Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Uploaded by
Luis RonquilloCopyright:
Available Formats
Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Uploaded by
Luis RonquilloCopyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Copyright:
Available Formats
Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Land Titles Deeds Digest Compilation 5
Uploaded by
Luis RonquilloCopyright:
Available Formats
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
a sked Conrado to return the owner’s copy of the
ECTION 47:
S titlebutthelatterprocrastinated,givingallkindsof
REGISTERED LAND NOT SUBJECT TO
excuses until he died in 1972; (4) that thereafter,
PRESCRIPTION
Aurora asked Cristina for thecopyofthetitlebut
the latter also ignored her request; (5) that the
ANGASINAN v ALMAZONA
P subsequent sale ofthesubjectpropertytoFullway
GR 200588 - July 1, 2015 was without Aurora’s authorization, and thus, the
paymentreceivedbytherespondentsforthesaleof
ACTS
F the subject property should be turned overtoher;
Aquilina owns a parcel of land located in Binan, and (6) she prayed that they be paid moral and
Laguna. After the liberation of Manila from exemplary damages.
Japanese occupation, Aquilana and her maternal
grandmother Leoncia learned that theirhousewas ristina filed their answer with compulsory
C
ruined by the war. To rebuild their house, they counterclaim stating that: (1) the subject property
borrowed money from Condaro Almazora. In was property transferred to Conrado under TCT
return,LeonciaentrustedtoAlmazoratheduplicate No. 35282, and, thereafter, in the names of heirs
of the title to the land. Conrado and his family Conrado under TCT No. T-114352; (2) that the
remained in the property. imputation of fraud on the part of Conradointhe
registration of the subject property was baseless
pon Aquilina’sdeath,theTCTwascanceledand
U and this assertion of fraud was not transmissible
anewonewascanceledandanewonewasissued fromConradotohisheirs,whomerelyacquiredthe
to Aurora, Aquilana’s sole heir. property through succession; and (3) that the
complaintstatednocauseofactionandwasbarred
I n 1949, an Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a by prescription.
Parcel of Registered Land was signed by Aurora
and her husband, in favor of Conrado (Aurora I SSUE
alleges that this was fraudulent). W/N the action has already prescribed [YES].
During the year 1972, Conrado died. ULING
R
The action is barred by laches and prescription.
I ntheyear1994,AuroralearnedfromCristina,the Here, it took Auroramorethan50yearstofilean
widowed spouse of Conrado, that the title of the action. Her allegations that she had repeatedly
subject property had long been transferred in the demanded the return of the owner’s duplicate is
nameofConradoandthatthesubjectpropertyhad self-serving and thus cannot be given weight.
beensoldtoFullwayDevelopmentCorporationby
the heirs of Conrado in the consideration of PHP urora slept on herrightsformorethan50years,
A
4,000,000. impervious in asserting her ownership of the
subject property, thereby losing the same by laches.
n October 30, 1995, Aurora sent a letter to the
O
heirs of Conrado demanding the delivery of the urthermore, there was no proof of fraud. Even
F
payment they received for the sale of the subject though Aurora could have challenged the validity
property; but it was unheeded. of the Adjudication and the Absolute Sale of a
ParcelofRegisteredLandtocheckifthesignatures
n May 9, 1996, Aurora and her husband fileda
O were forged, she did not do so.
complaint for damages against Cristina and the
heirs of Conrado. They contend that: (1) the herearetwokindsofprescriptionprovidedinthe
T
owner’sduplicatecopywasonlygiventoConrado CivilCode:(1)Acquisitive,thatis,theacquisition
forsafekeeping;(2)thatthefamilyofConradohad of a right by the lapse of time as expounded in
been staying on, and using, the subject property Paragraph1,Article1106.Acquisitiveprescription
since 1912 with the permission and generosity of is also known as adverse possession and
Aquilana and Leoncia; (3) that she repeatedly usucapcion. (2) Extinctive Prescription, whereby
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
r ights and actions are lost by the lapseoftimeas 2 008 with METC against Spouses de Jesus,
defined in Paragraph 2, Article 1106 and Article Bernardo, et al compelling respondents to vacate
1139. Another name for extinctive prescription is their lot in Novaliches, QuezonCitycoveredbya
litigationofaction.Thesetwokindsofprescription TCTundertheSpousesSupapo’snames.Theydid
should not be interchanged. not reside on the lot and only visited it at least
twice a year. During one of their visits in 1992,
I n a plethora of cases, the Court has held that they saw 2 houses built on the lot without their
Section 47 of PD 1529 covers acquisitive consent. They learned that the Spouses de Jesus
prescription.Aregisteredlandthereincanneverbe occupied one house while Macario occupied the
acquired by adverse possession. In the case at other. The Spouses Supapo demanded that
bench,however,itwasextinctiveprescription,and respondents immediately surrender the lot.
not acquisitive prescription, which barred the
actionofthepetitioners.AstheCAcorrectlyheld, he respondents argued that the complaint for
T
the action must fail, not because respondents accion publiciana should be dismissed for being
adversely occupied the property, but because filed out of time, that is, beyond the 10-year
petitioners failed to institute their suit within the prescriptive period under Article 555 of the Civil
prescriptive period underArticle1144oftheCivil Code, which states: “A possessor may lose his
Code. possession: (4) By the possession of another,
subject to the provisionsofArticle537,ifthenew
I tisnowwell-settledthattheprescriptiveperiodto possessionhaslastedlongerthanoneyear.Butthe
recover property obtained by fraud or mistake, real right of possession is not lost until after the
givingrisetoanimpliedtrustunderArticle1456of lapse of ten years.” The respondents pointed out
the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to Article that the Spouses Supapo filed the complaint for
1144. The prescriptive period to enforce the accion publiciana on March7,2008ormorethan
constructivetrustshallbecountedfromthealleged 10 years after the certificate to file an actionwas
fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the issued in 1992.
certificate of title over the property. The ten-year
prescriptiveperiodappliesonlyifthereisanactual urther, while the respondents concede that the
F
needtoreconveythepropertyaswhentheplaintiff Spouses Supapo hold a TCT over the subject
is not in possession of the property. property, and assuming a Torrens title is
imprescriptible andindefeasible,theypostthatthe
I n this case, the ten-year prescriptive period is latter have lost the right to recover possession
squarely applicable because Conrado and his because of laches.
family, not petitioners, were in possession of the
property.Thesubjectpropertywasregisteredinthe I SSUE
nameofConradoonJune17,1965,andthisshould W/N the cause of action has prescribed [NO].
be the starting point of the ten-year period.
Petitioners,thus,haduntilJune17,1975toenforce ULING
R
the implied trust and assert their claim over the Lands covered by a TCT cannot be acquired by
land. As properly held by the CA, petitioners prescriptionoradversepossession.Inalonglineof
belatedly instituted their judicial claim over the cases,wehaveconsistentlyruledthatlandscovered
landonMay9,1996.Indeed,withthelapseofthe by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or
prescriptive period to file an action, petitioners adversepossession.Wehavealsoheldthataclaim
could no longer seek relief from the courts. ofacquisitiveprescriptionisbaselesswhentheland
involved is a registered land because of Article
UPAPO v DE JESUS
S 1126oftheCivilCodeinrelationtoAct496[now,
GR 198356 - April 20, 2015 Section 47 of PD 1529].
ACTS
F heSpousesSupapo(asholdersoftheTCT)enjoy
T
Spouses Supapo (Esperanza and Romeo Supapo) a panoply of benefits under the Torrens system.
filedacomplaintforaccionpublicianaonMarch7, The most essential insofar as the present case is
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
c oncerned is Section 47 of PD No. 1529, which heCAreversedsuchfindingsuponappealonthe
T
states: “Registered land is not subject to justification that the defendant’s action for
prescription. No title to registered land in reconveyancebasedonanimpliedtrusthadalready
derogationofthetitleoftheregisteredownershall been barred by prescription and that theactionof
be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.” the plaintiffs is notbarredbylachesbecausewhat
was sold to the Cabreraswasadefiniteportionof
I nadditiontotheimprescriptibility,thepersonwho the community property.
holdsaTorrensTitleoveralandisalsoentitledto
the possession thereof. The right to possess and I SSUE
occupy the land is an attribute and a logical W/Ntheactionoftheplaintiffsisbarredbylaches
consequenceofownership.Corollarytothisruleis [Y
ES].
the right oftheholderoftheTorrensTitletoeject
any person illegally occupying their property. ULING
R
The argument that laches does not apply because
ithrespecttotherespondents’defenseoflaches,
W what was sold to the Cabreras was a definite
suffice it to say that the same is evidentiary in portion of the community property, and therefore,
nature and cannot be established by mere void, is untenable.
allegations in the pleadings. Thus, withoutasolid
evidentiary basis, laches cannot beavalidground rticle 493 of the Civil Code states that: “Each
A
to deny the Spouses Supapo’s petition. co-owner shall have thefullownershipofhispart
and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
ABRERA v CA
C and even he may therefore alienate, assign or
GR 108547 - February 3, 1997 mortgage it,andevensubstituteanotherpersonin
its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
ACTS
F involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
In 1950, a parcel of unregistered land which was mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
owned in common by Daniel, Albertana and limitedtotheportionwhichmaybeallottedtohim
Felicidad Teokemian, having inherited the same in the division upon the termination of the
from their late father, Domingo Teokemian, was co-ownership.”
sold to Andres Orais wherein Felicidad was not
able to sign in the Deed of Sale. ndisputed is the fact that since the sale of the
U
two-third portion of the subject property to the
I n 1957, Virigila Orais, daughter of the vendee, plaintiff, the latter had allowed Felicidad
issuedFreePatentandOriginalCertificateofTitle Teokemiantooccupythatone-thirdportionallotted
over the said property. toher.Therehas,therefore,beenapartialpartition,
wherethetransfereesofanundividedportionofthe
I n 1972, the one-third share of Felicidad landallowedaco-ownerofthepropertytooccupy
Teokemian in her possession was sold to spouses adefiniteportionthereofandhasnotdisturbedthe
ElanoandFelicidadCabrerawhoimmediatelytook same, for a period too long to be ignored – the
possession of it. possessor is in a better condition or right.
I n1988,VirgiliaOraisfiledacivilcaseforquieting IONGCO v TIONGCO
T
of title against FelicidadTeokemianandFelicidad GR 161360 - October 19, 2011
Cabrera.
ACTS
F
n April 27, 1989, the lower court rendered
O Matilde, Jose, Vicente, and Felipe, all surnamed
judgment in favor of defendants against the Tiongco, were born to Atanacio and Maria Luis
plaintiff,rulingthatthelattercannolongerrecover Tiongco.TogethertheywereknownastheHeirsof
the portion of land occupied bytheformerdueto Maria Luis de Tiongco.
laches.
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
he present dispute invokes three parcels of land
T atalinoTorre.Theformerthensoldtheproperties
C
alllocatedinIloiloCity.Thelotswereregisteredin to Antonio Doronila, Jr., and back again to Jose.
the names of Matilde, Jose, Vicente, and Felipe,
and in the name of “Heirs of Maria Luis de I SSUE
Tiongco.” W/Npetitionerhasabetterrightovertheproperties
[Y
ES].
hile all of the Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco
W
havedied,theyweresurvivedbytheirchildrenand ULING
R
descendants.AmongthelegitimatechildrenofJose TheCourtagreeswiththeCA’sdisquistionthatan
werepetitionerandCarmeloTiongco,thefatherof action for reconveyance can indeed be barred by
respondent Jose B. Tiongco. prescription.Inalonglineofcasesdecidedbythis
Court, we ruled that an action for reconveyance
ometime in 1965, petitioner built her house on
S based on implied or constructive trust must
one lot and sustained herself by collectingrentals perforceprescribein10yearsfromtheissuanceof
from the tenants of the other lots. In 1968, the Torrens title over the property.
petitioner, as one of the heirs of Jose, filed an
adverse claim affecting all the rights, interest and owever,thereisanexceptiontohisrule.Thereis
H
participationofherdeceasedfatheronthedisputed but one instance when prescription cannot be
lots, but the adverse claim was annotatedonlyon invoked in an action for reconveyance, that is,
the certificate of title covering two lots. whentheplaintiffisinpossessionofthelandtobe
reconveyed.Theexceptionwasbasedonthetheory
I n 1983, respondent Jose prohibited the petitioner thatregistrationproceedingscouldnotbeusedasa
from collecting rentals from the tenants. In shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the
December 1983, respondent Jose filed a suit for expense of another.
recoveryofpossessionwithpreliminaryinjunction
against several tenants wherein he obtained a rescription does not run against the plaintiff in
P
judgmentinhisfavor.RespondentJosealsofileda actualpossessionofthedisputedlandbecausesuch
caseforunlawfuldetainerwithdamagesagainstthe plaintiff has a right to wait until hispossessionis
petitionerasshewasstayingonthefirstlot.While disturbedorhistitleisquestionedbeforeinitiating
theRTC,Branch33ofIloiloCityruledinfavorof an action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed
Jose,theCAreversedtheRTC’sdecisionandruled possession gives him the continuing right to seek
infavorofthepetitioner.Assuch,respondentJose theaidofacourtofequitytodeterminethenature
never took possession of theproperties.However, of the adverse claim ofathirdpartyanditseffect
Jose averred thathehasbeenpayingrealproperty onhistitle.TheCourtheldthatwheretheplaintiff
taxesonthesaidpropertiesformorethan10years in an action for reconveyance remains in the
andthatpetitionercollectedrentalsonlybecausehe possession of the subject land, the action for
allowed her. reconveyance becomes in effect anactiontoquiet
title to property, which is not subject to
I n 1988, when petitioner inquired at theOfficeof prescription.
theRDofIloiloCity,shediscoveredthatJosehad
already executed an Affidavit of Adjudication I n this case, petitioner’s possession was disturbed
dated April 17, 1974,declaringthatheistheonly in 1983 when respondent Jose filed a case for
surviving heir of the registered owners and recovery of possession. The RTC of Iloilo City
adjudicating unto himself all three lots. ruled in respondent Jose’s favor but the CA on
Consequently,theRDofIloiloCityissuedtransfer November 28, 1991, during the pendency of the
certificate of titles all in the name of Jose. present controversy with the court aquo,ruledin
favor of the petitioner. Petitioner never lost
ased on the records with theRD,italsoappears
B possession of the saidproperties,andassuch,she
thatonMay10,1974,thesamedaywhentheTCTs isinapositiontofilethecomplaintwiththecourta
were issued, Jose sold the lots to Catalino Torre. quotoprotectherrightsandclearwhateverdoubts
Certificatesoftitlewerealsoissuedinthenameof
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
h as been cast onhertitlebytheissuanceofTCTs o f the land in question from the time of the said
in respondent Jose’s name. sale, and had been religiously paying the realty
taxes due thereon. By wayofaffirmativedefense,
the respondents assert that petitioners’ cause of
SECTION 48:
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NOT SUBJECT action,ifany,hadalreadyprescribedinviewofthe
TO COLLATERAL ATTACK unreasonable delay in filing the suit in court, let
alone that fact that their (respondents’) title has
become indefeasible.
APARUC v VDA DE MENDE
T
GR 152007 - January 22, 2007
I SSUE
W/N the deed of sale allegedly executed on
ACTS
F
December 30, 1967 between the petitioners’
On September 19, 1996 in the RTCofTagbilaran
predecessors-in-interest and the respondent is valid.
City, a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Deed of Sale, Cancellation of TCT No. (8585)
ULING
R
T-4767 and all Subsequent Documents and
The recourse must fail.
Damages was filed by the petitioners against
respondentsCarmelitaLoquellanoVda.deMende,
he SC merely deals with questions of law. Asa
T
the Heirs of Evans B. Mende, and the RD of the
rule,forgerycannotbepresumed.Itmustbeproved
City of Tagbilaran.
by clear, convincing evidence. Mere allegation of
forgeryisnotevidenceandtheburdenofprooflies
ometimein1992,whenthepetitionersdecidedto
S
onthepartyallegingit.Here,thepetitionersfailed
partitionthesubjectproperty,theydiscoveredfrom
to discharge their burden.
the Office of the City Assessor that the title
covering the land was already in the name of a
sitwere,thepetitionersmerelyallegedthatthey
A
certain Evans Mende by virtue of a Deed ofSale
filedtwomotionsbeforethetrialcourttohavethe
purportedly executedinfavorofthelatterbytheir
originalcopyofthedocumentsintheOfficeofthe
predecessors-in-interest on December 30, 1967;
RDofTagbilaranCitybeexaminedbyhandwriting
that said Deed of Sale is a forged document
experts buttheirmotionswereignoredbythetrial
because the alleged vendors therein, who were
court.Theythenharpontheexcusethattheycould
Procopio Tapuroc and the predecessors-in-interest
not be expected to prove forgery if the trialcourt
oftheotherpetitioners,didnotsigntheconveying
denied them the opportunity to do so.
deed nor receive any consideration therefor; and
that one of the alleged vendors,AntoniaEbe,had
oreover, the technical procedure utilized by
M
already passed away in 1960, or long before the
handwriting experts, while usually helpful in the
purported Deed of Sale was said to have been
examinationofforgeddocuments,isnotmandatory
executed in 1967. Petitioners, as plaintiffs, thus
or indispensabletotheexaminationorcomparison
prayforthenullificationofthesameDeedofSale,
of handwritings.
the cancelation of the title issuedpursuantthereto
inthenameofEvansMendeandtherestorationof
he process of identification, therefore, must
T
the previous title in their names, plus damages.
include the determination of the extent, kind, and
significance of this resemblance as well as of the
I n their Answer, the respondent Mendes, as
variation. It then becomes necessary to determine
defendants, denied the material allegations of the
whether the variation is due to the operation of a
Complaint and averredthatthelateEvansMende,
different personality, or is the only expected and
husband of the respondent Carmelita Loquellano
inevitablevariationfoundinthegenuinewritingof
Vda. de Mende and father of the herein
the same writer. It is also necessary to decide
co-respondents, bought the subject parcel of land
whether theresemblanceistheresultofamoreor
fromitspreviousownersonDecember12,1967as
less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and
evidenced by a Deed of Sale duly notarized by
characteristic resemblancewhichnaturallyappears
Atty.RodolfoYap.Theyfurtherassertthattheyhad
in a genuine handwriting. When these two
been in open,continuous,andpeacefulpossession
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
q uestions are correctly answered the whole espondents in their answer claimed ownership
R
problem of identification is solved. over the property by succession, and alleged that
petitioner is only the registered owner, not the
I n the present case, all that the petitioners had to lawful owner of the propertybecausetheDeedof
offer by way of evidence on the issue of forgery Absolute Sale was simulated andvoid.Theyfiled
was their bare denial that their an action to assail the validity of thesalearguing
predecessors-in-interestsignedthesubjectDeedof that petitioner exerted undue influence over
Sale. Such denial willnotsufficetoovercomethe Juanito, whoatthetimewasseriouslyill,toagree
presumption of regularity ofnotarizeddocuments, to the sale of the property for only PHP 20,000
to overthrow which, the countervailing evidence afterknowingthatonlytwoapartmentsweregiven
must be clear, convincing and more than merely to her in theHuling Habilin at Testamento.
preponderant.
he MTC in the unlawful detainer case ruled in
T
s a final note, we emphasize that aTorrenstitle
A respondent’s favor.
cannotbecollaterallyattacked.Thequestiononthe
validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently n appeal, the RTCreversedtheMTC’sdecision,
O
issued or not, can be raised only in an action in that the petitioner's certificate of title is
expressly instituted for that purpose. The title conclusive evidence of ownership oftheproperty.
represented by the certificate cannot be changed, The RTC also held that the MTC erredinrelying
altered,modified,enlarged,diminished,orcanceled heavily on Juanito’s last willandtestamentwhich
in a collateral proceeding. The action for the was not probated hencehasnoeffectandnoright
declaration of nullity of deed of sale commenced can be claimed therein.
bythepetitionersintheRTCofTagbilaranCityis
notthedirectproceedingrequiredbylawtoattack espondents filed a petition for reviewbeforethe
R
a Torrens certificate of title. CAwhichreversedandsetasidetheRTCdecision
andreinstatedthatoftheMTC.Petitioner’smotion
ODRIGUEZ v RODRIGUEZ
R for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this
GR 175720 - September 11, 2007 petition.
ACTS
F I SSUE
Juanito Rodriguez owned a five-door apartment W/N a will which was not probated has effect or
located at San Jose Street, Guadalupe Nuevo, can confer a right [NO].
Makati City.
ULING
R
nOctober27,1983,heexecutedaHulingHabilin
O The Court held that respondents failed to prove
at Testamento giving petitioner Cresenciana Tubo their right of possession, as theHulingHabilinat
Rodriguez,hislive-inpartner,apartmentsDandE, Testamento and the Partition Agreement have no
and his children Benjamin Rodriguez (deceased legal effect since the will has not been probated.
husband of respondent Evangeline Rodriguez), Beforeawillcanhaveforceorvalidity,itmustbe
apartment A, respondentBuenaventuraRodriguez, probated. This cannot be dispensed with and is a
apartment B, and respondent Belen Rodriguez, matter of public policy.
apartment C. Juanito later on executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale over the property in favor of the rticle 838 of the Civil Code mandates that “no
A
petitioner who registered it in her name. will shall pass either real or personal property
Cresenciana then filed a complaint for unlawful unlessitisprovedandallowedinaccordancewith
detainer against respondents who, without her the RulesofCourt.”Asthewillwasnotprobated,
knowledge and consent, leased the units to some the Partition Agreement which was executed
otherpersonswhofailedtovacatethepremisesand pursuanttothelastwillofJuanitocannotbegiven
pay the rentals thereof. effect. Thus, thefactthatpetitionerwasapartyto
said agreement becomes immaterial in the
determination of the issue of possession.
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
oreover,atthetimethedeedofsalewasexecuted
M I nthepresentcase,therespondentsallegedintheir
in favor of the petitioner, Juanito Rodriguez answer that the certificate of title issued in the
remainedtheownerthereofsinceownershipwould name of Teresa was fraudulently obtained. This
onlypasstohisheirsatthetimeofhisdeath.Thus, defense constitutes a collateral attack on the title
asowneroftheproperty,hehadtheabsoluteright andshouldnotthereforebeentertained.Todirectly
todisposeofitduringhislifetime.Now,whetheror assail the validity of TCT No. RT-1925, a direct
notthedispositionwasvalidisanissuethatcanbe action for conveyancemustbefiled.Basedonthe
resolved online in the action filed by respondents certificateoftitle,Teresaistheownerofthesubject
with the RTC of Makati City. The action in this property and is entitled to its physical possession.
caseisoneofunlawfuldetainerwhichissummary
innatureandhencevalidityofthewillshallnotbe EIRS OF COLLADO v GUTIEREZ
H
subjecttoacollateralattack.TheCourt’srulingon GR 212938 - July 30, 2019
the issue of ownership is only provisional to
determine who between the parties has the better ACTS
F
right of possession. Thus, the Court reversed and OnMay10,1995,OCTNo.P-61499(18,280sq.m;
set aside the decision of the CA. Isabela) was issued in Dominic Gutierrez's favor.
Since Dominic was still a minor, his father,
UAZON v TUAZON
T Dominador L. Gutierrez, filed before the RTC of
GR 191432 - September 2, 2015 Isabela an action for recovery of ownership,
possession with damages with prayer for
ACTS
F preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary
OnOctober20,1975,AngelIgasonexecutedareal restraining order against Alfredo Cullado.
estate mortgage through a KasulatanngSanglaan
in favor of Teresa over a portion of Lot 103, but ominic maintained that Cullado had been
D
had failed to redeem it. Thereafter, Teresa squattingontheparceloflandcoveredbyOCTNo.
registered the Lot 103 andTCTNo.RT-1925was P-61499asearlyas1977,andthatdespiterepeated
issued in her name. demands, Cullado refused to vacate the said lot.
n January 24, 2007, Teresa sent a final demand
O ullado alleged that he has been in an actual
C
letter to respondents to vacate and to pay rental possession and cultivation of the said land in an
fees. The respondents did not reply. open, adverse and continuous manner. He also
asked for the reconveyance of the property,
n September 11, 2007, Teresa filed a complaint
O considering that Dominic and his father
for unlawful detainer. Spouses Igason in their fraudulently had the subject property titled in
answer alleged that they were occupying the Dominic's name. When Cullado died, he was
subject property as owners, and the certificate of substitutedbyhisheirs(hiswifeLolitaCulladoand
title issuedinthenameofTeresawasfraudulently their (6) children, Dominador Cullado, Romeo,
obtained. Noel, Rebecca, Mary Jane Bautista, and Jimmy
Cullado).
I SSUE
W/N it is permissible to collaterally attack the TC: Ordered the dismissal of the complaint of
R
certificateoftitleinanactionforunlawfuldetainer Dominic and ordered him to reconvey thelandin
[N
O]. favor of the Heirs of Cullado. Dominicfiledwith
theCAapetitionforannulmentofjudgmentonthe
ULING
R ground of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Acertificateoftitlecannotbesubjecttoacollateral
attack in an action for unlawful detainer. A A: Reversed the decision of the RTC; the
C
collateral attack is made when, in an action to allegations constitute a collateral attack against
obtainadifferentrelief,thevalidityofacertificate Dominic’s title, which cannot be allowed in an
of title issued is questioned. accion publiciana and that the RTC had no
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
jurisdiction to resolve the twin issues of BP v RD OF NUEVA ECIJA
D
reconveyance and fraud. UDK No. 7671 - June 23, 1988
I SSUE OCTRINE: Entry (in the primary entry book)
D
W/NtheCAiscorrectinreversingtheDecisionof alone produces the effect of registration, whether
the RTC and in granting Dominic’s petition for voluntaryorinvoluntarytransactions,aslongasthe
annulment of judgment [YES]. registrant has complied with all requirements for
purposes of entry and annotation.
ULING
R
The Court agrees with the CA that the RTC was ACTS
F
bereft of jurisdiction to rule with finality on the On June 13, 1980, the Development Bank of the
issue of ownership and was without the power to Philippines (DBP) presentedforregistrationtothe
order the reconveyance of the subject land to the RD of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan City, a sheriff’s
heirs of Cullado given the fact that the original certificateofsaleinitsfavoroftwoparcelsofland
complaint was only an accion publiciana. The coveredbyTCTNos.NT-149033andNT-149034,
Courtheldthatinanaccionpubliciana,thedefense both in the names of the spousesAndresBautista
of ownership (i.e., that the defendant, andnotthe and Marcelina Calison, which said institution had
plaintiff, is the rightful owner) will not trigger a acquired as the highest bidder at an extrajudicial
collateral attack on the plaintiffs Torrens or COT foreclosure sale.
becausetheresolutionoftheissueofownershipis
done only to determine the issue of possession. he transaction was entered as EntryNo.8191in
T
the Registry’s Primary Entry Book and DBPpaid
he issue as to whether the title wasprocuredby
T the requisite registration fees on the same day.
falsificationorfraudcanonlyberaisedinanaction Annotation of the saleonthecoveringcertificates
expressly instituted for the purpose and aTorrens oftitlecouldnot,however,beeffectedbecausethe
titlecanbeattackedonlyforfraudwithinoneyear originals of those certificates were found to be
after the date of the issuance of the decree of missing from the files of theRegistry,wherethey
registration. were supposed to be kept, and could not be located.
TCwasclearlywithoutjurisdictioninrulingthat
R n the advice of the Register of Deeds, DBP
O
Cullado had become the owner of the land in institutedproceedingsintheCFIofNuevaEcijato
controversy “through the medium of acquisitive reconstitutesaidcertificates,andreconstitutionwas
prescription”havingbeeninpossessionbyhimself orderedbythatcourtinadecisionrenderedonJune
and with his wife for 36 years and that Dominic 15, 1982. For reasons not apparent on therecord,
must reconvey the land in favor of the heirs of the certificates of title were reconstituted only on
Cullado. June 19, 1984.
hile the RTC could have resolved the issue of
W n June 25, 1984, DBP sought annotation onthe
O
ownership provisionally to determine the “better reconstitutedtitlesofthecertificateofsaleofEntry
rightofpossession,”whichisallowedinanaccion No. 8191 on the basis of that same four-year-old
publiciana,itwaswithoutanypowerorjurisdiction entry.TheActingRD,beingindoubtoftheproper
to order the reconveyance of the land in dispute actiontotakeonthesolicitation,tookthematterto
because that can be done only upon a definitive the Commissioner of Land Registration by
rulingonthesaidissue—somethingthatcannotbe consulta.
done in anaccion publiciana.
I SSUE
W/N the instrument subject of primary entry is
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION deemed registered from the time noted pending
annotation of memorandum thereof in the title
SECTION 56: PRIMARY ENTRY BOOK [Y
ES].
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
ULING
R a pplied for a writ of possession which remained
An instrument subject of primaryentryisdeemed unserved.
registered for time noted pending annotation of
memorandum thereof in the title. Therefore, iting Bernardez vs Reyes and Bass vs De la
C
without necessarily holding that annotation of a Rama, respondentstheorizedthattheinstrumentis
primary entry on the original of the certificate of deemed registered only upon actualinscriptionon
titlemaybedeferredindefinitelywithoutprejudice the certificate of title in the custody of the civil
tothelegaleffectofsaidentry,theCourtrulesthat registrar. Since the sheriff’s certificate was only
intheparticularsituationhereobtaining,annotation inscribed on the owner’s duplicate certificate of
of thedisputedentryonthereconstitutedoriginals title, and not on the certificate of title in the
of the certificates of title to which it refers is possession of the RD, then there wasnoeffective
entirely proper and justified. To hold said entry registrationandtheone-yearredemptionperiodhad
“ineffective,” as does the appealed resolution, notevenbeguntorun.Thus,respondentsaskedthe
amounts to declaring that itdidnot,anddoesnot, RTC,amongothers,todeclaretheforeclosuresale
protecttheregistrant(DBP)fromclaimsarising,or null and void, to allow therespondentstoredeem
transactions made, thereafter which areadverseto themortgagedpropertiesintheamountofPHP21,
or in derogation of the rightscreatedorconveyed 160.00,andtocanceltheWritofPossessiondated
by the transaction thus entered. That, surely, is a March 9, 1993.
resultthatisneitherjustnorcan,byanyreasonable
interpretationofSection56ofPD1529,beasserted n the other hand, NHA stresses that the
O
as warranted by its terms. annotation and entry in the owner’s duplicate
certificateoftitlesofthesheriff’scertificateofsale
ATIONAL HOUSING v AUGUSTO BASA
N are sufficient compliance with the requirement of
GR 149121 - April 20, 2010 lawonregistration.Tosupportthis,NHArefersto
Land Registration Administration Circular No. 3
ACTS
F dated December 6, 1988 entitled “Entry and
Sps. Augusto andLuzBasaloanedfromtheNHA Provisional Registration of Instruments Pending
the amount of PHP 556,827.10 secured by a real ReconstitutionofTitle”whichallegedlyauthorized
estate mortgage over their properties. The Sps. all RDs to accept for entry and provisional
Basa did not pay the loan despite repeated registration instruments affecting lostordestroyed
demands. To collect its credit, the NHA filed a certificates of title pending reconstitution of the
verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure of original. The legality and validity of the disputed
mortgage. registration on its duplicate copies ofthesheriff’s
certificate of sale, NHA insists,arebackedbythe
fter notice and publication, the properties were
A Court’s ruling in Development BankofthePHvs
soldatapublicauctionwhereNHAemergedasthe ActingRDofNuevaEcija,wherepurportedly,this
highest bidder. On April 16, 1991, the sheriff’s CourtmadeafavorableinterpretationofSection56
certificateofsalewasregisteredandannotatedonly of PD 1529. NHA says that the inscriptionofthe
on the owner’sduplicatecopiesofthetitlesinthe sheriff’s certificate of sale only to the owner’s
hands of the respondents, since the titles in the duplicatecopies,butnottothoseinthecustodyof
custodyoftheRDwereamongthoseburneddown theRDisjustifiedasthelatterwereburneddown.
whenafireguttedtheCityHallofQuezonCityon Thus, it could not be blamed for the
June 11, 1988. non-registration of the sale in original copies.
n April16,1992,theredemptionperiodexpired,
O I SSUE
without respondents having redeemed the W/N the annotation of the sheriff’s certificate of
properties. Shortly thereafter, on April 24, 1992, sale ontheowner’sduplicatecertificateoftitlesis
NHA executed an Affidavit of Consolidation of sufficient registration considering that the
Ownership over the foreclosed properties,andthe inscriptionontheoriginalcertificatescouldnotbe
samewasinscribedbytheRDonthecertificatesof made as the same got burned.
title in the hand of NHA. Consequently, NHA
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
ULING
R d elivered to LBB Construction. The RTC then
The prevailing rule is that there is effective issuedanOrdergrantingDurawood’sprayerforthe
registrationoncetheregistranthasfulfilledallthat issuanceofawritofattachment.OnJune16,2004,
is needed of him for purposes of entry and the corresponding writ was issued.
annotation, so thatwhatislefttobeaccomplished
lies solely on the RD. nJune17,2004,SheriffRolandC.Leyvalevieda
O
344-square meter parcel of land in Richdale
HA presented the sheriff’s certificate of sale to
N Subdivision, Antipolo City covered by TCT
the RD and the same was entered as Entry No. R-17571 in the name of LBB Construction. A
2873 and was further annotated in the owner’s Notice of Levy on Attachment was annotated on
transfer certificate of title. the said TCT.
year later and after the mortgagors did not
A nJuly13,2004,CandiceS.BonafiledaMotion
O
redeem the said properties, the respondents filed seekingleavetointervene.AttachedtosaidMotion
with the RD an Affidavit of Consolidation of was Candice’s Answer in Intervention, her
Ownership after which the same instrument was third-partyclaimaddressedtoSheriffLeyva,anda
presumably entered into in the day book as the copyoftheTCT.Candiceclaimedthereinthatshe
same was annotated in the owner’s duplicate copy. is a co-owner of the property and that LBB
Construction had sold the property to herandher
J ustlikeinDBP,Levin,Potenciano,andAutocorp, siblings through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated
NHA followed the procedure in order to have its June 2, 2004. Candice assertedthatthesaleisthe
sheriff’scertificateofsaleannotatedinthetransfer subjectofEntryNo.30549datedJune16,2004in
certificate of title. There would be, therefore, no the books of the RD of Antipolo City, while the
reason not to apply therulinginsaidcasestothis levy on attachment isonlyEntryNo.30590dated
one. It was not NHA’s fault that the certificateof June 17, 2004. What was attached to the Motion
salewasnotannotatedonthetransfercertificatesof was a copy of TCT R-17571, and not a title in
title which were supposed to be in thecustodyof Candice and her co-owner’s names.
the Registrar,sincethesamewereburned.Neither
could the NHA be blamed for the fact that there n August 11, 2004, the RTC issued an Order
O
were no reconstituted titles available during the granting Candice’s motion to intervene. LBB
time of inscription as it had taken the necessary Construction and Barber filed their Answer but
steps in having the same reconstituted as earlyas then failed to attend the scheduled hearings,
July 15, 1988. NHA did everything within its including the pre-trial. Consequently, Durawood
power to assert its right. Since entry of the was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte.
certificate of sale was validly registered, the
redemption period accruing to respondents nJuly21,2005,theRTCrendereditsDecisionin
O
commencedtherefrom,sincetheone-yearperiodof favorofDurawood.Thereafter,itbecamefinaland
redemption is reckoned from the date of executory.OnSeptember12,2005,Durawoodfiled
registration of the certificate of sale. a Motion for the Issuance ofaWritofExecution.
On November15,2005,theRTCissuedaWritof
URAWOOD v CANDICE BONA
D Execution. It was when this Writ wasabouttobe
GR 179884 - January 25, 2012 enforced that Durawood discovered that on June
16, 2004,thesupposedRDofAntipoloCity,Atty.
ACTS
F Randy A. Rutaquio, canceled TCT R-17571 and
On June 3, 2004,DurawoodConstructionfiledan issued TCT R-22522 in the name of Candiceand
action for sum of money plus damages with a her co-owners.
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
attachment against LBB Construction and hereafter, Durawood filed a Motion to Reinstate
T
Development and its president Leticia Barber Notice of Levy on Attachment in TCT R-22522
before the RTC of Antipolo for the sum of PHP and Cite Atty. Randy A. Rutaquio for contempt.
665,385.50 as payment for construction materials
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
tty. Randy A. Rutaquio filed a manifestation
A c overed by TCT R-22522 at public auction on
alleging that the sale was entered in the Primary April 11, 2006 at 10:00 AM, pursuant to the
Entry Book prior to theLevyonAttachment.The November 15, 2005 Writ of Execution. Candice
two transactions were assigned to different filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Order the
examinersanditjustsohappenedthattheexaminer Branch Sheriff to Desist from the Sale of
towhomthelevyonattachmentwasassignedwas Intervenor’s Property for being premature, which
abletoinscribethememorandumaheadofthesale, was granted by the RTCinanOrderdatedMarch
although the inscription of the sale was entered 29, 2006.
aheadofthelevy.Thelevyonattachmentwasnot
inscribed on TCT R-22522 because allegedly the n March 8, 2006, the new Acting RD Jose S.
O
sale should have priority and preference. The Loriega,Jr.compliedwiththeMarch6,2006Order
cancellation of TCT R-17571 and the issuance of oftheRTCbyreinstatingTCTR-22522theNotice
R-22522wasalreadycompletedwhenhetookover of Levy on Attachment in favor of Durawood.
the position of Atty. Santos as Acting Registerof
Deeds and was therefore already clothed withthe nApril7,2006,theRTCissuedanOrderdenying
O
authority to issue and sign TCT R-22522. Candice’s MR.
tty. Rutaquio also submitted a letter dated June
A n April 11, 2006, Sheriff Leyvasoldthesubject
O
25, 2004 from Atty.SantostoLRAAdministrator property at public auction for PHP 1,259,727.90
Ulepconsultingthelatterasregardstheregistration with Durawood being the lone bidder, and issued
of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Notice of thecorrespondingCertificateofSale.Thesalewas
Levy on Attachment stating that he hadnotacted inscribed in TCT R-22522 on the same date.
on the Deed of Absolute Sale since the required
registration fees were not paid therefor. andicefiledwiththeCAaPetitionforCertiorari
C
Administrator Ulepwasabletoreplytosaidletter and Prohibition assailing the March 2, 2006 and
on October 6, 2004, when Atty. Rutaquio was April 7, 2006 Orders of the RTC which wasthen
already the Acting Register of Deeds. decided in favor of Candice.
Administrator Ulep stated that since the Deed of
Sale was considered registered on June 16, 2004, ccordingtotheCA,thesequenceofpresentation
A
the same shall take precedenceovertheNoticeof of the entries in the TCT cannot control the
Levy on Attachment registered on June 17, 2004. determination of the rights of claimants over a
disputed property. It is the registration in the
n March 2, 2006, the RTC ruled in favor of
O PrimaryEntryBook(alsoreferredtoinothercases
DurawoodgrantingtheMotiontoReinstateNotice as the day book) that establishes the order of
of Levy on Attachment in TCT R-22522 without reception of instruments affecting registered land.
ruling on the prayer to cite Atty. Rutaquio for As explained by Atty. Rutaquio, the entry in the
contempt. The RTC gave great weight to the day book is only the preliminary step in the
certification by the LRA Human Resource registration. The inscription of the levy on
ManagementOfficerIVLoretoI.OrensethatAtty. attachment on TCT No. R-17571 retroacts to the
Santos was theonlypersonauthorizedtosignand date of entry in thePrimaryEntryBook,whichis
approve all the transactions with the Registry of June 17, 2004. However, the inscription of the
Deeds of Antipolo City at the time. Moreover, DeedofSaleinTCTR-17571,althoughmadeafter
according to the RTC, the alienation of LBB the inscription ofthelevyonattachment,retroacts
ConstructioninfavoroftheBonaswithoutleaving to the earlier date of entry in the Primary Entry
sufficient property to pay its obligation is Book, which is June 16, 2004.
considered by law in fraud of creditor under
Articles 1381 and 1387 of the Civil Code. s regards to the issuance by Atty. Rutaquio of
A
TCTR-22522onJune16,2004despitethefactthat
andice then filed a MR. In the meantime, on
C hewasnotyettheRDofAntipoloCityatthattime,
March 13, 2006, Sheriff LeyvaissuedaNoticeof the CA held thattherewassubstantialcompliance
Sheriff’s Sale setting the sale of the property with the National Land TItles and Deeds
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
egistration Administration (NALTDRA; now
R b econsideredastohaveactedingraveabuseofits
Land Registration Authority) Circular No. 94 on discretion in issuing such Order.
“Certificates ofTitleandDocumentsleftunsigned
by former RegisterofDeeds,”whichprovides:“It urrent doctrine thus is that the entry alone
C
has been brought to the attention of this produces the effect of registration, whether the
Registration that, in some Registries, there are transactionenteredisavoluntaryoraninvoluntary
certificates of title with thefulltranscriptionsand one,solongastheregistranthascompliedwithall
inscriptions, including the volume and page that is required of him for purposes of entry and
numbers,thetitlenumber,thedateandthenameof annotation, and nothing more remains to be done
the former Register of Deeds, already typewritten but a duty incumbent solely on the register of
thereon but which, for some reasons, cannot deeds.
anymore be signed by the former official. Insuch
cases and to resolve this problem, the present his pronouncement, which was reiterated in the
T
Register of Deeds may, without changing or NationalHousingAuthorityvsBasa,Jr.,showsthat
altering the transcriptions and inscriptions, affix for entry to be considered to have the effect of
hissignaturebelowthenameoftheformerRegister registration there is stillaneedtocomplywithall
of Deeds but placing the actual date and time of thatisrequiredforentryandregistration,including
signing enclosed in parenthesis below his the payment of the prescribed fees.
signature.”
ecordsinthecaseatbarrevealthatasofJune25,
R
he CA accepted Atty. Rutaquio’s manifestation
T 2004, thedateoftheletterofAtty.Santosseeking
thathesignedTCTR-22522subsequenttoJune16, the opinion of theLRAasregardstheregistration
2004, on a date when he was already the Acting of the Deed of Sale and the Notice of Levy on
RegisterofDeedsofAntipoloCity.Sincetheentry Attachment, the required registration fees for the
in the Primary Entry Book was made at the Deed of Sale has not yet been paid.
incumbency ofAtty.Santos,thenameofthelatter
still appears on the document. According to the ince there was still no compliance of “allthatis
S
CA, Candice cannot be made to suffer for the required for purposes of entry and annotation” of
failure ofAtty.Rutaquiotoaffixthedatewhenhe the Deed of Sale as of June 25, 2004, the
signed the document. Furthermore,acertificateof registration of the Notice of Levy on Attachment
title, onceregistered,cannotbeimpugned,altered, on June 17, 2004 shall take precedence over the
changed, modified, enlarged,ordiminishedexcept former. Considering that the Notice of Levy on
inadirectproceedingpermittedbylaw.Finally,an Attachmentwasdeemedregisteredearlierthanthe
action for rescission of contracts entered into in DeedofSale,theTCTissuedpursuanttothelatter
fraudofcreditorscannotbeinstitutedexceptwhen should contain the annotation of the Attachment.
the party suffering damage has no legal meansto
obtain reparation for the same. ENDOZA v GARANA
M
GR 179751 - August 5, 2015
urawoodfiledaMR,butthesamewasdeniedby
D
theCAinitsResolutiondatedSeptember18,2007. ACTS
F
Hence, this Petition for Review. Sps. Garana bought the subject property from
Jalbuena.
I SSUE
W/N there was grave abuse of discretion in the efore the sale, there was an adverse claim
B
RTC’s order to reinstate the notice of levy on recorded in the title of Jalbuena, this fact was
attachment in TCT No. R-22522 [NO]. known to the Sps. Garana. By virtue of such
adverse claim, Jalbuena was directed to surrender
ULING
R her original duplicate copy for the proper
The RTC was, in fact, acting properly when it annotationoftheadverseclaim.However,Jalbuena
orderedthereinstatementoftheNoticeofLevyon did not do so. Such adverse claim was later on
Attachment in TCT No. R-22522. Thus, itcannot removed but still the Heirs of Manuel Uy sought
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
f or the registration of noticeoflispendensonthe the necessary documents such as his owner’s
title of Jalbuena but thesamewasnotrecordedin duplicate copy of the title.
theoriginalduplicatetitleofJalbuenaduetosome
slight of handofanemployeeoftheRODbutthe or this reason, the law does not require the
F
samenoticewasenteredintheprimarybookorday presentation as well as the annotation of the
book in the ROD. involuntary instrument on the owner’s duplicate
title, or even on the original title. The mere
ps.Garana,afterknowingthatsuchadverseclaim
S recording of the involuntary instrument in the
wasalreadyremoved,theSpousespursuedthesale. Primary Entry Book is sufficient to bind the
Thus, by virtue of thesale,anewtitlewasissued registered land and affect third persons dealing
overthesubjectlandwithoutannotatingthenotice with it.
of lis pendens. Subsequently, Sps. Garana
mortgagedthepropertytoFarEastBankandTrust I n involuntary registration, the entry of the
Company. instrument in the primary entry bookordaybook
already serves as adequatenoticetoallpersonsof
he Heirs of Manuel Uy learned of the sale
T another person’s or entity’s adverse claim over a
between Jalbuena and Sps. Garana. They then registered land.
notified the RD of the procedurallapses.Thus,to
remedy the lapses, the ROD filed a petition with 2 . Before buying the property, the Sps. Garana
the trial court to allow the ROD of Lucena to already knew of Belen Uy’s annotation of an
annotate the notice to the new title. The adverse claim on TCT T-72029 on August 16,
respondents opposed the move alleging, among 1993.TheSps.Garanadidnotrebutthepetitioner’s
others, that whenthesalewasperfectedtherewas allegation that upon knowing that this first
noannotationwhatsoeverinthetitle.Therefore,the annotationwascanceledbyBienaflorC.Umalion
respondents, specifically Sps. Garana is not October4,1994,theyimmediatelyproceededwith
required to go beyond the face of the title when their purchase of thesubjectlandfromJalbuenaa
dealing with a registered land. monthafter,oronNovember7,1994.Theydidnot
even bother to check further with Jalbuena, or
The RTC ruled in favor of ROD Lucena. inquire from Belen Uy, knowing well that it was
notshewhocausedthecancellationofheradverse
I SSUES claim.
W/N entry in the Primary Entry Book (or Day
Book) is alreadysufficientnoticetoallpersonsof he existing circumstances before their purchase
T
such adverse claim [YES]. should have compelled them to check beyondthe
fourcornersofTCTT-72029.Theirfailuretodoso
/N Sps. Garana and BPI is entitled to raise the
W negated their claim that they were innocent
doctrine of indefeasibility of title [NO]. purchasers for value.
ULING
R he same is true with BPI which should have
T
1.Intheregistrationofavoluntaryinstrumentsuch exercisedahigherdegreeofdiligencewhenitdealt
as a sale, a mortgage, or a lease, the owner’s with TCT T-77739 and its antecedent title, TCT
production of his duplicate certificate of title is T-72029.Asabankinginstitution,BPIisexpected
necessary before registration.Sincetheinstrument to exert a higher degree of diligence, care, and
sought to be registered is the willful act of the prudence than ordinary individuals in handlingits
owner, he isexpectedtoproduceallthenecessary real estate transactions.
documents that will facilitate its registration.
I n addition, the Court notes that the Sps. Garana
n theotherhand,aninvoluntaryinstrumentsuch
O andBPIshouldnotbeallowedtoraisethedefense
asanattachment,alien,anoticeoflispendens,and ofthedoctrineofindefeasibilityoftitleastheydid
thelike,areadversetotheclaimsoftheregistered notactingoodfaith.Theydisregardedglaringfacts
owner. Thus, he cannotbeexpectedtoprovideall
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
a ndcircumstancesthatshouldhavepromptedthem mpil is an unsecured creditor of ASB Holdings
A
to inquire beyond the four corners of TCT T-72029. and he alleged that MICO had illegallyregistered
initsnamethesubjectunitsattheMalayanTower
MPIL v RD OF PASIG CITY
A whichwerereservedforASBunder theMOA.He
GR 192685 - July 31, 2013 charged respondents with falsification of Public
Documents under Article 171(6) of the Revised
ACTS
F Penal Code and violation of Sections 3(a)and(e)
On9November1995,ASBRealtyCorporationand of RA 3019 before the OMB.
Malayan Insurance Company entered into a Joint
Project Development Agreement (JPDA) for the spenesin’s Contention
E
construction of a condominium building to be His intention was only to cause the necessary
known as “The Malayan Tower.” rectification of the errors made on the CCTs.
nder theJPDA,MalayanInsuranceshallprovide
U incetheCCTswerenotyetissuedandreleasedto
S
therealpropertylocatedattheheartoftheOrtigas the parties, it is still within his authority to make
Business District, Pasig City, while ASB would the necessary amendments or corrections.
construct,andshoulderthecostofconstructionand
development of the condominium building. o court order is needed to effect such changes
N
considering that the CCTs were still within the
fter a year, on 20 November 1996, MICO and
A controloftheRDandhavenotyetbeenreleasedto
ASB entered into another contract, with MICO respective owners.
selling to ASB the land it was contributingunder
theJPDA.UndertheContracttoSell,ownershipof hat the amendments were not made for the
T
the land willvestonASBonlyuponfullpayment purpose of falsifying CCTs but only to make the
of the purchase price. samereflectanddeclarethetruthandthatherelied
ontherepresentationofAtty.FrancisSerranowho
ue to financial difficulties, ASB was unable to
D he believes to be acting for both the interests of
perform its obligations to MICO under the JPDA MICO and ASB.
andtheContracttoSell.MICOandASBexecuted
theirThirdcontract,aMemorandumofAgreement, errano’s Contention
S
allowingMICOtoassumetheentireresponsibility TheunitsarenotyetownedbyASBandthatASB
for the development and completion of The is only entitled to the reserved units only after
MalayanTower.Atthetimeoftheexecutionofthe MalayanToweriscompleted.WhichmakesASB’s
MOA, ASB had already paid MICO PHP claim of ownership over the reserved units as
427,231,952.32 out of the PHP 640,847,928.48 premature and totally baseless.
purchase price of the realty.
he Ombudsman dismissed Ampil’s complaint. It
T
I n2005,CondominiumCertificatesofTitle(CCTs) held that it had no authority to interpret the
for 38 units and the allotted parking spaces were provisions of the MOA. The OMB did not have
issuedinthenameofASBandsignedbyEspensis probable cause to indict respondents for
as the Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City. On the falsification of the CCTs because the lastelement
same day prior to its release, anothersetofCCTs of the crime had not been established.
covering thesamesubjectunitsbutwithMICOas
registered ownerthereof,wassignedbyEspenesin I SSUE
in his capacity as Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City. W/NEspenesinisguiltyofviolatingtheprovisions
of PD 1529 [YES].
pon learning of the alteration in the CCTs,
U
Counsel for ASB demanded that Espenesin effect ULING
R
in the CCTsthenameofASBastheownerofthe Espenesin violated the provisions ofPD1529.As
units in the Malayan Tower. Registrar of the RD of Pasig City, Espenesin is
tasked to review deeds and other documents for
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
c onformance with the legal requirements of to by the RD, no amendment shall be effected
registration. (Refer to: Section 10 of PD 1529) thereon except upon lawful order of the court.
I t shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to fter the CCTs of ASB were entered in the
A
immediately register an instrument presented for Registration Book on March 11, 2005 at exactly
registration dealing with real or personalproperty 11:55 AM, the notations thereon were thereafter
which complies with all the requisites for amended by Espenesin when Atty. Serrano
registration. He shall see toitthatsaidinstrument purportedly informed him of the alleged error
bears the proper documentary and science stamps inscribed therein. The proper remedy that should
and that the same are properly canceled. If the have been undertaken by Espenesin is to either
instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith initiate the appropriate petition himself or to
deny registration thereof and inform thepresenter suggest to the parties to the MOA to file said
of such denial in writing, stating the ground or petition in court for the amendment of the CCTs.
reason therefore, and advising him of his right to Anamendmentbywayofashortcutisnotallowed
appealbyconsultainaccordancewithSection117 after entry of the title in the Registration Book.
of the Decree.
spenesin’s liability is grounded on the
E
he CCTs of ASB, at the time when the
T unauthorized amendment of the CCTs. What
amendment was made, were obviously complete defineshiserrorishisinabilitytocomplywiththe
andhaveattainedthecharacterofabindingpublic properproceduresetbylaw.He,himself,admitted
document. The signature of Espensin is already that he erased the name of ASB on the CCT
affixed, and on its face, it was explicitlydeclared because he believed Serrano’s request for
that the titles have already been entered in the re-issuance in MICO’s name constituted simple
Registration Book of the RD of Pasig City on error. Section 108 of PD 1529 provides: “No
March 11, 2005 at 11:55 AM. Allegations to the erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made
contrary must be convincingly and positively upon the registration book after the entry of a
proven, otherwise, the presumption holds that the certificateoftitleorofamemorandumthereonand
CCTsissuedinthenameofASBwereregularand the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds,
the contents thereon binding. except by order of the proper Court of First
Instance.”
elivery ofthetitlestothenamedownersisnota
D
prerequisite before all these CCTs can be legally s Registrar of Deeds,Espenesinwasdutybound
A
categorizedasgenuinedocuments.Thefactthatthe to inquire and ascertain the reason for Serrano’s
same had already been signed by Espensin in his new instruction on theCCT.Hebeingtheheadof
capacity as RD of Pasig City and the notations the RD should not have so easily takenSerrano’s
imprintedthereonappearedtohavebeenenteredon word that the amendment Serrano sought was to
March 11, 2005 at 11:55 AM at the Registry of correct simple and innocuous error. The
BooksofPasigCity,theCCTsinissueareboundto amendment sought by Serrano was not a mere
betreatedasgenuinedocumentsdraftedandsigned clerical change of registered name; it was a
in the regular performance ofdutiesoftheofficer substantial one,changingownershipof38unitsin
whosesignatureappearstheron.Thelawhasmade The Malayan Tower from one entity, ASB, to
it so clear that it is the entry of the title in the another, MICO.
RegistrationBookthatcontrolsthediscretionofthe
RDtoeffectthenecessaryamendmentsandnotthe spenesinarguedthattheprohibitiontoerase,alter,
E
actual delivery of the titles to the named owners. or amend without court order applies only in the
registration book. However, recording or entry of
trictcompliancewiththemandatesofSection108
S the titles, whether an original or a subsequent
ofPD1529isrequired.Theprovisionisclearthat transfer certificate of title in the record, is
uponentryofacertificateoftitle(whichdefinitely simultaneous with the signing by the RD. The
includesCondominiumCertificateofTitle)attested signature on the certificate by the RD is
accompaniedbythedating,numbering,andsealing
CASE DIGESTS FOR LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
o f the certificate. All these are part of a single
registration process. The Ombudsman found that
“thesignatureofEspenesinisclearlyaffixedonthe
CCTs, and on its face, it was explicitly declared
that the titles have already been entered in the
RegistrationBookoftheRDofPasigCity.TheRD
can no longer tamper with entries, especially the
verynameofthetitleholder.Thelawsaysthatthe
certificateoftitleshalltakeeffectuponthedateof
entry thereof.
he actions of Espenesin clearly demonstrate a
T
disregard of well-known legal rules. He is guilty
for grave misconduct with penalty of dismissal
from service with accessorypenaltiesofforfeiture
of retirement benefits.
You might also like
- Tattva Bodha TamilDocument27 pagesTattva Bodha Tamiltaarkika100% (3)
- Agency 2020 Mandocdoc MTDocument8 pagesAgency 2020 Mandocdoc MTclperryNo ratings yet
- Group 4 PPT LTDDocument146 pagesGroup 4 PPT LTDDenver Dela Cruz PadrigoNo ratings yet
- Lecture in Property Nov. 20 2020 Quieting of Title To Co OwernshipDocument117 pagesLecture in Property Nov. 20 2020 Quieting of Title To Co OwernshipXaba RahNo ratings yet
- Rules On BPSDocument19 pagesRules On BPSPrincess FaithNo ratings yet
- Section 16 of Ra 6657 SummaryDocument1 pageSection 16 of Ra 6657 SummaryJesylene ApolonioNo ratings yet
- Busorg Review TSN - 3 ManresaDocument8 pagesBusorg Review TSN - 3 Manresabalunosarron100% (1)
- 124069-1998-Casabuena v. Court of Appeals20211020-12-1ganzieDocument6 pages124069-1998-Casabuena v. Court of Appeals20211020-12-1ganzieDAISY REE JANE LUPASENo ratings yet
- Credit Transactions: 2010 Bar Review Ilo-Ilo CityDocument44 pagesCredit Transactions: 2010 Bar Review Ilo-Ilo Cityel jeoNo ratings yet
- Criminal Law II Premid PDFDocument8 pagesCriminal Law II Premid PDFRaihan Vincent CardenasNo ratings yet
- LBP Vs NatividadDocument12 pagesLBP Vs NatividadLarssen IbarraNo ratings yet
- LTD AssignmentDocument4 pagesLTD AssignmentCherlene TanNo ratings yet
- RA-Republic Act No. 337Document24 pagesRA-Republic Act No. 337Ailein GraceNo ratings yet
- BPS ReportDocument9 pagesBPS ReportcolleenNo ratings yet
- National Grains Authority vs. IacDocument5 pagesNational Grains Authority vs. IacKate DomingoNo ratings yet
- Modes of DiscoveryDocument6 pagesModes of DiscoveryNoel Fajardo DomingoNo ratings yet
- Succession: San Beda College of LawDocument33 pagesSuccession: San Beda College of LawByme DahanNo ratings yet
- Goldenrod, Inc., Petitioner vs. Court of Appeals, Pio Barretto & Sons, Inc., Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc., and Anthony QUE, RespondentsDocument2 pagesGoldenrod, Inc., Petitioner vs. Court of Appeals, Pio Barretto & Sons, Inc., Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc., and Anthony QUE, RespondentsAnonymous mv3Y0KgNo ratings yet
- AccessionDocument3 pagesAccessionjuraiineNo ratings yet
- A. Concept: Iii. Rights of AccessionDocument22 pagesA. Concept: Iii. Rights of AccessionmaryloumarylouNo ratings yet
- Plaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Francisco R. Capistrano, Lao & FeriaDocument3 pagesPlaintiff-Appellant Vs Vs Defendant-Appellee Francisco R. Capistrano, Lao & FeriaRobin ScherbatskyNo ratings yet
- Research Paper On Carp Under Ra No 6657Document16 pagesResearch Paper On Carp Under Ra No 6657Jen UmlanoNo ratings yet
- Question and Answer LTDDocument12 pagesQuestion and Answer LTDjoan dlcNo ratings yet
- Sales Week 1Document21 pagesSales Week 1Julie JonsonNo ratings yet
- TAX GuideDocument4 pagesTAX Guidekrystel ramosNo ratings yet
- Crim Pro Additional Case DOCTRINEDocument2 pagesCrim Pro Additional Case DOCTRINEDonna BeeNo ratings yet
- Comm2015 MustReadDocument70 pagesComm2015 MustReadCel DulatasNo ratings yet
- List of Cases in Credit TransactionsDocument2 pagesList of Cases in Credit TransactionsGrace Managuelod GabuyoNo ratings yet
- LTD REVIEW OUTLINE Sirs PDFDocument52 pagesLTD REVIEW OUTLINE Sirs PDFJarvin David ResusNo ratings yet
- Insurance Code of The Philippines PD No. 1460, As Amended: July 26, 2012Document48 pagesInsurance Code of The Philippines PD No. 1460, As Amended: July 26, 2012Melissa M. Abansi-BautistaNo ratings yet
- Acme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corp. v. CADocument2 pagesAcme Shoe, Rubber & Plastic Corp. v. CAAgee Romero-ValdesNo ratings yet
- Civillaw (Property) Memoryaida B O 2001 I - Property: Real Rights Arises From (OPLUMEPARP)Document34 pagesCivillaw (Property) Memoryaida B O 2001 I - Property: Real Rights Arises From (OPLUMEPARP)Jan ValdezNo ratings yet
- Aquila Reviewer Updated by ZGB 1Document92 pagesAquila Reviewer Updated by ZGB 1EdvangelineManaloRodriguezNo ratings yet
- Patents and PD 1529Document7 pagesPatents and PD 1529JULLIAN PAOLO UMALINo ratings yet
- Wills and Succesion 2015 Bar Review: Atty. Myra Angeli A. Gallardo-BatungbakalDocument164 pagesWills and Succesion 2015 Bar Review: Atty. Myra Angeli A. Gallardo-BatungbakalGlenn BaysaNo ratings yet
- Reading Assignment For Module 4-Co-OwnershipDocument2 pagesReading Assignment For Module 4-Co-OwnershipMike OsorioNo ratings yet
- 5 Real Estate MortgageDocument5 pages5 Real Estate MortgageKelvin CulajaráNo ratings yet
- Civpro SCDocument88 pagesCivpro SCFrancis DobleNo ratings yet
- Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Defendants-Appellants Alejo Mabanag Simplicio U. Tapia Antonio Barredo Pedro GuevarraDocument8 pagesPlaintiff-Appellee vs. Defendants-Appellants Alejo Mabanag Simplicio U. Tapia Antonio Barredo Pedro GuevarrasdfsdfsdNo ratings yet
- Property - PossessionDocument14 pagesProperty - PossessionizaNo ratings yet
- CHAPTER 9 - Crimes Against Personal Liberty and SecurityDocument4 pagesCHAPTER 9 - Crimes Against Personal Liberty and SecurityJem B OyNo ratings yet
- Case Digests ACEDocument42 pagesCase Digests ACEamikaeylaNo ratings yet
- Law On CorporationDocument12 pagesLaw On CorporationDaphne NgNo ratings yet
- Answers To 1st Quiz LTDDocument8 pagesAnswers To 1st Quiz LTDSafora Korina AlamanNo ratings yet
- Law On Sales ReviewerDocument37 pagesLaw On Sales ReviewerTriscia QuiñonesNo ratings yet
- 00 Course Requirements - TortsDocument3 pages00 Course Requirements - TortsZar GidoNo ratings yet
- De La Salle University College of Law: Lasallian Commission On Bar Operations 2018Document80 pagesDe La Salle University College of Law: Lasallian Commission On Bar Operations 2018Jazib ZainabNo ratings yet
- 11th Regular Foreign Investment Negative List ADocument8 pages11th Regular Foreign Investment Negative List AMariz TiuNo ratings yet
- Omar Ali vs. Atty. Mosib Bubong A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005Document9 pagesOmar Ali vs. Atty. Mosib Bubong A.C. No. 4018. March 8, 2005Elle AlamoNo ratings yet
- 1 Succession Digests Arts. 728 776Document16 pages1 Succession Digests Arts. 728 776Ana leah Orbeta-mamburamNo ratings yet
- Special Power of AttorneyDocument2 pagesSpecial Power of AttorneySjaney100% (1)
- VERSION-03 AUG 2023-LAND REGISTRATION-04 AUG 2023 (Autosaved) (Autosaved)Document134 pagesVERSION-03 AUG 2023-LAND REGISTRATION-04 AUG 2023 (Autosaved) (Autosaved)bhlequitablepropertyNo ratings yet
- PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983 FactsDocument7 pagesPUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA G.R. No. L-55729 March 28, 1983 FactsTurboyNavarroNo ratings yet
- Calma Vs Lachica and Fudot Vs CattleyaDocument6 pagesCalma Vs Lachica and Fudot Vs CattleyaMikkaEllaAnclaNo ratings yet
- Cases On PropertyDocument40 pagesCases On PropertyLaike16No ratings yet
- 189 Andamo V IACDocument12 pages189 Andamo V IACTon RiveraNo ratings yet
- OBLICON Contracts ReviewerDocument3 pagesOBLICON Contracts ReviewerRafael Kieran MondayNo ratings yet
- Feq Property PDFDocument22 pagesFeq Property PDFJillandroNo ratings yet
- Citizenship NotesDocument3 pagesCitizenship NotesShinji NishikawaNo ratings yet
- Articles 774-803 Wills & Succession (2019) Vice Dean Castillo-TaleonDocument14 pagesArticles 774-803 Wills & Succession (2019) Vice Dean Castillo-TaleonHi Law SchoolNo ratings yet
- ObliCon First Exam Cases Full Text 1Document158 pagesObliCon First Exam Cases Full Text 1JCNo ratings yet
- Adjustable DC Power Supply 0-30V: Laboratory Project Report Semiconductors Devices LabDocument5 pagesAdjustable DC Power Supply 0-30V: Laboratory Project Report Semiconductors Devices LabMISHAL FATIMANo ratings yet
- Tanada V YuloDocument8 pagesTanada V YuloAna BassigNo ratings yet
- ExperimentsDocument50 pagesExperimentsOmed. HNo ratings yet
- Book 1Document2 pagesBook 1ramansharma1769No ratings yet
- PBC Bulletin - May 20Document4 pagesPBC Bulletin - May 20Portland Baptist ChurchNo ratings yet
- HTX - M3+ - Sprayer - BrochureDocument4 pagesHTX - M3+ - Sprayer - BrochuretoubouldavidNo ratings yet
- Urban Planning Manual For SomalilandDocument69 pagesUrban Planning Manual For SomalilandAbbey Road100% (1)
- Air Canada 621 Cf-Tiw Yyz 1971Document217 pagesAir Canada 621 Cf-Tiw Yyz 1971GFNo ratings yet
- 2023 KOR-Indonesia DGCC Project - Poverty Reduction - Final Report-V4.2Document30 pages2023 KOR-Indonesia DGCC Project - Poverty Reduction - Final Report-V4.2pselp.kominfo24No ratings yet
- Hermeneutical PhenomenologyDocument12 pagesHermeneutical PhenomenologySean Wasil100% (4)
- Saxony 1699-1721Document1 pageSaxony 1699-1721Steffen SeitterNo ratings yet
- Barcelona: Startup Ecosystem ReportDocument47 pagesBarcelona: Startup Ecosystem ReportTristan SheddenNo ratings yet
- What Factors Influence A Career Choice PDFDocument2 pagesWhat Factors Influence A Career Choice PDFmailk jklmnNo ratings yet
- Pcs Upgrade To R12.X Improvement: Technical Bulletin Omnipcx EnterpriseDocument5 pagesPcs Upgrade To R12.X Improvement: Technical Bulletin Omnipcx EnterpriseHumberto Ochoa MendezNo ratings yet
- Kannada LearningDocument17 pagesKannada LearningMirsad Michu100% (1)
- ComplexitytheoryDocument3 pagesComplexitytheoryMayaNo ratings yet
- Argene TransplantDocument4 pagesArgene TransplantSachinNo ratings yet
- SummerCamp ListDocument5 pagesSummerCamp ListMK BhaiNo ratings yet
- Complete Irregular VerbsDocument32 pagesComplete Irregular VerbsCarolina Cordeiro0% (2)
- Simple Present Tense All Uses by María Auxiliadora Jácome OrtegaDocument3 pagesSimple Present Tense All Uses by María Auxiliadora Jácome OrtegaMaría Auxiliadora Jácome OrtegaNo ratings yet
- 7º AnoDocument5 pages7º AnoNataly Araujo100% (1)
- LB-404 Labour Law Full Material January, 2017Document179 pagesLB-404 Labour Law Full Material January, 2017Badri ShaikhNo ratings yet
- The Secret of Happiness The Fifteen Prayers As Revealed by OUR LORD To ST. BRIDGET in The CHURCH of ST. PAUL in ROMEDocument12 pagesThe Secret of Happiness The Fifteen Prayers As Revealed by OUR LORD To ST. BRIDGET in The CHURCH of ST. PAUL in ROMEJESUS IS RETURNING DURING OUR GENERATION100% (4)
- Virus Papiloma Humano y Cáncer Cérvico-Uterino: Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer in ChileDocument4 pagesVirus Papiloma Humano y Cáncer Cérvico-Uterino: Papillomavirus and Cervical Cancer in ChileAnonymous QV38xzhceNo ratings yet
- Rotary CoatingDocument5 pagesRotary Coatinggalati12345No ratings yet
- Budget DecodingDocument16 pagesBudget DecodingArjun SinghNo ratings yet
- Java Rain Resort PDFDocument8 pagesJava Rain Resort PDFAshik M Rasheed100% (1)
- Literature and SocietyDocument5 pagesLiterature and SocietyKaye Claire EstoconingNo ratings yet
- Hofstede DimensionsDocument12 pagesHofstede DimensionsAmir HabibNo ratings yet
