Anda di halaman 1dari 55

MND REGISTRAffiON

By:

Eduardo delosAngeles

I.Introduction
The Tonens System was adopted to

put stability to

under this system

title. Title registered

enjoys indefeasibility (after one year from entry of decree), imprescriptibility, and immunity from collateral attack. (Natalia Realty vs. Vallez, 173 scRA 534)

Registration, however, is not a mode of acquiring title. lt merely confirms (valid) title.

(Municipality

of

Victorias

v.

Court of '

Appeals, 149 SCRA 32).

The indefeasibility of a Torrens Title does not apply where fraud attended the issuance of the title. The title does not fumish a shield for fraud. (Sacdalan v-

of Appeals, 428 SCRA 586; Omandam v. Court of Appeals, 349 SCRA 483). ,
Court

l. Reqistration Under TonensSystem

A. Orioinal Reoistration
a. dminisfialive registration of patents (Secs. 10$105, PD 1529; Secs- 123-124 CA 141; Palomayo v. Manipon,39 SCRA 676; Nieto v. Quines, 6 SCRA 74; De los Reyes v. Razon, 3S Phil. 480; Rellin v.

Cabigas, 109 Phil. 1128; Municipality of Hagonoy v. Secretary, 73 SCRA' 507; Rep. v. Garle,105 Phil. 12271.

b.

cadastral - (Secs. 35'38, PD 1529; Pefia, "Land Tifles and Deeds' 1978 ed. pp. 427435; Merced v. Court of Appeals, 5 SCRA 240; Acedo v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 936; El Hogar v. Olviga, 60
Phir. 17).

Judicial - (Secs. 14-U, PD 1529)

PD 1529 eliminated the distinction


betueen the general iurisdi,cffon vested in Ore Regbnd Trial Cout and the latte/s limited judsdic{ion when actng merely as land regishation court Land registration courts can now hear and decide evn controversial and contentious cases. (SM Prime Holdings v. Madayag, 578 scRA 5s2).

1. Who mav apply


a)Those wtro by themselves or through their predecessors have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable lands of the public domain under claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier;
b) Those udro have acquired ov*nenship

of private lands by prescription under


the provisions of existing laws;

c) Those who have acquired ownership of orivate lands or abandoned river


beds by right of amdon or underexisting laws;

aeetkrn

d)

Those wtro have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. (Sec. 14, PD 1529).

2. id;Corporations

prohibits a

corporation from acquiring/holding land of the public


domain except by lease. (Director v. Heirs of Carolino, 140 SCRA 396). As possession lessee, the corporation cannot ripen into ownership. (Director v. !AC, 146 SCRA 509; Director v. Bengzon, 152

Article XIV

of the Constitution

the

of

scRA 369).

a corporation can acquirdtrold orivate land, and, apply for its registration if such land is still unregistered or,ovided that the
However,

corporalion is a Philippine ooporatftrn and at least 600/o of ib capital 'rs oirned by filipinos. (RepuHic v. Court of Appeals, 155 SCRA 344; Natividad v.
Court of"Appeals, 202 SCRA 493).

This ruling now abrogates Meralco v. Casho-Bartolome (114 SCRA 799) and related cases.

There are

requisites

for the filing of

an

application for registration under Section 14 G) of PD 1529 (Republic v. Bibonia, 525 SCRA 268):

(a) the property is alienable land of the public


domain,

A certification from the DENR that the


land is alienable and disposable is sufficient to establish the nature of the property (Republic vs. Consunli, 533 SCRA 269).

The applicant must establish the


disposable and alienable character of the land by a positive ac* of govemment such as

a PresHential Prodamatinn, Exectrtive ffier, and Adminisfration action,


lnvestigation Reports

of the

Bureau of

Lands, Legislative Act or Certification by the DENR. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 392 scRA 190).

But a notation by a surveYor in the Survey Plan that the survey was inside
alienable land does not constitute a positive

govemment

the classification of lands. A mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify land of the public domain. (Menguito v. Republic,348 SCRA
128).

act validly changing

A title may be jdicially confirmed under Sec. 48 of the Public Land Act only if it pertains to. alienable hnds of the p$lic domain, and that unless such lands are tdassified and considered disposable ard alienable, occupation thereof in the concept of an owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. (De Ocampo v. Arlos, 343 SCRA 716;

Ponciano

v.

LLDA, 570 SCRA

2O7;

Secretaryv. Yap,568 SCRA

let).

The alienable and disposable cfraracter of the lands lo be registered should have already been established on June 12, 1945 or earlier, and where they were declared alienable only on March 15, 1982, the applicants could not have maintained a

bna

fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earfier. (Lim v. RepuHic, 59S SCRA 247).

The more reasonaHe interpretation of Sec. la (a) of PD 1529 is that il merely re$dres the property soqglt to be registered as already alienable and disposable at Ore tme the application for registration of title is filed. (Republic v. lglesia ni Cristo, 591 SCRA
438)

Occupation means actual possession. There must be manifestation of acts of dominion over it such as intoduction of improvements. Bare assertions of
possession and occupation by predecessors are hardly the \rvell-nigh incontrovertible' evidence required in cases of th,is nature. (RepuHic v. Alconaba, 427 SCRA 61 1).

(c) such possession is under bona fide

claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier.

The rationale for the period "since time immemorial" or since June 12, 194^.5" lies in the presumptbn that the lard applied fur pertains to the $tate, and that the ocanpant of possessor daims an interest thereon by virtue of his imperfect title as continuous,
open and notorious possessor. (Republic v. Jacob,495 SCRA 529).
paldb *rciha lnmemorH.rrb.fh. fm oo lhd Ir tstd fr, rl.ls b6.l pdt d f. pu$c do.rrdn q $d f tr.d !,'t Firi. p{o9.rfy GrUr b{rbc Sr.nur Col4rd" (Brage v. S{d.eo, ('i1 SCR 7L}
'Bd

10

As the law now stahds, a mere showing


of possession for thirty (30) years or more is not sufficient. Thus, it must be shown that possession and occupation had started on 12 June 1945 or earlier. (ln Re Application for Land Registration of Title, Fieldman Agricultural Trading, 55O SCRA 92).

posseesion of land started in 1962, suclr is not suffident basb to apply for regisfrali,on of land whicft urder PD 1073 ard PD 1529 stutld have started since 12 June 1945 or earlier. (Nadela v.

Where claim

of

City of Cebu, 411 SCRA 315).

1r

However, even if the possessbn of alienable land commenced only afler 12 June 1945, application for registration is still possible by virtue of Sec. 14 (b) of PD 1529 which speaks of prescription. But here, the land must alreadY be orivate. (Buenaventura v. Republic, 517

scRA271).

possession of alienable public land commenced on a date later than June 12, 1945, if such possession was oPen, continuous and exdusive, then the possessr rnay harre the rirttb registerthe

Even

if

lard urder Sec. 14 (b) cf PD


(Repub$c

v.

1529. Court of Appeals, 'l'18 SCRA

.4421. Possession of public agricultural land under claim of ownelship for a period of ten (10) pars is not enough unless possession is rnade ln geod falh. (Alba v. Court of
Appeals, 314 SC,RA 36).

ti

undisputed possession for the period.prescribed by law converts ipso jure disposable public

Open, exclusive and

land into private

land.

(Director v.

Meralco, 153 SCRA 686; Pineda v. Court of Appeals,23 March 1980).

3. Acbretion
land formed by aocretbn belorgs to the riparian owner. Consequently, the Director of Lands, who only has
jurisdiction over public lands, cannot dispose of accreted land. (luason v.

cA,147 SCRA 37).

,.

l!

However, a riparian owner cannot register accretions.to his land arising from special works or man-made

'

dikes.

Accretion

as a mode of

acquiring ownership occurs where (a) gradual and deposit imperceptible, (b) it is made through the effects of the cunent of the water and (c) the hrd where accretion takes

the

is

place
s14).

is adiacent to tfie

banks of

rivers. (Republic vs. CA, 132 SCRA

4. What not Reqistrable


Forest land cannot be appropriated by posses-sion horever bng. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 476). The fac't that bggers have cut the bees does not declassiff the forest land. (Republic v. Carantes, 52 SCRA 238). Only the

Executive Department

can reclassfi

forest !and. (Director v. Court of.Appeals, 129 SCRA 689).

lt

5. PaymentofLandTax
Payment of land tax is noi per se evidence of ownership. (Masaganda v. Argamosa, 109 SCRA 53; Rizal Cement v. Villareal, 135 SCRA 15). But tax receipts accompanied by actual and continuous possession of land for the period specified law qualifies possssor to register ti$e to bnd. (Samson v. Courtof Appeals, 141 SCRA

by

1e4).

llt. Procedure in Oriqinal Reqistration


r Survey (PD 329; Fernandez v.
AboaUgue, 36 SCRA 476).

subject of an application for registration is essential requisite. (Dolino v. Court of Appeals,


suruey
401 SCRA 69s).

of land

tl

Filirg of PeUtion (Sec.

lt

PD 1529)

Attich original tracing cloth plan. (Director v. IAC, 214 SCRA 604), as
approved by the Director of the Bureau of Lands. (Republic v. Neri, 424 SCRA 676).

However, -the ourt has deemed as substantial ompliance the submlssftrn of the fiollowing in lieu of the original tracing

doth:

(a) a blue pint of Bre dans, (b) a technical description appro\red by Ute
non-payment

Land Management Bureau of DEN& and (c) a'Cedfication from the CENRO that the property has not been forfeited for

(Republic v. Enriquez, 501 SCRA 436; RepuHk v. Hubilh, 451 SCRA 181).

of

real estate taxes.

! Amendments (Sec. 19, PD 1529; Mndoza


vs. C-ourt of Appeals, 84 SCRA 67).

The law does not require that the


application for registration being amended

the applicant. The only requirements are: (a) that the instrument of sale be presented to the ourt bgether with a nntion, and

by

substituting

the "buyer" for

(b) Urat prior notice be given b


parties to the case. 496 SCRA 273).

Bte (Casibes v. Pantoja,


u

Publication and posffng (Secs. 2 and 23, PD. 1s29).

land regtsuaton, lt b a nrisAcmrnt requirenrent Utat Ste puHic be given plor .noti@ of lniUal hearlng. Publittron on tte

br

Before ttre

ourt

can act on the

apilmon

Official Gazette should precede the initial hearing date. Where the issue of the Official Gazette is released after lni$al heafng, the court did not aquire JurisdlcHon. (Rep,ttbllc v. Courtof Apfls,236 SCRA.l42).
I

t9

Publication

initial confer required hearing jurisdiction to the court. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 94).

least thirty (30) days prior

in the Official

Gazette at

is

to

to

to

fublkaton is requlred if trcre is ned

amend borlrdarks and

area.

(Dfuector v. tAC, 219 SCRA 33!)).

20

r Opposition (Sec. 25, PD 1529; Leyrua v.


Jandoc, 4 SCRA 595; Miller v. Director; 12 SCRA 292).

Absence

from government agencies is of no moment because the State cannot be estopped by the omission, mistake or enor of its officials arud agents. (Republh v. tao, 40s scRA 291).

of

opposition

Order of dehult

A rno[on to lift the order of

general

defauft in land registration proeedlngs should be Rhd before the enty of final judgment. (Lopez v. Enriquez, 449 scRA 173).

2t

. Ocular inspection
r
Hearing

There are two facts that the applicant must prove to support an application for registration: The first is that the land sought to be registered is the same land described in the application,

ard tfie se@rd ls 8tat the apf,kant


must be the owner of the land. (DiazEnriquez v. Republig 437 SCRA 311).
/o

The blue

of the plan and tecfrniral desoiptbn can prwide sufficient identiflcation of the lard. (Republic v.
Muffoz, 536 SCRA 108).

fint

22

. Opposition (Sec. 25, PD 1529; Leyva v..


Jandoc,4 SCRA 595; Miller v. Dinector,
12 SCRA 292).

Absence

of opposition from

government agencies is of no moment because the State cannot be estopped by Ute ornission, misbke or error of its fficiab and agenB. (Republk v. Lao,' ,m5 SCRA 291).

Order of defrult

general dehult in land registr-aUon proceedings should be filed before the entry of final judgment. (Lopez v. Enriquez, 449 scM 173).

A rnotion to lift the oder of

2t

r Ocular inspection

Hearing

There are two facts that the applicant must prove to support an application for registration: The first is that the land sought to be registered is the same land desoibed in the apdkation, and the se@rd is UEt the apflicant must be the owner of the land. (DiazEnriquez v. Republic,437 SCRA 311).
l'

The blue print of the phn and tednical desoiptron czrn provlde sufficient identiffcaUon of the land. (Republic v. Muffoz, 536 SCRA 108).

22

r ludgrnent(Secs.29-30,

PD 1529).

The iudgrnent rerdered in a land registuation

proeedirg beomes final upon erpiration of thirty (30) days and no appeal is taken. Cling v. Diego, 518 SCRA 334).

The failure

of the Republic to file an Opposition to the applkaUon for land regiffion, @iE reeig d rdce Urereof, does not @ire lt of its riglt b appeal the
bial ourfs dedsion. (Regalado v. Republic,
516 SCRA

38).

,6

Until the decree is issued by the Land Regis0ation Atthorlty, the C-ourt still has jurisdiction over ttre proceedings. (Ramos v. Rodriguez, 2,14 SCRA 418)

2a

The date when the 'decree of


registration is received for transcription by the Register of Deeds is the date of

registration. (Manotoc Realty


Realty, 540 SCRA 304).

v.

CLT

r Original Certificate

of TiUe

The original certificate of tiUe is the evfttence of omership. (Er,mil v. Ernac,'m3 SCRA 291).
Lands covered by a title cannot be aquired by prescripUon or adverse possession. (Ragudo v. Fabella Estate,
466 SCRA 136).

24

The general rule

registered

propefi

is that Utle to
becomes

indefeasible after one year from date

of

registration except where there is actual fraud. (Balangcad v. Coutt of


Appeals,206 SCRA 169).

r Writ of Possession

A writ of

possession can be issued against the original oppositors in the

Registration Case and their su@ssors, and against persOns wtrc unlauftlly and adversely occupy the properly at anytime before and up to the issuance of the final decree. (Villanueva v. Albano, 157 SCRA 131). :the right for the issuance of the writ

tand

does

not prescribe. (Rodil v.

Berredicto, 95 SCRA 137).


t

2!

lV. Some Remedies Available To Aggrieved


Parties ln A Land Rggistration Proceedings

Motign
Trial;
2.

for

Reconsideration and/or New

Appeal;

3.

Petition for Relief under Rule 38, Revised Rules of CourU Pebtbn for Revierru under Section 32', W
1529;

5.

Adion
Acton

5.

br Reoonvqfance; br Damagps

and

Petition for Relief

When

a judgment or order b entered agairrt a party Utrough fratd, aaidnt,


mhtake or orcusable negftgence, he rnay. ffb a peffion in srdt ooult Yvithkt 60 da)ls afur peiiUono kans of the Judgment or final order, and rpt more than 6 months after such judgment or order was entered to set aside the judgment or order (Secs. I arfr 2, Rule 38, Ro/sed Rules of Coutt) provided that no decree has been is$ed ln the rneanfime.

'

26

Petition for Review

Where an owner

dominical

right through extrinsic

is deprived of

fraud, he may, within one year from issuance of the decree file a petition for review provided that the property
(Ubudan v. Gil,45 SCRA

hm rmt been transferred to an innoent purdnser for value.


14.

Only

and elrtrin$c fraud has been aepted as a ground to rcvlew or rcopen a decree of regisfiation.
(Rabaja Ranch v. AFP Retirement, 592 scRA 20r).

dnl

27

decree of regisbation and the certificate of tith issued pursuant thereto may be attacked on the ground of fraud within one (1) year

from the date of their

issuance,

which attack must be direct and not by collateral proceedings. Attack is direct when the object of the action is to annul or set asitle srJdt decree. (De Guzman v. Agbagala, 546 SCRA 278).

Innocent Purchaser for Value

An innocent purchaser is one who btrlts properly withor.t notke Btat some otfis person has a right to or

interest in such property, and pays a full and hir price for the same at the time of such purdrase (De Santos v. IAC, 157 SCRA 295) or before he has

another person .
(Legarda

notice

of the claim of v.
Court

in the property

interest of

of Appeals, 280
ct

scRA 642).

28

The presumption is that

rEi$ered land is not aware of defects in the tide hi purdnsed. Oalnera v. 6uft
of Appeab, 103 SCRA ,167). But one who
purchases unreoistered land does so

buyer of

peril. (David v. Bandin, April 8, 1987). One who buys land covered by a

at his

reconstituted title must beware (De Santos v. IAC, Sgpra); and one who acquires land with a pending noUce of lis pendens is in f;aiBr. (PNB v. Conrt of Appeals, 98
SCRA

207). In fact, ii the rer case the aoquisitirn is subled b EE resrlt of Ute liti,gation. (Marasigan v. IAC, 152 SCRA
2s3).
I

To be a purchaser in good frith, it is enough that one examines the latest TCT. (De Leon v. Kalabo,391 SCRA
7s2).
When a party has actual knoruledge of facts and circumshnces that would impel a reasonable cautious man to

the title is not enough.'


Community Rural Bank Appeals,3gs

make inquiry relying on the face of


(Naawan

SCRA43).

v. Court of
,.

,(

The presence of anything whidt o<cites or arouses suspicion should prompt the vendee to look beyond
the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor. The haste in which the vendor sold the property and the vast area in a prime location should have

made Ure veMee suspect. (Eagb Reafry v. Republic, 557 SCRA 74.

It is a common practice in the real esbte industry that an ocular

a safuguard that a cautious ard

inspection of the premises involved is

prudent purdnser ustnlly takes, and should he find out that the land he intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the seller who is not in acfual possession, it would then be incumbent upon the purchaser to veriff the extent of the occupanfs possessory rghts. (ltlathay v. Court ofAppeals, 295 SCRA 555).
a

30

Action for Reconvevance

An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully or fraudulently registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. (Cavile v. Utania-Hong, 581
SCRA'f08).

In an action for reconveyance, the


decree

of regisbation is respected as inontrorerUble but rvhat is songht

instead is the transfer of the property wrwEfully and erroneously registered in anothe/s name to its rightful owner one with better rlght. (Rementizo v. Heirs of Madarieh, 576 scRA 109).

or to

3I

Where

land because of actual fraud or breach of bust, he may recover the land

a person is deprived of

4 years from discovery of the fraud wtrere there is need to annul a fradulnt deed. (Gerona v. Guzman,
- within 11 SCRA 153).

-within 1O years ftom breach of an implied bust


- at anylime, e4press bust

if tnre is breach of an
been innocent purchaser

provided,
for value.

the land had not

transfened to an

Actual fraud

misrepresentation or concealment of a material fract. Constructive fraud is an act not done with an actual design to

pnctied by

is intenilonal deception

means

of

commit fraud upon other person Uut nonetheless has detrimental effect upon public interest. Extrinsic fraud is that whidr prevents a party from havirp hb day in courg wtrile inbinsic fi?ud is a fraudulent act pertaining to an issue involved in an action. (id)

the

Discovery of fraud must be deemed to have taken place frronr tlre issmne of

cerdffcate

registration

considered constucttve notice to all. (Sema v. Court of Appeals, 308 SCRA 527; Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 302 scRA s89).

of tiUe because of of real property is

33

Yet, in one case the four (4)-year

fraud not from registration


Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 701).

period to rescind a fraudulent contract is counted from actual discovery in

of

conveyance. (Khe Hong Cheng v.

An action for reconveyance, whidr is a legal remedy granted to a land (Mrner whose property has been wrongfully or enoneously regi$rcd in anohe/s name must be filed within 10 years ftorn the lsEane of Ure Ude sine sdr issrance operdes as unstructive noffie. (De Oaro v. Court of Appeab, 346 scRA57).

An adion for

reoonvryance based on constn"dive trust presqibes in 10 years from date of rcgisfration of the deed or the date of isstnnce of the ertificate of Ufle. (Villaruara'Mipres v. Cowt of Appeals, 330 scRA 3{9).
a

34

A petition to quiet tifle for an action quasi in REM'parties. that is binding only
between the
(Serrille v.
NaUonal Development Co. 112).

35f

SCRA

An action to quiet title may be brought when there o<ists a doud on the title real property any interest thereon. (@pacan v. Omipet, 387 scRA 383).

to

or

6t

Under Arts. 476 and 477 of the Civil

Code, there are two indispensable requirements in order that an actbn to quiet Utle could proper 0) Brat Sre plaintff has a legal or equftable tifle to or interest ln the real property subJect of the action; and (b) that the deed,

claim, encumbrance

claimed to be casting doud on his UHe must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its pima facie appearance of wlidity. (Clado Reyes v. Umpe, 557 SCRA zl00).

or proceeding

35

While remnveyance whidr is based on implied trust must be fited within 10 years from regisbation, sudr rule applbs only
when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of property. If such person is in possession of the property, then the action is one to quiet title which is imprescripUble.

(Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 339). The reason b because one who is in actual rnay wait until his possesim is dlshrbed or his tiUe attackd before taking step to virdirate hls rights. (id).

pffiim

Damaoes

After I year, the land owner whose property is wrongfully registered in anothefs name Gnnot ask the court to set aside the decee, but can sue

for

damages if property is with an innocent purchaser for value. (Ignacio

v. Basilio, 366 SCRA l5).

36

Damaqes
Requirements:.

r r r r

Unlawfuldeprivation
No negligence

Reonvryance not possible File withln four (4) )@s

Damages against Assurance


Requirements

Fund;

r r r r r r

unlarrYftrl depriyation

i,lo

negl[ene

No breadr of bust

There is fraud, error No other remdy File within six (6) yeats

37

V. Cefficate of Title
a. The original certificate of title is evidencb of ownership (Ermac v. Ermac, 403 SCRA 291\;

b. Conclusive

c. Exceptiens:

1. wtrere

land part of mineral or forest preserve (Director v. Muffoz, 23 SCRA

1184; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 476; RepuHic v. Garantes, 52 SCRA238; Direc{orv. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 689; Verturanzav. Republic, 528 SCRA 238). But mangrove tand registrable (Tongson v. Director, Tg scRA 130).

2.

govemment reservation (Republic v. Marcos, 52 SCFIA 2.38; Pabmo v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 393).

wtrere land part

of

38

3. where land is part of navigable bed. (Republic v. Siosor\ 9 SCRA Lovina v. Moreno, I SCRA Republic v. Reyes, 155 SCM
s32).

river 533; 557: 313; Bautista v. Court of Appeals, 131 SCRA

4.where court which ordered registration of land without jurisdiction (Tuason v. Macalindorg, 6 SCRA 908; Fewkes vVasquez, 39 SCRA 514; Benin v. Tuason,57 SCRA 531)-

5. where certificate of title was issued from a void decree, the decree being issued before the decision became fina!.

6. wtrerc oertificate oJ litle based on homestead or other administratfue


patent u/hich was issued over private

7. where land covered by a previous title (Azarcon v. Vallarta, 100 SCRA 450)
because it constitutes a collateral attack on the existing title. (Carvaialv. pourtof Appeals, 28O SCRA 351).

39

registration court has no jurisdic{bn to order registration of land


already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. (Laburada Land Registration Authority, 287 SCRA 333).

A. lard

v.

8. where

certr'ficate of

tite

is a forgery.

1. Conflicting Tifles
When tnlo certificates of tiUe cover the same land, the prior ti0e prevails, untess
Vallarta, 100 SCRA 4S0).

the prior.title is defective. (Azarcon v.

40

When two certificates of title are issued to different person covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must prevail. (Antonio v. Santos, 538 SCRA 1).

Vl. Proceedinqs After Orioina! Reqistration

. .

Amendment (Albienda v. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA lt()4 Martinez v. Evarpelista, 102 SCRA 551; ln re Santos, 102 SCRA 744.

Replacement

Reconstitution (Bunagan v. CFl, 97 SCRA 72; Director v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 370; Republic v. lAC, 157 SCRA 62; Alabang v- Valenzuela, 116 SCRA 261).

of Lost Gertificate and

ReconstiMion

4l

a).

Amendments under Section 108 are permissible if:

r r r r

Registered interest terminates or there is error in OCT; No serious dispute; Does not amount to reopening; Does not impair nghts of innoent

purdraser.

b). Reconstitution
The purpose is to restore/reprcduce lost title. (Bunagan v. CFl, 97 SCRA 72).

The purpose is to have, after observing


the procedures prescribed by law, the title reprodrced in exactly the same way it has

been when the loss or destruction occuned. (Republic v. Court of Appeals,


309 SCRA 110).

42

Petitioner should follow requirements of R.A. 26 lo the letter. He is required to notify ocanpants, adjacent owners and adverse daimants. (Director v. Court of Appeals, 102 SCRA 370; Tahanan v. Court ofAppeals, 118 SCRA 273)- Secs. 12and 13 of RA 26 (notices to adjacent owners) are mandatory and not amended by Sec. 23 of PD 1529. (Republic v. Marasigan, 198 SCRA 219). However, if the basis for rmnstiMion is the or(linal owne/s dqlicate of me, personal notice to occupants and adiacent o,vners is not required. (Sec. 13, RA 26); Republic v. Planas, 381 SCRA 215).

R.A 26 requires publicatbn in the O'ffici'al Gazette, pcting in the provincial capibl and municipal hall and personal notices. (Subido v. Republic, 488 SCRA 1781
Republic v. lAC, 157 SCRA 62).

13

ln reconstitution, the following must be complied with:

Notice of petition published twice in Official Gazette and post in main entrance of Provincial and Municipal Building at least thirty
(30) days before hearing.

a)

Notie-shall state rhter atia lhe number of bst or deslroyed TCT, name of registered owner, occupants, orvner of aS<tining property and other interested parties, the location of
property, the date of the hearing o

b)

Notice by registered mail or othennise to every person named in the petition at least thirty (30) days prior to hearing.

c)

proofs

d) At tre hearing, pe0tbner submitrs


of pr.bfrcation, posting and service.

(Republic v. Estipular, 436 SCRA 333).

The petltions for reconstitution of titles, actual owners and possessors of the land involved must be duly sewed with actual and personal notice of the petition. (Bernardo v. Court of Appeals, 3frt SCRA 135).

44

Where' the publication of the order of hearing in the Official Gazette was onty five (5) days instead of the required thirty (30) days prior to the hearing, there is fatat iurisdictional defect. (Republic v. Court of Appeals,309 SCRA 110).

Without giving the necessary notice, the reconstihrted tite (Alabang Development v. Valenzueta, 116 SCRA 261). Reconstituted TCT secured through fraud cannot be the source of legal rights (Jose v. Court of Appeats, December 26,

b void.

1eeo).

45

lf the certfficate of title is not lost but is in fact in the possession of another person, the constituted title is void. (Demetriou v.
Courtof Appeals,238 SCRA 158). reconstitution, petitioner must present all documents required by RA 26 and npt merely the tracing cloth. (Dordas v. Court of Appeals, 27O SCRA 328); Cabello v. Republic,467 SCRA 330).

ln

The canceilation of a person's title cannot

arise incidentally from

fle adminis&ative proceeding for reoonstiMion of another


(Manotok

fake.

person's title even if the evidence from that proceeding revealed the formeCs title as

scRA 468).

v. Heirs of

Barque, S74

46

c). Replacement of lost Owner's Duplicate


of Title

For lost duplicate certificate of title, Sec. 109 of PD 1529 (not RA 26) applies. Where duplicate was in the possession of the owner and never lost, the court does not acquire jurisdiction over petition for
lost duplir:ate of tifle and the new duplicate

cerlificate of ti0e issued is

(New Durawood v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA

void.

74O).

ownefs duplicate certificate

Nothing in the law requires notice to be sent to the OSG. in the issuance of an
(Republic v. Court of Appeals, 317 SCRA 504).

of

tite.

possession

lf a TCT is not lost, but is in the

of another person, then the

reconstituted title is void and the court that renders the decision is without jurisdiction.

(Strait Tirnes scFtA 714't.

v. Court of Appeals, Zg4


9a

41

Vl. Reqistration of Documents


a. Purpose (Sec.51 and 52;PD 1529)
b. Requirements for Registration of Voluntary Dealings (Bilog, 'Tifle Search, flocument Hunting and Registration" published in Ateneo Continuing Legal Education 1975 ed.pp. 3044)
Form (Sec. 112,55, PD 1529) Presentatirn of Otrplicate CertificaG (Sea 53, PD 1529 ftoof of Paynentof Real Estate Tax Payment of Fees (Luzon v. LRC, 5 SCRA 145 (Bilog,

supra)

PNCB v. Mllalon, 139 SCRA 570; Campillo v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 513)

c.

Requlrements fur Registsation


Dealingq
1.. Attachment(Sc.69, PD 1529;

of lnwbntary

2.

Adverse Claim (Sec.70, PD 1529; Arrazola v. Bemas,86 SCRA 279; Cheng v. Lim, 77 SCRA 440; Doronilla v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 26).

48

This is good only for 30 days (Sec.70 PD. 1529). But lhe notice of adverse claim 'rernains valid even after the lapee of 3O dap as long as there is no petition for the ciancellation. (Diaz-Duarte v. Ong, 298 SCRA
388).

Annotation of .adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest of a person over a pkrce of land and senes as a waming to third persons dealiqg wtth sakl property that sonreone is claiming an interest thereto. (Sajonas v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCFA 79).
9'

Failure of claimants to state in their affidavit of adverse claim irow and under wtrom their

is acquird renders the adverse claim norrregistrable ard ineffective. Hence, such adverse c-laim does not make a buyer in bad faith.
allege*t nght
(Lozano v. Ballesteros, 195 SCRA 681).

49

When Effective

There is registration of an adverse claim, attachment or lis pendens once entry of such notice is made on the day book, even if the owner's duplicate is not sunendered. (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380).

3. Lis Pendens (Sec. 7&77, PD 1529; Constantino v. Espiritu, 45 SCRA 557;


Marasigan v. lAC, 152 SCRA254).

Notice of lis pendens is an announcement to the world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a waming that one wtro seeks to acquire property does so at his own dsk. (Yared v. llarde, 337 SCRA 53).

50

Registration of notice of lis pendens with the Register of Deeds over the propeny binds any prospective buyer to the outconre d a pending civil case over said property. (Knecht v. Court of Appeals,228 SCRA 1).

Courts can cancel a notice


two grounds:

of

lis pendens on

after a proper showing that the notice is for the Brrpose of molesting the adverse parly, or

a)

b) it is not necessary to protec{ the interest of the party who caused it to be recorded.
(Lim v. Vera Cruz, 356 SCRA

386).

!3,

Order of cancellation of notice of lis pendens even if not ac'tually cancelled - terminates the effects of notice and makes buy'ers after the order, purcfiasers in good fdth. (Po Lam v. 'Court of Appeals,347 SCRA 86).

However, it was also held that atthough at the time of purchase, the notice of lis pendens annotated on the tiUe was already cancelled, the buylrs were put on notice ofa litigation. (Dlmaorlangan v. Romasanla,424 SCRA 88).

'51

4. Regbtration of Judgments (Sec. 78-80, PD


152e).

d.

When Registration of Document deemed effective (Sec. 56, PD 1529; Govemmenl v.


Aballe,60 Phil. 986; Levin v. Bass, 91 Phil. 419; Bass v. de la Rama, 73 Phil. 682; Director v. Reyes, 69 SCRA 415; Potenciano v. Dineros, 97 Phil 1961; SWU v. Laurente, 26 SCRA 52; Gatbaan v. Gaffrld, 27 SCRA 706; Garcia v. Corrt of Appeals, 95 SCRA 380).

e. DouHe sale (Campillo u. Court of Appeals, 129

scRA513).

Ornership in an immovable shall belong to the buyer wtro in good faith registers it frst in the registry of propefi. (Tafiedo v. Court
of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80).

Art 1544 of the Civil Code applies when


there are two deeds of sale over the same property (not when one deed an Extraiudicial Partition). (Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA457).

is

52

A double sale of immovable transfers


ownership to (a) the first registrant in good faith, (b) the first possessor in good faith, (c) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. (Abrigo v. De Yera,432 SCRA 544).

It has been consistenfly held that a forgpd deed can legally be the root of a valid title when an lnnocent Purctraser for Value intervenes. A deed of sale executed by an impostor ui&to"tt the artrority of the otner of tre }and sold b a nullity, and regisbalion wil not vafidate wtrat otherwise is an inrralid documents. l'lowver, where the certificate of titls was alleady tansfened fiom the name of the true omter to the forger and, while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser, the vendor had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate and in the absence of anythirXg to orcite $rspidon, was

obligrilion to look belpnd tte certificate. (Teniobseryio, 230 SCRA 550). r

under

no

<a

OIIYNER

wiih TCT 1234s


deposlted with

x
who forges and obtainS
TCT 23456 ln X's name

of

and sells
I

whoohlns.

to

TCT 34sC7 ln Y's name

innocent purchaser for vabe

obtalns valid titte

if he is

OWNERwIthTGT 12345

deposlted wtth X who forges Deed of Sale h hls favor. Then, sellD lot to Y. Or, reprcsents hlrnself c tho OUW{ER and selts
lot to Y who secrrres

TCT 2ilrs6

ln

Ys name

Y does not obtaln valld tltle as he

ls not lnnocent purchaser for valtr. He fafied to verlfy real


ldcnttyof oumer.

54

A title procured through fraud and


misrepresentation can still be the source of a valid title if the same is in the hands of an

innocent purchaser for value. Moreso, if complainant fails to prove, much less impute. bad faith. (Chu v. Benelda Estate, 3s3 SCRA424).

It is a familiar Ooctlne that' a forged document rnay become the root of a valH. ti0e if tte property has already been
transfened from the name of the ownef to that of a forger. And is then acquired by an

innocent purchase for

value. (Lim v.

Ghuatoco, 453 SCRA 308).

t,

lf the property has already been transfened from the name of the owner to that of the person who deals with such forger, registered property in good faith will acquire good title from a forger. (PNB v. Militar, 4e4 SCRA308).

56