinvest appealed among the defendants.
GROUP 4 - LTD
On November 25, 2008 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC
decision with respect to the validity of the contract to sell Lot 6 in GHMs
favor.But the CA declared the contracts to sell Lots 1, 2, and 12 in GHMs favor
void and the sale of the same lots in favorof Filinvest valid.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the contracts to sell that the sellers executed in GHMs
favor covering the same lots sold to Filinvest are valid and enforceable.
HELD:
Yes, they are valid contracts.
Civil Law: Buyer in good faith
To prove good faith, the rule is that the buyer of registered land needs only
show that he relied on the title that covers the property.But this is true only
when, at the time of the sale, the buyer was unaware of any adverse claim to the
property.Otherwise, the law requires the buyer to exercise a higher degree of
diligence before proceeding with his purchase.He must examine not only the
certificate of title, but also the sellers right and capacity to transfer any interest in
the property.In such a situation, the buyer must show that he exercised
reasonable precaution by inquiring beyond the four corners of the title.Failing in
these, he may be deemed a buyer in bad faith.
Here, Filinvest was aware of the notation of adverse claim in the mother
title. The notice is a warning to third parties dealing with the property that
someone claims an interest in it or asserts a better right than the registered
owner.Such notice constitutes, by operation of law, notice to the whole
world.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
notice served as warning to it that one of the owners was engaged in double
selling.
One who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such
inquiry and investigation cannot claim that he has acquired title to the property in
good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest in it.
Petition denied for GR No 187824.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Martinez vs. Garcia

G.R. No. 166536, February 4, 2010
FACTS:
Respondent Edilberto Brua was the registered owner of a parcel of land

located in Mandaluyong, Rizal. The property was first mortgaged to the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on June 5, 1974. On February 5,
1980, respondent Brua obtained a loan from his brother-in-law, respondent
Ernesto Garcia, in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P150,000.00) and, to secure the payment of said loan, respondent Brua
mortgaged the subject property to respondent Garcia, as evidenced by a Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage executed in respondent Garcia's favor. Since the title to the
subject property was in the possession of the GSIS and respondent Garcia could
not register the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, he then executed an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim and registered it with the Registry of Deeds of Rizal on June 23,
1980, which remained uncanceled up to this time.
Sometime in October 1991, respondent Brua requested respondent Garcia

to pay the former's loan with the GSIS, so that the title to the subject property
would be released to the latter. Respondent Garcia then paid GSIS the amount of
P400,000.00 and, thus, the title to the subject property was released to him.
On October 22, 1991, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed between

respondents Garcia and Brua over the subject property, where respondent Brua
sold the property in the amount of P705,000.00. In the same deed, it was stated
that the subject property was only a partial payment of respondent Brua's
mortgage indebtedness to respondent Garcia, which he could no longer redeem
from the latter. Respondent Garcia then registered the Deed of Sale with the
Registry of Deeds of Rizal on October 24 1991. However, the annotations at the
back of the previous title were carried over to the new title, to wit: Entry No.
56837, a Notice of Levy on Attachment and/or Levy inscribed on January 8,
1981; Entry No. 2881 showing a Notice of Levy on Execution in favor of
petitioner Flor Martinez, which was inscribed on July 11, 1988; Entry No. 3706,
which was a Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner inscribed on September 2,
1988; Entry No. 72854, which was a Notice of Levy on Execution in favor of
Pilipinas Bank inscribed on December 8, 1981; and Entry No. 16611 inscribed
on October 24, 1991, which was the cancellation of respondent Brua's mortgage
with GSIS.
GROUP 4 - LTD
It appeared that the annotations found at the back of the title of the subject
property in favor of petitioner, i.e., Notice of Levy on Attachment and/or Levy,
Notice of Levy on Execution, and Certificate of Sale, were all made in
connection with petitioner's action for Collection of Sum of Money, which she
filed against respondent Brua at the RTC of Makati City. In that case, a decision
was rendered in favor of petitioner. The decision became final and executory as
respondent Brua failed to appeal the same, and a notice of levy on execution was
issued. A public auction was subsequently conducted, where the subject property
was awarded to petitioner as the sole bidder in the amount of P10,000.00, and a
Certificate of Sale was issued in her favor.
The annotation of Pilipinas Bank's Notice of Levy on Execution annotated

on the title of the subject property was by virtue of a civil case filed by Filipinas
Manufacturers Bank, now known as Pilipinas Bank, against respondent Brua.
On February 9, 1994, respondents Garcia and Brua filed with the RTC of
Pasig, Branch 267, an Action to Quiet Title, initially against petitioner due to the
encumbrances/liens annotated on respondent Garcia's new title. They contended
that these encumbrances/liens were registered subsequent to the annotation of
respondent Garcia's adverse claim made in 1980, and prayed that these be
canceled. Subsequently, the complaint was amended to include Pilipinas Bank as
an additional defendant. Petitioner and Pilipinas Bank filed their respective
Answers thereto.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Garcia’s adverse claim is valid.
HELD:
A subsequent sale of property covered by a certificate of title cannot

prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to and annotated on the certificate of
title previous to the sale.
The court also found that a Notice of Adverse Claim remains valid even
after the lapse of 30 days, as provided for in Sec. 70 of Presidential Decree No.
(PD) 1529 pursuant to our ruling in Sajonas v. CA; that since no petition was
filed by petitioner for the cancellation of respondent Garcia's Notice of Adverse
GROUP 4 - LTD
Claim, the adverse claim subsisted and his rights over the subject property must
consequently be upheld.
The adverse claim already existed when the Notice of Levy on Execution,
as well as the Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner, was inscribed on July 11,
1988 and September 2, 1988, respectively; and, hence, the adverse claim is
sufficient to constitute constructive notice to petitioner regarding the subject
property. Petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of respondent Garcia's claim
and could not be considered as a buyer in good faith at the time she purchased
the subject property in the public auction; that petitioner could not claim that she
was a purchaser in good faith, since respondent Garcia's adverse claim was
entered on June 23, 1980, eight years ahead of petitioner's Certificate of Sale on
September 2, 1988; that when the Notice of Levy on Execution in favor of
Pilipinas Bank was annotated on respondent Brua's title, the sheriff who caused
the annotation was charged with knowledge that the property sought to be levied
upon on execution was encumbered by an interestnd that such notice of levy
could not prevail over the existing adverse claim of respondent Garcia inscribed
on the title.
Enforcement of Liens on Registered Land and Application of New

Certificate upon expiration of Redemption Period
PADILLA, JR. vs. PHILIPPINE PRODUCERS’ COOPERATIVE

MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.,
G.R. No. 141256 July 15, 2005
FACTS:
Petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of the following real
properties. Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim
against petitioner.
Respondent filed a civil case against petitioner for collection of a sum of

money in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City which the trial court rendered
a decision in its favor On November 28, 1989. The subject property lot was
auctioned off to satisfy the judgment, with respondent as the only bidder.
Consequently, a certificate of sale was executed in favor of respondent and the
same was recorded in the Register of Deeds on August 13, 1990.
GROUP 4 - LTD
When petitioner failed to exercise his right of redemption within the 12-
month period allowed by law, the court, on motion of respondent, ordered on
February 5, 1992 the issuance of a writ of possession for the sheriff to cause the
delivery of the physical possession of the properties in favor of respondent
On May 17, 1995, respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to
issue new titles over the properties in its name, alleging that the Register of
Deeds (RD) of Bago City would not issue new titles (in respondent’s name)
unless the owner’s copies were first surrendered to him.
On July 3, 1995, the trial court issued an order granting the motion. In a
subsequent order dated August 8, 1995, it denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner appealed. Four years later, the Court of Appeals
rendered the assailed decision affirming the order of the trial court. Petitioner
argues that respondent failed to follow the correct procedure for the cancellation
of a certificate of title and the issuance of a new one.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for cancelling
petitioner’s certificates of title and new ones issued in its name.
RULING:
Petitioner is correct in assailing as improper respondent’s filing of a mere

motion for the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a
result of petitioner’s refusal to surrender his owner’s duplicate TCTs. This called
for a separate cadastral action initiated via petition. The proper course of action
was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for the issuance of new
titles.
Sec. 75 of PD 1529 provides that upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed
by law for redemption after the registered land has been sold on execution, or
taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage
lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the
court for the entry of a new certificate to him.
The reasons behind the law make a lot of sense; it provides due process to a
registered landowner (in this case the petitioner) and prevents the fraudulent or
mistaken conveyance of land, the value of which may exceed the judgment
obligation. The respondent cannot simply disregard proper procedure for the
issuance to it of new certificates of title. There was a law on the matter and
GROUP 4 - LTD
respondent should have followed it. In any event, respondent can still file the
proper petition with the cadastral court for the issuance of new titles in its name.
REYES VS. TANG SOAT ING

G.R. No.185620 , December 14, 2011
FACTS:
The controversy arose from a complaint for Enforcement of Easement and

Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order filed by
MFR Farms, Inc. (MFR) against respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 1245-
M. MFR complained of respondents commercial and industrial use of their
propert, and sought the enforcement of the encumbrance contained in their title.
MFR likewise asked for the payment of damages suffered by its pig farm
resulting from respondents illegal use of their property.
The sheriff presented the Writ of Execution, the Notice of Levy on

Execution of Real Property a Notice of Sale on Execution of Real Property,
respectively, and published such notices. However there was no reply from
respondent on all notices.
At the public auction of the subject property covered by TCT No. T-

198753, MFR was declared as the highest bidder. On even date, Sheriff Legaspi
issued a Certificate of Sale which was registered with the Register of Deeds of
Bulacan Province.
After more than five (5) years, on September 17, 2004, with respondents
failing to exercise their right of redemption, MFR filed a Motion asking the RTC
to issue an order directing the Register of Deeds of Bulacan Province to cancel
TCT in the name of respondents, and issue a new certificate of title in the name
of MFR.
A Motion for Substitution of Party Petitioner attaching thereto a Deed of

Transfer of Interest declaring petitioner Ruben C. Reyes (Reyes) acquisition of
MFRs rights over the subject property. On January 2, 2006, the RTC issued an
Order granting this latest motion: MFR was substituted by Reyes as party-
petitioner.
GROUP 4 - LTD
On April 27, 2006, Reyes filed another Motion praying that the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan Province be directed to cancel TCT and to issue a new one in
his (Reyes) name.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the execution sale of the subject property is void;
2. Proceeding from the validity of the execution sale and the consolidation
of Reyes ownership over the subject property, whether the filing of a separate
cadastral case before the RTC acting as a land registration court.
HELD:
The records bear out that as of October 9, 1998, and on two occasions
thereafter, December 10 & 28, 1998, Sheriff Legaspi served a copy of the Writ
of Execution on respondents, and followed up thereon. With no action
forthcoming from respondents, who are ostensibly evading payment of their
judgment debt, the Sheriff correctly levied on the subject property. For more than
five (5) years from the execution sale thereof, with respondents not exercising
their right of redemption, up to the filing of a Motion, and subsequently, a
Petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title over the property in Reyes
name, respondents made no effort to settle their judgment debt, much less, to
ascertain the status of the execution proceedings against them and the levy on,
and consequent sale of, their property. Truly significant is the fact that eight (8)
years had lapsed, from the time respondents received a copy of the Writ of
Execution in October 1998 until they, through their new counsel, filed the
Opposition and Motion in May 2006, before respondents were prodded into
action.
Petitioner alleges that it resorted to filing the contested motion because it

could not obtain new certificates of title, considering that respondents refused to
surrender his owners duplicate TCTs. This contention is incorrect. The proper
course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, for the
issuance of new titles.
Respondent cannot simply disregard proper procedure for the issuance to it

of new certificates of title. There was a law on the matter and respondent should
have followed it.
GROUP 4 - LTD
In any event, respondent can still file the proper petition with the cadastral
court for the issuance of new titles in its name.
Plainly, Reyes must institute a separate cadastral action initiated via

petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 96913 annulling and setting aside the
Orders dated July 17, 2006 and October 20, 2006 issued by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 7, Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 1245-M is MODIFIED:
1. The public auction sale of the subject property is declared VALID;
2. The Certificate of Sale issued by the sheriff in favor of MFR Farms, Inc.
(substituted by petitioner Ruben C. Reyes) covering the parcel of land is likewise
declared VALID; and
3. The Petition filed by MFR Farms, Inc. (substituted by Ruben C. Reyes)

is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing as a separate original action
pursuant to Section 107 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.
Lis Pendens
Viewmaster Construction Corporation vs Maulit

G.R. NO. 136283, February 29, 2000
FACTS:
The subject property is known as the Las Pias property registered in the
name of Peltan Development Inc. (now State Properties Corporation) covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. (S-17992) 12473-A situated in Barrio Tindig na
Manga, Las Pias, Rizal. The Chiong/Roxas family collectively owns and controls
State Investment Trust, Inc.
Defendant Allen Roxas, one of the stockholders of State Investment Trust,

Inc. applied for a loan with First Metro Investment, Inc. (First Metro for brevity)
in the amount of P36,500,000.00 in order to participate in the bidding. First
Metro granted Allen Roxas' loan application without collateral provided,
however, that he procure a guarantor/surety/solidary co-debtor to secure the
payment of the said loan.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Petitioner Viewmaster agreed to act as guarantor for the aforementioned

loan in consideration for its participation in a Joint Venture Project to co-develop
the real estate assets of State Investment Trust, Inc., agreeing that in the event
Roxas wins in the bidding, he shall sell to petitioner fifty percent of the total
eventual acquisitions of shares of stock in the State Investment Trust, Inc..
However, notwithstanding the lapse of two (2) years, he (Roxas) failed to take
the necessary action to implement the Joint Venture Project with petitioner
Viewmaster.
On September 8, 1995, petitioner Viewmaster filed a Complaint for

Specific Performance, Enforcement of Implied Trust and Damages against State
Investment Trust, Inc. Northeast Land Development, Inc., State Properties
Corporation (formerly Peltan Development, Inc.) and defendant Allen Roxas, in
his capacity as Vice-Chairman of State Investment Trust, Inc., and Chairman of
Northeast Land Development, Inc., State Properties Corporation, which was
docketed as Civil Case No.65277. Esmm is
On September 11,1995, petitioner Viewmaster filed a Notice of Lis

Pendens with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and Las Pias for the
annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens on Transfer Certificate of Title No. (S-
17992) 12473- A, registered in the name of Peltan Development, Inc. (now State
Properties Corporation).
In a letter dated September 15, 1995, the respondent Register of Deeds of

Las Pias denied the request for annotation of the Notice of Lis Pendens on the
following grounds:
1. the request for annotation and the complaint [do] not contain an
adequate description of the subject property;
2. petitioner's action only has an incidental effect on the property in

question.
On September 20, 1995, petitioner filed an appeal to the respondent Land

Registration Authority, which was docketed as Consulta No. 2381.
On December 14, 1995, the Respondent Land Registration Authority issued

the assailed Resolution holding that petitioner's 'Notice of Lis Pendens' was not
registrable."
GROUP 4 - LTD
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner failed to adequately describe the subject

property in its complaint and in the notice of lis pendens.
HELD:
Petitioner contends that the absence of the property's technical description

in either the notice of lis pendens or the Complaint is not a sufficient ground for
rejecting its application, because a copy of TCT No. (S-17992) 12473-A
specifically describing the property was attached to and made an integral part of
both documents.
On the other hand, respondents argue that petitioner failed to provide an

accurate description of the Las Pias property, which was merely referred to as a
"parcel of land."
The notice of lis pendens described the property as follows:
"A parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Tindig na Manga,

Municipality of Las Pias, Province of Rizal x x x containing an area of
Seven Hundred Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty Seven (786,167)
square meters, more or less."
As earlier noted, a copy of the TCT was attached to and made an integral
part of both documents. Consequently, the notice of lis pendens submitted for
registration, taken as a whole, leaves no doubt as to the identity of the property,
the technical description of which appears on the attached TCT. We stress that
the main purpose of the requirement that the notice should contain a technical
description of the property is to ensure that the same can be distinguished and
readily identified. In this case, we agree with petitioner that there was substantial
compliance with this requirement.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Atlantic Erectors v. Herbal Cove Realty
G.R. No. 148568, March 20, 2003
FACTS:
Atlantic Erectors and Herbal Cove Realty entered into a Construction

Contract, whereby Atlantic agreed to construct a four unit townhouse for a
specified contract price. The contract period was for 180 days.
Atlantic claims the period was not followed due to reasons attributable to
Herbal (i.e. suspension orders, additional works). However, Herbal denied such
claims and pointed to Atlantic as having exceeded the 180 period aggravated by
defective workmanship and utilization of materials which were not in
compliance with specifications.
Atlantic filed a complaint for sum of money representing cost of materials

and for labor on the houses constructed with damages with the RTC of Makati.
In addition, they also filed a notice of lis pendens for annotation during the
pendency of the civil case they filed.
Herbal filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction and
for failure to state a cause of action. In addition, they filed a Motion to Cancel
Notice of Lis Pendens. They argue that the Notices of lis pendens are without
basis because the action is a purely personal action to collect a sum of money
and recover damages and does not directly affect title to, use, or possession of
real property. RTC initially granted the Motion to Cancel Notice; however, they
reversed and reinstated the Notices after Atlantic filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. CA reinstated the initial order of the RTC granting Herbal’s
Motion to Cancel the Notice of Lis Pendens.
ISSUE:
Whether or not money claims representing cost of materials for and

labor on the houses constructed on property are a proper lien for annotation of
lis pendens on the property titled.
HELD:
No. As a general rule, the only instances in which a notice of lis pendens
may be availed of are as follows: (a) an action to recover possession of real
GROUP 4 - LTD
estate; (b) an action for partition; and (c) any other court proceedings that
directly affect the title to the land or the building thereon or the use or the
occupation thereof. The complaint was a purely personal action and a simple
collection case. It did not contain any material averment of any enforceable right,
interest or lien in connection with the subject matter. The annotation of a notice
of lis pendens on titles is not proper where the proceedings instituted are actions
in personam.
Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank Vs. Felonia

(G.R. No. 189477, Feb. 26,2014)
FACTS:
Felonia and De Guzman mortgaged a parcel of land to Delgado to secure a

loan. However, instead of a real estate mortgage, the parties executed a deed of
absolute sale with an option to repurchase thus Felonia and De Guzman filed an
action for reformation of instrument.
In spite of the pendency of the reformation case in which she was the
defendant, Delgado filed a petition for consolidation of ownership of property
sold with an option to repurchase and issuance of a new certificate of title. The
RTC declared Delgado the absolute owner and ordered the registry of Deeds to
issue a new certificate of title in the name of Delgado.
Delgado mortgage the property to Homeowners Savings and Loan Bank

(HSLB) using her newly registered title. Felonia and De Guzman subsequently
caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on Delgados title. On November
1997, HSLB foreclosed the property and later consolidated ownership in its
favor.Felonia and De Guzman instituted a complaint before RTC of Las Pinas
for reconveyance ofpossession and ownership of the subject property in their
favor. As defendant,HLRB contended that it was a mortgagee in good faith.RTC
ruled in favor of Felonia and De Guzman. CA affiremed the RTC decision.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT HSLB IS A MORTGAGEE AND A PURCHASER

IN GOOD FAITH.
GROUP 4 - LTD
HELD:
No. Decision of CA sustained.
Although the doctrine of mortegagee in good faith, upon which petitioner

relies, was clarified as “based on the rule that all persons dealing with property
covered by the Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or mortgagees , are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. In turn, the rule is
based on public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as
evidence of lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance thereon”.
Insofar as the HSLB is concerned, there is no longer any public interest in

upholding the indefeasibility of the certificate of title of its mortgagor, Delgado.
Such title has been nullified in a decision that had become final and executor. Its
own title, derived from the foreclosure of Delgado’s mortgage in its favor, has
likewise been nullified in the very same decision that restored the certificate of
title in respondent’s name. There is absolutely no reason that can support the
prayer of HSLB to have mortgage lien carried over and into the restored
certificate of title of respondents.
Moreover, HLSB utterly failed to take the necessary precautions. At the

time the subject property was mortgaged, at the time HSLB purchased the
subject property, the notice of Lis Pendens was already annotated on the title.
When a prospective buyer is faced with the facts and circumstances as to arouse
his suspicion, he must take precautionary steps to qualify as a purchaser in good
faith.
Indeed, at the time HSLB bought the subject property, HSLB had actual
knowledge of the annotated Notice of Lis Pensdens. Instead of heeding the same,
HSLB continued with the purchase knowing the legal repercussions a notice of
lis pendens details.
Casim Vs. RD of Las Piñas

G.R. No. 1688655, July 2, 2010
FACTS:
On March 22, 2004, Petitioner filed with the RTC of Las Pinas , Branch
253 an original petition for the cancellation of the notice of Lis pendens, as well
as of all the other entries of Involuntary encumbrances annotated on the original
GROUP 4 - LTD
copy of TCT no. 49936. Petitioner claimed that its owner’s duplicate copy of
TCT was clean at time of its delivery and that it was surprised to learn later on
that the original copy of its TCT, on file with the Register of Deeds , contained
several entries which all signified that the covered property had been subjected to
various claims.
The Intestate estate of Bruneo F. Casim, representing Bruneo F. Casim,

intervened in the case and filed a comment /opposition in which it maintained
that the RTC of Las Pinas did not have jurisdiction over the present action,
because the matter of cancellation of notice of lis pendens lies with the
jurisdiction of the court before which the main action referred to in the notice is
pending. In this regard, it emphasized that the case referred to in the said notice
had already finality as the supreme court had issued an entry of judgement
therein and that the RTC of Makati City had ordered execution in that case.
In response to petitioner’s allegation, and as opposed to petitioners claim

that there was no carryover of encumbrances made in TCT No. 49936 from the
mother title TCT no. 30459, the latter would show that it also had the same
inscription as those found in TCT No. 49936 only that they were entered in the
original copy on file with the register of deeds.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE RTC OF LAS PIÑAS CITY , BRANCH 253 HAS

JURUSDICTION IN AN ORIGINAL ACTION TO CANCEL THE NOTICE
OF LIS PENDENS ANNOTATED ON THE SUBJECT TITLE OF
PETITIONER.
RULING:
NO. RTC of Las Piñas has no jurisdiction in an original action to cancel the
notice of lis pendens annotated on the subject title of petitioner. A notice of lis
pendens , once duly registered, may be cancelled by the trial court before which
the action involving the property is pending. This power is said to be inherent in
the trial court and is exercised only under express provisions of law.
Accordingly, Section 14, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure

authorizes the trial court to cancel the notice of Lis pendens where it is properly
shown that the purpose of its annotation is for molesting the adverse party, or
GROUP 4 - LTD
that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be
annotated.
Levies on Execution
Arlyn Pineda Vs Julie Arcalas

G.R. No. 170172 Nov. 23,2007
FACTS:
Subject property originally owned spouses Lateo covered by a transfer

certificate of title consists of 3 lands.These properties were bought by Victoria
Tolentino from Spouses Lateo. Sometimes later, Civil Case No. Q-96-27884, for
sum of money, was instituted by Arcalas against Victoria Tolentino. This case
stemmed from an indebtedness evidenced by a promissory note and four post-
dated checks later dishonored, which Victoria Tolentino owned Arcalas.
RTC: rendered decision in favor of Arcalas and against Victoria Tolentino.
To execute the judgement, the Quezon City RTC levied upon the subject
property and the notice of levy on Alias Writ of Execution dated 12 January
1999 was annotated as Entry No. 315074, in relation to Entry No. 319362, at the
back of TCT No. T-52319.
Asserting ownership of the subject property, Pineda filed with the Deputy
Sheriff of the Quezon City RTC an Affidavit of Title and Third party Claim.
Pineda alleged that he bought the subject property from Victoria L. Tolentino
that upon payment of the purchase price, she took possession of the subject
property by allowing a tenant , Rodrigo Bautista to cultivate the same. However,
Pineda failed to register the subject property under her name.
Arcalas filed a motion to set aside Pineda’s affidavit of Title and Third
Party Claim. Arcalas showed that her levies on the properties were duly
registered while the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale between the defendant
Victoria L Tolentino and Arlyn Pineda was not. The levies being superior to the
sale claimed by Ms. Pineda, the court rules to quash and set aside her affidavit of
Title and third party, claim. Thus the affidavit of Title and Third-party claim is
set aside to allow completion of execution proceedings.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Pineda appealed the Order of the Laguna RTC before the Court of Appeals
under Rule 44 of the Rules of court. In a Resolution dated 25 January 2005.
CA dismissed the appeal and considered it abandoned when Pineda failed

to file her appellants brief.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE LEVY ON ALIAS WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED

BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY IN CIVIL CASE
NO. Q-96-27884 MAY EXEMPT THE PORTION BOUGHT BY (PINEDA)
FROM VICTORIA TOLENTINO.
RULING:
NO. Section 51 and 52 of PD. No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property
Registration Decree, provides that the act of registration shall be the operative
act to convey or affect the land insofar as third person is concerned, and in all
cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the
Registry of Deeds for the province or the city where the land lies. Art 52 of PD
1529 also provides the before the purchaser of land causes the registration of the
transfer of the subject property in her favor, third persons, such as Arcalas,
cannot bound thereby. Insofar as third person is concerned , what validly transfer
or conveys a persons interest in real property is the registration of the deed. As
the Deed of sale was unrecorded, it operates merely as a between the parties.
In the case at bar, the attachment in favor of respondent appeared in the

nature of a real lien when a petitioner had his purchase recorded. The effect of
the notation of said lien was to subject and subordinate the right of the petitioner,
as purchaser, to the lien. Petitioner acquired ownership of the land only from the
date of the recording of his title in the register, and the right of ownership which
he inscribed was not absolute but a limited right, subject to a prior registered
lien of respondent, a right which is preferred and superior to that of petitioner.
GROUP 4 - LTD
Valdevieso Vs. Damalerio
G.R. No. 133303, Feb. 17 2005
FACTS:
On 05 December 1995, Bernardo Valdevieso bought from spouses Lorenzo

and Elenita Uy a parcel of land. The deed of sale was not registered nor was the
title of the land transferred to petitioner. It came to pass that on 19 April 1996,
sposes Candelario and Aurea Damalerio filed with the RTC a complaint for a
sum of money against spouses Lorenzo and Elenita Uy with application for the
issuance of a writ of Preliminary attachment by virtue of which the property,
then still in the name of Lorenzo Uy but which had already been sold to
petitioner was levied. The levy was duly recorded in the register of deeds on 06
June 1996. TCT No. T-30586min the name of Lrenzo uy was cancelled and in
lieu thereof TCT No. carried with it the attachment in favor of respondents. On
14 August 1996 petitioner filed a third party claim to discharge or annul the
attachment levied on the property covered by TCT No. T-74439 on the ground
that the said property belongs to him and no longer Lorenzo and Elenita Uy. The
trial Court ruled for the petitioner. Respondents sought reconsideration thereof
which was denied by the trial court. From the unfavorable resolution of the trial
court in the third-party claim, respondents appealed to the court of appeals. The
appellate court reversed the resolution, Petitioner moved for reconsideration but
this was denied by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for review on
Certiorari.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT A REGISTERED WRIT OF ATTACHMENT ON

THE LAND IS A SUPERIOR LIEN OVER THAT OF AN EARLIER
UNREGISTERED DEED OF SALE?
RULING:
We agree with the respondents. The law applicable to the facts of this case
is Section 51 of P.D. No. 1529. Said section provides: Conveyance and other
dealings by registered owner. An owner of registered land may convey,
mortgage, lease , charge, or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with the
existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other
voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or
registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance of bind the land, but shall
GROUP 4 - LTD
operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence o f authority to the
register of deed to make registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all case under this decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies. It is noted that though the subject land was deeded to
petitioner as early as 05 December 1995, it was not until 06 June 1996 that the
conveyance was registered, and, during that interregnum, the land was subjected
to a levy on attachment. It should also be observed that, at the time of the
attachment of the property on 23 April 1996, the spouses Uy were still the
registered owners of said property. Under the cited law, the execution of the deed
of sale in favor of petitioner was not enough as a succeeding step had to be
taken, which was the registration of the sale from the spouses Uy to him. Insofar
as third persons are concerned, what validly transfers or conveys a person’s
interest in real property is the registration of the deed. Thus, when petitioner
bought the property on 05 December 1995, it was, at that point, no more than a
private transaction between him and the spouses Uy. It needed to be registered
before it could bind third parties, including respondents. When the registration
finally took place on 06 June 1996, it was already too late because, by then, the
levy in favor of respondents, pursuant to the preliminary attachment ordered by
the General Santos City RTC, had already been annotated on the title.
GROUP 4 - LTD

VIII Subsequent Registration Final v2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

VIII Subsequent Registration Final v2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION

Voluntary Dealings with Registered Lands

DBP vs. Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija,

Development Bank of the Philippines presented for registration before the

DBP then sought to annotate on the reconstituted titles the certificate of

In section 56, of PD 1529 the Register’s act of making a primary entry as a

National Housing Authority vs. Augusto Basa

Whether or not the annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of sale in the

Durawood vs. Candice Bona

On June 3, 2004 petitioner Durawood Construction and Limber Supply,

Petition granted. A part of Section 56 of PD 1529 provides that:

Rodriguez vs. Sioson

Sometime in 1997, the Municipality of Orani, Bataan (Municipality)

Despite the denomination of their agreement as one of sale, the

Melencio vs. Court of Appeals

Whether or not there is a valid certification and verification by only one of

Under the circumstances, the rules may be reasonably and liberally

Therefore, the instant petition is granted.

On September 19, 1988, petitioner filed a complaint for Reconveyance,

1. W/N petitioner has a better claim of ownership over the subject

2. Petitioner contends that it is very apparent the RTC and Court of

Buyer in Good Faith

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. POBLETE

Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) is a banking

Based on a Certification issued by Land Bank-Sablayan Branch

W/N Land Bank is a mortgagee in good faith.

Good faith, or the lack of it, is a question of intention. In ascertaining

Based on the evidence, Land Bank processed Maniego’s loan application

LEGARDA vs. COURT OF APPEALS

At public auction, the sheriff sold the aforestated property of petitioner to

GABUTAN, vs. DANTE D. NACALABAN, HELEN N. MAANDIG, SUSAN

On January 25, 1957, Godofredo Nacalaban purchased an 800-square meter

Baldomera died on September 11, 1994. On July 3, 1996, her children

In a letter dated May 5, 1997, the College demanded Trifonia D. Gabutan,

On July 7, 1997, Gabutan, et al. filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of

In its Answer with Affirmative Defenses, the College claimed that it is a

W/N Cagayan Capitol College is a Buyer In Good Faith.

Although the College in its Answer alleged that it made an exhaustive

The "honesty of intention" which constitutes good faith implies a freedom

CUSI vs. DOMINGO

Under review in these consolidated appeals is the Decision promulgated on

Regional Trial Court granted Sy’s petition.

Although acknowledging that a purchaser could rely on what appeared on

SABERON vs. VENTANILLA

Whether or not Saberon can be considered builders in good faith.

The Court finds the Saberons to be builders in good faith.

Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

HOME BANKERS SAVINGS & TRUST CO., vs. THE HONORABLE

Each of private respondents entered into separate contracts to sell with

Petitioner filed its Answer contending that private respondents have no

Petitioner filed its Answer contending that private respondents have no

On August 16, 1991, OAALA rendered its Decision in favor of the

Petitioner cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value and in good

Petitioner’s admission that it granted and released the loan without

Upon learning of the foreclosure, petitioners predecessor, Francisco Dela

After a protracted litigation, the SC rendered a Decision in the petitioners

1. Can the GSIS still raise the issue of exemption?

2. A notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the whole world that a

Ruiz vs. Dumailig

Respondent Bernardo F. Dimailig (Bernardo) was the registered owner of a

Sale Involving Real Estate

Felipe Esguerra and Praxedes de Vera (Esguerra spouses) owned several

Feliciano Esguerra (Feliciano), who inhabits the lot bordering Trinidad,

Under the Torrens System, an OCT enjoys a presumption of validity, which