Anda di halaman 1dari 10

1. PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corp., GR 173171.

July 11, 2012 New Dagupan:


2. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tan, GR 178449, Oct. 17, 2008 • It avers that it was a purchaser in good faith and it has a superior right to the subject
3. 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. CA, GR 206599. Sept. 29, 2014 property, considering that PCSO’s mortgage lien was annotated only on May 20, 1992 or long
4. Okabe v. Saturnino, GR 196040. Aug. 26, 2014 after the execution of the conditional sale on July 31, 1990 and annotation of its adverse claim on
5. Gabriel v. RD of Rizal, GR L-17956. Sept. 30, 1963 October 1, 1991. While the subject mortgage antedated the subject sale, PCSO was already
6. Arrazola v. Bernas, GR L-29740. Nov. 10, 1978 aware of the latter at the time of its belated registration of its mortgage lien. PCSO’s registration
7. Sajonas v. CA, GR 102377. July 5, 1996 was therefore in bad faith, rendering its claim over the subject property defeasible by New
8. Agbulos v. Alberto, GR L-17483. July 31, 1962 Dagupan’s adverse claim.
9. Baranda v. Gustilo, GR 81163. Sept. 26, 1988
10. Treasurer of the Phils. v. CA, GR L-42805. Aug. 31, 1987 ISSUE:
11. Ting Ho, Jr. v. Teng Gui, GR 130115. July 16, 2008 Who has a better title, PCSO or New Dagupan?
12. New Durawood Co., Inc. v. CA, GR 111732. Feb. 20, 1996
13. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. v. CA, GR L-42956-57. Jan. 12, 1988 HELD:
---------------------- New Dagupan has the better title.

1. PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corp., GR 173171. July 11, 2012 At the time of PCSO’s registration of its mortgage lien on May 20, 1992, the subject mortgage had
already been discharged by Galang’s full payment of P450,000.00, the amount specified in the
FACTS: Deed of Undertaking with First Real Estate Mortgage.
• Respondent Peralta is the registered owner of a parcel of land located at Bonuan Blue
Beach Subdivision, Dagupan City under TCT No. 52135. Assuming the contrary, New Dagupan is not bound by PCSO’s mortgage lien and was a purchaser
in good faith and for value.
• On March 8, 1989, a Real Estate Mortgage was constituted over such property in favor
of PCSO to secure the payment of the sweepstakes tickets purchased by Galang, its provincial While the subject mortgage predated the sale of the subject property to New Dagupan, the
distributor. absence of any evidence that the latter had knowledge of PCSO’s mortgage lien at the time of the
sale and its prior registration of an adverse claim created a preference in its favor.
• On July 31, 1990, Peralta sold, under a Conditional Sale, the subject property to New
Dagupan, the conveyance to be absolute upon the latter’s full payment of the price of P800,000.00 A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another, without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays full and fair price for the
• Peralta showed New Dagupan a photocopy of TCT 52135, which bore no liens and same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
encumbrances, and undertook to deliver the owner’s duplicate within 3 months from the execution person in the property. Good faith is the opposite of fraud and of bad faith, and its non-existence
of the contract. must be established by competent proof. Sans such proof, a buyer is deemed to be in good faith
and his interest in the subject property will not be disturbed. A purchaser of a registered property
• New Dagupan executed an affidavit of adverse claim, which was annotated on the TCT can rely on the guarantee afforded by pertinent laws on registration that he can take and hold it
on October 1, 1991. free from any and all prior liens and claims except those set forth in or preserved against the
certificate of title.
• In view of Peralta’s continued failure to deliver a deed of absolute sale and the owner’s
duplicate of the title, New Dagupan filed a complaint for specific performance against her with the Xxx a person dealing with registered property need not go beyond the title and is not required to
RTC. explore outside the 4 corners thereof in search for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
turn out to be superior.
• On May 20, 1992, during the pendency of New Dagupan’s complaint against Peralta,
PCSO caused the registration of the mortgage. 2. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tan, GR 178449, Oct. 17, 2008

• On February 10, 1993, PCSO filed an application for the extrajudicial foreclosure sale In 1974, the company co-owned by Tan, acquired a P250k loan from Metrobank. In 1976, the
of the subject property in view of Galang’s failure to fully pay the sweepstakes she purchased in same company acquired another P150k loan from Metrobank. In 1979, it again got a P600k loan
1992. A public auction took place where PCSO was the highest bidder. from Metrobank. These 3 loans were secured by a mortgage executed by spouses See in favor
of Metrobank. See was not part of Tan’s company not until 1979 but they’ve been securing the
• The certified true copy of the TCT 52135 that New Dagupan obtained from ROD loans. The loans were consolidated as a P1 Million loan in 1980 payable at P125k in 8 quarterly
reflected PCSO’s mortgage lien. payments until fully paid.

Arguments: Meanwhile, Tan had a separate unsecured loan of P970k owed from Metrobank which it failed to
PCSO: pay. Metrobank won a collection suit against Tan for said sum of money. Loan was still unpaid.
• It maintains that its right over the subject property are superior to those of New
Dagupan. Considering that the contract between New Dagupan is a conditional sale, there was In 1984, Tan defaulted from paying the P1 M loan. Metrobank foreclosed the property of See
no conveyance of ownership at the time of the execution thereof on July 31, 1989. located in Paco, Manila (June 1984). Metrobank was the highest bidder at P1.7M. The Sale was
• It likewise attributes bad faith to New Dagupan, claiming that Peralta’s presentation of registered same month/year.
a mere photocopy of TCT, albeit without any annotation of a lien or encumbrance, sufficed to raise
reasonable suspicions against Peralta’s claim of a clean title. In December 1984, See assailed the foreclosure averring that the P1M loan is no longer covered
by the mortgage for the same was novated when the 3 loans were consolidated. The CA ruled the
foreclosure to be valid but proceeds therefrom should only cover the P1M loan, excess has to be In extrajudicial foreclosures, a writ of possession may be issued either (1) within the redemption
returned. period or (2) after the lapse of the redemption period.[15] The first instance is based on a privilege
provided under Section 7 of Act No. 3135; the second is based on the purchaser's right of
While pending on appeal before SC, Tan offered to pay P2M: P600k as downpayment and the ownership. The basis of the purchaser's right to possess the property affects the nature of the
rest payable in 2 years w/o interest in order to release the foreclosed mortgaged property. This right.
was denied by the bank.
Act No. 3135 governs only the manner of the sale and redemption of the mortgaged real property
Tan and See then petitioned that Metrobank allow them to redeem the property at P1.6M. This in an extrajudicial foreclosure; proceedings beyond these, i.e., upon the lapse of the redemption
was in 1997. period and the consolidation of the purchaser's title, are no longer within its scope. This is apparent
from Section 1 of Act No. 3135, which states:
SC’s decision (G.R. 118585) finally went out and made final CA’s ruling that the foreclosure is
valid. This was interpreted later by the RTC and the CA as giving the right to Tan to repurchase Section 1. When a sale is made under a special power inserted in or attached to any real-estate
the property. mortgage hereafter made as security for the payment of money or the fulfillment of any other
obligation, the provisions of the following [sections] shall govern as to the manner in which the
ISSUE: Whether or not Tan may redeem the said property? sale and redemption shall be effected, whether or not provision for the same is made in the power.
[Emphasis ours]
HELD: No. The decision of the SC in GR 118585 did not give the right to redeem way past the
period of redemption. This was an error in the RTC and the CA. In fact, the nine (9) sections of Act No. 3135 pertain to proceedings governing extrajudicial
foreclosures, from the conduct of the foreclosure sale up to the exercise of the right of redemption.
Tan was clearly in default hence Metrobank had the right to foreclose which it did in ’85. Tan had Our reading of Act No. 3135, therefore, should be consistent with the law's limited coverage.
a year to redeem. Though See was the registered owner, Tan had the right of redemption because
they were the actual mortgagors. But Tan never redeemed the property within the redemption Given the inapplicability of Section 8 of Act No. 3135, it becomes irrelevant to consider the effect
period of 1 year. of Aldanco's continued possession of the property on 680 Home's opposition to the writ of
possession. That Aldanco's possession prevented FSAMI from acquiring actual possession of the
The filing of a civil suit did not forestall the period of redemption though said suit drag for more property neither benefited nor harmed 680 Home's case which is not dependent on FSAMI's actual
than ten years until a decision was laid down in ’97. possession.

Though Tan made offers and proposals to redeem property, Tan did not make simultaneous WHEREFORE, we hereby DISMISS the petition. For the reasons stated above, we UPHOLD the
payments (which is required in redemption) which further bolstered the fact that he did not make decision dated February 13, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 124735 insofar as it
valid offers of redemption (considering arguendo). affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner 680 Home Appliances, Inc.'s petition for cancellation of writ
of possession by the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 141 in its Orders dated December 20,
After the 1 year redemption period, the right has already vested in Metrobank, hence it could 2011 and March 23, 2012.
provide for any purchase price i.e. P11M offer to sell property to spouses See.
4. Okabe v. Saturnino, GR 196040. Aug. 26, 2014
3. 680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. CA, GR 206599. Sept. 29, 2014
FACTS:
Facts:
The case arose from the extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings commenced by the creditor of 680 The subject of the controversy is an 81 square meter property located in Makati City,
Home, Deutsche Bank AG London,[5] after the former defaulted in paying a loan secured by a which was initially covered by TCT No. 175741 under the name of the wife of respondent Ernesto
real estate mortgage over its commercial lot and building. A. Saturnino. Sometime in 1994, the couple obtained a loan with the Philippine National Bank
(PNB), which was secured by the subject property. Because of the couple’s failure to settle their
FSAMI consolidated its ownership after 680 Home failed to redeem the property which was loan obligation with the bank, PNB extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage.
forclosed previously. A new certificate of title (TCT No. 227316) was issued in FSAMI’s name.
However,on March 20, 2009, 680 Home commenced an action to annul the mortgage and On August 24, 1999, the Certificate of Sale was inscribed on TCT No. 175741.
foreclosure with the RTC of Makati City, Branch 137 (docketed as Civil Case No. 09-254). Considering that the property was not redeemed by respondent during the redemption period,
consolidation of ownership was inscribed on October 13, 2006 and a new TCT was issued in favor
On October 26, 2010, FSAMI commenced a petition for the ex parte issuance of a writ of of PNB. Without taking possession of the subject property, PNB sold the land to petitioner Fe H.
possession filed with the RTC of. Home moved to intervene and filed an opposition to FSAMI’s Okabe on June 17, 2008. TCT No. 225265 was later issued in petitioner’s name on August 13,
application, but the RTC denied the motion in its orders. On July 8, 2011, the RTC granted 2008.
FSAMI’s application for a writ of possession; the writ, as well as the notice to vacate, were issued.
As the current occupant of the property, respondent Aldanco filed a motion to intervene in LRC On November 27, 2008, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati
Case No. M-5444, claiming that it possessed the property as lessee of Home. RTC ruling and City an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession over the subject property.
declared Home’s petition to cancel the writ as prematurely filed. The CA ruled that under Section
8 of Act No. 3135, a judgment debtor may file a petition for cancellation of the writ of possession The RTC ruled, among other things, that the right of the petitioner to be placed in
within 30 days only after the purchaser has obtained possession of the property. To question the absolute possession of the subject property was a consequence of her right of ownership and that
ruling of the CA, Home filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. petitioner cannot be deprived of said possession being now the registered owner of the property.
Meanwhile, on November 23, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner, which
HELD:
granted her ex-parte petition and ordered that the corresponding writ of possession over the Here, petitioner does not fall under the circumstances of the aforequoted case and the
subject property be issued in her favor. provisions of Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended, since she bought the property long after the
expiration of the redemption period. Thus, it is PNB, if it was the purchaser in the foreclosure sale,
The CA reversed RTC’s decision and opined, among other things, that although it may or the purchaser during the foreclosure sale, who can file the ex-parte petition for the issuance of
be true that by virtue of the contract of sale, petitioner obtained the same rights of a purchaser- writ of possession during the redemption period, but it will only issue upon compliance with the
owner and which rights she derived from erstwhile mortgagee turned owner PNB, this does not provisions of Section 7 of Act No. 3135.
mean that the right to file an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession under Act 3135 had also
been transferred to the petitioner. Such a special right is granted only to purchasers in a sale made Remedy of purchaser subsequent to the foreclosure sale purchaser
under the provisions of Act 3135.
Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 33. Deed and possession to
ISSUE: be given at expiration of redemption period; by whom executed or given. – If no redemption be
Whether or not an ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession was the proper remedy made within one (1) year from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, the purchaser is
of the petitioner in obtaining possession of the subject property. entitled to a conveyance and possession of the property; or, if so redeemed whenever sixty (60)
days have elapsed and no other redemption has been made, and notice thereof given, and the
HELD: time for redemption has expired, the last redemptioner is entitled to the conveyance and
NO. Section 7 of Act No. 3135,28 as amended by Act No. 4118,29 states: possession; but in all cases the judgment obligor shall have the entire period of one (1) year from
Section 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court the date of registration of the sale to redeem the property. The deed shall be executed by the
of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give officer making the sale or his successor in office, and in the latter case shall have the same validity
him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to as though the officer making the sale had continued in office and executed it.
the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown
that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements Upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or redemptioner shall be
of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in the form of an ex parte motion x x substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the judgment obligor to the
x and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed property as of the time of the levy. The possession of the property shall be given to the purchaser
to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order or last redemptioner by the same officer unless a third party is actually holding the property
immediately. adversely to the judgment obligor.

Under the provision cited above, the purchaser or the mortgagee who is also the When issuance of writ of possession is ex-parte and non-adversarial
purchaser in the foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period,
upon an ex-parte motion and after furnishing a bond. From the foregoing, upon the expiration of the right of redemption, the purchaser or
redemptioner shall be substituted to and acquire all the rights, title, interest and claim of the
GC Dalton Industries, Inc. v. Equitable PCI Bank: the Court held that the issuance of a writ of judgment debtor to the property, and its possession shall be given to the purchaser or last
possession to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure is summary and ministerial in nature as redemptioner unless a third party is actually holding the property adversely to the judgment debtor.
such proceeding is merely an incident in the transfer of title. In which case, the issuance of the writ of possession ceases to be ex-parte and non-adversarial.

China Banking Corporation v. Ordinario: the Court held that under Section 7 of Act No. 3135, the When issuance of writ of possession requires hearing
purchaser in a foreclosure sale is entitled to possession of the property.
Thus, where the property levied upon on execution is occupied by a party other than a
Spouses Nicasio Marquez and Anita Marquez v. Spouses Carlito Alindog and Carmen Alindog: judgment debtor, the procedure is for the court to conduct a hearing to determine the nature of
although the Court allowed the purchaser in a foreclosure sale to demand possession of the land said possession, i.e., whether or not he is in possession of the subject property under a claim
during the redemption period, it still required the posting of a bond under Section 7 of Act No. adverse to that of the judgment debtor.
3135.
Summary of rules
It is thus settled that the buyer in a foreclosure sale becomes the absolute owner of the
property purchased if it is not redeemed during the period of one year after the registration of the It is but logical that Section 33, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court be applied to cases
sale. As such, he is entitled to the possession of the said property and can demand it at any time involving extrajudicially foreclosed properties that were bought by a purchaser and later sold to
following the consolidation of ownership in his name and the issuance to him of a new transfer third-party-purchasers after the lapse of the redemption period. The remedy of a writ of
certificate of title. possession, a remedy that is available to the mortgagee-purchaser to acquire possession of the
foreclosed property from the mortgagor, is made available to a subsequent purchaser, but only
When bond required after hearing and after determining that the subject property is still in the possession of the
mortgagor. Unlike if the purchaser is the mortgagee or a third party during the redemption period,
The buyer can in fact demand possession of the land even during the redemption period a writ of possession may issue ex-parte or without hearing. In other words, if the purchaser is a
except that he has to post a bond in accordance with Section 7 of Act No. 3135, as amended. No third party who acquired the property after the redemption period, a hearing must be conducted to
such bond is required after the redemption period if the property is not redeemed. Possession of determine whether possession over the subject property is still with the mortgagor or is already in
the land then becomes an absolute right of the purchaser as confirmed owner. Upon proper the possession of a third party holding the same adversely to the defaulting debtor or mortgagor.
application and proof of title, the issuance of the writ of possession becomes a ministerial duty of If the property is in the possession of the mortgagor, a writ of possession could thus be issued.
the court. Otherwise, the remedy of a writ of possession is no longer available to such purchaser, but he can
wrest possession over the property through an ordinary action of ejectment.
5. Gabriel v. RD of Rizal, GR L-17956. Sept. 30, 1963 the adverse claim, a party files an appropriate petition with a competent court which shall grant a
speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and to enter a decree, as
FACTS: Petitioner Elisa D. Gabriel, filed with the Register of Deeds of Manila, an adverse claim, justice and equity require; and in this hearing, the competent court shall resolve whether the
against the properties registered in the name of oppositor-appellant, Juanita R. Domingo, her adverse claim is frivolous or vexatious, which shall serve as the basis in taxing the costs. In the
sister. As grounds for the adverse claim, petitioner allege — Notwithstanding the registration of instant case, the first part was already acted upon by the L.P.C. which resolved in favor of the
the foregoing properties in the name of Juanita R. Domingo, the same properties have been registrability of the two adverse claims and this part should have been considered as closed. What
included in the amended inventory of the estate of the late Antonia Reyes Vda. de Domingo, filed is left, is the determination of the validity of the adverse claims by competent court, after the filing
by Elisa Domingo de Gabriel as they are in fact properties acquired by the deceased during her of the corresponding petition for hearing, which the appellant had not done.
lifetime. The registration of the titles of these properties,; should have been made in the name of
said Antonia Reyes Vda. de Dominga, but due to commission of fraud and deceit, by said Juanita 2. As to the second issue, the Land Registration Commission did not state that it was
R. Domingo, who was then living in the same house with the deceased, all the titles of the above mandatory for a Register of Deeds to register invalid or frivolous documents, or those intended to
stated properties were registered instead in her name, thus depriving herein adverse claimant who harass; it merely said that whether the document is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not
is likewise an heir of Antonia Reyes Vda. de Domingo of her lawful rights, interests and the duty of a Register of Deeds to decide, but a court of competent jurisdiction, and that it is his
participations over said properties. concern to see whether the documents sought to be registered conform with the formal and legal
requirements for such documents.
A similar notice of adverse claim was presented by petitioner with the Register of Deeds of Rizal,
on the properties registered in the name of Juanita R. Domingo, located in Rizal Province, The Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Land Registration Commission, holding the
anchoring that the subject properties are included in the amended inventory of the estate of their registrability of the adverse claims filed by Elisa Gabriel.
late mother Antonia Reyes Vda, de Domingo, who is the true owner of said properties, and
considering that the registrations in the name of Juanita R. Domingo were only made fraudulently, 6. Arrazola v. Bernas, GR L-29740. Nov. 10, 1978
thus depriving herein adverse claimant of her lawful rights, interest and participations over said
properties. FACTS:
Elviro Bernas disinherited his adopted daughter Teresita and when he was 79 years old , he
Domingo opposed, claiming that the Adverse claim was instituted for harassment, had no legal executed a notarized will instituting his brother and sister as heirs to all his properties including
basis, and such opposition will do irreparable loss to her. the lots which he had involuntary transferred to Teresita. In 1967, Elviro died. On December,
The Register of Deeds of Manila, elevated the matter to the Land Registration Commission en 1967, Pedro A. Bernas filed with the register of deeds of Capiz a verified notice of adverse claim.
Consulta, for determination as to whether the registration of the claim is proper determination by A copy of the will was attached to the adverse claim.
this Commission.
After the register of deeds had annotated the adverse claim on the transfer certificates of title,
The Register of Deeds of Rizal denied registration of the Notice of Adverse Claim, stating that Teresita filed in the cadastral and probate proceedings a motion for the cancellation of the
such has been found to be legally defective or otherwise not sufficient in law and is therefore annotation of adverse claim. The motion was predicated on the grounds that she was not served
denied on the ground that where there are other provisions of remedies under this Act, the affidavit with prior notice" of the adverse claim and that there was "no petition for approval or justification"
of adverse claim is not applicable. filed with the court. Pedro A. Bernas and Soledad Bernas Alivio opposed the motion. The lower
court in its order of August 20, 1968 granted it and ordered the register of deeds to cancel the
Elisa D. Gabriel appealed the above denial to the Land Registration Commission.1awphîl.nèt annotation. The oppositors appealed.
The Land Registration Commission rendered a decision holding that the notices of adverse claim
filed by Elisa D. Gabriel with the Registries of Manila and Rizal are registrable. Registration should ISSUE: Whether or not expected hereditary rights do not constitute adverse claim
not however be confused with validity. The registration of the adverse claim will not by itself alone
make them valid. Their validity will ultimately decided in Special Proceeding No. 2658 or, in RULING:
alternative, in the more expeditious remedy provided for in 110 of Act No. 496, i.e., a speedy Yes, the contingent, expectant and inchoate hereditary rights of the children of a living parent do
hearing upon the question the validity of the adverse claim. not constitute an adverse claim during his lifetime which could be annotated on the titles covering
the parent's land. That is an illustration of a frivolous or vexatious adverse claim.
Hence, this appeal.
In the instant case, the lower court ordered the cancellation of the adverse claim because the will
ISSUES of Elviro Bernas had not yet been probated. It reasoned out that before the probate Pedro A.
1. Whether or not the adverse claims are registrable; and Bernas and Soledad Bernas Alivio are merely presumptive heirs with a "contingent, expectant and
2. In holding that it is the mandatory duty of the Register of Deeds to register the instant inchoate" interest in the two lots.
notices of adverse claims "whether or not they are valid, and "whether or not they are frivolous
merely intended to harass." The purpose of annotating the adverse claim on the title of the disputed land is to apprise third
persons that there is a controversy over the ownership of the land and to preserve and protect the
HELD right of the adverse claimant during the pendency of the controversy. It is a notice to third persons
1. In addition to the well-taken disquisitions of the L.R.C., it should be observed that that any transaction regarding the disputed land is subject to the outcome of the dispute.
section 110 of Act No. 496, which is the legal provision applicable to the case, is divided into two It has been said that the annotation of an adverse claim should not be confused with its validity
parts: the first refers to the duty of the party who claims any part or interest in registered land which should be litigated in a proper proceeding and that the registration of an invalid adverse
adverse to the registered owner, subsequent to the date of the original registration; and the claim is not as harmful as the non-registration of a valid one.
requirements to be complied with in order that such statement shall been titled to registration as
an adverse claim, thus showing the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds, when no defect 7. Sajonas v. CA, GR 102377. July 5, 1996
is found on the face of such instrument; and the second applies only when, after registration of
FACTS: Essentially, the case before us is for cancellation of the inscription of a Notice of Levy on provision is made in this decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth
Execution from a certificate of Title covering a parcel of real property. The inscription was caused fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of
to be made by the private respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-79073 of the Register certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of
of Deeds of Marikina, issued in the name of the spouses Ernesto B. Uychocde and Lucita Jarin, the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
and was later carried over to and annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the
same registry, issued in the name of the spouses Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita R. Sajonas, who The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimants residence, and
purchased the parcel of land from the Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in this case. a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration
as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of
The facts are not disputed, and are hereby reproduced as follows: thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse
claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided,
On September 22, 1983, the spouses Ernesto Uychocde and Lucita Jarin agreed to sell a parcel however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be
of residential land located in Antipolo, Rizal to the spouses Alfredo Sajonas and Conchita R. registered by the same claimant.
Sajonas on installment basis as evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated September 22, 1983. The
property was registered in the names of the Uychocde spouses under TCT No. N-79073 of the Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of
Register of Deeds of Marikina, Rizal. On August 27, 1984, the Sajonas couple caused the First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court
annotation of an adverse claim based on the said Contract to Sell on the title of the subject shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall
property, which was inscribed as Entry No. 116017. Upon full payment of the purchase price, the render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the
Uychocdes executed a Deed of Sale involving the property in question in favor of the Sajonas registration thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing
couple on September 4, 1984. The deed of absolute sale was registered almost a year after, or shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount
on August 28, 1985. not less than one thousand pesos, nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the
lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of
Meanwhile, it appears that Domingo Pilares (defendant-appellant) filed Civil Case No. Q-28850 Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
for collection of sum of money against Ernesto Uychocde. On June 25, 1980, a Compromise
Agreement was entered into by the parties in the said case under which Ernesto Uychocde The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration.
acknowledged his monetary obligation to Domingo Pilares amounting to P27,800 and agreed to
pay the same in two years from June 25, 1980. When Uychocde failed to comply with his A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys property of another without notice that
undertaking in the compromise agreement, defendant-appellant Pilares moved for the issuance some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full and fair price for the
of a writ of execution to enforce the decision based on the compromise agreement, which the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other
court granted in its order dated August 3, 1982. Accordingly, a writ of execution was issued on person in the property.[36] Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any
August 12, 1982 by the CFI of Quezon City where the civil case was pending. Pursuant to the unconscientious advantage of another.[37] Thus, the claim of the private respondent that the sale
order of execution dated August 3, 1982, a notice of levy on execution was issued on February executed by the spouses was made in fraud of creditors has no basis in fact, there being no
12, 1985. On February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto Garcia of Quezon City presented said evidence that the petitioners had any knowledge or notice of the debt of the Uychocdes in favor
notice of levy on execution before the Register of Deeds of Marikina and the same was annotated of the private respondents, nor of any claim by the latter over the Uychocdes properties or that the
at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry No. 123283. same was involved in any litigation between said spouses and the private respondent. While it
may be stated that good faith is presumed, conversely, bad faith must be established by
When the deed of absolute sale dated September 4 1984 was registered on August 28, 1985, competent proof by the party alleging the same. Sans such proof, the petitioners are deemed to
TCT No. N-79073 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. N-109417 was ssued in the name be purchasers in good faith, and their interest in the subject property must not be disturbed.
of the Sajonas couple. The notice of levy on execution annotated by defendant sheriff was carried
over to the new title. On October 21, 1985, the Sajonas couple filed a Third Party Claim with the At any rate, the Land Registration Act (Property Registration Decree) guarantees to every
sheriff of Quezon City, hence the auction sale of the subject property did not push through as purchaser of registered land in good faith that they can take and hold the same free from any and
scheduled. all prior claims, liens and encumbrances except those set forth on the Certificate of Title and those
expressly mentioned in the ACT as having been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of
On January 10, 1986, the Sajonas spouses demanded the cancellation of the notice of levy on the conclusiveness of the Certificate of Title which the Torrens system seeks to insure would be
execution upon defendant-appellant Pilares, through a letter to their lawyer, Atty. Melchor Flores. futile and nugatory.[38]
Despite said demand, defendant-appellant Pilares refused to cause the cancellation of said
annotation. In view thereof, plaintiffs-appellees filed this complaint dated January 11, 1986 on ACCORDINGLY, the assailed decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated October 17,
February 5, 1986.[1] 1991 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial Court dated
February 15, 1989 finding for the cancellation of the notice of levy on execution from Transfer
Spouses Sajonas decided to buy on instalment from Spouses Uychocdes a piece of land. A deed Certificate of Title No. N-109417 is hereby REINSTATED.
of absolute sale with adverse claim was issued to them. But there was a compromise agreement
between the vendor spouses and the Spouses Pilares (their creditor). A notice of levy of execution The inscription of the notice of levy on execution on TCT No. N-109417 is hereby CANCELLED.
was inscribed in the title.
8. Agbulos v. Alberto, GR L-17483. July 31, 1962
Held: The validity of the above-mentioned rules on adverse claims has to be reexamined in the
light of the changes introduced by P.D. 1529, which provides: By virtue of a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila on March 16, 1959
in Civil Case No. 18644 entitled Jose Agbulos, plaintiff, vs. Jose C. Alberto, defendant, the rights,
Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the interests and participation of the latter in a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other No. 24643 of the land records of Manila were levied upon. After due proceedings the
corresponding execution sale thereof was made on June 15, 1959, with herein appellant Agbulos In Garcia v. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-13029, June 30, 1959, we held that the twelve months period of
(judgment creditor in the case) as the highest bidder. The officer who made the sale issued the redemption provided for in Sec. 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court "begins to run not from the date
certificate of sale on July 8, 1959 and the same provided that "The redemption of the above of the sale, but from the time of registration of the sale in the office of the register of deeds." The
described property from the purchaser may be made at any time within twelve (12) months after entry or annotation made on the back of the certificate of title of the property in question on July
the sale." 18, 1959 (supra) was in accordance with this ruling when it provided that the execution sale was
"subject to redemption within one (1) year from registration hereof."
The same was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Manila on July 18 of the same
year. The entry or annotation made on the back of the title of the property reads as follows: A case similar to the present is that of Gonzales, et al. v. Philippine National Bank, et al., 48 Phil.
824, where we held that the provision of Section 32, Act 2938 (Charter of the Philippine National
Entry No. 9221/T24653 — CERTIFICATE OF SALE — In favor of JOSE AGBULOS — Affecting Bank) providing for a right of redemption in favor of the bank's mortgagor "within one year after
the rights, interest and participation of Jose C. Alberto in the property herein described for the sum the sale of the real estate as a result the foreclosure" should be construed to mean one year after
of P6,000.00 by the sale having been made at public auction by the Sheriff of Manila, pursuant to the confirmation of the foreclosure sale, because the sale becomes valid only after confirmation.
the Notice of Levy inscribed hereon under Entry No. 5324/EO3701 subject to redemption within Along same line we may say in this case that the period of year after the sale must likewise start
one (1) year from registration hereof. only from the date of registration of the certificate of sale, because it is only then that the certificate
takes "effect as a conveyance in accordance with Act 496.
Date of instrument — July 8, 1959
Date of inscription — July 18, 1959 at 3:40 p.m. Aside from what has been said heretofore, appellant now estopped from claiming that the one-
year period redemption started earlier than the date when the certificate of sale was registered,
On June 23, 1960, appellee herein (judgment debtor in the case) paid the Sheriff of Manila the for the reason that he failed timely to question the entry or annotation made on the back of the
total sum P6,670.00 for the redemption of the property and said officer executed in his favor on certificate of title of the property he had purchased, to the effect that the sale thereof in his favor
the same date the responding certificate of redemption. was subject to redemption within one year from the registration of said certificate of sale.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed with costs.
It appears that on the same date (June 23, 1960) appellant filed with the Sheriff of Manila a verified
request for the execution and delivery to him of the final deed of sale upon the ground that the 9. Baranda v. Gustilo, GR 81163. Sept. 26, 1988
judgment debtor not redeemed the property within the period of one year after the sale. On June
29 of the same year the Sheriff replied that he could not accede to the request, giving the following FACTS: A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara,
as his reasons for the denial: (a) that the certificate of sale in favor of appellant was registered Iloilo covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of the dispute between
only on July 18, 1959, for which reason the period of redemption commenced to run only from petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez, Maria
such date; and (b) that the judgment debtor had deposited on June 23, 1960, that is, before the Gotera and Susan Silao). Both parties claimed ownership and possession over the said land.
expiration of the one-year period of redemption the total sum of P6,670.00 in full redemption of However during the trial, it was found that the transfer certificate of title held by respondents was
property. fraudulently acquired. So the transfer certificate of title was ordered to be put in the name of
petitioners. In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso
In view of the action taken by the Sheriff, on July 5, 1960 appellant filed a motion in Civil Case No. annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and issued new
18644 praying for an order annulling the certificate of redemption issued by the Sheriff of Manila certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of a separate case pending in
in favor of appellate and directing said officer to issue the corresponding certificate of absolute the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title. This
sale in his favor. Appellee opposed the motion, and on July 22, 1960 the lower court denied the prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in the new
same. Hence, this appeal taken by Agbulos who claim that the lower court erred in ruling that the certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation of
only period of redemption commenced to run only from the deed of the registration of the certificate the notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for reconsideration
of sale and, consequently erred likewise in denying his motion of July 5, 1960. invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that "the judgment debtor, or redemptioner, ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of lis
may redeem the property from the purchaser, at any time within twelve months after the sale" pendens in a Torrens certificate of title?
(Emphasis supplied) without specifying whether the period should start from (1) the date when the
execution sale was made, or (2) from the date when the certificate of sale was executed by the HELD: Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deed’s stand that
sheriff who made the sale, or (3) from the date when said certificate of sale was registered in the the notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the case in the Court
office of the corresponding register of deeds. of Appeals. The function of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds,
encumbrances, instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. The acting register of deeds did
The property involved in the present case is registered land. It is the law in this jurisdiction that not have any legal standing to file a motionfor reconsideration of the Judge’s Order directing him
when property brought under the operation of the Land Registration Act is sold, the operative act to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Sec. 10 of PD 1529 states that: “It shall be the duty of the
is the registration of the deed of conveyance. The deed of sale does not "take effect as a register of deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real
conveyance, or bind the land" until it is registered (Section 50, Act No. 496; Tuason v. Raymundo, or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration.
28 Phil. 635; Sikatuna v. Guevara, 43 Phil. 371; Worcester v. Ocampo, 34 Phil. 646). Undoubtedly,
to be in consonance with this well settled ruled, Section 24, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, provides If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and in form the
that a duplicate of the certificate of sale given by the sheriff who made the auction sale to the presentor or such denial in writing, stating the ground and reasons therefore, and advising him of
purchaser must be filed (registered) in the office of the register of deeds of the province where the his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sec 117 of this decree.” On the other hand, Sec
property is situated. 117 of PD 117 states that: “When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step
to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument
presented to him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken
by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted
to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest Subsequently the private respondents filed a complaint against the impostor Lawaan Lopez and
through the Register of Deeds.” the Treasurer of the Philippines as custodian of the Assurance Fund for damages sustained by
the plaintiffs as above narrated. Both the trial court * ruled the respondent court ** ruled in their
The function of ROD is ministerial in nature favor, holding the Assurance Fund subsidiarily liable for the sum of P138,264.00 with legal interest
The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds encumbrances, from the date of filing of the complaint, in case the judgment could not be enforced against the
instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting Register of Deeds did not other defendant who had been defaulted and could not be located. 5 The petitioner, disclaiming
have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of the respondent Judge's Order liability, is now before us and prays for relief against the decision of the respondent court which
directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated in the certificates of titles of the he says is not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
petitioners over the subject parcel of land.
RULING: Commenting on this provision, Commissioner Antonio H. Noblejas, in his book on Land
In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other instrument Titles and Deed 6 notes that recovery from the Assurance Fund could be demanded by:
presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner of Land Registration
now, the Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds Registration Administration in 1) Any person who sustains loss or damage under the following conditions:
accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No. 1529. a) that there was no negligence on his part; and
b) that the loss or damage was sustained through any omission, mistake, or misfeasance
No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD of the clerk of court, or the register of deeds, his deputy or clerk, in the performance of their
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute respective duties under the provisions of the land Registration Act,' or
are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the language employed and
the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The statute concerning the function of the 2) Any person who has been deprived of any land or any interest therein under the
Register of Deeds to register instruments in a torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no room following conditions:
for construction.
a) that there was no negligence on his part;
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The February 12, 1987 order of the Regional b) that he was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein
Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 23 is REINSTATED. All subsequent orders issued by the trial court under the provisions of the Property Registration Decree; or by the registration by any other
which annulled the February 12, 1987 order are SET ASIDE. Costs against the private persons as owner of such land; or by mistake, omission or misdescription in any certificate or
respondents. owner's duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in the register or other official book, or by any
cancellation; and
10. Treasurer of the Phils. v. CA, GR L-42805. Aug. 31, 1987 c) that he is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of
such land or interest therein, or claim upon the same.
FACTS: The petitioner asks us to reverse a decision of the respondent court affirming that of the
trial court holding the Assurance Fund subsidiarily liable for damages sustained by the private A careful reading of the above provision will readily show that the private respondents do not come
respondents under the following established facts. under either of the two situations above mentioned.

Sometime in 1965, a person Identifying himself as Lawaan Lopez offered to sell to the private The private respondents argue that from the time the new transfer certificate of title was issued in
respondents a parcel of land located in Quezon City and consisting of 1,316.8 square meters, their name on January 28, 1965, until it was cancelled on October 12, 1967, they were the true
which he claimed as his property. His asking price was P85.00 per square meter but after a and exclusive owners of the disputed property. Hence, the cancellation of their title on the latter
month's haggling the parties agreed on the reduced price of P76.00 per square meter. The sale date had the effect of depriving them of the said land and so entitles them now to proceed against
was deferred, however, because the prospective vendor said his certificate of title had been the Assurance Fund.
burned in his house in Divisoria, and he would have to file a petition with the court of first instance
of Quezon City for a duplicate certificate of title. He did so and the petition was granted after As this Court held in La Urbana v. Bernardo 10 "it is a condition sine qua non that the person who
hearing without any opposition. Following the issuance of the new duplicate certificate of title, the brings an action for damages against the Assurance Fund be the registered owner and as the
said person executed a deed of sale in favor of the private respondents, who paid him the holders of transfer certificates of title, that they be innocent purchasers in good faith and for value."
stipulated purchase price of P98,700.00 in full. The corresponding transfer certificate of title was Being neither the registered owners nor innocent purchasers, the private respondents are not
subsequently issued to them after cancellation of the duplicate certificate in the name of Lawaan entitled to recover from the Assurance Fund.
Lopez. 1
They are, of course, not entirely without recourse, for they may still proceed against the impostor
Trouble began two years later when another person, this time a woman, appeared and, claiming in a civil action for recovery and damages or prosecute him under the Revised Penal Code,
to be the real Lawaan Lopez, filed a petition in the court of first instance of Quezon City to declare assuming he can be located and arrested. The problem is that he has completely disappeared.
as null and void the transfer of her land in favor of the private respondents, on the ground that it That difficulty alone, however, should not make the Assurance Fund liable to the private
had been made by an impostor. 2 After trial, the questioned deed of sale was annulled, (together respondents for the serious wrong they have sustained from the false Lawaan Lopez. The
with the duplicate certificate of title issued to the impostor and the transfer certificate of title in the Government — like all governments, and for obvious reasons — is not an insurer of the unwary
name of the private respondents) and the real owner's duplicate certificate of title was revalidated. citizen's property against the chicanery of scoundrels.
3 Neither the Solicitor General nor the private respondents appealed the decision, but Lawaan
Lopez did so, claiming that the defendants should have been required to pay damages to her and WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 26,
the costs. The appeal was dismissed, with the finding by Justices Jose Leuterio, Magno Gatmaitan 1976 is set aside, and Civil Case No. 12426 of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal is
and Luis B. Reyes of the Court of Appeals that there was no collusion between the private dismissed. No costs.
respondents and the impostor. 4
11. Ting Ho, Jr. v. Teng Gui, GR 130115. July 16, 2008 This rule does not apply where the land covered by a patent issued by the Government had
previously been determined in a registration proceeding and adjudicated in favor of a private
Facts: individual other than the patentee, which situation is not present in this case.
Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho and Lydia Ting Ho Belenzo against their
brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui. The controversy revolves around a parcel of land, and 12. New Durawood Co., Inc. v. CA, GR 111732. Feb. 20, 1996
the improvements which should form part of the estate of their deceased father, Felix Ting Ho,
and should be partitioned equally among each of the siblings. Petitioners alleged that their father FACTS:
Felix Ting Ho died intestate on June 26, 1970, and left upon his death an estate. According to On February 14, 1990, a Petition for Judicial Reconstitution of the Lost Owners Duplicate
petitioners, the said lot and properties were titled and tax declared under trust in the name of Certificates of TCT Nos. 140486; 156454 and 1404855. was filed in the Regional Trial Court,
respondent Vicente Teng Gui for the benefit of the deceased Felix Ting Ho who, being a Chinese Branch LXXI, Antipolo, Rizal by petitioner-corporation, represented by its Branch Manager, Wilson
citizen, was then disqualified to own public lands in thePhilippines; and that upon the death of M. Gaw x x x. Attached to said petition was an Affidavit of Loss dated December 31, 19906 of
Felix Ting Ho, the respondent took possession of the same for his own exclusive use and benefit respondent Orlando S. Bongat, one of the stockholders of petitioner-corporation.
to their exclusion and prejudice.
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and in substance, respondent Judge set the case for
Issue: Whether or not the sale was void hearing on March 18, 1991. On April 16, 1991, respondent Judge issued the questioned order.

Ruling: Sometime in May, 1991, petitioner discovered that the original TCT Nos. N-140485, N-140486
No, the sale was not void. Article 1471 of the Civil Code has provided that if the price is simulated, and 156454 on file with the Register of Deeds of Rizal had been cancelled and, in lieu thereof,
the sale is void, but the act may be shown to have been in reality a donatin, or some other act or TCT Nos. 200100, 200101 and 200102 had been issued in the name of respondent Durawood
contract. The sale in this case, was however valid because the sale was in fact a donation. The Construction and Lumber Supply, Inc. Surprised by this cancellation, petitioner - after investigation
law requires positive proof of the simulation of the price of the sale. But since the finding was - found out about the reconstitution proceeding in the respondent trial court. So, on July 17, 1991,
based on a mere assumption, the price has not been proven to be a simulation. petitioner filed suit7 in the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. 25434 praying for the annulment
of the assailed order in LRC Case No. 91-924 penned by respondent Judge. It also prayed for the
Registration of grants and patents involving public lands is governed by Section 122 of Act No. cancellation of the new certificates (TCT Nos. 200100, 200101 and 200102). On May 31, 1993,
496, which was subsequently amended by Section 103 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, viz: the respondent Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision and on August 30, 1993, the
Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the present recourse to the Supreme
Sec. 103. Certificate of title pursuant to patents.Whenever public land is by the Government Court.
alienated, granted or conveyed to any person, the same shall be brought forthwith under the
operation of this Decree. It shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, The main issue here is: does a court have jurisdiction to issue a new owners duplicate of a Torrens
grant, patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such instrument to be filed with certificate of title if it is shown that the existing owners copy has not, in fact and in truth, been lost
the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies, and to be there registered like or destroyed? The Court resolved this issue in the negative in this petition for review under Rule
other deeds and conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other cases of 45 of the Rules of Court, of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals2 promulgated on May 31, 1993
registered land, and an owners duplicate issued to the grantee. The deeds, grant, patent or and the subsequent Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. The said Rulings
instrument of conveyance from the Government to the grantee shall not take effect as a dismissed the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 25434 and in effect affirmed the order3 of the Regional
conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the Government and Trial Court, Branch LXXI, Antipolo, Rizal4 dated April 16, 1991 in LRC Case No. 9 1-924, the
the grantee and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration. It is the dispositive portion of which reads:
act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and convey the land, and in all cases
under this Decree registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:
or city where the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After due
registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be deemed to be registered land (a) Declaring the owner s duplicate copy of Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 140486, 156454 and
to all intents and purposes under this Decree.[16] (Emphasis supplied) 140485 which were lost, null and void and of no further force and effect and in lieu thereof.

Under the law, a certificate of title issued pursuant to any grant or patent involving public land is (b) Hereby orders and directs that new copy of the said titles be issued to the petitioner giving
as conclusive and indefeasible as any other certificate of title issued to private lands in the ordinary them the same faith and credit and carrying over the same terms and conditions appearing on the
or cadastral registration proceeding. The effect of the registration of a patent and the issuance of originals thereof, upon payment of the required fees.
a certificate of title to the patentee is to vest in him an incontestable title to the land, in the same
manner as if ownership had been determined by final decree of the court, and the title so issued RULING:
is absolutely conclusive and indisputable, and is not subject to collateral attack.[17]
Nonetheless, petitioners invoke equity considerations and claim that the ruling of the RTC that an The First Issue:
implied trust was created between respondent and their father with respect to the subject lot Law Governing Issuance of
should be upheld. Lost Owners Duplicate Titles

This contention must fail because the prohibition against an alien from owning lands of the public To resolve this issue, it is necessary to reexamine the following provisions referred to by the
domain is absolute and not even an implied trust can be permitted to arise on equity parties:
considerations. (1) Section 13, Republic Act No. 26:8
Sec. 13. The court shall cause a notice of the petition, filed under the preceding section, to be 13. A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. v. CA, GR L-42956-57. Jan. 12, 1988
published, at the expense of the petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and
to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the FACTS: The facts, as found by the respondent appellate court, are as follows:
municipality or city in which the land is situated, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing.
The court shall likewise cause a copy of the notice to be sent, by registered mail or otherwise, at l. Blue Chips Projects, Inc. a Corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the expense of the petitioner, to every person named therein whose address is known, at least the Philippines, is the registered owner of a parcel of land containing an area of One Million Two
thirty days prior to the date of hearing. Said notice shall state, among other things, the number of Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Nine (1,256,269) sq. meters, more or less,
the lost or destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name of the registered owner, the names of situated in Barrio Paths, Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal and covered by TCT
the occupants or persons in. possession of the property, the owners of the adjoining properties Certificate of Title No. 344936 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal (See Original Record in LRC
and all other interested parties, the location, area and boundaries of the property, and the date on Consults No. 887).
which all persons having any interest therein must appear and file their claim or objections to the
petition. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication, posting and service of 2. Blue Chips Projects, Inc. purchased said property from Purita Landicho the lawful
the notice as directed by the court. registered owner under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167681 (id.);

3. On December 11, 1972, petitioner-appellant A. Doronila Resources Development Inc.


(2) Section 109, P.D. 1529 (amending R.A. 496):
availed of the remedy of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 12044 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
the same having been annotated on Transfer Certificate Title No. 344936 in the name of Blue
Sec. 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. - In case of loss or theft of an owners Chips Projects, Inc. (id.);
duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his
behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or 4. On August 8, 1973, petitioner thru its President Alfonso Doronila, filed an affidavit of
theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person adverse claim for registration on Transfer Certificate of title No. 344936 with the Register of deeds
applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn of Rizal on the ground that the property covered by the aforesaid title registered in the name of
statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other Blue Chips Projects Inc. is a portion of a big parcel of land which was purchased by petitioner
person in interest and registered. corporation from Alfonso Doronila (Adverse Claim of petitioner-appellant- Record of LRC Consults
No. 887);
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice 5. Respondent-appellee, the Register of Deeds of Rizal denied the registration of the
and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a affidavit of the aforementioned adverse claim on the ground that a notice of lis pendens remain
memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all registered on the certificate of title involved should be a bar to the registration of an affidavit of
respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be adverse claim. Considering that the rights and interests of the petitioner are already amply
regarded as such for all purposes of this decree. protected thereby without imposing a further burden on the registered owner by the registration of
an affidavit of adverse claim which would be serving the same purpose. After all an affidavit of
A reading of both provisions clearly shows that Section 109 of P.D. 1529 is the law adverse claim does not add anything to the validity of one's claim nor does it create a non-existent
applicable in petitions for issuance of new owners duplicate certificates of title which are lost or right (Letter of denial dated August 13, 1973. Record of LRC Consults 887);
stolen or destroyed. On the other hand, R.A. 26 applies only in cases of reconstitution of lost or
destroyed original certificates on file with the Register of Deeds. This is expressly provided for 6. Petitioner elevated the matter en consulta to the Land Registration Commission
under Section 110 of P.D. 1529 as follows: (Records, LRC Consults No. 887);

7. On November 6, 1973, the Land Registration Commission issued its Resolution holding
Sec. 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. - Original copies of that the affidavit of adverse claim be denied registration (LRC Consult No. 887);
certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Registers of Deeds as well as liens and
encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in 8. On November 5,1973,Transfer Certificate of Title No.344936 registered in the name of
accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with Blue Chips Projects, Inc. was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 425582 was issued
this Decree. The procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate in favor of the purchaser Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. with an annotation at the back thereof that
prescribed in said Act may be availed of only in case of substantial loss or destruction of land titles the property therein described is subject to the Resolution of LRC Consult No. 887 (Record, LRC
due to fire, flood or other force majeure as determined by the Administrator of the Land Consult 894);
Registration Authority: Provided, That the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged should
be at least ten percent (10%) of the total number in the possession of the Office of the Register of 9. Petitioner A. Doronila Resources Dev. Inc. again sought the registration of an affidavit
Deeds: Provided, further, That in no case shall the number of certificates of titles lost or damaged of adverse claim Identical to that which was the subject of LRC Consult No. 887 on TCT No.
be less than five hundred (500). 425582 registered in the name of Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc. (Adverse Claim, LRC Consulta 894);

Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be furnished by the Register of 10. Respondent-appellee Register of Deed elevated the records to the Land Registration
Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Administrator of the Land Registration Commission for resolution under Sec. 4 of RA No. 1151 (Letter dated Nov. 27, 1973, Record of
Authority. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become LRC Consult No. 894); .
final until the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the
11. The Land Registration Commission rendered on January 8, 1974, a resolution in L.R.C.
Administrator of the Land Registration Authority of a notice of such order or judgment without any Consult No. 894 main its oponion L.R.C. Consult No. 887 and ruling against registrability of the
appeal having been filed by any such officials. (As amended by R.A. 6732; italics supplied) affidavit of adverse claim (Resolution LRC Consult No. 894);
Besides, it cannot really be said that the rights and interests of the petitioner over the land in
12. Not satisfied with the above resolution, petitioner-appealed to this Honorable Court question are amply protected by the annotation at the back of TCT 425582 issued in the name of
(Notice of Appeal, Record of LRC Consult No. 894); Winmar Poultry Farms, Inc., that "the property therein described is subject to the resolution of LRC
Consults No. 887." The statement that the property described is subject to the resolution of a
13. On March 12, 1974, appellant filed before this Honorable Court a petition for consulta, unlike a statement of adverse claim, cannot serve as a notice and warning to third
Consolidated (sic) of Case SP-02569 (LRC Consult 887) and Case SP-02711 (LRC Consult 894) persons dealing with the property that someone is claiming an interest in the same or a better title
which was granted by this Honorable Court on March 19, 1974 (p. 11, Appellant's Brief). pp. 2-5, than that of the registered owner thereof. A consulta, as is generally understood, is but the
Brief for the Respondent-Appellee. 1 reference of a question to the Commissioner of Land Registration by a Register of Deeds when
he is in doubt as to the proper step to be taken when a deed or instrument is presented to him for
On 26 November 1975, the respondent Court of Appeals, as earlier stated, rendered a decision, registration.
affirming the resolutions of the Land Registration Commission in LRC Consults Nos. 887 and 894
2 The Court of Appeals said: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

1. CONSIDERING: This as this court understands position position of appellant Doronilla


Resources, it was and is true registered owner of subject land as successor in interest of original
registered owner, Meerkamp & Company under OCT 301 issued on 14 January, 1907.

But that thru certain manipulation another title was issued to same land, namely, TCT 167681 in
the name of Landicho, which in turn was conveyed unto Blue Chips, and new title issued in the
name of blue Chips, TCT 344936 in November, 1971, and finally, this last title was conveyed unto
Winmar Poultry Farms and new title TCT 425582 was issued unto Winmar in November, 1973 —
therefore, Doronila Resources contends that as a matter of right on its part, and a ministerial duty
of Register of Deeds, its notice of ADVERSE CLAIM should be annotated in TCT 344936 and its
successor, TCT 425582, — and the denial by Commissioner of Land Registration to that
registration was wrong, the denial having been based on the ground that appellant Doronila
Resources had already filed Civil 12044 in CFI Rizal and had there already secured annotation of
LIS PENDENS on TCT 344936; which Doronila Resources claims was no ground at all for denial,
because lis pendens and Adverse Claims are different, and it had itself asked cancellation of its
Lis Pendens as to TCT 344936 (pages 5-6, Decision)

xxx xxx xxx

... if therefore, instead of at once filing adverse claim, he filed suit, as in present case in the mind
of this Court, the annotation, the further annotation, of adverse claim becomes redundant, ... (page
7, Decision). 3

Hence, the present recourse.

RULING:
The sole issue involved is whether or not the annotation of a notice of lis pendens at the back of
a certificate of title precludes the subsequent registration on the same or successor certificate of
title of an adverse claim.

The Land Registration Commission, in its resolutions in the Consultas, abovementioned, declared,
and the respondent appellate court affirmed, that since the petitioner had already availed of the
remedy of lis pendens, and that the rights and interests of adverse claimant are already amply
protected by the registration of such notice of lis pendens, "it does not seem fair to have a title
saddled by two encumbrances arising from one and the same source, and serving one and the
same purpose." 4

This Court, however, has ruled differently, i.e., that the two remedies, notice of lis pendens and
adverse claim, are not contradictory or repugnant to one another; nor does the existence of one
automatically nullify the other, and if any of the registrations should be considered unnecessary
or superfluous, it would be the notice of lis pendens, and not the annotation of an adverse claim
which is more permanent and cannot be cancelled without adequate hearing and proper
disposition of the claim involved.