Anda di halaman 1dari 29


Probative Value of a Torrens Title Defined

Evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial.

The ability of a piece of evidence to make a relevant disputed point more or less

Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove an issue. However, probative value
may refer to whether the evidence is admissible.
Probative Value of a Torrens Title

A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the ownership of the

land referred to therein. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are
regularly issued and that they are valid.
(Ching v. Court of Appeals, 260 Phil. 14, 23 (1990); reiterated in Rodriguez vs. CA et
al, G.R. No. 184589 June 13, 2013)

It is settled that mere possession cannot defeat the title of a holder of a

registered Torrens title to real property.
(J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 1979, 93 SCRA 146 cited in Abad vs. Court of
Appeals, 1989, 179 SCRA 817, 826-827)

Mere possession of the properties in question cannot defeat the right of

Opinion as registered owner of the property.
(Vilbar vs. Opinion, G.R. No. 176043 January 15, 2014)
Probative Value of a Torrens Title

The certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible

title to the property in favor of the person whose name
appears therein (Ybañez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
1991, 194 SCRA 743). (Vilbar vs. Opinion, G.R. No. 176043
January 15, 2014)

Meaning of “Indefeasible Title”

A right or title in property that cannot be made void,
defeated or canceled by any past event, error or omission
in the title.
Exceptions of Indefeasibility of Title
Philippine National Bank vs. Tan Ong Zse, 51 Phil. 317 (1927)

This rule is not true, however, with

respect to the contents of the
annotations or memoranda on a
certificate of title.


• A title emanating from a free patent which

was secured through fraud and
misrepresentation does not become
indefeasible, precisely because the patent
from whence the title sprung is itself void
and of no effect whatsoever. [Heirs of
Carlos Alcaraz vs. Republic 464 SCRA280
(July 28, 2005)]
Tax Declaration

Proofs consisting of tax declarations and/or tax receipts which are not
conclusive evidence of ownership nor proof of the area covered therein.

It has been repeatedly held that the declaration of ownership for purposes
of assessment on the payment of the tax is not sufficient evidence to prove

(Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil. 607 [1907; Elumbaring, vs. Elumbaring,

12 Phil. 384 [1909]; Camo vs. Riosa Buyco, 29 Phil. 437 [1915]; Cureg vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, 177 SCRA 313 [1989]. Cited in .Director of
Lands vs. Buyco, GR. No. 91189 November 27, 1992)
Tax Declaration

Tax declarations and tax receipts can not

prevail over a certificate of title which is an
incontrovertible proof of ownership. (Heirs of
Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. vs. CA, 288 SCRA 574).
Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to

Recover Possession Equally Imprescriptible

Sec. 47 of P.D. 1529

No title to registered land in derogation of that of the

registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse

pos- session.

Prescription is unavailing not only against the registered owner but also against
his hereditary successors because the latter merely step into the shoes of the
decedent by operation of law and are merely the continuation of the personality
of their predecessor in interest (Barcelona vs. Barcelona, 100 Phil. 251 [1956]).
Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to Recover
Possesion Equally Imprescriptible

Prescription as Defined in Land Titles

The acquirement of the title or right to

something through its continued use or

possession from time immemorial or over a

long period.
Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to
Recover Possesion Equally Imprescriptible

Exception to the General Rule

While prescription never prevails against a Torrens title, streets, and

public thoroughfares existing on the registered land before the
issuance of the original certificate of title are not deemed included and
therefore not within the coverage of non-prescriptibility

(Rosario vs. Auditor General, 103 Phil. 1132 [1958]; Vda. de Garcia vs.
Auditor General, 63 SCRA 138 [1975]).
Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to Recover
Possesion Equally Imprescriptible

Right to Recover Possession

A registered owner under the Torrens system, the right to recover possession
of the registered property is equally imprescriptible, since possession is a
mere consequence of ownership. And if prescription is unavailing against the
registered owner, it must likewise be unavailing against the latter’s hereditary
successors, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent by
operation of law.

(Atuu, et al. vs. Nuñez, et al., 97 Phil. 762 [1955]).

Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to Recover
Possesion Equally Imprescriptible


Laches, too, may not be considered a valid defense for claiming ownership of land
registered under the Torrens system. Where prescription would not lie, neither would
laches be available (De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, CA-G.R. No. 18060-R, Aug. 30, 1950).

Laches Defined

Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by
exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a reasonable time warranting a presumption that the
party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or has declined to assert it.
(Salandanan vs. CA, G.R. No. 127783 June 5, 1998)
Torrens Title Not Subject of Prescription: Right to Recover
Possesion Equally Imprescriptible

Doctrine of “STALE DEMAND” (Laches)

It is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the

peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the
statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally
a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim
to be enforced or asserted (Bergado vs. Court of Appeals, 1989, 173
SCRA 497, 503 citing Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA29)
Torrens Title vs. Mortgage
Title to registered land does not stand on the same footing as the right of a registered
mortgagee, in the sense that while title to registered land under the Torrens system does not
prescribe even for a hundred years, the right of action to foreclose a mortgage affecting
registered land prescribed after ten years according to Article 1142 of the New Civil Code.

TORRENS TITLE Not subject to prescription.

“Doctrine of Imprescriptibility
of Title”

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE Subject to prescription. It will

prescribe in 10 years
See Buhat, et al. vs. Besana, et al., 95
Phil. 721

What document is issued to the registered owner of the land?

The owner’s duplicate Certificate of Title is issued by the Register of Deeds in

the name of the person in whose ownership of the land was decreed and this is

given to the registered owner. (Pres. Decree No. 1529, Sec. 41)

In cases of co-ownership, can each co-owner have a copy of the

duplicate certificate of title?

Yes. A separate duplicate certificate of title may be issued

to each of the co-owner in the same form. The Register of

Deeds shall note on each certificate of title a statement as

to whom a copy was issued. (Pres. Decree No. 1529, Sec.

Sale of Land by Co-owner.

It is well-settled that a co-owner has no right to sell a divided part, by metes

and bounds, of the real estate owned in common.
(Lopez vs. Ilustre, 1906, 5 Phil. 567).

A co-owner may not convey a physical portion of the land owned in

common. Applying the foregoing principles, it was held in the case of Abad
vs. Court of Appeals, 1989, 179 SCRA 817, 826 that a mere co-owner could
not validly sell to private respondents a specific part of the land he owned
in common with petitioner and two others as described in the Deed of Sale
executed by him in favor of private respondents.
Rules on Amendment
or Correction of Title
Rule on Amendment or Correction

No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration

book after the entry of a certificate of title, or of a memorandum thereon
and the attestation of the same by the clerk or any registrar of deeds, except
by order of the court.
The petition for the purpose may be filed by the registered owner or other
person in interest and entitled in the original case in which the decree of
registration was entered.

Reason for the Requirement of the Law

land registration proceedings are as distinct and separate from ordinary
civil action as are the latter from criminal actions and to allow petitions and
motions under the Land Registration Act to be presented in an ordinary
civil action would eventually lead to confusion and render it difficult to
trace the origin of the entries in the registry.
Remedy is to file a “Petition for Issuance of Second Owners’ Copy” before
the RTC

Step 1

Section 109 of P.D. 1529 provides that in case of loss or theft of an owner’s
duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the
owner or by someone in his behalf to the Registrar of Deeds of the province
or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered.

If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be pro- duced by a

person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him, or for the
registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or
destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest
and registered (Sec. 109, P.D. 1529).
Remedy is to file a “Petition for Issuance of Second Owners’ Copy” before
the RTC

Step 2

Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the
court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new
duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it
is issued in place of the lost dupli- cate certificate, but shall in all respects
be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall
thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes under P.D. 1529.
Reconstitution Defined

Reconstitution is the restoration of the instrument or title

allegedly lost or destroyed in its original form and condition
(Anciano vs. Caballes, 93 Phil. 876).

n ELements must be present:

1) that the certificate of title has been lost or destroyed;
2)that the petitioner is the registered owner or has an interest therein; and
3)that the certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed
(Chinest Nationalist Party vs. Bermudo, CA-44100-R, December 11, 1972).
Purpose of Reconstitution

The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the

procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same
way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred.

Reconstitution does not pass upon the ownership of the land

A reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or

destroyed in its original form and condition. It does not pass upon the
ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. Any change in
the ownership of the property must be the subject of a separate suit. Thus,
although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is
necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land.