Legarda vs.

Saleeby ISSUE: Who is the owner of the wall and the land occupied
by it?
FACTS: The plaintiffs and the defendant occupy, as owners, HELD: The decision of the lower court is based upon the
adjoining lots in the district of Ermita in the city of Manila. theory that the action for the registration of the lot of the
There exists and has existed a number of years a stone wall defendant was a judicial proceeding and that the judgment
between the said lots. Said wall is located on the lot of the or decree was binding upon all parties who did not appear
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, March 2, 1906, presented a petition and oppose it
in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their Granting that theory to be correct one , then the same
lot, which decreed that the title of the plaintiffs should be theory should be applied to the defendant himself. Applying
registered and issued to them the original certificate provided that theory to him, he had already lost whatever right he had
for under the Torrens system. Said registration and therein, by permitting the plaintiffs to have the same
certificate included the wall. registered in their name, more than six years before. Having
Later the predecessor of the defendant presented a petition thus lost hid right, may he be permitted to regain it by simply
in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of the including it in a petition for registration?
lot now occupied by him. On March 25, 1912, the court
For the difficulty involved in the present case the Act (No.
decreed the registration of said title and issued the original
496) provides for the registration of titles under the Torrens
certificate provided for under the Torrens system. The
system affords us no remedy. There is no provision in said
description of the lot given in the petition of the
Act giving the parties relief under conditions like the present.
defendant also included said wall.
There is nothing in the Act which indicates who should be the
On December 13, 1912 the plaintiffs discovered that the
owner of land which has been registered in the name of two
wall which had been included in the certificate granted to
different persons.
them had also been included in the certificate granted to the
defendant .They immediately presented a petition in the
We have decided, in case of double registration under the
Court of Land Registration for an adjustment and correction
Land Registration Act, that the owner of the earliest
of the error committed by including said wall in the registered
certificate is the owner of the land. May this rule be applied
title of each of said parties.
to successive vendees of the owners of such certificates?
The lower court however, without notice to the
Suppose that one or the other of the parties, before the
defendant, denied said petition upon the theory that, during
error is discovered, transfers his original certificate to an
the pendency of the petition for the registration of the
“innocent purchaser.” The general rule is that the vendee of
defendant’s land, they failed to make any objection to the
land has no greater right, title, or interest than his vendor;
registration of said lot, including the wall, in the name of the
that he acquires the right which his vendor had, only.
defendant.
Under that rule the vendee of the earlier certificate would be registered under the Torrens system. All alleged long and
the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later continuous possession of the lots and produced tax
certificate. declarations in their names. Two of them maintained that
It would be seen to a just and equitable rule, when two they had acquired their respective lots by virtue of valid
persons have acquired equal rights in the same thing, to hold contracts of sale. Another based her claim on inheritance.
that the one who acquired it first and who has complied with After trial, Judge Nicias O. Mendoza of the Regional Trial
all the requirements of the law should be protected. Court of Olongapo City rendered judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs.[1]He held in part as follows:
In view of our conclusions, above stated, the judgment of
the lower court should be and is hereby revoked. The record The plaintiffs, being the registered owners in fee
is hereby returned to the court now having and exercising simple of the land in question, necessarily have the
the jurisdiction heretofore exercised by the land court, with lawful right to the physical possession of the land.
direction to make such orders and decrees in the premises The owner of a land has a right to enjoy and
as may correct the error heretofore made in including the possess it, and he has also the right to recover and
land in the second original certificate issued in favor of the repossess the same from any person occupying it
predecessor of the appellee, as well as in all other duplicate unlawfully.
certificates issued.
Art. 428 - New Civil Code: "The owner has the right to
BISHOP V. CA enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations
The question presented in this case is not novel. As in than those established by law.
previous cases resolving the same issue, the answer will not
"The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
change.
possessor of the thing in order to recover it." There is,
In dispute are certain portions of a parcel of land situated in therefore, no doubt in law, that the plaintiffs being the
Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, with a total area of 1,652 registered owners of the land in question have also the
square meters. These portions are in the possession of the corresponding right to the recovery and possession of the
petitioners. The entire parcel is registered in the name of the same.
private respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title No.
The defendants who are in physical occupancy of the land
T-29018.
belonging to the plaintiffs have no right whatsoever to
On January 22, 1985, the private respondents sued the unjustly withhold the possession of the said land from the
petitioners for recovery of possession of the lots in question. plaintiffs. The defendants' occupancy of the land in question
The plaintiffs invoked their rights as registered owners of the is unlawful and in violation of plaintiffs' right to the recovery
land. In their answer, the defendents claimed that the lots and possession of the land they owned.
were part of the public domain and could not have been
The evidence presented by the defendants claiming as per Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, the
certifications of the Bureau of Forestry that the land petitioners then came to this Court, urging reversal of the
occupied by them is within the alienable and disposable publiccourts below.
land, deserves scant consideration as the said certification They allege that:
are without basis in law. The moment the land in question
was titled in the name of the plaintiffs, it ceased to become a 1. The land in question is part of the public domain
part of the public domain as the same became the private and could not have been validly registered under
property of the registered owner, the herein plaintiffs. Tax the Torrens system.
declarations of the land made in the names of the
defendants are not evidence of title, it appearing that the 2. The petitioners have acquired title to their
land is already titled to the plaintiffs. The registration of the respective lots by laches.
land in the names of the defendants with the Assessor's
3. In the alternative, they should be considered
Office for taxation purposes and the payments of real
builders in good faith entitled to the rights granted
property taxes by the defendants can not and does not
by Articles 448, 546, 547 and 548 of the Civil
defeat the title of the plaintiffs to the land. The fact that the
Code.
defendants have been in occupancy of the land in question
for quite a period of time is of no moment as prescription will
The petition has no merit.
not ripen into ownership because the land is covered by a
torrens title. Acquisitive prescription will not be available to On the first ground, the Court notes that the private
land titled under Art. 496. respondents' title is traceable to an Original Certificate of
Title issued way back in 1910 or eighty-two years ago.
PREMISED THEREFORE on the foregoing
That certificate is now incontrovertible and conclusive
consideration, the Court finds and so holds that the
against the whole world.
plaintiffs being the registered owners of the land in
question are entitled to the possession of the The presumption of regularity applies to the issuance of that
same, and that the defendants who are occupying certificate. This presumption covers the finding that the land
the land belonging to the plaintiffs in violation of the subject of the certificate was private in nature and therefore
right of the latter, are duty-bound to restore registrable under the Torrens system.
possession of the same to the titled owners, the To sustain an action for annulment of a Torrens certificate
herein plaintiffs. for being void ab initio, it must be shown that the registration
court had not acquired jurisdiction over the case and that
On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the respondent there was actual fraud in securing the title.Neither of these
court on August 22, 1988.[2] requirements has beenestablished by the petitioners. All they
submitted was the certification of the Bureau of Forestry
that the land in question was alienable and disposable public
land. The trial court was correct in ruling that this deserved
scant consideration for lack of legal basis. To be sure, a
certification from an administrative body cannot prevail
against a court decision declaring the land to be registrable.
Significantly, it does not appear in the record that the
Director of Forestry, or any other representative of the
Government for that matter, entered any opposition to the
land registration proceedings that led to the issuance of the
Original Certificate of Title. No less importantly, an action to
invalidate a certificate of title on the ground of fraud
prescribes after the expiration of one (1) year from the
entry of the decree of registration[4] and cannot now be
resorted to by the petitioners at this late hour. And
collaterally at that.
The strange theory submitted by the petitioners that the
owner of registered land must also possess it does not merit
serious attention. The non-presentation by the private
respondents of their tax declarations on the land is no
indication that they have never acquired ownership thereof Applied consistently these many years, this doctrine has
or have lost it by such omission.
The second ground must also be rejected.
As registered owners of the lots in question, the private
respondents have a right to eject any person illegally
occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if
it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners'
occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw
that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand in his title to the land at the time he builds on it.[7] This
the return of their property at any time as long as the
possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all.
This right is never barred by laches.
In urging laches against the private respondents for not
protesting their long and continuous occupancy of the lots in
question, the petitioners are in effect contending that they
have acquired the said lots by acquisitive prescription. It is an
elementary principle that the owner of a land registered
under the Torrens system cannot lose it by prescription.[5]
As the Court observed in the early case Legarda v. Saleeby:
[6]
The real purpose of the Torrens system of land
registration is to quiet title to land; to put astop
forever to any question of the legality of the title,
except claims which were noted at the time of
registration in the certificate, or which may arise
subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the
law, it would seem that once the title was
registered, the owner may rest secure, without the
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or
sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the
possibility of losing his land.
been burnished bright with use and has long become a
settled rule of law.
In light of the observations already made, it is obvious that
the petitioners cannot invoke the status of builders in good
faith to preserve their claimed rights to the constructions
they have made on the lots in dispute.
definition cannot apply to the petitioners because they knew
at the very outset that they had no right at all to occupy the
subject lots.
The petitioners have consistently insisted that the lots were
part of the public domain and even submitted a certification 105,710 square meters, sold for P30,000.00 said
to that effect from the Bureau of Forestry. The land was in property in favor of spouses Melencio Magcamit and Nena
fact registered under the Torrens system and such Cosico, and Amelita Magcamit (herein private respondents)
registration was constructive notice to the whole world, as evidenced by "Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Mabibiling Muli".
including the petitioners. Apparently, the petitioners did not This sale with right to repurchase was recorded in the Office
take the trouble of checking such registration. At any rate, of the Register of Deeds of Laguna on December 6, 1971
the point is that, whether the land be public or private, the under Act No. 3344. On January 31, 1972 the sale was
petitioners knew they had no right to occupy it and build on made absolute by the spouses Vivas and Lizardo in favor of
it. The Court of Appeals was correct in calling them the private respondents for the sum of P90,000.00;
squatters for having entered, without permission or authority,P50,000.00 of which was paid upon the execution of the
land that did not belong to them. instrument, entitled "Kasulatan Ng Bilihan Tuluyan", after
In urging reversal of the trial court and the respondent court, being credited with the P30,000.00 consideration of the
the petitioners are asking us to overturn long established "Kasulatan Ng Mabibiling Muli", and the balance of
doctrines guaranteeing the integrity of the Torrens system P40,000.00 was to be paid the moment that the certificate
and the indefeasibility of titles issued thereunder for the of title, is issued.
protection and peace of mind of the registered owner From the execution of said Kasulatan, private respondent
against illegal encroachments upon his property. We are not have remained in peaceful, adverse and open possession of
disposed to take this drastic step on the basis alone of their
subject property.
feeble arguments. On February 26, 1975, an Original Certificate of Title No.
NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY V. IAC T-1728 covering the property in question was issued to and
This is a petition for review of the decision of the then in the name of the spouses Vivas and Lizardo without the
Intermediate Appellate Court* (now Court of Appeals) dated knowledge of the private respondents and on April 30,
January 31, 1984, reversing the decision of the Court of 1975, said Spouses executed a Special Power of Attorney
First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, 8th Judicial in favor of Irenea Ramirez authorizing the latter to mortgage
District, Branch III, and of the resolution dated August 28, the property with the petitioner, National Grains Authority.
1984 denying the motion for reconsideration filed thereof.
On May 2, 1974, the counsel for the petitioner wrote the
The undisputed facts of this case as found by the trial Court Provincial Sheriff in Sta. Cruz, Laguna, requesting for the
and the Intermediate Appellate Court are as follows: extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage executed by
Irenea Ramirez on May 18, 1975, covering, among others,
On December 2, 1971, the spouses Paulino Vivas and the property involved in this case covered by OCT No. T-
Engracia Lizardo, as owners of a parcel of land situated in 1728, for unpaid indebtedness in the amount of
Bo. San Francisco, Victoria, Laguna, comprising more or less P63,948.80 in favor of the petitioner.
On May 31, 1974, the Provincial Sheriff caused the The private respondents, who as previously stated, are in
issuance of the notice of sale of the property in question, possession of subject property were asked by petitioner to
scheduling the public auction sale on June 28, 1974. The vacate it but the former refused. Petitioner filed a suit for
petitioner was the highest and successful bidder so that a ejectment against private respondents in the Municipal Court
Certificate of Sale was issued in its favor on the same date of Victoria, Laguna, but the case was dismissed.
by the Provincial Sheriff.
On June 4, 1975, private respondents filed a complaint
On July 10, 1974, the petitioner in its capacity as attorney- before the then Court of First Instance of Laguna and San
in-fact of the mortgagor sold the subject real property in Pablo City, Branch III, San Pablo City, against the petitioner
favor of itself. By virtue of the deed of absolute sale, TCT and the spouses Vivas and Lizardo, praying, among others,
No. T-75171 of the Register of Deeds for the Province of that they be declared the owners of the property in question
Laguna was issued in the name of the petitioner on July 16, and entitled to continue in possession of the same, and if the
1974. It was only in July 1974, that private respondents petitioner is declared the owner of the said property, then, to
learned that a title in the name of the Vivas spouses had order it to reconvey or transfer the ownership to them under
been issued covering the property in question and that the such terms and conditions as the court may find just, fair
same property had been mortgaged in favor of the and equitable under the premises. (Record on Appeal, pp.
petitioner. 2-11).
Private respondent Nena Magcamit offered to pay the
petitioner NGA the amount of P40,000.00 which is the In its answer to the complaint, the petitioner (defendant
balance of the amount due the Vivas spouses under the therein) maintained that it was never a privy to any
terms of the absolute deed of sale but the petitioner refused transaction between the private respondents (plaintiffs
to accept the payment. On July 31, 1974, counsel for therein) and the spouses Paulino Vivas and Engracia
private respondents made a formal demand on the spouses Lizardo; that it is a purchases in good faith and for value of
Vivas and Lizardo to comply with their obligation under the the property formerly covered by OCT No. 1728; and that
terms of the absolute deed of sale; and soon after reiterated the title is now indefeasible, hence, private respondents'
to the NGA, the offer to pay the balance of P40,000.00 cause of action has already prescribed. (Record on Appeal,
due under the absolute deed of sale. pp. 16-22).

After due hearing, the trial court* rendered its decision on

On August 13, 1974 petitioner in its reply informed counsel March 17, 1981, in favor of the petitioner, the dispositive
of private respondents that petitioner is now the owner of portion of said judgment reading as follows:
the property in question and has no intention of disposing of "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as
the same. follows:

"(1) declaring defendant National Grains Authority
the lawful owner of the property in question by
virtue of its indefeasible title to the same;
"(2) ordering plaintiffs to turn over possession of
the land to defendant National Grains Authority;
"(3) ordering defendants-spouses Paulino Vivas
and Engracia Lizardo to pay plaintiffs the sum of
P56,000.00 representing the amount paid
pursuant to the Kasulatan Ng Bilihang Tuluyan
marked Exhibit '3', with legal interest thereon from
January 31, 1972 until the amount is paid, to pay
an additional amount of P5,000.00 for and as
attorney's fees, an additional amount of
P10,000.00 as moral damages, another amount
of P5,000.00 by way of exemplary damages and
to pay the costs of this suit." (Rollo, p. 35).
The private respondents interposed an appeal from the
decision of the trial court to the Intermediate APELLATE
COURT.
After proper proceedings, the appellate court rendered its
decision on January 31, 1984, reversing and setting aside
the decision of the trial court as follows:
"WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is
hereby reversed and set aside and another one is
rendered ordering the National Grains Authority to
execute a deed of reconveyance sufficient in law
for purposes of registration and cancellation of
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-75171 and the
issuance of another title in the names of plaintiffs-
appellants, and ordering defendants-appellees
Paulino Vivas and Engracia Lizardo to pay the
National Grains Authority the sum of P78,375.00
(Exh. 3) within thirty (30) days from the receipt
of the writ of execution. No damages and costs."
(Rollo, p. 19).
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said
decision but the same was denied. (Rollo, p. 26).
Hence, this petition.
In the resolution of May 20, 1985, the petition was given
due course and the parties were required to submit
simultaneous memoranda (Rollo, p. 128). The
memorandum for the petitioner was filed on July 3, 1985
(Rollo, p. 129) while the memorandum for the private
respondents was filed on August 26, 1985 (Rollo, p. 192).
The main issue in this case is whether or not violation of the
terms of the agreement between the spouses Vivas and
Lizardo, the sellers, and private respondents, the buyers, to
deliver the certificate of title to the latter, upon its issuance,
constitutes a breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title and
right acquired by petitioner NGA, an innocent purchaser for
value.
It is undisputed that: (1) there are two deeds of sale of the
same land in favor of private respondents, namely: (a) the
conditional sale with right to repurchase or the "Kasulatan Ng
Bilihang Mabibiling Muli" which was registered under Act
3344 and (b) the deed of absolute sale or "Kasulatan ng
Bilihang Tuluyan" which was not registered; (2) the
condition that the Certificate of Title will be delivered to the
buyers upon its issuance and upon payment of the balance until the month of July, 1974 did the plaintiff learn that a title
of P40,000.00 is contained in the deed of absolute sale; had been issued covering the property in question (Rollo, p.
and (3) the land in question at the time of the execution of 15).
both sales was not yet covered by the Torrens System of
registration. Time and time again, this Court has ruled that the
proceedings for the registration of title to land under the
It is axiomatic, that while the registration of the conditional Torrens System is an action in rem, not in personam, hence,
sale with right of repurchase may be binding on third personal notice to all claimants of the res is not necessary in
persons, it is by provision of law "understood to be without order that the court may have jurisdiction to deal with and
prejudice to third party who has better right" (Section 194 dispose of the res. Neither may lack of such personal notice
of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344). vitiate or invalidate the decree or title issued in a registration
In this case, it will be noted that the third party NGA, is a proceeding, for the State, as sovereign over the land situated
registered owner under the Torrens System and has within it, may provide for the adjudication of title in a
obviously a better right than private respondents and that proceeding in rem or one in the nature of or akin a
the deed of absolute sale with the suspensive condition is not proceeding in rem which shall be binding upon all persons,
registered and is necessarily binding only on the spouses known or unknown (Moscoso vs. Court of Appeals, 128
Vivas and Lizardo and private respondents. SCRA 719 [1984], citing: City of Manila vs. Lack, et al.,
19 Phil. 324, 337; Roxas vs. Enriquez, 29 Phil. 31;
In their complaint at the Regional Trial Court, private Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila,
respondents prayed among others, for two alternative 41 Phil. 120; Aguilar vs. Caogdan, 105 Phil. 661). It is
reliefs, such as: (a) to be declared the owners of the thus evident that respondents' right over the property was
property in question or (b) to order the declared owner to barred by res judicata when the decree of registration was
reconvey or transfer the ownership of the property in their issued to spouses Vivas and Lizardo. It does not matter that
favor. they may have had some right even the right of ownership,
BEFORE the grant of the Torrens Title.
Private respondents claim a better right to the property in
question by virtue of the Conditional Sale, later changed to a Thus, under Section 44 of P.D. 1529, every registered
deed of Absolute Sale which although unregistered under the owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree
Torrens System allegedly transferred to them the ownership of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered
and the possession of the property in question. In fact, they land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith,
argue that they have been and are still in possession of the shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those
same openly, continuously, publicly under a claim of noted on the certificate and any of the encumbrances which
ownership adverse to all other claims since the purchase on may be subsisting, and enumerated in the law. Under said
December 2, 1971 (Rollo, p. 165). It is stressed that not provision, claims and liens of whatever character, except
those mentioned by law as existing, against the land prior to property has not passed to the hands of an innocent
the issuance of certificate of title, are cut off by such purchaser for value (Angeles vs. Samia, 66 Phil. 444
certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issue [1938], underscoring supplied).
binds the whole world, including the government (Aldecoa
and Co. vs. Warner Barns & Co., 30 Phil. 209 [1915]; It will be noted that the spouses Vivas and Lizardo never
Snyder vs. Fiscal of Cebu and Avila, 42 Phil. 766 [1922]). committed any fraud in procuring the registration of the
Under said ruling, if the purchaser is the only party who property in question. On the contrary, their application for
appears in the deeds and the registration of titles in the registration which resulted in the issuance of OCT No. 1728
property registry, no one except such purchaser may be was with the complete knowledge and implied authority of
deemed by law to be the owner of the properties in question private respondents who retained a portion of the
(Ibid). Moreover, no title to registered land in derogation to consideration until the issuance to said spouses of a
that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription certificate of title applied for under the Torrens Act and the
or adverse possession (Umbay vs. Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 corresponding delivery of said title to them. The question
[1985]). therefore, is not about the validity of OCT No. 1728 but in
the breach of contract between private respondents and the
It does not appear that private respondents' claim falls under Vivas spouses. Petitioner NGA was never a privy to this
any of the exceptions provided for under Section 44 of P.D. transaction. Neither was it shown that it had any knowledge
1529 which can be enforced against petitioner herein. at the time of the execution of the mortgage, of the
existence of the suspensive condition in the deed of absolute
Thus, it has been invariably restated by this Court, that "The sale, much less of its violation. Nothing appeared to excite
real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land suspicion. The Special Power of Attorney was regular on its
and to stop forever any question as to its legality. 'Once a face; the OCT was in the name of the mortgagor and the
title is registered, the owner may rest secure, without the NGA was the highest bidder in the public auction.
necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting on Unquestionably, therefore, the NGA is an innocent purchaser
the 'mirador su casa', to avoid the possibility of losing his for value, first as an innocent mortgages under Section 32
land'." An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is of P.D. 1529 and later as innocent purchaser for value in
not allowed (Dominga vs. Santos, 55 Phil. 361; Singian vs. the public auction sale.
Manila Railroad, 62 Phil. 467).
Private respondents claim that NGA did not even field any
The only exception to this rule is where a person obtains a representative to the land which was not even in the
certificate of title to a land belonging to another and he has possession of the supposed mortgagors, nor present any
full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is then witness to prove its allegations in the ANSWER nor submit
considered as guilty of fraud and he may be compelled to its DEED OF MORTGAGE to show its being a mortgagee in
transfer the land to the defrauded owner so long as the good faith and for value (Rollo, p. 110).
 parties defrauded and their privies, but not against acquirers
Such contention is, however, untenable. Well settled is the in good faith and for value and the successors in interest of
rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a the latter; as to them the decree shall remain in full force
torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what and effect forever (Domingo vs. The Mayon Realty Corp. et
appears on the face of the title. When there is nothing on the al., 102 Phil. 32 [1957]). Assuming, therefore, that there
certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the was fraud committed by the sellers against the buyers in the
ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the instant case, petitioner NGA who was not privy therein
purchaser is not required to explore further than what the cannot be made to suffer the consequences thereof. As
torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden correctly declared by the trial court, the National Grains
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his Authority is the lawful owner of the property in question by
right thereto (Centeno vs. Court of Appeals, 139 SCRA virtue of its indefeasible title.
545 [1985]).
As to private respondents' alternative prayer that the
More specifically, the Court has ruled that a bank is not declared owner be ordered to reconvey or transfer the
required before accepting a mortgage to make an ownership of the property in their favor, it is clear that there
investigation of the title of the property being given as is absolutely no reason why petitioner, an innocent
security (Phil. National Cooperative Bank vs. Carandang- purchaser for value, should reconvey the land to the private
Villalon, 139 SCRA 570 [1985]), and where innocent third respondents.
persons like mortgagees relying on the certificate of title
acquire rights over the property, their rights cannot be DBT MAR-BAY CONSTRUCTION V. PANES
disregarded (Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489 [1985]). Subject of this controversy is a parcel of land identified as
Lot Plan Psu-123169,[4] containing an area of(240,146)
Under the circumstances, the Regional Trial Court could not square meters, and situated at Barangay (Brgy.) Pasong
have erred in ruling that plaintiffs' (private respondents Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City (subject property). The
herein) complaint insofar as it prays that they be declared property is included in Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
owners of the land in question can not prosper in view of the 200519,[5] entered on July 19, 1974 and issued in favor
doctrine of indefeasibility of title under the Torrens System, of B.C. Regalado & Co. (B.C. Regalado). It was conveyed
because it is an established principle that a petition for review by B.C. Regalado to petitioner D.B.T. Mar-Bay
of the decree of registration will not prosper even if filed Construction, Inc. (DBT) through a dacion en pago[6 for
within one year from the entry of the decree if the title has services rendered by the latter to the former.
passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value
(Pres. Decree No. 1529, Sec. 32). The setting aside of the On June 24, 1992, respondents Ricaredo P. Panes
decree of registration issued in land registration proceedings (Ricaredo), his son Angelito P. Panes (Angelito), Salvador
is operative only between the parties to the fraud and the Cea, Abogado Mautin, Donardo Paclibar, Zosimo P. Peralta,
and Hilarion Manongdo (herein collectively referred to as 82 a case docketed as LRC Case No. Q-91-011, with LRC
respondents) filed a Complaint[7] for "Quieting of Title with Rec. No. N-62563.[11]
Cancellation of TCT No. 200519 and all Titles derived
thereat (sic), Damages, with Petition for the Issuance of Respondents averred that in the process of complying with
Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of Restraining Order the publication requirements for the Notice of Initial Hearing
Ex-Parte, Etc." against B.C. Regalado, Mar-Bay Realty, Inc., with the Land Registration Authority (LRA), it was
Spouses Gereno Brioso and Criselda M. Brioso, Spouses discovered by the Mapping Services of the LRA that there
Ciriaco and Nellie Mariano, Avelino C. Perdido and Florentina existed an overlapping of portions of the land subject of
Allado, Eufrocina A. Maborang and Fe Maborang, Spouses Ricaredo's application, with the subdivision plan of B.C.
Jaime and Rosario Tabangcura, Spouses Oscar Ikalina and Regalado. The said portion had, by then, already been
the Register of Deeds (RD) of Quezon City. Subsequently, conveyed by B.C. Regalado to DBT.
respondents filed an Amended Complaint[8] and a Second
Amended Complaint[9] particularly impleading DBT as one Ricaredo asseverated that upon verification with the LRA, he
of the defendants. found that the subdivision plan of B.C. Regalado was
deliberately drawn to cover portions of the subject property.
In the Complaints, Ricaredo alleged that he is the lawful Respondents claimed that the title used by B.C. Regalado in
owner and claimant of the subject property which he had the preparation of the subdivision plan did not actually cover
declared for taxation purposes in his name, and assessed in the subject property. They asserted that from the records of
the amount of P2,602,190.00 by the City Assessor of B.C. Regalado, they gathered that TCT Nos. 211081,
Quezon City as of the year 1985. Respondents alleged that [12]211095[13] and 211132,[14] which allegedly
per Certification[10] of the Department of Environment and included portions of the subject property, were derived from
Natural Resources (DENR) National Capital Region (NCR) TCT No. 200519. However, TCT No. 200519 only
dated May 7, 1992, Lot Plan Psu-123169 was verified to covered Lot 503 of the Tala Estate with an area of
be correct and on file in said office, and approved on July Twenty-Two Thousand Six Hundred Fifteen (22,615)
23, 1948. square meters, and was different from those mentioned in
TCT Nos. 211081, 211095 and 211132. According to
Respondents also claimed that Ricaredo, his immediate respondents, an examination of TCT No. 200519 would
family members, and the other respondents had been, and show that it was derived from TCT Nos. 14814,
still are, in actual possession of the portions of the subject [15] 14827,[16] 14815[17] and T-28.
property, and their possession preceded the Second World
War. To perfect his title in accordance with Act No. 496 In essence, respondents alleged that B.C. Regalado and DBT
(The Land Registration Act) as amended by Presidential used the derivative titles which covered properties located far
Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 (The Property Registration from Pasong Putik, Novaliches, Quezon City where the
Decree), Ricaredo filed with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch subject property is located, and B.C. Regalado and DBT then
offered the same for sale to the public. Respondents thus thereof, on June 30, 1986. When respondent Abogado
submitted that B.C Regalado and DBT through their Mautin entered and occupied the property, Spouses
deliberate scheme, in collusion with others, used (LRC) Pcs- Tabangcura filed a case for Recovery of Property before the
18345 as shown in the consolidation-subdivision plan to RTC, Quezon City, Branch 97 which rendered a
include the subject property covered by Lot Plan Psu- decision[21] in their favor.
123169.
On its part, DBT, traversing the complaint, alleged that it is
In his Answer[18] dated July 24, 1992, the RD of Quezon the legitimate owner and occupant of the subject property
City interposed the defense that at the time of registration, pursuant to a dacion en pago executed by B.C. Regalado in
he found all documents to be in order. Subsequently, on the former's favor; that respondents were not real parties-
December 5, 1994, in his Motion[19] for Leave to Admit in-interests because Ricaredo was a mere claimant whose
Amended Answer, with the Amended Answer attached, he rights over the property had yet to be determined by the
admitted that he committed a grave mistake when he earlier RTC where he filed his application for registration; that the
said that TCT No. 200519 covered only one lot, i.e. Lot other respondents did not allege matters or invoke rights
503. He averred that upon careful examination, he which would entitle them to the relief
discovered that TCT No. 200519 is composed of 17
pages, and actually covered 54 lots, namely: Lots 503, prayed for in their complaint; that the complaint was
506, 507, 508, 509, 582, 586, 655, 659, 686, 434, premature; and that the action inflicted a chilling effect on
495, 497, 299, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 493, 692, the lot buyers of DBT.[22]
776, 496, 785, 777, 786, 780, 783, 505, 654, 660, The RTC's Rulings
661, 663, 664, 665, 668, 693, 694, 713, 716, 781, On June 15, 2000, the RTC through Judge Marciano I.
779, 784, 782, 787, 893, 1115, 1114, 778, 669 and Bacalla (Judge Bacalla), rendered a Decision[23] in favor of
788, all of the Tala Estate. Other lots included therein are the respondents. The RTC held that the testimony of
Lot 890-B of Psd 36854, Lot 2 of (LRC) Pcs 12892 and Ricaredo that he occupied the subject property since 1936
Lot 3 of (LRC) Pcs 12892. Thus, respondents' allegation when he was only 16 years old had not been rebutted; that
that Lots 661, 664, 665, 693 and 694 of the Tala Estate Ricaredo's occupation and cultivation of the subject property
were not included in TCT No. 200519 was not true. for more than thirty (30) years in the concept of an owner
vested in him equitable ownership over the same by virtue of
On December 28, 1993, then defendants Spouses Jaime an approved plan, Psu 123169; that the subject property
and Rosario Tabangcura (Spouses Tabangcura) filed their was declared under the name of Ricaredo for taxation
Answer[20] with Counterclaim, claiming that they were purposes;[24] and that the subject property per survey
buyers in good faith and for value when they bought a house should not have been included in TCT No. 200519,
and lot covered by TCT No. 211095 from B.C. Regalado, registered in the name of B.C. Regalado and ceded to DBT.
the latter being a subdivision developer and registered owner
The RTC further held that Spouses Tabangcura failed to
present satisfactory evidence to prove their claim. Thus, the 117,000 hectares, covered by Original Certificate of
RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing
considerations, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring Certificate of Title No. 200519 and all
titles derived thereat as null and void insofar as the
same embrace the land covered by Plan PSU-
123169 with an area of 240,146 square meters
in the name of Ricaredo Panes; ordering defendant
DBT Marbay Realty, Inc. to pay plaintiff Ricaredo
Panes the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND
(P20,000) pesos as attorney's fees plus costs of
suit.
SO ORDERED.
On September 12, 2000, DBT filed a Motion[25] for
Reconsideration, based on the grounds of prescription
and laches. DBT also disputed Ricaredo's claim of open,
adverse, and continuous possession of the subject
property for more than thirty (30) years, and asserted
that the subject property could not be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession because it is covered
by TCT No. 200519.
While the said Motion for Reconsideration was pending,
Judge Bacalla passed away.
Meanwhile, on January 2, 2001, a Motion[26] for
Intervention and a Complaint in Intervention were filed
by Atty. Andres B. Pulumbarit (Atty. Pulumbarit),
representing the Don Pedro/Don Jose de Ocampo
Estate. The intervenor alleged that the subject property
formed part of the vast tract of land with an area of
Title (OCT) No. 779 issued by the Honorable Norberto
Romualdez on March 14, 1913 under Decree No.
10139, which belongs to the Estate of Don Pedro/Don
Jose de Ocampo. Thus, the Complaint[27] in
Intervention prayed that the RTC's Decision be
reconsidered; that the legitimacy and superiority of OCT
779 be upheld; and that the subject property be
declared as belonging to the Estate of Don Pedro/Don
Jose de Ocampo.
In its Order[28] dated March 13, 2001, the RTC,
through Acting Judge Modesto C. Juanson (Judge
Juanson), denied Atty. Pulumbarit's Motion for
Intervention because a judgment had already been
rendered pursuant to Section 2,[29] Rule 19 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 10, 2001, the RTC issued an
Order[30] stating that there appeared to be a need for
a clarificatory hearing before it could act on DBT's
Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, a hearing was held
on May 17, 2001. Thereafter, supplemental
memoranda were required of the parties.[31] Both
parties complied.[32] However, having found that the
original copy of TCT No. 200519 was not submitted
to it for comparison with the photocopy thereof on file,
the RTC directed DBT to present the original or certified
true copy of the TCT on August 21, 2001.
[33] Respondents moved to reconsider the said
directive[34] but the same was denied.[35] DBT, on
the other hand, manifested that a copy of TCT No.
200519, consisting of 17 pages, had already been
admitted in evidence; and that because of the fire in the
Office of the RD in Quezon City sometime in 1988,
DBT, despite diligent effort, could not secure an original
or certified true copy of said TCT. Instead, DBT
submitted a certified true copy of Consolidated
Subdivision Plan Pcs 18345.[36]
On November 8, 2001, the RTC, through Judge
Juanson, issued an Order[37] reversing the earlier RTC
Decision and dismissing the Complaint for lack of merit.
The RTC held that prescription does not run against
registered land; hence, a title once registered cannot be
defeated even by adverse, open or notorious
possession. Moreover, the RTC opined that even if the
subject property could be acquired by prescription,
respondents' action was already barred by prescription
and/or laches because they never asserted their rights
when B.C. Regalado registered the subject property in
1974; and later developed, subdivided and sold the
same to individual lot buyers.
On December 18, 2001, respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[38] which the RTC denied in its
Order[39] dated June 17, 2002. Aggrieved,
respondents appealed to the CA.[40]
The CA's Ruling
On October 25, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside the
RTC Orders dated November 8, 2001 and June 17, 2002
and reinstated the RTC Decision dated June 15, 2000. The
CA held that the properties described and included in TCT
No. 200519 are located in San Francisco del Monte, San
Juan del Monte, Rizal and Cubao, Quezon City while the
subject property is located in Brgy. Pasong Putik,
Novaliches, Quezon City. Furthermore, the CA held that
Engr. Vertudazo's testimony that there is a gap of around
1,250 meters between Lot 503 and Psu 123169 was not
disproved or refuted. The CA found that Judge Juanson
committed a procedural infraction when he entertained
issues and admitted evidence presented by DBT in its Motion
for Reconsideration which were never raised in the pleadings
and proceedings prior to the rendition of the RTC Decision.
The CA opined that DBT's claims of laches and prescription
clearly appeared to be an afterthought. Lastly, the CA held
that DBT's Motion for Reconsideration was not based on
grounds enumerated in the Rules of Procedure.[41]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[42] which was,
however, denied by the CA in its Resolution[43] dated
February 22, 2005.
Hence, this Petition.
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following as grounds for this Petition:
I. PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO ALLEGE
PRESCRIPTION IN ITS ANSWER IS NOT A
WAIVER OF SUCH DEFENSE.
II. IT IS NOT ERRONEOUS TO REQUIRE THE
PRODUCTION OF A CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF
TCT NO. 200519 AFTER THE DECISION ON THE
MERITS HAS BEEN RENDERED BUT BEFORE IT
BECAME FINAL.
III. A REGISTERED LAND CAN NOT BE ACQUIRED
BY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION.
 IV.THE TESTIMONY OF ENGR. VERTUDAZO ON
THE BASIS OF THE TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF
LOT 503 IN AN INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT IS
UNRELIABLE.
V. MR. PANES HAS NEVER BEEN IN OPEN,
ADVERSE AND CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN
THIRTY (30) YEARS.[44]
Distilled from the petition and the responsive pleadings, and
culled from the arguments of the parties, the issues may be
reduced to two questions, namely:
1) Did the RTC err in upholding DBT's defenses of
prescription and laches as raised in the latter's Motion for
Reconsideration?
2) Which between DBT and the respondents have a better
right over the subject property?
Our Ruling
We answer the first question in the affirmative.
It is true that in Dino v. Court of Appeals[45] we ruled:
(T)rial courts have authority and discretion to
dismiss an action on the ground of prescription
when the parties' pleadings or other facts on
record show it to be indeed time-barred;
(Francisco v. Robles, Feb. 15, 1954; Sison v.
McQuaid, 50 O.G. 97; Bambao v. Lednicky, Jan.
28, 1961; Cordova v. Cordova, Jan. 14,
1958; Convets, Inc. v. NDC, Feb. 28, 1958; 32
SCRA 529; Sinaon v. Sorongan, 136 SCRA
408); and it may do so on the basis of a motion
to dismiss (Sec. 1, [f] Rule 16, Rules of Court), or
an answer which sets up such ground as an
affirmative defense (Sec. 5, Rule 16), or even if
the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits,
as in a motion for reconsideration (Ferrer v. Ericta,
84 SCRA 705); or even if the defense has not
been asserted at all, as where no statement
thereof is found in the pleadings (Garcia v. Mathis,
100 SCRA 250; PNB v. Pacific Commission
House, 27 SCRA 766; Chua Lamco v. Dioso, et
al., 97 Phil. 821); or where a defendant has been
declared in default (PNB v. Perez; 16 SCRA
270). What is essential only, to repeat, is that the
facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive
period be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily
apparent on the record; either in the averments of
the plaintiff's complaint, or otherwise established
by the evidence. (Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, one of the inherent powers of courts is to amend
and control its processes so as to make them conformable
to law and justice. This includes the right to reverse itself,
especially when in its opinion it has committed an error or
mistake in judgment, and adherence to its decision would
cause injustice.[46] Thus, the RTC in its Order dated
November 8, 2001 could validly entertain the defenses of
prescription and laches in DBT's motion for reconsideration.
However, the conclusion reached by the RTC in its assailed
Order was erroneous. The RTC failed to consider that the
action filed before it was not simply for reconveyance but an
action for quieting of title which is imprescriptible.
Verily, an action for reconveyance can be barred by the defendants are in the instant case, the right to
prescription. When an action for reconveyance is based on seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet
fraud, it must be filed within four (4) years from discovery title to the property, does not prescribe. The
of the fraud, and such discovery is deemed to have taken reason for this is that one who is in actual
place from the issuance of the original certificate of title. On possession of a piece of land claiming to be the
the other hand, an action for reconveyance based on an owner thereof may wait until his possession is
implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps
from the date of the issuance of the original certificate of title to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being,
or transfer certificate of title. The rule is that the registration that his undisturbed possession gives him a
of an instrument in the Office of the RD constitutes continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity
constructive notice to the whole world and therefore the to ascertain and determine the nature of the
discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken place at the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his
time of registration.[47] own title, which right can be claimed only by one
who is in possession.
However, the prescriptive period applies only if there is an
actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is Insofar as Ricaredo and his son, Angelito, are
not in possession of the property. If the plaintiff, as the real concerned, they established in their testimonies that, for
owner of the property also remains in possession of the some time, they possessed the subject property and
property, the prescriptive period to recover title and that Angelito bought a house within the subject property
possession of the property does not run against him. In such in 1987.[50] Thus, the respondents are proper parties
a case, an action for reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, to bring an action for quieting of title because persons
would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action having legal, as well as equitable, title to or interest in a
that is imprescriptible.[48] Thus, in Vda. de Gualberto v. real property may bring such action, and "title" here
Go,[49] this Court held: does not necessarily denote a certificate of title issued
in favor of the person filing the suit.[51]
[A]n action for reconveyance of a parcel of land
based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in
Although prescription and laches are distinct concepts,
ten years, the point of reference being the date of
we have held, nonetheless, that in some instances, the
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance
doctrine of laches is inapplicable where the action was
of the certificate of title over the property, but this
filed within the prescriptive period provided by law.
rule applies only when the plaintiff or the person
Therefore, laches will not apply to this case, because
enforcing the trust is not in possession of the
respondents' possession of the subject property has
property, since if a person claiming to be the owner
rendered their right to bring an action for quieting of title
thereof is in actual possession of the property, as
imprescriptible and, hence, not barred by laches.
Moreover, since laches is a creation of equity, acts or
conduct alleged to constitute the same must be
intentional and unequivocal so as to avoid injustice.
Laches will operate not really to penalize neglect or
sleeping on one's rights, but rather to avoid recognizing
a right when to do so would result in a clearly
inequitable situation.[52]
Albeit the conclusion of the RTC in its Order dated
November 8, 2001, which dismissed respondents'
complaint on grounds of prescription and laches, may
have been erroneous, we, nevertheless, resolve the
second question in favor of DBT.
It is a well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that no title
to registered land in derogation of the rights of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or
adverse possession.[53]
Article 1126[54] of the Civil Code in connection with
Section 46[55] of Act No. 496 (The Land
Registration Act), as amended by Section 47[56] of
P.D. No. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree),
clearly supports this rule. Prescription is unavailing not
only against the registered owner but also against his
hereditary successors. Possession is a mere
consequence of ownership where land has been
registered under the Torrens system, the efficacy and
integrity of which must be protected. Prescription is
rightly regarded as a statute of repose whose objective
is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing
up at great distances of time and surprising the parties
or their representatives when the facts have become
obscure from the lapse of time or the defective
memory or death or removal of witnesses.[57]
Thus, respondents' claim of acquisitive prescription over
the subject property is baseless. Under Article 1126 of
the Civil Code, acquisitive prescription of ownership of
lands registered under the Land Registration Act shall be
governed by special laws. Correlatively, Act No. 496,
as amended by PD No. 1529, provides that no title to
registered land in derogation of that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by adverse possession.
Consequently, in the instant case, proof of possession
by the respondents is immaterial and inconsequential.
[58]
Moreover, it may be stressed that there was no ample
proof that DBT participated in the alleged fraud. While
factual issues are admittedly not within the province of
this Court, as it is not a trier of facts and is not required
to re-examine or contrast the oral and documentary
evidence anew, we have the authority to review and, in
proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower
courts when the findings of fact of the trial court are in
conflict with those of the appellate court.[59] In this
regard, we reviewed the records of this case and found
no clear evidence that DBT participated in the fraudulent
scheme. In Republic v. Court of Appeals,[60] this Court
gave due importance to the fact that the private
respondent therein did not participate in the fraud
averred. We accord the same benefit to DBT in this
case. To add, DBT is an innocent purchaser for value
and good faith which, through a dacion en pago duly
entered into with B.C. Regalado, acquired ownership
over the subject property, and whose rights must be
protected under Section 32[61] of P.D. No. 1529.

Dacion en pago is the delivery and transmission of
ownership of a thing by the debtor to the creditor as an
accepted equivalent of the performance of the
obligation. It is a special mode of payment where the
debtor offers another thing to the creditor, who accepts
it as an equivalent of the payment of an outstanding
debt. In its modern concept, what actually takes place
in dacion en pago is an objective novation of the
obligation where the thing offered as an accepted
equivalent of the performance of an obligation is
considered as the object of the contract of sale, while
the debt is considered as the purchase price.[62]
It must also be noted that portions of the subject
property had already been sold to third persons who,
like DBT, are innocent purchasers in good faith and for
value, relying on the certificates of title shown to them,
and who had no knowledge of any defect in the title of
the vendor, or of facts sufficient to induce a reasonably
prudent man to inquire into the status of the subject
property.[63] To disregard these circumstances simply
on the basis of alleged continuous and adverse
possession of respondents would not only be inimical to
the rights of the aforementioned titleholders, but would
ultimately wreak havoc on the stability of the Torrens
system of registration.
A final note.
While the Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring
title, but merely a system of registration of titles to
lands, justice and equity demand that the titleholder
should not be made to bear the unfavorable effect of
the mistake or negligence of the State's agents, in the
absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of
manifest damage to third persons. The real purpose of
the Torrens system is to quiet title to land and put a
stop forever to any question as to the legality of the
title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at
the time of the registration or that may arise
subsequent thereto. Otherwise, the integrity of the
Torrens system would forever be sullied by the
ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials,
who are ordinarily presumed to have regularly
performed their duties.[64] Thus, where innocent third
persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate of
title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the
court cannot disregard those rights and order the
cancellation of the certificate. The effect of such
outright cancellation will be to impair public confidence in
the certificate of title. The sanctity of the Torrens
system must be preserved; otherwise, everyone
dealing with the property registered under the system
will have to inquire in every instance on whether the title
had been regularly or irregularly issued, contrary to the
evident purpose of the law. Every person dealing with
the registered land may safely rely on the correctness
of the certificate of title issued therefor, and the law will
in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to
determine the condition of the property.[65]
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED and the
assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated October 25,
2004 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is hereby entered DISMISSING the Complaint
filed by the respondents for lack of merit.

BARANDA V. GUSTILO
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia were the petitioners
in G. R. No. 64432 and the private respondents in G. R.
No. 62042. The subject matter of these two (2) cases
and the instant case is the same a parcel of land designated
as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara,
Iloilo covered by Original Certificate of Title No 6406.
The present petition arose from the same facts and events
which triggered the filing of the earlier petitions. These facts
and events are cited in our resolution dated December 29,
1983 in G. R. No. 64432, as follows:
"x x x This case has its origins in a petition for
reconstitution of title filed with the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo involving a parcel of land known
as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 6406 in
the name of Romana Hitalia. Eventually, Original
Certificate of Title No. 6406 was cancelled and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106098 was
issued in the names of Alfonso Hitalia and Eduardo
S. Baranda. The Court issued a writ of possession
which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and Susana
Silao refused to honor on the ground that they also
have TCT No. 25772 over the same Lot No.
4517. The Court, after considering the private
respondents' opposition and finding TCT No.
25772 fraudulently acquired, ordered that the writ
of possession be carried out. A motion for
reconsideration having been denied, a writ of
demolition was issued on March 29, 1982. Perez
and Gotera filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the Court of Appeals. On August 6,
1982, the Court of Appeals denied the petition.
Perez and Gotera filed the petition for review on
certiorari denominated as G. R. No. 62042 before
the Supreme Court. As earlier stated the petition
was denied in a resolution dated January 7, 1983.
The motion for reconsideration was denied in
another resolution dated March 25, 1983, which
also stated that the denial is final. This decision in
G. R. No. 62042, in accordance with the entry of
judgment, became final on March 25, 1983. The
petitioners in the instant case - G. R. No. 64432 -
contend that the writs of possession and demolition
issued in the respondent court should now be
implemented; that Civil Case No. 00827 before
the Intermediate Appellate Court was filed only to
delay the implementation of the writ; that counsel
for the respondent should be held in contempt of
court for engaging in a concerted but futile effort
to delay the execution of the writs of possession
and demolition and that petitioners are entitled to
damages because of prejudice caused by the filing
of this petition before the Intermediate Appellate
Court. On September 26, 1983, this Court issued
a Temporary Restraining Order to maintain the
status quo, both in the Intermediate Appellate
Court and in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo.
Considering that - (1) there is merit in the instant
petition for indeed the issues discussed in G.R. No.
64432 as raised in Civil Case No 00827 before
the respondent court have already been passed
upon in G.R. No. 62042; and (2) the Temporary
Restraining Order issued by the Intermediate
 Appellate Court was only intended not to render
the petition moot and academic pending the
Court's consideration of the issues, the Court
RESOLVED to DIRECT the respondent Intermediate
Appellate Court not to take cognizance of issues
already resolved by this Court and accordingly
DISMISS the petition in Civil Case No. 00827.
Immediate implementation of the writs of
possession and demolition is likewise ordered." (pp.
107-108, Rollo - G.R. No. 64432)
On May 9, 1984, the Court issued a resolution denying with
finality a motion for reconsideration of the December 29,
1983 resolution in G. R. No. 64432. On this same date,
another resolution was issued, this time in G. R. No. 62042,
referring to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo the ex-parte
motion of the private respondents (Baranda and Hitalia) for
execution of the judgment in the resolutions dated January
7, 1983 and March 9, 1983. In the meantime, the then
Intermediate Appellate Court issued a resolution dated
February 10, 1984, dismissing Civil Case No. 00827 which
covered the same subject matter as the Resolutions
abovecited pursuant to our Resolution dated December 29,
1983. The resolution dated December 29, 1983 in G. R.
No. 64432 became final on May 20, 1984.
Upon motions of the petitioners, the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued the
following order:
"Submitted are the following motions filed by
movants Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia
through counsel dated August 28, 1984:
"(aReiterating Motion for Execution of Judgment of
Resolutions dated January 7, 1983 and March 9, 1983
) Promulgated by Honorable Supreme Court (First
Division) in G.R. No. 62042;
Motion for Execution of Judgment of Resolution dated
"(b
December 29, 1983 Promulgated by Honorable
)
Supreme Court (First Division) in G. R. No. 64432;
"(c
)
The Duties of the Register of Deeds are purely ministerial
under Act 496, therefore she must register all orders,
judgment, resolutions of this Court and that of Honorable
Supreme Court.
"Finding the said motions meritorious and there
being no opposition thereto, the same is hereby
GRANTED.
"WHEREFORE, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
25772 is hereby declared null and void and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-106098 is
hereby declared valid and subsisting title concerning
the ownership of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso
Hitalia, all of Sta. Barbara Cadastre.
"The Acting Register of Deeds of Iloilo is further
ordered to register the Subdivision Agreement of
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia as prayed
for." (p. 466, Rollo - G.R. No. 64432)
The above order was set aside on October 8, 1984 upon a
motion for reconsideration and manifestation filed by the
Acting Registrar of Deeds of Iloilo, Atty. Helen P. Sornito on
the ground that there was a pending case before this Court,
an Action for Mandamus, Prohibition, Injunction under G. R. 1987 respectively, to wit:
No. 67661 filed by Atty. Eduardo Baranda, against the
former which remained unresolved.
In view of this development, the petitioners filed in G. R. No.
62042 and G. R. No. 64432 ex-parte motions for
issuance of an order directing the Regional Trial Court and
Acting Register of Deeds to execute and implement the
judgments of this Court. They prayed that an order be
issued:
Ordering both the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo Branch
XXIII, under Hon. Judge Tito G. Gustilo and the acting
"1
Register of Deeds Helen P. Sornito to register the Order
.
dated September 5, 1984 of the lower court;
To cancel No. T-25772. Likewise to cancel no. T-
"2
106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of
. Resolution dated September 17, 1986, the
title to each of Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia;
Plus other relief and remedies equitable under the premises."
(p. 473, 64432 Rollo)
Acting on these motions, we issued on September 17,
1986 a Resolution in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No.
64432 granting the motions as prayed for. Acting on
another motion of the same nature filed by the petitioners,
we issued another Resolution dated October 8, 1986
referring the same to the Court Administrator for
implementation by the judge below.
In compliance with our resolutions, the Regional Trial Court
of Iloilo, Branch 23 presided by Judge Tito G. Gustilo issued
two (2) orders dated November 6, 1986 and January 6,
"O R D E R
"This is an Ex-parte Motion and Manifestation
submitted by the movants through counsel on
October 20, 1986; the Manifestation of Atty.
Helen Sornito, Register of Deeds of the City of
Iloilo, and formerly acting register of deeds for the
Province of Iloilo dated October 23, 1986 and the
Manifestation of Atty. Avito S. Saclauso, Acting
Register of Deeds, Province of Iloilo dated
November 5, 1986.
"Considering that the motion of movants Atty.
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia dated
August 12, 1986 seeking the full implementation
of the writ of possession was granted by the
Honorable Supreme Court, Second Division per its
present motion is hereby GRANTED.
"WHEREFORE, the Acting Register of Deeds,
Province of Iloilo, is hereby ordered to register the
Order of this Court dated September 5, 1984 as
prayed for.
xxx xxx xxx
"O R D E R
"This is a Manifestation and Urgent Petition for the
Surrender of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
25772 submitted by the petitioners Atty. Eduardo
S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia on December 2,
 1986 in compliance with the order of this Court
dated November 25, 1986, a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Opposition filed by Maria
Provido Gotera through counsel on December 4,
1986 which was granted by the Court pursuant to
its Order dated December 15, 1986. Considering
that no Opposition was filed within the thirty (30)
days period granted by the Court finding the
petition tenable, the same is hereby GRANTED.
"WHEREFORE, Maria Provido Gotera is hereby
ordered to surrender Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-25772 to this Court within ten (10) days
from the date of this order, after which period,
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-25772 is
hereby declared annulled and the Register of Deeds
of Iloilo is ordered to issue a new Certificate of Title
in lieu thereof in the name of petitioners Atty.
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, which
certificate shall contain a memorandum of the
annulment of the outstanding duplicate." (pp.
286-287, Rollo- 64432)
On February 9, 1987, Atty. Hector Teodosio, the counsel
of Gregorio Perez, private respondent in G. R. No. 64432
and petitioner in G. R. No. 62042, filed a motion for
explanation in relation to the resolution dated September 17, Court's orders dated November 6, 1986 and January 6,
1986 and manifestation asking for clarification on the
following points:
"a.As to the prayer of Atty. Eduardo Baranda for the
cancellation of TCT T-25772, should the same be
referred to the Court of Appeals (as mentioned in the
Resolution of November 27, 1985) or is it already
deemed granted by implication (by virtue of the
Resolution dated September 17, 1986)?
Does the Resolution dated September 17, 1986 include
not only the implementation of the writ of possession but
"b.
also the cancellation of TCT T-25772 and the
subdivision of Lot 4517?" (p. 536, Rollo - 64432)
Acting on this motion and the other motions filed by the
parties, we issued a resolution dated May 25, 1987 noting
all these motions and stating therein:
xxx xxx xxx
"Since entry of judgment in G. R. No. 62042 was
made on January 7, 1983 and in G. R. No.
64432 on May 30, 1984, and all that remains is
the implementation of our resolutions, this COURT
RESOLVED to refer the matters concerning the
execution of the decisions to the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City for appropriate action and to
apply disciplinary sanctions upon whoever attempts
to trifle with the implementation of the resolutions
of this Court. No further motions in these cases will
be entertained by this Court." (p. 615, Rollo -
64432)
In the meantime, in compliance with the Regional Trial
1987, Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated
the order declaring Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
25772 as null and void, cancelled the same and issued new
certificates of titles numbers T-111560, T-111561 and T-
111562 in the name of petitioners Eduardo S. Baranda and
Alfonso Hitalia in lieu of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
106098.
 immediately cancel notice of lis pendens annotated thereon.
However, a notice of lis pendens "on account of or by
reason of a separate case (Civil Case No. 15871) still In his order dated February 12, 1987, respondent Judge
pending in the Court of Appeals" was carried out and Gustilo granted the motion and directed the Acting Register
annotated in the new certificates of titles issued to the of Deeds of Iloilo to cancel the lis pendens found on Transfer
petitioners. This was upheld by the trial court after setting Certificate of Title Nos. T-106098; T-111560; T-
aside its earlier order dated February 12, 1987 ordering the 111561 and T-111562.
cancellation of lis pendens.
Respondent Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso filed a
This prompted the petitioners to file another motion in G. R. motion for reconsideration of the February 12, 1987 order
No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432 to order the trial court to stating therein:
reinstate its order dated February 12, 1987 directing the "That the undersigned hereby asks for a
Acting Register of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens reconsideration of the said order based on the
in the new certificates of titles. second paragraph of Section 77 of P. D. 1529, to
wit:
In a resolution dated August 17, 1987, we resolved to refer
the said motion to the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, "'At any time after final judgment in
Branch 23 for appropriate action. favor of the defendant or other
disposition of the action such as to
Since respondent Judge Tito Gustilo of the Regional Trial terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in
Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 denied the petitioners' motion to and to the land and/or buildings involved,
reinstate the February 12, 1987 order in another order in any case in which a memorandum or
dated September 17, 1987, the petitioners filed this petition notice of Lis Pendenshas been registered
for certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with preliminary as provided in the preceding section, the
injunction to compel the respondent judge to reinstate his notice of Lis Pendens shall be deemed
order dated February 12, 1987 directing the Acting Register cancelled upon the registration of a
of Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificate of the clerk of court in which
new certificates of titles issued in the name of the the action or proceeding was pending
petitioners. stating the manner of disposal thereof.'

The records show that after the Acting Register of Deeds "That the lis pendens under Entry No. 427183
annotated a notice of lis pendens on the new certificates of was annotated on T-106098, T-111560, T-
titles issued in the name of the petitioners, the petitioners 111561 and T-111562 by virtue of a case
filed in the reconstitution case an urgent ex-parte motion to docketed as Civil Case No. 15871, now pending
 with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, entitled, the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or
'Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Sr., Maxima annul a notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
Provido and Perfecto Provido, Plaintiffs, versus
Eduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia, Civil Case No. 15871 was a complaint to seek recovery of
Respondents.' Lot No. 4517 of Sta. Barbara Cadastre Iloilo, (the same
subject matter of G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432)
"That under the above-quoted provisions of P.D. from petitioners Baranda and Hitalia filed by Calixta Provido,
152, the cancellation of subject Notice of Lis Ricardo Provido, Maxima Provido and Perfecta Provido
Pendens can only be made or deemed cancelled before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23. At the
upon the registration of the certificate of the Clerk instance of Atty. Hector P. Teodosio, the Providos' counsel,
of Court in which the action or proceeding was a notice of lis pendens was annotated on petitioners'
pending, stating the manner of disposal thereof. Certificate of Title No. T-106098 covering Lot No. 4517,
Sta. Barbara Cadastre.
"Considering that Civil Case No. 1587, upon which
the Notice of Lis Pendens was based is still pending Acting on a motion to dismiss filed by the petitioners, the
with the Intermediate Court of Appeals, only the court issued an order dated October 24, 1984 dismissing
Intermediate Court of Appeals and not this Civil Case No. 15871.
Honorable Court in a mere cadastral proceedings
can order the cancellation of the Notice of Lis The order was then appealed to the Court of Appeals. This
Pendens." (pp. 68-69, Rollo) appeal is the reason why respondent Judge Gustilo recalled
the February 12, 1987 order directing the Acting Register of
Adopting these arguments and on the ground that some if Deeds to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the
not all of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 were not certificates of titles of the petitioners.
privies to the case affected by the Supreme Court
resolutions, respondent Judge Tito Gustilo set aside his This petition is impressed with merit.
February 12, 1987 order and granted the Acting Register of
Deeds' motion for reconsideration. Maria Provido Gotera was one of the petitioners in G. R. No.
62042. Although Calixta Provido, Ricardo Provido, Maxima
The issue hinges on whether or not the pendency of the Provido and Perfecta Provido, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No.
appeal in Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of Appeals 15871 were not impleaded as parties, it is very clear in the
prevents the court from cancelling the notice of lis petition that Maria Provido was acting on behalf of the
pendens in the certificates of titles of the petitioners which Providos who allegedly are her co-owners in Lot No. 4517,
were earlier declared valid and subsisting by this Court in G. Sta. Barbara Cadastre as shown by Transfer Certificate of
R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432. A corollary issue is on Title No. T-25772 issued in her name and the names of the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871, among others. (Annex the reconstitution proceedings involving Lot No. 4517, Sta.
"E", G.R. No. 62042, p. 51, Rollo) In fact, one of the issues Barbara Cadastre.
raised by petitioners Maria Provido Gotera and Gregoria
Perez in G. R. No. 62042 was as follows: The purpose of a notice of lis pendens is defined in the
xxx xxx xxx following manner:

Whether or not, in the same reconstitution proceedings, "Lis pendens has been conceived to protect the
respondent Judge Midpantao L. Adil had the authority to real rights of the party causing the registration
"2 thereof. With the lis pendens duly recorded, he
declare as null and void the transfer certificate of title in
. could rest secure that he would not lose the
the name of petitioner Maria Provido Gotera and her
other co-owners." (p. 3, Rollo; Underlining supplied) property or any part of it. For, notice of lis
It thus appears that the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15871 pendens serves as a warning to a prospective
were privies to G. R. No. 62042 contrary to the trial court's purchaser or incumbrancer that the particular
findings that they were not. property is in litigation; and that he should keep his
hands off the same, unless of course he intends to
G. R. No. 62042 affirmed the order of the then Court of gamble on the results of the litigation. (Section 24,
First Instance of Iloilo in the reconstitution proceedings Rule 14, Rules of Court; Jamora v. Duran, et al.,
declaring TCT No. 25772 in the name of the Providos over 69 Phil. 3, 11; I Martin, Rules of Court, p. 415,
Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre null and void for being footnote 3, citing cases.)" (Nataño v. Esteban, 18
fraudulently obtained and declaring TCT No. 106098 over SCRA 481, 485-485)
the same parcel Lot No. 4517, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in the
The private respondents are not entitled to this protection.
name of petitioners Eduardo Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia
The facts obtaining in this case necessitate the application of
valid and subsisting.
the rule enunciated in the cases of Victoriano v. Rovira (55
Phil. 1000), Municipal Council of Paranaque v. Court of First
The decision in G. R. No. 62042 became final and
Instance of Rizal (70 Phil. 363) and Sarmiento v. Ortiz (10
executory on March 25, 1983 long before Civil Case No.
SCRA 158), to the effect that:
15871 was filed.
"We have once held that while ordinarily a notice of
Under these circumstances, it is crystal clear that the pendency which has been filed in a proper case,
Providos, private respondents herein, in filing Civil Case No. cannot be cancelled while the action is pending and
15871 were trying to delay the full implementation of the undetermined, the proper court has the
final decisions in G. R. No. 62042 as well as G. R. No. discretionary power to cancel it under peculiar
64432 wherein this Court ordered immediate circumstances, as for instance, where the evidence
implementation of the writs of possession and demolition in so far presented by the plaintiff does not bear out
 the main allegations of his complaint, and where could have been misled by the respondent Acting Register of
the continuances of the trial, for which the plaintiff Deeds on this matter when in fact he was the same Judge
is responsible, are unneccessarily delaying the who issued the order dismissing Civil Case No. 15871
determination of the case to the prejudice of the prompting the private respondents to appeal said order dated
defendant. (Victoriano v. Rovira, supra; The October 10, 1984 to the Court of Appeals. The records of
Municipal Council of Paranaque v. Court of First the main case are still with the court below but based on the
Instance of Rizal, supra)" order, it can be safely assumed that the various pleadings
filed by the parties subsequent to the motion to dismiss filed
The facts of this case in relation to the earlier cases brought by the petitioners (the defendants therein) touched on the
all the way to the Supreme Court illustrate how the private issue of the validity of TCT No. 25772 in the name of the
respondents tried to block but unsuccessfuly the already final Providos over Lot Number 4571, Sta. Barbara Cadastre in
decisions in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432. the light of the final decisions in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R.
No. 64432.
Parenthetically, respondent judge Tito Gustilo abused his
discretion in sustaining the respondent Acting Register of The next question to be determined is on the nature of the
Deeds' stand that the notice of lis pendens in the certificates duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate and/or cancel the
of titles of the petitioners over Lot No. 4571, Barbara notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
Cadastre cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of
Civil Case No. 15871 with the Court of Appeals. In Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It
upholding the position of the Acting Register of Deeds based shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately
on Section 77 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, he register an instrument presented for registration dealing with
conveniently forgot the first paragraph thereof which real or personal property which complies with all the
provides: requisites for registration. x x x. If the instrument is not
"Cancellation of lis pendens. - Before final registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and
judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the
upon Order of the Court after proper showing that ground or reasons therefore, and advising him of his right to
the notice is for the purpose of molesting the appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this
adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect Decree."
the rights of the party who caused it to be
registered. It may also be cancelled by the Register Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in
of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or
caused the registration thereof." memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed,
mortgage or other instrument presented to him for
This Court cannot understand how respondent Judge Gustilo registration or where any party in interest does not agree
with the action taken by the Register of deeds with reference Presidential Decree No. 1529.
to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to
the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of In the ultimate analysis, however, the responsibility for the
Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds. delays in the full implementation of this Court's already final
x x x." resolutions in G. R. No. 62042 and G. R. No. 64432 which
includes the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when annotated in the certificates of titles of the petitioners over
the words and phrases of the statute are clear and Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre falls on the
unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the respondent Judge. He should never have allowed himself to
language employed and the statute must be taken to mean become part of dilatory tactics, giving as excuse the wrong
exactly what it says. impression that Civil Case No. 15871 filed by the private
respondents involves another set of parties claiming Lot No.
The statute concerning the function of the Register of Deeds 4517 under their, own Torrens Certificate of Title.
to register instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear
and leaves no room for construction. According to WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The
Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English February 12, 1987 order of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo,
Language - the word shall means "ought to, must, x x x Branch 23 is REINSTATED. All subsequent orders issued by
obligation - used to express a command or exhortation, the trial court which annulled the February 12, 1987 order
used in laws, regulations or directives to express what is are SET ASIDE. Costs against the private respondents.
mandatory."
Hence, the function of a Register of Deeds with reference to AURELIO BALBIN AND FRANCISCO BALBIN, PETITIONERS,
the registration of deeds encumbrances, instruments and the VS. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILOCOS SUR, RESPONDENT.
like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of
Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for Appeal from the resolution of the Commissioner of Land
reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order directing Registration in LRC Consulta No. 366.
him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the On November 15, 1961 petitioners presented to the
certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel register of deeds of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the
of land. registered owners certificate of title (OCT No. 548) and an
In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in instrument entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos", with the
pursuance of any deed x x x or other instrument presented request that; the same be annotated on the title. Under the
to him, he should have asked the opinion of the terms of the instrument sought to be annotated one
Commissioner of Land Registration now, the Administrator Cornelio Balbin, registered owner of the parcel of land
of the National Land Title and Deeds Registration described in OCT No. 548, appears to have donated inter-
Administration in accordance with Section 117 of
vivos an undivided two-thirds (2/3) portion thereof in favor
of petitioners. The entire area of the land is 11.2225
hectares.
The register of deeds denied the requested annotation for
being "legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law." It
appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of
encumbrances on the certificate are three separate sales of
undivided portions of the land earlier executed by
Cornelio Balbin in favor of three different buyers. The
pertinent entries read:
"Entry No. 5658. Sales.
Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the
registered owner, conveying an undivided portion
of an area of 3.710 square meters only in favor
of Florentino Gabayan, this Original Certificate of
Title No. 548 is hereby cancelled with respect to
said area of 3.710 square meters and in lieu
thereof, the name of the vendee x x x is hereby
substituted to succeed to all rights, participation in
interest of the vendor. x x x
"Date of Instrument: January 25, 1955, x x x
x x x have been issued (by the register of deeds of Ilocos Sur) in
"Entry No. 5659. Sale of portion.
Sale for the sum of P100.00 executed by the
registered owner, conveying an undivided portion
of an area of 16.713 square meters in favor of
Roberto Bravo, this Original Certificate of Title No.
548 is hereby cancelled with respect to said
undivided portion x x x and in lieu thereof the name
of the vendee x x x is hereby substituted to
succeed to all rights, participation and interest of
the vendor x x x
"Date of Instrument: June 9, 1953. x x x
x x x
"Entry No. 5660. Sale of portion.
Sale for the sum of P400.00 executed by the
registered owner, conveying an undivided portion
of an area of 15.000 square meters in favor of
Juana Gabayan, this Certificate of Title No. 548 is
hereby cancelled with respect to said undivided
portion x x x and in lieu thereof the name of the
vendee x x x is hereby substituted to succeed to all
rights, participation and interest of the vendor x x x
"Date of instrument: February 12, 1952. x x x"
The final part of the annotations referring to the above-
mentioned sales contains an additional memorandum stating
that "three co-owner's duplicate certificates of title No. 548
the name of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto Bravo and
Juana Gabayan upon verbal request of Mr. Andres Cabeldo,
Notary Public of Caoayan, I. Sur, for and in the name of the
vendees, this 5th day of January, 1956 at Vigan, I. Sur."
Mainly because these three other co-owner's copies of the
certificate of title No. 548 had not been presented by
petitioners the Register of Deeds refused to make the
requested annotation.
Unsatisfied, petitioners referred the matter to the
Commissioner of Land Registration, who subsequently
upheld the action of the Register of Deeds in a resolution
dated April 10, 1962. With respect to the principal point in "registered owner" and not one whose claim to or interest in
controversy, the Commissioner observed:
"(1) It appears that the donor is now merely a
co-owner of the property described in the Original
Certificate of Title No. 548, having previously sold
undivided portions thereof on three different
occasions in favor of three different
buyers. Consequently, aside from the owner's
duplicate issued to Cornelio Balbin, there are now
three co-owner's duplicates which are presumably
in the possession of the three buyers.
Accordingly, in addition to the owner's duplicate of
Original Certificate of Title No. 548, the three co-
owner's duplicates must likewise be surrendered.
The claim of counsel for the donees that the
issuance of the three co-owner's duplicates was
unauthorized is beside the point. Unless end until a
court of competent jurisdiction rules to the
contrary, these titles are presumed to have been
lawfully issued."
Without presenting those three (3) other duplicates of the
title, petitioners would want to compel annotation of the
deed of donation upon the copy in their possession, citing
section 55 of Act 496, which provides that "the production
of the owner's duplicate certificate of title whenever any
voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall be
conclusive authority from the registered owner to the
register of deeds to make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with such instrument." Under this provision,
according to petitioners, the presentation of the other copies
of the title is not required, first, because it speaks of
the property is merely annotated on the title, such as the
three vendees-co-owners in this case; and secondly,
because the issuance of the duplicate copies in their favor
was illegal or unauthorized.
We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section
55, supra, obviously assumes that there is only one
duplicate copy of the title in question, namely, that of the
registered owner himself, such that its production whenever
a voluntary instrument is presented constitutes sufficient
authority from him for the register of deeds to make the
corresponding memorandum of registration.
In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title were in
existence, presumably issued under section 43+ of Act
496.
As correctly observed by the Land Registration
Commissioner, petitioners' claim that the issuance of those
copies was unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its
legality being presumed until otherwise declared by a court
of competent jurisdiction.
There being several copies of the same title in existence, it is
easy to see how their integrity may be adversely affected if
an encumbrance, or an outright conveyance, is annotated
on one copy and not on the others. The law itself refers to
every copy authorized to be issued as a duplicate of the
original, which means that both must contain identical entries
of the transactions, particularly voluntary ones, affecting the
land covered by the title. If this were not so, if different
copies were permitted to carry differing annotations, the
whole system of Torrens registration would cease to be Registration are affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.
reliable. Reyes, J.B.L.(Acting C.J.), Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
One other ground relied upon by the Land Registration Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Commissioner in upholding the action taken by the Register Capistrano, J., did not take part.
of Deeds of Ilocos Suris that since the property subject of Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are on leave.
the donation is presumed conjugal, that is, property of the
marriage of the donor, Cornelio Balbin, and his deceased TEODORO ALMIROL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. THE
wife, Nemesia Mina, "there should first be a liquidation of the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF AGUSAN, RESPONDENT-
partnership before the surviving spouse may make such a APPELLEE.
conveyance." This legal conclusion may appear too general
and sweeping in its implications, for without a previous DECISION
settlement of the partnership a surviving spouse may CASTRO, J.:
dispose of his aliquot share or interest therein - subject of
On June 28, 1961 Teodoro Almirol purchased
course to the result of future liquidation. Nevertheless, it is
from Arcenio Abalo a parcel of land situated in the muni-
not to be denied that, if the conjugal character of the
cipality of Esperanza, province of Agusan, and covered by
property is assumed, the deed of donation executed by the
original certificate of title P-1237 in the name of
husband, Cornelio Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which
"Arcenio Abalo, married to Nicolasa M. Abalo." Sometime in
justified the denial of its registration, namely, the fact that the
May, 1962 Almirol went to the office of the Register of
two-thirds portion of said property which he donated was
Deeds of Agusan in Butuan City to register the deed of sale
more than his one-half share, not to say more than what
and to secure in his name a transfer certificate of
remained of such share after he had sold portions of the
title. Registration was refused by the Register of Deeds
same Land to three other parties.
upon the following grounds, inter alia, stated in his letter of
It appears that there is a case pending in the Court of First May 21, 1962:
Instance of Ilocos Sur (CC No. 2221), wherein the civil
"1. That Original Certificate of Title No. P-1237 is
status of the donor Cornelio Balbin and the character of the
registered in the name of Arcenio Abalo, married
land in question are in issue, as well as the validity of the
to Nicolasa M. Abalo, and by legal presumption, is
different conveyances executed by him. The matter of
considered conjugal property;
registration of the deed of donation may well await the out-
come of that case, and in the meantime the rights of the
"2. That in the sale of a conjugal property
interested parties could be protected by filing the proper
acquired after the effectivity of the New Civil Code
notices of lis pendens.
it is necessary that both spouses sign the
In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the Register of document; but
Deeds of Ilocos Sur and that of the Commissioner of Land
 "3. Since, as in this case, the wife has already died
when the sale was made, the surviving husband
can not dispose of the whole property without
violating the existing law (LRC Consulta No. 46
dated June 10, 1958).
"To effect the registration of the aforesaid deed of
absolute Sale, it is necessary that the property be
first liquidated and transferred in the name of the
surviving spouses and the heirs of the deceased
wife by means of extrajudicial settlement or par-
tition and that the consent of such other heir or
heirs must be procured by means of another
document ratifying this sale executed by their
father."
In view of such refusal, Almirol went to the Court of First
Instance of Agusan on a petition for mandamus (sp. civ.
case 151), to compel the Register of Deeds to register the
deed of sale and to issue to him the corresponding transfer
certificate of title, and to recover P5,000 in moral damages
and P1,000 attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. It
is Almirol's assertion that it is but a ministerial duty of the
respondent to perform the acts required of him, and that he
(Almirol) has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law.
In his answer with counterclaim for P10,000 damages, the
respondent reiterated the grounds stated in his letter of May
21, 1962, averred that the petitioner has "other legal, plain,
speedy and adequate remedy at law by appealing the
decision of the respondent to the Honorable Commissioner
of Land Registration," and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
In its resolution of October 16, 1963 the lower court,
declaring that "mandamus does not lie * * * because the
adequate remedy is that provided by Section 4 of Rep. Act
1151", dismissed the petition, with costs against the
petitioner.
Hence the present appeal by Almirol.
The only question of law tendered for resolution is whether
mandamus will lie to compel the respondent to register the
deed of sale in question.
Although the reasons relied upon by the respondent evince a
sincere desire on his part to maintain inviolate the law on
succession and transmission of rights over real properties,
these do not constitute legal grounds for his refusal to
register the deed. Whether a document is valid or not, is not
for the register of deeds to determine; this function belongs
properly to a court of competent jurisdiction.[1]
"Whether the document is invalid, frivolous or
intended to harass, is not the duty of a Register of
Deeds to decide, but a court of competent
jurisdiction." (Gabriel vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal,
et al, G.R. No. L-17956, Sept. 30, 1963)
"* * * the supposed invalidity of the contracts of
lease is no valid objection to their registration,
because invalidity is no proof of their non-existence
or a valid excuse for denying their registration. The
law on registration does not require that only valid
instruments shall be registered. How can parties
affected thereby be supposed to know their in-
validity before they become aware, actually or
constructively, of their existence or of their
provisions? If the purpose of registration is merely
 to give notice, then questions regarding the effect submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration either
or invalidity of instruments are expected to be upon the certification of the Register of Deeds, stating the
decided after, not before, registration. It must question upon which he is in doubt, or upon the suggestion in
follow as a necessary consequence that writing by the party in interest; and thereupon the
registration must first be allowed, and validity or Commissioner, after consideration of the matter shown by
effect litigated afterwards." (Gurbax Singh Pablo & the records certified to him, and in case of registered lands,
Co. vs. Reyes and Tantoco, 92 Phil. 182-183) after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be
Indeed, a register of deeds is entirely precluded by section 4made.His decision in cases shall be conclusive and binding
of Republic Act 1151 from exercising his personal judgment upon all Registers of Deeds: Provided, further, That when a
and discretion when confronted with the problem of whether party in interest disagrees we ruling or resolution of the
to register a deed or instrument on the ground that it is Commissioner and the issue involves a question of law, said
invalid. For under the said section, when he is in doubt as todecision may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty
the proper step to be taken with respect to any deed or days from and after receipt of the notice thereof."
other instrument presented to him for registration, all that he
The foregoing notwithstanding, the court a quo correctly
is supposed to do is to submit and certify the question to the
dismissed the petition for mandamus. Section 4 above-
Commissioner of Land Registration who shall, after notice
quoted provides that "where any party in interest does not
and hearing, enter an order prescribing the step to be taken
agree with the Register of Deeds
on the doubtful question. Section 4 of R.A. 1151 reads as
follows: * * * * the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner
of Land Registration," who thereafter shall "enter an order
"Reference of doubtful matters to Commissioner of Land
prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be
Registration. - When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with
made", which shall be "conclusive and binding upon all
regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be
Registers of Deeds." This administrative remedy must be re-
made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other
sorted to by the petitioner before he can have recourse to
instrument presented to him for registration, or where any
the courts.
party in interest does not agree with the Register of Deeds
with reference to any such matter, the question shall be ACCORDINGLY, the Resolution of the lower court of
October 16, 1963 is affirmed, at petitioner's cost.