Land Title Ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016 - Atty. Gimarino - EH 408

Land Title ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016| Atty.
Gimarino | EH 408
August 30, 2016 c. requirement as to the form – for example there are specific transactions
which require a different kind of form or which requires certain compliance
1
So we continue with voluntary dealings of registered lands. That’s section 51-77. with the formality. For example in a deed of donation, the done should
We already have discussed DBP v Registered of Deeds and also …. They cover have an express acceptance. if the document is executed abroad, the
actually the same rule. … when all of the requirements are complied with is document should be authenticated by the Philippine Consul, in order for the
considered a complete act of registration. This was again reiterated in NHA v Basa. document to be registrable in the RD.
It’s a Quezon City case after the constitution. It think I mentioned to you we
adopted the LRA Circular No 3 which adopted the rulings, the doctrine in the case of Now of course in the extrajudicial settlement of the estate there should be a
DBP v Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. We adopted the rule there that mere entry, publication. In other words, all legal requirements. the BIR is an certificated
because all the records in the RD of QC all titles were destroyed so there was no authorizing registration of the capital gains stocks is an imposition by the national
transaction whatsoever, so we prepared that circular adopting the ruling of DBP vs internal revenue code. The transfer tax is an imposition by the local government
RD of Nueva Ecija, that mere entry in the primary book alone would be sufficient act code same thing is true with the real estate tax clearance. A real estate tax
of registration provided that all the requirements of have been complied with. clearance simply means that taxes for this real estate has already been paid. Again
this requirement is imposed by law by the local government code.
In the case of Durawood v Bona, the same principle also apply but the thing is in
the case of Durawood, the deed of absolute sale was presented ahead of a levy. So To give effect of the document, the formalities of course is imposed by the civil
the RD then, certain Atty Rosapio, annotated that fact without carrying over the code. So in other words, before one can register can give a complete act
levy. When he learned, where based on the record, the Deed of Absolute Sale was registration from entry which requirements should be complied with. All these
entered first before the levy. So according to him, there was no need to carry over requirements should be complied with. For agricultural land for example, it requires
the levy after all in the entry book alone using the DBP case – mere entry would be a DAR clearance before it can be transferred to another person. In other words,
sufficient already, considered complete act registration. But in the course of the there are really requirements imposed by law.
hearing, it was shown that the deed of absolute sale has not yet been paid. There
was no payment made. That’s why the SC ruled that, it was the levy that was Absence of any of these requirements will not make for a complete act of
presented later which is considered as superior lien because it lacks certain registration.
requirements. Under the law, the DBP case, the SC said, once everything that is
required of the registrant is presented at the time of registration in the primary So we now go to case of double sale.
entry book, then that is considered a complete act. Now, it there is a missing
requirement, such as a payment of registration fees, then it is not considered as a San Lorenzo Development Corporation vs CA
complete act of registration – and that’s the case of Durawood vs Bona. The deed of
This case is about the alleged double sale between Sps Yu and a certain babasanta.
absolute sale has not yet been paid, there was no registration fees paid. It was not
Pacita alleged that there was a previous loan between her and babasanta but after a
a complete act of registration, subsequently, there was a levy that was entered. The
certain point when it reached a certain amount, they decided to turn that loan into a
SC ruled the levy is superior than the deed of absolute sale. So those are the
contract to sell and because of this contract to sell, Babasanta tried to demand from
lessons that we can learn from these 3 cases about the primary entry book.
the Sps Yu to execute a deed of conveyance. But in the course of the trial, San
Lorenzo Development Corp intervened.
Atty: the agreement was that it was just a case of a real estate mortgage which was
converted to a contract to sell not the other way around.
Now, for a valid registration, the requirements are:
San Lorenzo Development Corp intervened because they alleged that Sps Yu sold
1. the essential requisites of a valid contract – in other words the document or the the lot to them and because of this they alleged that they were purchaser for value
instrument should contain all the essential requisites of a valid contract in good faith. On the other hand, Babasanta put up a defense that he was the first
2. for a valid voluntary registration proceeding in the RD would be compliance with one to buy the said parcel of land.
the legal requirement – in a voluntary transaction you have to present the owner’s
duplicate copy of the title Atty: so in a way the conflict was something was a double sale
b. the requirement such as the payment of the capital gains tax, transfer
tax, real estate tax
Land Title ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016| Atty. Gimarino | EH 408
Sps Yu put up in there defense that since Babasanta was not able to pay the full them to vacate and on that same date, a notice of adverse claim was annotated.
price, they decided to convert again back to the original agreement. the issue is Further, the Melencios alleged that their signatures were forged in the sale to Aznar.
2
that, first was there a double sale and the SC held that there was actually no double
sale because the first agreement between Babasanta and Sps Yu was a contract to The RTC held that the signatures were indeed forged so it upheld the validity of the
sell and in a contract to sell ownership does not transfer immediately unless the full title of Go Kim Chuan.
price has been paid. So there was no double sale. So Article 1544 does not apply.
Atty: In other words, Go Kim Chuan prevailed in the RTC
Atty: because one is a contract to sell and the other one is a deed of absolute sale.
So there was no double sale. In the CA, it ruled in favor of the Aznar saying that it cited the error of the
document examiner. That the judge of the lower court should make an independent
The SC further discussed that assuming that the said contract between Babasanta examination of the alleged forged document. Another, because the extra judicial
and Sps Yu was indeed a contract of sale, the sale will not be consummated partition with deed of absolute sale was first in time, ahead of the sale of Go Kim
because granting it was perfected but the sale was not consummated because there Chuan, then it upheld the title to Aznar.
was no delivery neither constructive because there was no deed of conveyance and
no actual delivery also because Babasanta did not possess the lands. it reiterated the previous cases, that the registration should be in a proper registry.
Because in this case it was not made in the proper registry.
Atty: so in other words, even if we apply Art 1544, assuming it was also a sale, just
the same Babasanta is not entitled to it because there was no delivery, actual nor Atty: Explain to us, the Civil Code here said: laws must come to the assistance of
contructive delivery. There was a mention in this case a notice of lis pendens which the vigilant, not of the sleepy.
was annotated in the certificate of title. What’s the effect of that notice of lis
pendens Because alot of years have passed by and instead of Aznar reconstituting the title, it
waited until that time when another title was already issued in favor of Go Kim
It were held that the notice of lis pendens did not obliterate the good faith of San Chuan
Lorenzo Development Corp because the annotation was done prior to the SLDC’s
knowledge. Atty: So in other words, the lesson that we can learn from this case is that even if
the title is lost and is not found in the register of deeds, …. (21;30) (you cannot put
Atty: Deed of absolute sale between Sps. Yu and SLDC was executed before the it as an under …) instead the remedy of reconstitution, because once title is already
notice of lis pendens was registered in RD. While it is true that indeed, subsequently registered under the Torrens System, it will remain a valid one. And a registration
when they registered the sale there was already a notice of lis pendens, just the made under PD 44, it will be considered as invalid, as having been registered in the
same, SLDC is still considered a buyer in good faith because it was not aware there wrong registry. Also, Go Kim Chuan was considered as a buyer in good faith.
was a defect on the title.
Antonio vs Santos
This case was reiterated in a later case Homeowners Saving vs Felonia. It is a
February 26, 2014 case. Just for bar purposes. But the same principle applies. In Sept. 19, 1988, petitioner Santos filed a complaint of Reconveyance, Annulment
of Title and Damages against respondents. He alleged on this case that Santos is
Melencio vs CA the owner of the property on the parcels of land that is in dispute and that he has
paid realty taxes in 1918 and 1919. He also alleged that his father is the owner of
The subject property was owned by Go Kim Chuan. The entire property was the property and that he gained it from his father. Moreover, that there is a petition
originally owned by Esteban Bonghanay who had one child Juana Amodia, mother of of registration that is currently pending and it is under the LRC No, 142 on this
the petitioners. The entire property was brought under the operation of Torrens present time. So on this matter, the decision was given by the registration saying
System but the title was lost during the second world war. that Santos is the declared true and absolute owner for being able to pay the fee on
the parcels of land. After this, there was an investigation conducted and it is then on
There was an extrajudicial partition of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Aznar but that time that Santos discovered that the respondents also have the title over the
Aznar did not register it because according to them, there was no title because it property. So in this case, Santos alleged that the respondents committed a fraud on
was lost. Years later, the same land was sold to Go Kim Chuan. Afterwards, the lost their application on the issuance of title and secondly, that it should be void because
title was reconstituted in the name of Estaban Bohanoy and then subsequently a they already have the application of registration of this title.
title was issued in favor of Go Kim Chuan. Aznar go to the petitioners demanding
So the RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed. Hence, they raised this deed of absolute sale was executed by Andal in favor of Rellama. It was alleged that
petition. it was a forged document but Rellama later on, in his reply, alleged that it was
3
genuine document.
There are five issues that can be raised in here, so in the first issue is that WON the
CA erred in ruling that there is already a registration of this parcel of land. When the trial was conducted, Rellama passed away and his successors-in-interest
filed a demurrer of evidence. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
In this first issue, the SC held that the petitioner cannot rely on the registration that
is the LRC No 142-A for the reason that, as pointed out, that there is no title yet Atty: let us just go straight to the issue of this case. I want to discuss ruling of this
that is issued on the petitioner. It is still pending on the registration and it is then case. What is the issue here?
ineffective and inefficacious.
Regarding the forged document
On the second issue is that, WON the CA erroneously treat the petitioners action,
filing of reconveyance, as a quieting of title. On this issue, the SC held that the Atty: The SC in this case said, that the issue is whether a forged instrument may
action for reconveyance is based on fraud to prosper and the CA is not treating it as become a root of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value
a quieting of title but rather they are looking for the merit of the case as to WON notwithstanding the fact that the owner’s duplicate copy of title is still existing as in
there is a fraud. Hence, the petitioner cannot base his accusation on this. the hands of a registered owner. The heirs of the registered owner and it have not
been cancelled.
The third and the fourth one is with regard to double sale. WON the subject
property is that there is a double sale in this regard. The SC ruled that it is not a The SC discussed the purpose of the Torrens Title. The jurisprudence of Sitio vs CA,
trier of facts because the matter was not raised during RTC petition hence they the SC explained that the main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible
have no jurisdiction as to this matter of the registration. conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by being
the public the right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Certificate of Title and
Atty: because the petition was under rule 45. Pure question of law. withstands with the need …. Except on the party concerned has actual knowledge of
facts and circumstances that … reasonably cautious man would make such further
On the other hand, expounded the doctrine of reconveyance. On this case, there is inquiry. So the Court further discussed that Torrens system was adopted in the
already a prescribed period of 4 years. And that the petitioner has not done an country because it is believed to be the most effective measure to … the integrity of
action against this. land titles and to protect indefeasibility once the claim of ownership is established.
Atty: why was it declared as having prescribe? How many years before the action Att: but first let’s agree, that the owner’s certificate of title is still in the possession
prescribe? of the successors. So in other words, the title that was used in the registration is
not the real one because the owner’s duplicate copy is in the possession of the
The respondents TCT was then in 1977 and the action was only commenced during original owner. So how were they able to transfer this title in favor of the present
1988 so it was already of more than 4 years. So the SC denied this for lack of merit owners, declared by the SC as innocent purchaser for value, when all the time the
of this case. owner’s duplicate copy of this title was still existing and it has not been cancelled
yet. What are the bases?
In ruling of the appellate court, that during the lifetime, Bernardina Abalon has
Peralta vs Abalon promised her heirs that she would waive that subject property and that duplicate
copy was delivered to them upon her death. Thus the CA concluded that the 2
Atty: Take note of this case of this Peralta vs Abalon. This was penned down by
siblings acquired the property by ordinary prescription which is wrong according to
Chief Justice Serreno, it is a 2014 case. There is a good chance that it is going to be
the SC.
asked in the bar examination in 2018.
Atty: that actually it was not prescription but by virtue of succession. So what about
In the case of Peralta vs Abalon, there was a deed of sale executed by Abalon in
the issue WON an innocent purchaser for value is protected notwithstanding the fact
favor of Rellama. So the subject property was subdivided into 3 portions. One was
that the owner’s duplicate copy is still valid?
sold to Peralta. A TCT was issued in the name of Peralta. Other portion was sold to
Luibio and then later on was sold to Andal by virtue of deed of absolute sale. So the
Further, the SC concluded that under Art 975 of the Civil Code, since the siblings The Legarda vs CA is a must read case. It covers so many principles of land
are the legal heirs of Bernardina, the latter having no issue during the marriage, as registration. This is a 1997 and the doctrines here are still valid and very relevant
4
such they succeeded to her estate when she passed away. While the SC agreed with until now.
the CA that the donation mortis causa was invalid in the absence of a will, erred in
concluding that the subject property was acquired by the heirs through ordinary For better understanding of an innocent purchaser for value, a subsequent decision
acquisitive prescription and the subject parcel of land is titled property, thus the of SC, read Nobleza vs Nueva, GR No 193038, March 11, 2015. In this case the SC
acquisitive prescription is not applicable upon and upon the death of Bernardina, the further elaborated the meaning of an innocent purchaser for value and in a way the
legal heirs acquired the property by virtue of succession. SC here laid down some guidelines how innocent purchaser for value … (for bar)
Atty: the main issue here is WON the innocent purchaser for value may still be
protected notwithstanding the fact that the owner’s duplicate of title is still in the
possession of the heirs of the original owner September 5, 2016
In this case, the SC clarified that the general rule is that a forged instrument can be Legarda vs CA
a root of a valid title especially if it is passed on an innocent purchaser for value.
Because in this case, the transaction between Abalon and Rellama, although it was Discussion:
fraudulent, SC stated that the fact that it was already transferred to an innocent
Why did Atty Gimarino assigned this case, why is there a public auction while we
purchaser for value. (cut by Atty)
are only talking about a lease agreement. Legarda is the owner of the private
Atty’s comment: Always remember, there’s a rule that a forged instrument may be property so why is there a public auction? There is a public auction because the said
a root of a valid title especially if it already in the hands of a forger or the person property is to satisfy the judgment. We are talking about innocent purchaser for
named by the forger and he succeeded to transfer this to an innocent purchaser for value
value. That is with the use of a forged instrument. But this time, it is the title itself
Why was there a judgment? Because Legarda will not signed the lease contract, so
that is defective. Because if the title is still in the possession of the real owner, so all
filed a case for specific performance in order to compel Legarda to sign the contract.
the succeeding transfers will be null and void because the title is still existing. That
However, Legarda wasn’t able to appeal of the judgment of the court, due to the
is why I am surprised, let’s study this case further. There’s one case that I want you
fault of the lawyer. And that judgment has a corresponding amount of damages.
to compare this one with the case of Mahilom vs Herano, GR No 197923, June 22,
And when the decision is final and executory, the sheriff now is mandated by the
2015. Because all along, we have always that rule about forged instrument may be
court to sell the property in a pub auction.
a root of a valid title has been a principle in land registration for so long already.
But it is true, a forged instrument that is defective at first, if a person succeeds in
What will the sheriff issue? The sheriff will issue a certificate of Sale. When do you
transferring it in the name of the forger or impostor, subsequently the impostor now
reckon the right of the owner to redeem the property? One year from the date of
obtains or acquires a title over this land, then after which it is transferred in the
registration of the certificate on the RD. constructive notice to the whole world. The
name of an innocent purchaser for value then the forged instrument now becomes a
sheriff will issue a final deed of sale. The RD will consolidate the ownership in favor
root of a valid title. But all the titles here, first they are all registered but in the
of the highest bidder. The property was sold to Cabrera, he paid P376T.
name of an impostor using a forged instrument. But in this case here of Peralta vs
Abalon, the owner’s duplicate copy is still in the possession or custody still of the Now Legarda ask the court to nullify the cert of sale Legarda ask the court to
real owner. So there can be no valid transfer because the title in the first place is reconvey the property to her? What are the grounds? The court ordered the
still existing. Which is why the SC with Justice Serreno ruled that it’s a case of a reconveyance. Declaring the issuance of cert of sale is null and void.
forged instrument which may become a root of a valid title. NO! the title is null and
void. The spring cannot rise higher than the source. There’s only one case that we Cabrera was the highest bidder? Was Cabrera an innocent purchaser for value? How
are going to take up later where the SC recognized a forged title and gave it effect much did Cabrera paid in the auction? How much is the cost?
in the name of an innocent purchaser for value on the grounds of equitable
estoppel, estoppel of course which is a doctrine of equity in accordance with law. NO, Cabrera was not an innocent purchaser for value,if Cabrera should be the
But in this case, I think the SC erroneously applied the rule of a forged instrument rightful owner, it would tantamount to an unjust enrichment on his part since he
may be a root of a valid title. only paid 376T, when the value of the property was 2M. Which is not a reasonable
price.
How can you be an innocent purchaser for value?  Which is the principal contract bet the contract of loan and contract of
--No notice of any encumbrance or irregularity of the title, mortgage? Contract of loan If the principal contract is null and void, then
5
--pay the reasonable price. the accessory will also be null and void. Even though the said sale was
fraudulent it does not negate the right of the innocent purchaser for value.
 Curtain principle- after the issuance of the decree, its like the curtain will
now fall and the show is done, such that you cannot question and the title
has now become incontrovertible and indefeasible.
Case of Chua vs Soriano  What is the purpose of the Torrens System? The purpose of the Torrens
Principle: This Court has ruled that every person dealing with registered land may system is to quiet title.
safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law
will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of  How about that the buyer relied in SPA? SC held that the fact that the SPA
the property. Where there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud was notarized, that should have been the basis since there was a due
or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the execution of the document. That case of Chua, you can rely on the
purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its notarized document.
face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right thereto.
However, when a person who deals with registered land through someone who is
not the registered owner, he is expected to look behind the certificate of title and Case of Cusi vs Domingo
examine all the factual circumstances, in order to determine if the vendor has the
capacity to transfer any interest in the land. He has the duty to ascertain the Respondent Lilia V. Domingo was the owner of the lot in dispute covered under
identity of the person with whom he is dealing and the latter’s legal authority to Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-165606.On July 18, 1997, without her
convey. consent, RadeliaSy (Sy) petitioned before the RTC for reissuance of new owner’s
copy and, as proof, presented a deed of sale dated July 14, 1997 executed by
The law “requires a higher degree of prudence from one who buys from a person Domingo in her favor, and an affidavit of loss dated July 17, 1997, stating that her
who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the transaction is bag containing the owner’s copy of TCT No. N-165606 had been snatched while she
registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look was at the SM City, North EDSA.
behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the registered
owner is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but all factual
circumstances necessary for him to determine if there are any flaws in the title of
After the RTC granted the petition, the Register of Deeds cancelled the TCT No. N-
the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land.” The strength of buyer’s
165606 and issued a new TCT No. 186142 in favor of Syby virtue of the deed of
inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell depends on the proof of
absolute sale date July 14, 1997. Sy immediately subdivided the property and sold
capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a special power of
each half to Spouses De Vera and Spouses Cusi, and were issued TCT Nos. 189568
attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document
and 189569 respectively, annotatedon the TCT a consideration of onlyPhp 1M each
already constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is
but the entire lot had an actual valueof not less than Php 14M.
provided or there is one but there appear flaws in its notarial acknowledgment,
mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his
investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its
execution.
It was only on July 1999 when the respondent learned the situation.She filed an
action against Spouses Sy, Spouses De Vera, and the Spouses Cusi seeking
annulment of titles, injuction, and damages. She also applied for the issuance of
writ of preliminary prohibition and mandatory injunction, and a temporary
Discussion:
restraining order (TRO). The RTC granted her application, however, the title of
 Is it possible that the borrower and the mortgagee are different persons? Spouses De Vera and Spouses Cusiremain valid as they were held purchasers in
Yes, good faith. Dissatisfied with the decision, Domingo filed a motion for
reconsideration. The RTC set aside its first decision and declaring the sale between
the respondent and Sy void; the buyers were not purchasers in good faith; able to prove in court that he has exercise due diligence and not just rely on the
cancellation of TCT Nos. 189568 and 189569; the TCT No. 165606 shall be face of the title. What are these circumstances?
6
revalidated in the name of Domingo.
- A reconstituted title,
Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for value. - Dealing with persons other than the owner
- Simultaneous selling of property in a span of time
Held: The petitioners were NOT purchasers in good faith. - Sold at an unreasonable low price
- And others
Under the Torrens System of land registration, “a person dealing in the registered
land has the right to rely on the Torrens certificate title and to dispense with the
need of inquiring further, exceptwhen the party has actual knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.”
September 6, 2016 (no records, no class man ata ni)
September 12, 2016 (no class)

Their observance of a certain degree of diligence within the context of the principles
underlying the Torrens System was not the only barometer for them to verify the Sept. 13, 2016
acquisition of title. Under the law and jurisprudence, it was not enough for them to
IV. Real Estate Mortgage (continuation)
show that the property was unfenced and vacant nor it was safe for them to rely on
the face of Sy’s TCT No. 186142 because they were aware that the TCT was derived
Erena v Querrer-Kaufman
only from a duplicate owner’s copy reissued by virtue of the loss of the original
duplicate owner’s copy. That circumstance should have already alerted them to the
Facts
need to inquire beyond the face of the Sy’s TCT. Other circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry in dealing with the property This case makes a distinction about who is an innocent mortgagee. Vida Querrer-
are the almost simultaneous transactions affecting the acquisition of the property Kauffman is the owner of a residential lot with a house constructed. Subsequently,
that the petitioners were also aware of and the material, undervaluation of the she went to the United States and entrusted her minor daughter, Vida Rose, to her
property in the deed of sale, e.i. the price in consideration of the property of Php 1M live-in partner, Eduardo Victor. Later on, Victor also left for the U.S. and entrusted
each half when the market value is at least Php 14Mostensibly at the request of Sy the house and the key thereto to his sister, Mira Bernal. Kauffman asked her sister,
to minimize her liabilities for Capital Gains Tax Evelyn Pares, to get the house from Bernal so that the property could be sold. When
the safe was broken open, however, Pares discovered that the owner’s duplicate
title and the tax declarations, including pieces of jewelry were missing. It appeared
that an imposter "Vida Dana F. Querrer" had signed the Real Estate Mortgage as
Discussion:
owner-mortgagor. Kauffman filed a complaint against Ereña, Bernal and Jennifer
Ramirez for Nullification of Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and Damages with prayer
When you lost the owners duplicate of copy, what do you file in court? Petition for
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. RTC ruled
issuance of second owner’s copy or issuance of owner’s copy.
in favor of Erena, although the Kauffman adduced proof that she owned the
Affidavit of lost is filed in the RD, and when that affidavit s annotated on the RD’s property and that her signatures on the Special Power of Attorney and in the Real
copy, you secure a certified thru copy reflecting the affidavit of lost. Submit it as an Estate Mortgage were forged, nevertheless, defendant Ereña adduced evidence that
evidence. she was a mortgagee in good faith. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision. So Erena
filed an appeal to the SC.
SC held that they were in bad faith, and the consideration of the land was less the
actual fair value of the land. The buyers are not in good faith.
Although we can rely on the face of the certificate of title, if there are circumstances RULING: CA was correct because under Sec. 53 of PD 1529
which would impel a prudent man to investigate, to go beyond the certificate of
title, in order to invoke the right as an innocent purchaser for value, he must be
Section 53. Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of new certificate. mortgagee here is not considered as an innocent purchaser for value, a mortgagee
No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, in good faith. This is reiterated in succeeding cases. I believe the same principle is
7
unless the owner's duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, true when it comes to the cert of title. In so far, in the hands of an innocent
except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the purchaser for value the title is considered for value.
court, for cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary

instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from V. Sale involving Real Estate
the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or
to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such Esguerra v Trinidad
instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon
the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of Atty. G.: What are the 2 types of pricing agreements? Unit price contract and lump
every purchaser for value and in good faith. sum contract.
Under Article 1542 of the Civil Code:
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his Article 1542. In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of
legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a decrease of the price, although there be a greater or less area or number than that
certificate of title. After the entry of the decree of registration on the stated in the contract.
original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the
The same rule shall be applied when two or more immovable as sold for a
presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or
single price; but if, besides mentioning the boundaries, which is
other instrument, shall be null and void.
indispensable in every conveyance of real estate, its area or number should
be designated in the contract, the vendor shall be bound to deliver all that
is included within said boundaries, even when it exceeds the area or
Atty G.: Explaining who the one is considered as the mortgagee in good faith. number specified in the contract; and, should he not be able to do so, he
shall suffer a reduction in the price, in proportion to what is lacking in the
A forged mortgaged contract may give rise to a valid mortgage contract. But in this area or number, unless the contract is rescinded because the vendee does
case, the person must have succeeded in obtaining a cert. of title in his name. not accede to the failure to deliver what has been stipulated.
Once the property is already mortgage to a mortgagee, the mortgagee here is
considered as the one who is protected under the law because he is considered as a
mortgagee in good faith by the mere fact that the mortgagor succeeded in taking a
cert of title. The rule in the real estate mortgage is that one of the essential For example, what is in the contract is 10, 500 per sqm on a parcel of land, and if
requisites of a mortgage contract is that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner what is stated in the contract was 5000 per sqm and the actual size of the land is
of the thing mortgaged. There are other illustrations about real estate mortgage only 4500 per sqm (unit price contract). In this case, the buyer can compel the
because normally in a mortgage contract the mortgagee is always protected. seller to reduce the proportionate price or rescind the contract provided the
reduction should not be less than 1/10 of the reduce area if possible.
When can we consider a mortgagee in good faith?

Q.: What if it more than like 6000 per sqm?
It is only when because I think the last time before I left we were discussing about
the forged instrument on cert of title but not where the title itself is null and void. In Ans.: The buyer can accept what is stated in the contract or the buyer can accept
this case, the mortgagor is the imposter actually did not succeeded in the cert of the excess provided that he shall pay the proportionate price.
title in his name. What she did was to assume the identity of the owner as Vida
Dana Querrer so she was not able to take the cert of title. That’s the reason why the
In this case, what is the pricing agreement? I really think that there are other circumstances that should be considered to help
determine as substantial difference such as the slope.
8
It is a lump sum contract. Petitioner Esguerra sold to the respondents through a
lump sum contract. The land contract measures 5000 sqm and during the cadastral
survey it was discovered that it was actually 6,268 sqm. Respondent contended that
the contract should be nullified on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The VI. Caveat Emptor Principle
SC held that a lump sum contract and the definition of “more or less” is considered
here because the difference between 6268 and 5000 is a reasonable difference. ¼ Sy v Capistrano
difference cannot be considered as unreasonable excess. In the case of caballero
also shares the same principle. Facts
Nenita Scott (Scott) approached respondent Nicolas Capistrano, Jr. (Capistrano) and
offered her services to help him sell his 13,785 square meters of land covered by
Take note class that the 2 cases are very important because there are still so many Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 76496 of the Register of Deeds of Caloocan
transaction of unregistered lands covered only by tax declarations with “more or City. Capistrano gave her a temporary authority to sell which expired without any
less” agreement and sometimes just the boundary. In Cebu, there are many tax sale transaction being made. Later on, Scott discovered her titles were cancelled
declarations with unregistered lands with more or less. It is important to survey the and transferred to Golpeo and Tan. They were alleging that the signatures of the
land. deed of sale were forged. RTC decided in favor of Capistrano who filed the action of
reconveyance of the title because they were said to be after his authority to sell was
expired. CA affirmed and ordered Sy, Golpeo and Tan (petitioners) to return the
amount they paid.
Del Prado v Caballero
Facts
Issue: Whether the sale from Capistrano was forgery and if the petitioners were
Del prado is the buyer and caballero is the owner-seller of a land. In the contract of innocent purchasers for value.
deed of sale, it was stipulated that a sum of 40000 would be paid by the buyer to
the seller for an area of 4000sqm more or less but it turned out that there was a
discrepancy of 10475sqm.
Ruling:
They cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value because the said
RULING signatures even without the experts the variance of the two signatures were very
clear that they were not from the same person.
The SC said that this is an exception to the previous ruling that under the Art. 1542
of the Civil Code on lump sum contract. This case is a lump sum contract, however,
there is substantial discrepancy as to the difference of the area. In other words, the
difference of more than 1 hectare, 10475sqm cannot be considered as a light Atty. G.: What about the title? What was presented?
difference but substantial difference. This illustrates the rules on lump sum.
Take note that Capistrano was still in possession of the owners duplicate copy of the
title. The title was still in the name of Capistrano but Sy failed to verify the claim of
the transfer of ownership by asking for the copies of the deed of absolute sale. And
Atty G.: What constitutes substantial difference? also one that was presented was only a photocopy of the cert. SC held the minimum
requirement of the buyer in good faith atleast you should have seen the owners
It depends really on the circumstances of the case. In this case, more than 1 copy himself. The series of transfers were forgery. First, from Capistrano it was
hectare is considered substantial whereas in Esguerra case an increase of only ¼ is made to appear sold to Scott, from Scott to Jamiliar, then Jamiliar to Golpeo and
considered only in the phrase more or less. There is no hard and fast rule. Tan.
Atty. G.: What was the main agreement?

9
Q.: How did the SC dispose of the case? Since Acero acknowledged that Domingo is the owner, he agreed that anytime he
Ans.: Jamiliar was asked to pay for damages. may vacate the premises. However, Acero also filed a motion for the nullification of
the conduct of the implementation of the compromise agreement because it would
appear that he would be prejudiced because that portion of land where his factory is
Q.: Why is it SC commented the filing of criminal charges? included would be encroached. SC is in favor of Domingo.
Ans.: Actually this was a case of falsification, no mention whatsoever of the criminal
liability of the parties in this case just the civil aspect. Sometimes the SC It is important in this case that the SC outlined the guidelines on how to conduct
recommends the filing of the criminal charges against the persons involved. due diligence:
It is advisable that such parties

Finally, there is the questionable cancellation of the certificate of title of Capistrano
which resulted in the immediate issuance of a certificate of title in favor of the (1) verify the origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of
Jamilar spouses despite the claim that Capistrano sold his property to Scott and it the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority;
was Scott who sold the same to the Jamilars. In light of the foregoing disquisitions, (2) engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to verify the
based on the evidence on record, we find no error in the findings of the CA as to boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the technical
warrant a discretionary judicial review by this Court. description in the said title and the approved survey plan in the Land Management
Bureau;
(SIR: Actually, that is the sanction that can be explained that immediate (3) conduct an actual ocular inspection of the lot;
cancellation because there was no notary issued in favor of Jamiliar instead the title (4) inquire from the owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true
was issued directly in favor of Scott. The result is it had no title effect of Scott. The and legal ownership of the lot in question;
reason behind it that the contract was descended simultaneously for registration, (5) put up signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or encumbered; and
there is no need for RTC to issue a title for the first transaction only the second one (6) undertake such other measures to make the general public aware that said lot
in favor of Jamiliar. The SC find it unusual since there was no title in favor of Scott. will be subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.
Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal recourse against lessor David
Victorio who inveigled him to lease the lot which turned out to be owned by
another.
Domingo Realty v CA September 19, 2016
Atty. G.: Remember this case Sept. 19, 2016
ADVERSE CLAIM REQUISITE
Facts:
1. it should be a claim of interest is adversed to the registered owner of
the specific property
Petitioner Domingo Realty filed a case for reconveyance of the property which Acero
has a hollow block factory in one of the subject lots. According to Acero, he leased 2. the cause of action or the basis accrue before the original registration.
certain property by a certain Victorio who claimed to be the owner of that property.
 (in an original registration proceedings they're supposed to be a proceeding
Subsequently, the parties reached into a compromise agreement that Acero
in rem- if you have issue about it, you're supposed to bring it. so if the
acknowledged that it was petitioner who was the owner. To implement the
basis of the adverse claim occur prior to issuance of the certificate of title
compromise agreement, Domingo asked the court to conduct a resurvey to
of the registration of the property is not considered as admissible as an
determine as to the coverage. advers claim. It should have raised after the original registration. and what
is important is that there should be no remedy provided for under section
74 of PD 1529 to register such interest)
 there should be an action or petition to cancel the notice pendence

SAJONAS CASE otherwise it remains there.
10
facts: there was a contract to sell, but instead of registering the contract to iii. enforcement of liens on registered land
sell, what the sajonases did was to instead,register an adverse claim, when they
have paid already ( the idea was one who paid in full then, the adverse claim will be
cancelled) PADILLA VS PHIL PRODUCE
Issue: W/N that there was subsequently there was a levy also that was FACTS:
filed against the property. which has the preference, was it the adverse claim or the • Petitioner and his wife are the registered owners of real properties.
notice of lis pendence. Respondent is a marketing cooperative which had a money claim against
petitioner. Respondent filed a civil case against petitioner for collection of a
Ruling: accdg to couple it should be the levy that will take precedent over sum of money in theRegional Trial Court of Bacolod City. But herein
petitioner failed to file an answer, thus was declared in default and the trial
the adverse claim because at the the adverse claim is already considered not
court rendered judgment in favor of respondent. The court issued a writ of
effective under section 70 of pd 1529 an adverese claim only valid for 30 days that's
execution and the properties were levied. The lots were auctioned and the
why they claim, the adverse claim has already expired becaus it was filed a long
respondent was the only bidder. A certificate of sale was issued to
time ago. The SC said, NO, section 70 provides, even after lapse of 30 days, they're
respondent and such was registered in the Register of Deeds. Petitioner failed
supposed to file petition to court to have it cancelled. the applying the rules in to exercise his right of redemption (12-month period), thus a writ of
statutory construction, which reads:“After the lapse of said period, the annotation of possession was issued to cause the delivery of the physical possession of the
adverse properties in favor of respondent.
claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in
interest.” then the adverse claim subsist in other words invalid, in this case, • Respondent filed a motion to direct the Register of Deeds to issue new titles
between the adverse claim and the levy, the adverse claim filed by the sajonas was over the properties in its name, alleging that the Register of Deeds (RD) of
to be considered to be superior than that of the levy. Bago City would not issue new titles (in respondent’s name) unless the
owner’s copies were first surrendered to him. Respondent countered that
observation: such surrender was impossible because this was an involuntary sale and the
- the 30 day period found under section 70 of PD1529 is not found in act owner’s copies were with petitioner. The trial court granted the motion and
496 the appellate court affirmed it.
-the reason why it is not included was rreally to put a stop to put a limit as
to the effectivity of the adverse claim. because adverse claim is abused also. ISSUE:
a. whether or not respondent’s right to have new titles issued in its
name is now barred by prescription
similar provision under sec 4 rule 74 of the rules of court.(liability)
b. whether or not the motion in question is the proper remedy for
cancelling petitioner’s certificates of title and new ones issued in
 when there is an extra judicial settlement of the estate, the title to be
its name.
issued in favor of the heirs, theirs should be an annotation there called
liability, sec 4 rule 74 of the rules of court(liability) provides that within the
period of 2 years any of the heirs deprived of an ownership over the estate
RULING:
of the deceased person has 2 years within which to file a claim, in the
same manner the creditor may do the same. that's why there is always
reservation whenever a property is extrajudicially settled there's alwyas On the first issue, we rule that the respondent’s right to petition the court for the
that reservation under liability. issuance of new certificates of title has not yet prescribed.
 how to cancel liability after the lapse of 2 years- al you have to do is to file
a verified petition in the office of the register of deeds and not before the It is settled that execution is enforced by the fact of levy and sale. The right
court. acquired by the purchaser at an execution sale is inchoate and does not become
absolute until after the expiration of the redemption period without the right of
all other cases redemption having been exercised.
 The fact of levy and sale constitutes execution, and not the action for the
issuance of a new title. Here, because the levy and sale of the properties • Viewmaster was a guarantor infavor of allen roxas in order for allen roxas
11
took place in June and July of 1990, respectively, or less than a year after to obtain a loan. the loan amounting to several million was supposed to for
the decision became final and executory, the respondent clearly exercised aproject a joint agreement, wherein viewmaster as a part of the joint
its rights in timely fashion. venture agreement, what happened is that even the lapse of 2 years and
roxas failed to comply with the contract, that is to pursue the joint venture
On the other hand, the issue of whether to acquire new titles by mere motion or agreement. so what viewmasters did id file a case pursuant to a specific
through a separate petition is an entirely different matter. Petitioner is correct in performance against allen roxas to comply with the joint venture
assailing as improper respondent’s filing of a mere motion for the cancellation of the agreement. he filed a notice of lis pendens and was registered in the office
old TCTs and the issuance of new ones as a result of petitioner’s refusal to of RD in quezon city, but the RD office of las pinas denied the registration
surrender his owner’s duplicate TCTs. Indeed, this called for a separate cadastral of lis pendens on the following grounds:
action initiated via petition. 1 the property itself must be a lis mota(subject matter)
2 notice of lis pendens does not apply to action personam only action in
The proper course of action was to file a petition in court, rather than merely move, rem
for the issuance of new titles. 2. the subject matter is incidental to main case
Section 75 of PD 1529 (the reasons as per SC it should be afforded due process to It was affirmed by the LRA and CA when affirmed because it involves only on
registered owner, in the sense the he can assail, he can question the validity of the specific performance. And not registrable as notice on lis pendens.
action sale becaus it might happen that the value of the property to be levied upon
is much more than the judgement debt, in other words, when there is an excess of SC ruled that a notice of lis pendens in not only confined about matters issue
involving only ownership, possession and title itself but it also includes actions and
a judgement debt it should be ggiven to the judgment debtor / registered owner)
suits that seeks "to establish an equitable estate, interest, or right in specific real
property or to enforce any lien, charge, or encumbrance against a property”
the SC also mentioned in this case what about the surrender of the owners
duplicate copy of the title.
ATLANTICS CASE
TAKE NOTE!
 section 107 of PD 1529, whenever there is a voluntary and an involuntary • The atlantic wanted to file a notice of lis pendens against herbal cove they
were the one who contracted to build several town houses owned by real
the party before the same be registered, the party must surrender the
cove realty. The idea here is that “there is so called contractors lein,
duplicate copy of the title. Failure to surrender you can compel the person
because of the ruling of the viewmaster that includes an enforcement of a
holding the owners duplicate copy to surrender the same to the office of lein, they also wanted to apply this ruling in their case in asking the court
the register of deeds. failure to surrender, you can ask the court to declare for the annotation of lis pendens over the claim of unpaid construction
the title null and void and to order the RD to issue new certificate of title work but the supreme court said, that this is not the kind of lien that is
for purpose of giving effect to that involuntary dealing) contemplated under the law, article 2242 of the civil code speaks about
constructions lien applies only when there is a concurrence of credit. In
 in this case It is clear that PD 1529 provides the solution to respondent’s other words, there are several creditors and the court has to determined
quandary regarding the owners duplicate copy of the title what you can do who is preferred creditor.
is to file a petition under sec 107 of pd1529.
• In this case, it was only atlantic erectors who was creditor, and the type of
lien they wanted to impose has something to do with supreme court in
cases only where there are concurrence of credits and have to determine
side note: who should be paid first. Art 2242 enumerated, and that is the type of lien
• IN ACTUAL PROCEEDINGS no need to file an action to surrender the that 2242 speaks about and is not a proper remedy it applies only when
duplicate of OCT, you can include it already in the application for issuance there is an insolvency proceedings and not in the collection of sum of
of new certificate title under secion 75. money. In the case at bar, is not the kind of lien that need to be enforce to
be a proper and valid notice of lis pendens.
VIEWMASTERS CONSTRUCTION CASE
MR HOLDING VS SHERIFF CARLOS BAHAR CASE
the supreme court define the extent wherein the notice pendens may apply.
• The issue in this case is W/N a golf club membership certificate may be The litigation subject of the notice of lis pendens must directly involve a
made as basis for a notice of lis pendens. What they did was to register specific property which is necessarily affected by the judgment.
this claim against this golf club certificate in the chattel registry book 12
registered in the RD. they also wanted to register the pendency of the case Tans complaint prayed for either the rescission or the reformation of the
in the chattel registry book. The issue here W/N a chattel maybe a valid Deed of Conditional Sale. While the Deed does have real property for its object, we
basis for the notice of lis pendens. find that Tans complaint is an in personam action, as Tan asked the court to compel
the respondents to do something either to rescind the contract and return the down
• SC ruled, NO, real estate only covers real action involving a real property . payment, or to reform the contract by extending the period given to pay the
(this might come out in bar exam) remaining balance of the purchase price. Either way, Tan wants to enforce his
personal rights against the respondents, not against the property subject of the
Deed.
ST. MARY VS RD MAKATI CASE
The issue here is W/N the notice of lis pendens can be cancelled even LEVIES ON EXECUTION
during in the pendency of the case.
SC ruled under PD 1529, a notice of lis pendens may be cancelled even Case of Pineda vs Arcalas
during the pendency of the case if:
A levy on execution registered takes preference over a prior unregistered sale – a
1. If it is not necessary to protect the interest of the person who talks
registered lien is entitled to preferential consideration. An exception to the
about the notice of lis pendens to be annotated
preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has actual knowledge
2. If the notice of lis pendens is made only to molest the other parties.
of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious possession of the disputed
In this case, at first the RD of Makati annotated the notice of lis pendens then the property at the time the levy or attachment is registered.
RTC ordered its cancellation when the case is brought up before the court of appeals
it was already cancelled by the RTC, the court of appeals ordered the reannotation The Court held that a registered writ of attachment is a proceeding in rem. It is
of the notice of lis pendens. So this was the issue raised in the supreme court. W/N against a particular property, enforceable against the whole world. The attaching
the CA may issue/order the reinstatement of the notice of lis pendens
creditor acquires a specific lien on the attached property which nothing can
notwithstanding the fact that it was being cancelled earlier byr the RTC.
subsequently destroy except the very dissolution of the attachment or levy itself. An
According to the supreme court, YES, it is in within the right of the CA to issue exception to the preference given to a registered lien is the case where a party has
reannotation of the notice of lis pendens after it already acquired jurisdiction over actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open, continuous and notorious
the case when it was elevated. So the CA have the right to order the reannotation possession of the disputed property at the time the levy or attachment is registered
of the notice of lis pendens, the validity of the notice of les pendens was upheld by
the supreme court.
Chapter 8 REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, PARTITION

CASIM VS REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LAS PIAS CASE
--When a certified copy of the final judgment or decree of partition is presented for
• The issue in this case is W/N a court of equal jurisdiction may order the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens pending in another court. registration ad I appears that a mortgage or lease affecting a specific portion or an
undivided share of the property had been previously registered, the Registered of
• SC ruled, NO, the court handling the main case has jurisdiction to order Deeds shall carry over and annotate such encumbrance on the certificate of title
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens because a notice of lis pendens in that may be issued, with a description of the land set-off in severalty on which such
just an axillary remedy to the main case. mortgage or lease remains in force.
-- When there is a decision, just the decision itself that is already final, you can
September 20, 2016
have this annotated n the certificate of title that is involved in the case. Bu where
the court has ordered a direct issuance in favor of the prevailing party, there should
Case of Tan vs Benolirao
be a writ of execution. (Atty. Gimarino)
Lis pendens annotation not proper in personal actions:
The case of Abad vs Filhomes Realty his sales certificate to Tomas N. Alonso, who had been consequently issued Patent
No. 14353; the Director of Lands had executed a final deed of sale in favor of
Tomas N. Alonso, but the final deed of sale had not been registered with the 13
Expropriation. As a general rule, ejectment proceedings, due to its summary nature,
are not suspended or their resolution held in abeyance despite the pendency of a Register of Deeds because of lack of requirements, like the approval of the final
deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as required by
civil action regarding ownership.
law.
In the present case, the mere issuance of a writ of possession in the expropriation Francisco subsequently found that the certificate of title covering Lot No. 727-D-2
proceedings did not transfer ownership of the lots in favor of the City. Such issuance of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate had been "administratively reconstituted from
was only the first stage in expropriation. the owner's duplicate" of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-1310 in the
name of United Service Country Club, Inc., the predecessor of respondent Cebu
Country Club, Inc. (Cebu Country Club); and that upon the order of the court that
By mere tolerance. It has been held that a person who occupies the land of another
had heard the petition for reconstitution of the TCT, the name of the registered
at the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, owner in TCT No. RT-1310 had been changed to that of Cebu Country Club; and
is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand that the TCT stated that the reconstituted title was a transfer from TCT No.
1021. With his discoveries, Francisco formally demanded upon Cebu Country Club
to restore the ownership and possession of Lot 727-D-2 to him.
The Congress ultimately enacted a law to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles
Discussion:
covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate in Cebu City. This was Republic Act No. 9443
This has something to do with expropriation proceeding and ejectment. The rule
Held: The law expressly declares as valid "(a)ll existing Transfer Certificates of
here is, even if there is an ongoing case of unlawful detainer at the same time there
Title and Reconstituted Certificates of Title duly issued by the Register of Deeds of
is an expropriation, and the court already granted it by way of writ of expropriation, Cebu Province and/or Cebu City covering any portion of the Banilad Friar Lands
it will not stop the effects in the case of unlawful detainer. The rule is, in an Estate," and recognizes the registered owners as absolute owners. To benefit
expropriation proceeding notwithstanding the fact that there is another case from R.A. No. 9443, therefore, a person must hold as a condition precedent a
pending over the property subject to expropriation, it may still proceed. After al,l duly issued Transfer Certificate of Title or a Reconstituted Certificate of Title.
there are several steps in an expropriation proceeding. The issuance of writ of Although Lot 727-D-2 was earlier declared to be owned by the Government in
expropriation is just the 1st step. The local government should provide the just G.R. No. 130876, R.A. No. 9443 later validated Cebu Country Club's registered
compensation. ownership due to its holding of TCT No. RT-1310 (T-11351) in its own name. As
the OSG explained in its manifestation in lieu of comment, the enactment of R.A.
In this case there was an unlawful detainer filed by Filhomes Realty against Abad, No. 9443 had "mooted the final and executory Decision of the Supreme Court
the informal settlers. Abad put up as a defense that they were in possession of the in "Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc.,"
property for 30 years, therefore they cannot just be ejected. Filhomes was able to The Court declares that Cebu Country Club, Inc. is the exclusive owner of Lot No.
prove that their stay was by of mere tolerance. It was merely tolerated by the 727-D-2 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate, as confirmed by Republic Act No. 9443.
predecessor of Filhomes. The SC outlined the rule about, when is possession is by
mere tolerance. The rule is, the moment the first time they occupy that land and
they do not have permission to occupy it, and the registered owner will not do
anything to eject them from the premises, then it is considered possession by mere Discussion:
tolerance. So the moment the owner of the property sends a letter of demand
asking them to vacate the land within a period of 1 year, then they are expected to This is something to do about Writ of execution. The SC ruled that the title without
vacate the said property upon demand. the approval of the Secretary was null and void.
What about the interest of the Republic? Alonso?
Case of Alonzo vs CCC SC held that Alonso no longer have a legal standing since they don’t stand to lose
anything, because the subject land is owned by the Republic as ruled in the earlier
Facts: Francisco discovered documents showing that his father Tomas N. Alonso case, therefore it is the Republic who is the party in interest.
had acquired Lot No. 727 of the Banilad Friar Lands Estate from the Government
in or about the year 1911; that the original vendee of Lot No. 727 had assigned
“The pronouncement in G.R. No. 130876 renders beyond dispute that Held: YES. Under our land registration law, no voluntary instrument shall be
the non-execution of the judgment would not adversely affect the registered by the Register of Deeds unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is
14
petitioners, who now hold no right whatsoever in Lot No. 727-D-2. presented together with such instrument, except in some cases or upon the order of
Otherwise put, they are not the proper parties to assail the questioned the court for cause shown. In case the person in possession refuses or fails to
orders of the RTC, because they stand to derive nothing from the surrender the same to the RD so that a voluntary document may be registered and
execution of the judgment against Cebu Country Club.” a new certificate issued, Sec. 107 of P.D. No. 1529 states: …Where a voluntary
instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to
What is the effect? The final ruling of the prior case was, that the title was really surrender the owner’s duplicate, the party in interest may file a petition in court to
null and void, however the passage of the law RA 9443, it was deemed considered, compel surrender of the same to the RD. The court, after hearing, may order the
the title now is transferred to CCC. registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the
same and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such
The title to the CCC was declared by the SC null and void on the ground that there surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the
was no approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The SC also process of the court, of if for any reason the outstanding owner’s duplicate cannot
ruled that it was actually the Republic who owned the subject land Lot No. 77. be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the
Subsequently, however, there was a law that was pass, RA 9443, law to validate the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Pursuant to Sec. 2 of P.D. No.
TCTs and reconstituted titles law to validate the TCTs and reconstituted titles 1529, the distinction between the RTC’s general and the limited jurisdiction when
covering the Banilad Friar Lands Estate. acting merely as a cadastral court has been eliminated. Aimed at avoiding
multiplicity of suits, the change has simplified registration proceedings by conferring
upon the RTCs the authority to act not only on applications for original registration
but also over petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and
Ligon vs CA
determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. Even while Sec.
107 of PD 1529 speaks of a petition which can be filed by one who wants to compel
Facts: The Islamic Directorate of the Philippines (IDP), by virtue of an absolute
another to surrender the certificates of title to the RD, this does not preclude a
deed, sold to Iglesia ni Kristo (INK) 2 parcels of land in Tandang Sora, Barrio Culiat,
party to a pending case to include as incident therein the relief stated under said
QC. It was stipulated therein that IDP shall undertake to evict all squatters in the
section, especially if the subject certificates of title to be surrendered are intimately
property within 45 days from the execution of the contract. IDP failed to do this,
connected with the subject matter of the principal action. The principal action is
hence, INK sued for specific performance with damages. IDP, on the other hand,
based on expediency and in accordance with the policy against multiplicity of suits.
alleged that it was INK which violated the contract by delaying the payment of the
The order directing the surrender of the certificates to the RD in order that the deed
purchase price and sought to have the contract of sale rescinded. Thereafter, INK
be registered in favor of INK cannot in any way prejudice her rights and interests as
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that there was actually
mortagee, since any lien annotated on the previous certificates which subsists shall
no genuine issue as to any material fact; the TC granted. A year after, INK filed a
be incorporated or carried over to the new certificates of title.
motion in the same case seeking to compel Leticia Ligon (petitioner), who was in
possession of the certificates of title over the properties as mortgagee of IDP, to
surrender said certificates to the RD of QC for the registration of the absolute deed
of sale in its name. Ligon allegedly refused and/or failed to deliver the certificates Discussion:
despite repeated requests. To this, Ligon opposed saying that (a) IDP was not
served copy of the motion, (b) ownership of INK over the property was still in issue, Ligon was required to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of the title, although he
(c) and that the trial court had no jurisdiction as the motion involved the was the holder of the title as a mortgagee, and there was an absolute sale that
registrability of the document of sale, and she was not made a party in the main needs to be registered, she refused to surrender, the SC issue an order to compel
case. The TC granted INK’s motion and ordered petitioner to surrender the the surrender of the title.
certificates of title in open court for the registration of the absolute deed of sale in
the latter’s name and the annotation of the mortgage executed in favor of petitioner SC held She may surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of title after all she could
on the new certificates (to be issued to INK). Upon Ligon’s motion, the TC not be prejudiced because the moment the title that has been issued in favor of
redirected her to deliver the documents to the RD of QC. Iglesia, the mortgage will be carried over to the new title. Therefore she is
protected. The mortgage will remain effective or existing in the matter of whose
Issue: WON INK has a superior right to the possession of the owner’s copies of the hands the property will go.
certificated of title.
just to compel the registered owner, herein petitioner Tan, to surrender her titles
constitute violation of, if not disrespect to, the orders of the highest tribunal.
15
Toledo Banaga vs CA Otherwise, if execution cannot be had just because the losing party will not
surrender her titles, the entire proceeding in the courts, not to say the efforts,
Facts: Petitioner Banaga filed an action for redemption of her property which was expenses and time of the parties, would be rendered nugatory. It is revolting to
earlier foreclosed and later sold in a public auction to the respondent. The trial court conscience to allow petitioners to further avert the satisfaction of their obligation
declared petitioner to have lost her right for redemption and ordered that certificate because of sheer literal adherence to technicality, or formality of surrender of the
of title be issued to the respondent which the petitioner caused an annotation of duplicate titles. The surrender of the duplicate is implied from the executory
notice of lis pendens to the title. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision and decision since petitioners themselves were parties thereto. Besides, as part of the
allowed the petitioner to redeem her property within a certain period. Banaga tried execution process, it is a ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to comply
to redeem the property by depositing to the trial court the amount of redemption with the decision of the court to issue a title and register a property in the name of
that was financed by her co-petitioner Tan. Respondent opposed in that she made a certain person, especially when the decision had attained finality, as in this case.
the redemption beyond the period ordered by the court. The lower court however
upheld the redemption and ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the
respondent’s title and issue a new title in favor of the petitioner. In a petition for
certiorari before the CA by the respondent, another notice of lis pendens was
annotated to the title. CA issued a temporary restraining order to enjoin the
execution of the court order. Meanwhile, Banaga sold the property to Tan in the Discussion:
absolute deed of sale that mentions the title of the property still in the name of the
respondent which was not yet cancelled. Despite the lis pendens on the title, Tan (exception to the rule why it is not necessary to surrender the owner’s duplicate
subdivided the lot into a subdivision plan which she made not in her own name but copy)
that of the respondent. Tan then asked the Register of Deeds to issue a new title in
her name. New titles were issued in Tan’s name but carried the annotation of the This case is something to do with the surrender of landowner’s duplicate certificate
two notices of lis pendens. Upon learning the new title of Tan the respondent of title. There was a civil case decided already by the SC that the Malerio, the third
impleaded her in his petition. The CA later sets aside the trial court’s decision and party, is the owner of the property. Yet Toledo filed again so many cases just to
declared the respondent as the absolute owner of the property for failure of the delay the litigation and finally it went to the SC. It was raise to the SC for the 3 rd
petitioner to redeem the property within the period ordered by the court. The time because Toledo Banagad was the owner of the property, sold it to Orbita Tan,
decision was final and executory and ordered the Register of Deeds to reinstate the then after, Orbita Tan, in an auction sale, the Malerio was the highest bidder. It
title in the name of the respondent. The Register of Deeds refused alleging that went up to the SC three times, the SC became exasperated simply because of
Tan’s certificate must be surrendered first. The respondent cited the register of simple case of redemption on the ground that the RD refuses to register the title in
deeds in contempt but the court denied contending that the remedy should be favor of the Malerio for the failure to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of Orbita
consultation with the Land Registration Commissioner and in its other order denied Tan.
the motion of respondent for writ of possession holding that the remedy would be to
SC held that the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of title is already implied in the
a separate action to declare Tan’s title as void.
final and executory decision of the court.
Held: Petitioners contention that the execution of the final and executory decision
— which is to issue titles in the name of private respondent — cannot be compelled
by mandamus because of the "formality" that the registered owner first surrenders
Sep. 16, 2016
her duplicate Certificates of Title for cancellation per Section 80 of Presidential
Decree 1529 cited by the Register of Deeds, bears no merit.
Sep. 26, 2016
In effect, they argue that the winning party must wait execution until the losing
Atty G: In real estate mortgaged, the mortgage follows the subject. Its assuming
party has complied with the formality of surrender of the duplicate title. Such
protected because the mortgaged was carried over to the title.
preposterous contention borders on the absurd and has no place in our legal
system. Precisely, the Supreme Court had already affirmed the CA's judgment that On the other hand, the Toledo Banaga case is an exception to the rule about
Certificates of Title be issued in private respondent's name. To file another action surrender of the owners duplicate copy of the title where there is already a final
executory decision of the court to surrender the owners copy is considered as Only alienable or disposable lands may be disposed of through any of the forms of
implied. The registered owner or the one who is in possession of the title is a party concession enumerated in the law. 14 A free patent is one of such concessions15 and
once it is registered and the corresponding certificate of title issued, the land 16
to the case, there is already a final executory decision and an order to the execution
covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private
of the judgment has already been issued, then there is no more need to surrender
property.
the owners duplicate copy, it is already deemed implied in the final executory
decision.
Verily, by the issuance of a free patent, the property in this case had become
private land. It is inconsistent for an alienable land of the public domain to be
Now we go to Amendment and alteration of Certificates under sec. 108.
covered by a free patent and at the same time retain its character as public land.
Oliva vs. Republic
Questions asked ni sir

The applicable legal easement is 3 meters
 There was an easement w/ forty meters easement. In accordance with
what rule is that? What law?
 What is the status/character of the land, why is there a need of 40 meters
easement? Since the property in this case was originally alienable land of the public domain,
 What kind of action was filed? what kind of action was that? Is that a the application for free patent contained the condition that a forty-meter legal
petition under sec 108? easement from the banks on each side of any river or stream found on the land
shall be demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland. However, after the
As we have learned in the previous cases -Special proceedings, the purpose is to property was administratively titled, it underwent several surveys for purposes of
establish a fact, status or condition. subdivision, consolidation, or consolidation-subdivision. Thus, presently only three
meters is required to be demarcated and preserved as permanent timberland.
FACTS:
Petitioner Doris Chiongbian-Oliva is the registered owner of a parcel of land. This

title originated from a free patent granted CA No. 141. The free patent contained Side comments ni sir: When the titles over SRP where issued, the titles that were
the condition that a 40-meter legal easement from the bank of any river or stream issued also contained a description that the easement is 40 meter. Remember SRP
shall be preserved as permanent timberland. Petitioner filed a petition for reduction is a reclaimed land, therefore it is unclassified. When FILINVEST, their lawyers knew
of legal easement alleging that the property is residential thus the applicable that the title contain 40 meter easement, they wanted to back out. They wanted to
easement should be 3meters. The DENR countered that the property is inalienable. develop the property but because of the easement it is going to be difficult.
It also claimed that the applicant agreed on the forty-meter legal easement when
the free patent was applied for.
Philippine Cotton Corp vs. Gagoomal
The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed (walay follow up questions si sir ani na case)
the trial court’s decision. It upheld the DENR’s claim that the property was
inalienable. The Pacific Mills Corporation owned 5 parcels of land in Quezon City covered by four
certificates of title. Pacific Mills sold the land to Naraindas Gagoomal and Engracio
ISSUE: Ang in 1979.
In 1983, Philippine Cotton Corporation won a case in the lower court against Pacific
Is the property public or private land?
Mills which led to the attachment of the 5 parcels of land previously owned by
Pacific Mills. Pacific Mills appealed until it reached the Supreme Court.
Is the applicable legal easement forty or three meters?
While the case was pending in the SC, the QC Registry of Deeds was razed by fire
thereby destroying all records. In 1992, Pacific Mills filed for a reconstitution of land.
It was granted but it was immediately cancelled in favor of Ang and Gagoomal.
HELD: Subsequently, Ang and Gagoomal received clean TCTs.
The property is a private land
Meanwhile, Philippine Cotton received a favorable judgment from the SC and they was still in the name of their father. So what the heirs did was to file petition of
requested the Register of Deeds to annotate the same on the titles issued to Ang correction or amendment of title under sec 108. They submitted a petition. The RD
and Gagoomal. The Register of Deeds then annotated the said titles and then sent a submitted a comment/commend(not sure)that actually, the petition filed was to 17
letter to Ang and Gagoomal to surrender their duplicates. avoid payment of estate taxes. Because the moment the title is changed, there is no
need for the heir to settle the estate. RTC and CA, both said the shortcut ni. Di ni
Ang and Gagoomal petitioned for the removal of the annotation. Philippine Cotton pwede. Settle estate first.
argued that the RD can validly annotate a Supreme Court decision on the said titles
and that the same is its ministerial duty. The SC said that in contract to sell, ownership is still reserved in
HELD: Under the circumstances, the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City should and the vendor. At the time, installment was paid. Dawson has no legal personality
could have properly refused such request instead of immediately annotating it. In because he died. So it was proper that the heirs would succeed to him as buyers
the same light, “The Register of Deeds may likewise properly refuse registration of therefore title should be corrected in the name of the heirs. SC said that it should
an order attachment when it appears that the title involved is not in the name of the not make judgment based on motives of applicant unless there is show proof that it
defendant and there is no evidence submitted to indicate that the said defendant was really designed or intended to avoid taxes. SC said it was proper to amend the
has any present or future interest in the property covered by the titles.” title in this case. .
Note that in the case won by Philippine Cotton before the SC, the defendant therein
was Pacific Mills. Ang and Gagoomal acquired the property before the resolution of FELICIANO VS ZALDIVAR
the case, hence, the annotation is not valid because Ang and Gagoomal were not
parties to the said case. FACTS:
Remegia Y. Feliciano filed against the spouses Aurelio and Luz Zaldivar a complaint
for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title and reconveyance of the
Paz vs. Republic property. The said title is registered in the name of Aurelio Zaldivar.
(No follow up questions si sir) In her complaint, Remegia alleged that she was the registered owner of a parcel of
land. Aurelio, allegedly through fraud, was able to obtain TCT covering a portion of
SC held and agreed with both the CA and the RTC that the petitioner was in reality Remegia’s lot. RTC rendered judgment in favor of Remegia. It declared that TCT in
seeking the reconveyance of the property covered by OCT No. 684, not the the name of Aurelio was null and void for having been obtained through
misrepresentation, fraud or evident bad faith by claiming in his affidavit that
cancellation of a certificate of title as contemplated by Section 108 of P.D. No. 1529.
Remegia’s title had been lost, when in fact it still existed. On appeal, the CA
Thus, according to the SC, petition did not fall under any of the situations covered
reversed the decision of the RTC and ruled in favor of the spouses Zaldivar.
by Section 108, and was rightly dismissed.
The filing of the petition would have the effect of reopening the decree of
registration, and could thereby impair the rights of innocent purchasers in good
faith and for value. To reopen the decree of registration was no longer permissible, ISSUE:
Whether the certificate of title in the name of Zaldivar is null and void.
considering that the one-year period to do so had long ago lapsed, and the
properties covered by OCT No. 684 had already been subdivided into smaller lots HELD:
whose ownership had passed to third persons.
The Court finds the petition meritorious.
Dawson vs Register of Deeds of Quezon City (gr no 120600 sept 22, 1988) It should be recalled that respondent Aurelio Zaldivar filed with the then CFI of
Misamis Oriental a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy, alleging
that the owner’s duplicate copy was lost. CFI granted the petition and consequently,
(gdiscuss ni sr although wla sa syllabus)
a new owner’s duplicate copy was issued. However, the trial court ruled that the CFI
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. It has been held that “when the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of
ATTY G: A certain dawson bought a property by installment subject to another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that
contract to sell. Before he could complete the installment, he died. The heirs took rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can validly be made only in
over the payment in installment of the property. Until finally, they paid the full case of loss of the original certificate. In such a case, the decision authorizing the
purchase price. It was registered in the RD of Quezon, but the title that came up, it issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title may be attacked any time.”
The new owner’s duplicate issued by the CFI upon the petition filed by respondent
Aurelio is thus void.
18
Consequently, the court a quo correctly nullified TCT in Aurelio’s name, emanating
as it did from the new owner’s duplicate, which Aurelio procured through fraud.
Respondent Aurelio cannot raise the defense of indefeasibility of title because "the
principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not apply where fraud attended the
September 27, 2016
issuance of the title. The Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud." 15 As such,
a title issued based on void documents may be annulled.
RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED OCT (SEC 110)
Saint Mary Crusade v Riel

Tan Po Chu vs CA
Facts:
Tan alleged that FiberTech's corporate existence had already ceased when the SEC
revoked its corporate registration on September 29, 2003, and that she was a
On October 28, 2004, Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren
trustee of the corporation for the purpose of its dissolution. 28 The petition for
Foundation, Inc. claimed in its petition for reconstitution that the original copy of
annulment was filed in the names of both FiberTech and Tan Po Chu.
OCT No. 1609 had been burnt and lost in the fire that gutted the Quezon City
Register of Deeds in the late 80’s. Initially, respondent Judge gave due course to
While FiberTech may no longer have judicial personality to initiate the suit or
the petition, but after the preliminary hearing, he dismissed the petition for
authorize Tan Po Chu to file the case, Tan Po Chu remained a real party-in-interest
reconstitution
as the lawful possessor of the allegedly lost owner's duplicate TCT. The respondents
could not legally oust her of this possession by reconstituting the owner's duplicate Petitioner moved for reconsideration of dismissal but the respondent judge
instead of filing an action for replevin. Therefore, the verification and certification of denied it, hence the petitioner resorted directly to the Supreme Court through a
non-forum shopping remained valid with respect to Tan Po Chu even though it petition for certiorari and mandamus, claiming that the respondent abused his
might have been defective with respect to FiberTech. discretion and unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which is specifically
upon him under Rule 7, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
The SC noted that Tan Po Chu submitted her address in her motion for
reconsideration to cure the defect in the petition. 29 Her motion for reconsideration Issue:
substantially complies with Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the relief of certiorari and
SC said that a petition for annulment of judgment only requires the inclusion of a mandamus to reverse the ruling of the respondent judge denying their petition for
clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment, order, reconstitution of OCT 1609.
resolution, or ruling subject thereof. 30 It does not require the petitioner to annex
certified true copies or duplicate originals of his evidence to the petition because Ruling:
these may be presented during the evidentiary hearings of the case. SC held that
none of the procedural infirmities warranted the CA's outright dismissal of the case. No. The petition for certiorari and mandamus, being devoid of procedural
and substantive merit, is dismissed.
Gochero vs Estacio
Certiorari, being an extraordinary remedy, is granted only under the
Atty G: This is the current doctrine, not been modified. There are some court here conditions defined by the Rules of Court. The conditions are that: (1) the
in cebu city which requires publication. But SC held that there is no need of respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
publication where the original copy of title is intact in the office of register of deeds. has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
No need to appoint an administrator or declaration of heirship because this is just a discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, or
simple case of issuance of title. There is no distribution of the estate yet. Not any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Without
necessary also to notify office the solicitor of general. jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority; there is
excess of jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or acts without any
statutory authority; grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in other In this case there’s no abuse of authority by the respondent judge in denying the
words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, petition for reconstitution since the subject lot is owned by UP.
19
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the Take note that if it is the owner’s duplicate copy that is presented, there is no need
duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. to notify the adjoining owners.
The petition for certiorari and mandamus did not show how respondent The law on reconstitution is RA 26 but in Quezon city there’s RA 6732 reviving
Judge could have been guilty of lacking or exceeding his jurisdiction, or could have administrative reconstitution. So two methods, judicial and administrative.
gravely abused his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Under
Section 12⁠of Republic Act No. 26, the law on the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens
title, the Regional Trial Court (as the successor of the Court of First Instance) had
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to act on the petition for judicial reconstitution Republic v Sanchez
of title. Hence, the RTC neither lacked nor exceeded its authority in acting on and
The Facts
dismissing the petition. Nor did respondent Judge gravely abuse his discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that the petition for
On 28 May 1996, respondents filed a petition ("LRC Case No. Q-96-8296") in the
reconstitution involved land already registered in the name of the UP, as confirmed
trial court to reconstitute the original of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 252708
by the LRA. Instead, it would have been contrary to law had respondent Judge dealt
("TCT No. 252708"), covering a parcel of land measuring 2,991 square meters ("Lot
with and granted the petition for judicial reconstitution of title of the petitioner.
1").3 Respondents claimed that TCT No. 252708 was issued in the name of
respondent Marina Sanchez ("Marina") by the Register of Deeds, Quezon City.
Further, with the questioned orders of the RTC having finally disposed of
Respondents alleged that the original of TCT No. 252708 was among the documents
the application for judicial reconstitution, nothing more was left for the RTC to do in
destroyed by the fire which razed the Office of the Register of Deeds, Quezon City in
the case. As of then, therefore, the correct recourse for the petitioner was to appeal
June 1988. Respondents sought reconstitution under Section 3(a) 4 of Republic Act
to the Court of Appeals by notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of the denial
No. 265 ("RA 26") based on Marina's duplicate title.
of its motion for reconsideration. By allowing the period of appeal toelapse without
taking action, it squandered its right to appeal. Its present resort to certiorari is
The Solicitor General filed his Comment to the petition, noting that since the petition
impermissible, for an extraordinary remedy like certiorari cannot be a substitute for
is based on Section 3(a) of RA 26, the trial court should defer acting on the petition
a lost appeal. That the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not an alternative to an
until the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has submitted its Report on the petition
available remedy inthe ordinary course of law is clear from Section 1 of Rule 65,
as required under Land Registration Commission (now LRA) Circular No. 35
which requires that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
("Circular No. 35").6
remedy in the ordinary course of law. Indeed, no error of judgment by a court will
be corrected by certiorari, which corrects only jurisdictional errors. In response to the Solicitor General's Comment, respondents submitted a Report,
dated 5 September 1996 ("First Report"), signed by Benjamin Bustos ("Bustos"),
Lastly, the filing of the instant special civil action directly in this Court is in
Chief, Reconstitution Division, LRA.
disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the Court has concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is As no opposition was filed against the petition, the trial court allowed respondents
allowed only when there are special, extraordinary or compelling reasons that justify to present evidence ex parte.Apart from the First Report, respondents also
the same. The Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to presented a Certification, dated 14 December 1994, of the Quezon City Register of
free itself from unnecessary, frivolous and impertinent cases and thus afford time Deeds, that the original of TCT No. 252708 was among those destroyed in the 1988
for it to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the fire. Respondents further presented a Certification, dated 14 May 1996, of the Office
Constitution has assigned to it. There being no special, important or compelling of the City Treasurer, Quezon City, confirming that respondents last paid the real
reason, the petitioner thereby violated the observance of the hierarchy of courts, estate taxes on Lot No. 1 in January 1996.
warranting the dismissal of the petition for certiorari.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Discussion:
In its Order dated 28 October 1996 ("28 October 1996 Order"), the trial court
granted reconstitution and ordered TCT No. 252708 reconstituted.
In a letter dated 4 November 1997, Oriel submitted to the trial court another xxxx
Report, dated 24 October 1997 ("Second Report"), also signed by Bustos. Oriel
20
informed the trial court that the First Report was fake. As mentioned previously, the LRA, represented by the OSG, contends that
notice of the petition should have been served on adjoining landowners as
On 24 March 1998, petitioner filed a Manifestation and Motion to set aside the 28 one of the jurisdictional requirements, since the Authentic LRA Report of 24
October 1996 Order. Petitioner pointed out that under Section 1311 in relation to October 1997 found petitioners' title to be a fake title. However, a mere
Section 1212 of RA 26, the notice of a petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed LRA Report cannot declare a certificate of title spurious without the proper
titles based on Section 3(f) should not only be published and posted but also served court declaring its nullity and cancellation. A certificate of title cannot be
on, among others, the owners of the adjoining properties. For non-compliance with subject to collateral attack and can be altered, modified or cancelled only in
this requirement, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. Q-96- a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
8296.
Granting that a suspicion or cloud of doubt was cast on the genuineness
Respondents opposed petitioner's motion, primarily on the ground that the 28 and authenticity of petitioners' certificate of title, the same was brought to
October 1996 Order had become final. the fore belatedly. A Certificate of Finality had already been issued on 06
January 1997. Presumably, the proper parties received a copy of the Order
The heirs of Mario Uy ("Heirs"), whose predecessor-in-interest allegedly owned Lot dated 28 October 1996 on or before 21 December 1996. Entry of Judgment
No. 12 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 187042, filed an " amicus having been made on 06 January 1997, a petition for relief from judgment
curiae" brief disclosing that they have caused the filing of criminal complaints should have been filed on or before 05 July 1997. The Manifestation and
against respondents for Falsification of TCT No. 252708 (Criminal Case No. 77668) Motion was only filed on 24 March 1998, long after the order of
and Use of Falsified Public Document (Criminal Case No. 90649). 13 Mario Uy and reconstitution had become final and a reconstituted title actually issued
Maria Corazon Uy-Zalamea ("Zalamea), the latter being the alleged owner of Lot petitioners. There having been no sufficient evidence to discredit
No. 13 covered by TCT No. 187042, had earlier sued respondents in the Regional petitioners' duplicate of the certificate of title within the time to appeal,
Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 227 ("Civil Case No. Q-96-29545") for quieting of move for new trial or file a petition for relief, there is no need to serve
title, nullity of [TCT No. 252708], recovery of possession and damages.14 (Adjoining notice of the petition on the adjoining landowners under Section 13 of RA
lot owners ni sila na dapat na notified) No. 26. Said section applies only when the source of reconstitution is other
than the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title
In its Order of 17 July 1998 ("17 July 1998 Resolution"), the trial court set aside the
28 October 1996 Order and dismissed LRC Case No. Q-96-8296. Hence, this petition. Petitioner reiterates its claim that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over LRC Case No. Q-96-8296 for lack of actual notice to all interested
Respondents sought reconsideration but the trial court denied their motion on 4 parties as required under Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26.
January 1999.
In their Comment, respondents countered that the actual notice requirement in
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Section 13 does not apply to LRC Case No. Q-96-8296 because that case was based
on Marina's duplicate copy of TCT No. 252708. At any rate, respondents contended
In its Decision of 31 August 2000, the Court of Appeals granted respondents' that it is the posting and publication of the notice of hearing, not its actual service,
petition, set aside the trial court's 17 July 1998 and 4 January 1999 Resolutions, which vests jurisdiction to the trial court, citing our ruling in Calalang v. Register of
and reinstated the 28 October 1996 Order. The appellate court held: Deeds of Quezon City.17 Lastly, respondents maintained that the 28 October 1996
Order is already final and can no longer be set aside.
The motion to set aside the [28 October 1996 Order] contemplates a
petition for relief from a final order entered against a party in any court The Issue
through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence under Rule 38 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which must be filed within sixty (60) The question is whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over LRC Case No. Q-
days after the petitioner learns of the final order, and not more than six (6) 96-8296.
months after such final order was entered, and must be accompanied with
affidavits showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence The Ruling of the Court
relied upon, and the facts constituting the petitioner's good and substantial
cause of action or defense, as the case may be. We hold in the negative and accordingly grant the petition.
The Actual Notice Requirement under Section 13 in Relation same, x x x, We hold that the instant petition for judicial reconstitution
to Section 12 of RA 26 Applies Here falls squarely under Section 3(f), Republic Act No. 26, because the Director
21
of Lands claims that the respondent's duplicate of the Certificate of Title
Respondents are correct in saying that the service of notice of the petition for No. T-12/79 or TCT No. 42449 are [sic] both fake and
reconstitution filed under RA 26 to the occupants of the property, owners of the fictitious.24 (Emphasis supplied)
adjoining properties, and all persons who may have any interest in the property is
not required if the petition is based on the owner's duplicate certificate of title or on Consequently, we applied Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26 and held that for non-
that of the co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's. This was our ruling in Puzon v. Sta compliance with these provisions, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.,18involving a petition filed with the Regional petition for reconstitution.
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, ("Branch 80") for reconstitution of the
original of two Torrens certificates of title based on Puzon's duplicate certificates of Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding, the Second Report is not a "collateral
title. attack" on TCT No. 252708. Circular No. 35 requires the submission of an LRA
Report in all proceedings to judicially reconstitute lost or destroyed Torrens
xxxx certificates of title.25 Indeed, to "x x x prevent duplication of titles, x x x and [the]
irregular reconstitution of lost or destroyed land certificates of title based on
[T]here is no question that in [petitions for] reconstitution involving unauthorized sources," this Court issued Administrative Circular No. 7-96 ("Circular
Sections 12 and 13 of RA 26], notices to adjoining owners and to the 7-96") on 15 July 1996 reminding trial court judges and clerks of courts "under pain
actual occupants of the land are mandatory and jurisdictional. But in of disciplinary sanctions, x x x to comply strictly" with, among others, Circular No.
petitions for reconstitution falling under Sections 9 and 10 of RA 26 where, 35. Trial courts hearing reconstitution petitions under RA 26 are thus duty-bound to
as in the present case, the source is the owner's duplicate copy, notices to take into account the LRA's Report. When the trial court considered the authentic
adjoining owners and to actual occupants of the land are not required. Second Report in issuing the 17 July 1998 Resolution, it merely complied with
When the law is clear, the mandate of the courts is simply to apply it, not Circular 7-96.
to interpret or to speculate on it.
The issuance by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City of TCT No. RT-115027 does
However, contrary to respondents' claim, Puzon finds no application here. No report not erase the doubts the Second Report raises on the authenticity of TCT No.
from a pertinent government agency challenging the authenticity of Puzon's 252708. Nor does it negate the existence of TCT Nos. 187040 and 187042.
duplicate certificates of title was presented in Puzon. Thus, when Branch 80 granted Paragraph 12 of Circular No. 35 requires that the Register of Deeds shall submit
reconstitution, Puzon's duplicate transfer certificates of title remained "written findings" on the status of the title sought to be reconstituted. 28 No such
unchallenged.20 "written findings" exist in the records of this case. What respondents submitted was
a Certification dated 14 December 1994 that the original of TCT No. 252708 was
We hold that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. among those destroyed in the 1988 fire. This falls short of what paragraph 12 of
Circular 35 requires.
We were faced with substantially the same situation in Director of Lands v. Court
of Appeals.23 In that case, the petition for reconstitution, as in the present case, was Consequently, it is Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA 26 which applies to
filed under Section 3(a) of RA 26 based on an alleged owner's duplicate certificate LRC Case No. Q-96-8296. Hence, in addition to its posting and publication, the
of title. However, the Director of Lands, in an adverse Report, challenged the notice of hearing of LRC Case No. Q-96-8296 should also have been served through
authenticity of the purported duplicate certificate of title. The trial court denied mail on the owners of the adjoining properties and all persons who may have any
reconstitution but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling. Upon further interest in the property.29 The records show that neither Lot No. 1's adjoining
review, we reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the reconstitution petition. owners30 nor the other interested parties, namely, Mario Uy and Maria Corazon Uy-
We held that with the Director of Lands' Report, the petition for reconstitution "falls Zalamea ("Uy
squarely" under Section 3(f) of RA 26, thus:
and Zalamea"), in whose names TCT Nos. 187042 and 187040 were issued, were
In the instant case, the change in the number of the certificate of title notified of respondents' petition in LRC Case No. Q-96-8296.31
sought to be reconstituted from T-12/79 to TCT No. 42449 rendered at
once the authenticity or genuineness of respondent's certificate of title
under suspicion or cloud of doubt. And since respondent alleges that the
technical descriptions under both certificates of title are identical and the
The Actual Notice Requirement in Section 13 in SC said there’s no collateral attack because Circular No. 35 requires the submission
Relation to Section 12, RA 26 is Jurisdictional of an LRA Report in all proceedings to judicially reconstitute lost or destroyed
22
Torrens certificates of titles.
That the requirement of actual notice in Section 13 in relation to Section 12 of RA
26 is jurisdictional was settled inDirector of Lands v. Court of Appeals where we One of the contentions of sanchez is that the decision has already become final
held: that’s why it’s not proper for the court to nullify decision.
These requirements and procedure are mandatory. The petition for Courts have inherent power to correct fatal infirmities I its proceedings especially if
reconstitution must allege the jurisdictional facts; the notice of hearing the flaw was intentionally brought about by a party who employed deceit in
must also be published and posted in particular places and the same sent misleading the trial court.
to specified persons. Specifically, the requirements and procedure are set
forth in detail under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act [.] x x x x32(Emphasis A case that happened in Cebu:
supplied)
A lawyer filed a case for the reconstitution of an original copy of a certain title. The
Respondents erroneously invoke Calalang as authority for their claim that it is only LRC here thought that it was a re-issuance. The petition was granted. The lawyer,
the publication and posting of the notice of hearing which are mandatory. The who was my classmate, came to my office and asked for the reconstitution of the
question of whether the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation to original. But there was no compliance with the requirements so I denied the
Section 12 of RA 26 is mandatory and jurisdictional was not the main issue in that reconstitution. Instead of complying with my advice what he did was he filed a case
case – it was whether the petitioners were bound by our ruling in De la Cruz v. De against me before the ombudsman. So I intervened in the case and my intervention
la Cruz,35 was granted by the judge.
For non-compliance with the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation to

Section 12 of RA 26, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over LRC Case No. Q-
96-8296. The proceedings in that case were thus a nullity and the 28 October 1996 Venturanza v Republic
Order was void.
Venturanzas' TCT No. 2574, a direct transfer from TCT No. RT-40 (140) which was,
A Final Word in turn, derived from TCT No. 140, covers only a parcel of land with an area of 451
square meters and not 23,944,635 square meters or 2,394 hectares which
Reconstitution proceedings under RA 26 has for their purpose the restoration in the practically comprise the entire Municipality of Buhi.
original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a
person to a piece of land.41 Thus, reconstitution must be granted only upon clear OSG filed a complaint for the Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2574
proof that the title sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. Strict and the Reversion of the Land Described Therein to the Republic of the Philippines.
observance of this rule is vital to prevent parties from exploiting reconstitution
proceedings as a quick but illegal way to obtain Torrens certificates of titles over RTC ordered the annulment and cancellation of the Venturanza’s TCT and the
parcels of land which turn out to be already covered by existing titles. 42 The social reversion of the land covered to the mass of the public domain.
and economic costs of such modus operandi cannot be underestimated.43
REASON OF RTC: the reconstituted title issued in the name of Florencio Mora could
Discussion: have been fraudulently secured, hence, does not legally exist. And since the
reconstituted title issued to Florencio Mora is a nullity, then the order for its
So what was used as a basis here is not the owner’s duplicate copy. What is the rule reconstitution did not attain finality and therefore may be attacked anytime.
if what is presented is not the owner’s duplicate copy as basis for reconstitution?
There is a need to notify the adjoining owners. CA: Affirmed the decision of RTC
On the issue of collateral attack: SC: the provisions relied upon refer to original decrees of registration and not to
orders of reconstitution. As it is, the Venturanzas cannot even seek refuge in the
Land Registration Act because the land covered by TCT No. 2574 had never been
brought within the operation of said law due to irregularities attending the issuance 1. So in Gocheco v Estacio there is no need of publication for issuance of
of the reconstituted title owner’s duplicate copy.
23
2. There’s no need for a declaration of heirship.
The land also was partly timberland.
3. Also it is not mandatory to furnish a copy in the OSG. This is only a formal
Republic v Catarroja defect and not jurisdictional defect.
SEC 110
The Catarrojas alleged that, pursuant to the decree, the Register of Deeds of Cavite
issued an original certificate of title to their parents. But, as it happened, based on a 1. Proof must be shown before title is reconstituted.
certification issued by the Register of Deeds, the original on file with it was lost in 2. It should be of the same class as those enumerated
the fire that gutted the old Cavite capitol building on June 7, 1959. The Catarrojas
also claimed that the owner's duplicate copy of the title had been lost while with 3. Publication as basis is not enough as it is only a secondary source
their parents.
Since the public prosecutor representing the government did not object to the
admission of the evidence of the Catarrojas and since he said that he had no ESTOPPEL IN ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF TITLE
evidence to refute their claims, the case was submitted for decision.
Barstowe Phils v Republic
RTC: issued an Order, granting the petition for reconstitution of title.
CA: reversed the RTC decision. It held that the evidence of the Catarrojas failed to In this case the SC discussed the rule of equitable estoppel.
establish any of the sources for reconstitution enumerated in Section 2 of Republic
Act (R.A.) 26 (An act providing a special procedure for reconstitution of Torrens Republic has better right over the title because they are purchasers in good faith.
certificate of title lost or destroyed). The Catarrojas did not have proof that an But the subject lots have already been subdivided and the titles have been issued to
original certificate of title had in fact been issued covering the subject lots. each of the subdivision lots. Estoppel lies in the republic because it granted the BPC
Motion for Reconsideration: the CA rendered an amended decision setting aside its governmental permit and license.
decision dated July 12, 2005 and finding sufficient evidence to allow reconstitution
of the Catarrojas' title. Barstowe was able to secure all the clearances issued by the HLURB. The
subdivision project was approved by the LRA and DENR. The RoD issued the
Admittedly, the Catarrojas have been unable to present any of the documents
mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) above. Their parents allegedly lost the owner's corresponding title.
duplicate certificate of title. They did not have a certified copy of such certificate of
title or a co-owner's, a mortgagee's, or a lessee's duplicate of the same. The LRA It is the title of the republic that is valid. The BPC was not able to purchase the land
itself no longer has a copy of the original decree or an authenticated copy of it. in good faith because the basis of the acquisition was from Servando which was
Likewise, the Register of Deeds did not have any document of encumbrance on file proven to be forged. In this case there was no owner’s duplicate nor was there an
that shows the description of the property. original copy of the title, the more reason that they should be vigilant in buying the
The only documentary evidence the Catarrojas could produce as possible sources property.
for the reconstitution of the lost title are those other documents described in
paragraph (f). This is one of the instances where a void title was given a root for valid title because
of estoppel. The buyers were not aware that there was defect in the title so you
This Court is not convinced that the above documents of the Catarrojas fall in the
cannot fault them, that’s why the SC upheld the validity of their title.
same class as those enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (e). None of them proves that
a certificate of title had in fact been issued in the name of their parents. In Republic
v. Tuastumban, the Court ruled that the documents must come from official sources
which recognize the ownership of the owner and his predecessors-in-interest. None
of the documents presented in this case fit such description.
RECAP: October 3, 2016 (no class)
SEC 109
October 4, 2016
XIX. The Condominium Act (RA 4726) proved it’s claimed against responded, however the respondent had succeeded for a
more bigger claim.
24
a. Definition
Hence, this petition by BPI
Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest
in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest Issues:
in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other
common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate 1. WON the trial court had jurisdiction over the case.
interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including 2. WON there was a misinterpretation as to the warranties and
the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation representations.
specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium
corporation") in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be Held:
members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the
appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas. First Issue:
The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in real The respondent claim is in under the jurisdiction of HLURB.
property recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.
Promulgated on July 12, 1976, PD No. 957 — otherwise known as "The Subdivision
and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree" — provides that the National Housing
Authority (NHA) shall have "exclusive authority to regulate the real estate trade and
b. Warranties and Representations business." Promulgated later on April 2, 1978, was PD No. 134 - It expanded the
jurisdiction of the NHA as follows:
BPI vs. ALS Management Corp
SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the real estate trade
Facts: and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential
Decree No. 957, the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
Petitioner BPI Filed a complaint against respondents, alleging that they entered into jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
a contract of unfurnished condominium of which the former was issued of execution
of Deed of Sale and advanced an amount for the expenses in causing the issuance a. Unsound real estate business practices
and registration of Condominium Certificate of title. After petitioner comply with its b. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
obligation respondent not withstanding with demands failed to refuse to pay condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer,
petitioner its legitimate advances for the expenses mentioned without valid, legal broker or salesman; and
justifiable cause. c. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
Respondent anchored its defense on Sec. 25 of PD 957 which provides that “no fee against the owner, developer, broker or salesman." (Italics ours.) On
except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the registry of deeds February 7, 1981, by virtue of Executive Order No. 648, the regulatory
shall be collected for the issuance of title”. It further alleged that petitioner made functions of the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements
and disseminated brochures ad other propaganda in and before May 1980, which Regulatory Commission (HSRC). Section 8 thereof provides:
made warranties as to the facilities, improvements, infrastructures or other forms of
development of the condominium units (known as Twin Tower) it was offering the SECTION 8. Transfer of Functions. — The regulatory functions of the National
public for sale. They also pointed out that the delivery was later than the promise Housing Authority pursuant to Presidential Decrees issued was then transferred to
date and there are deficiency of the unit contravening the warranties and HLURB.
representation was not yet then built. Thus, they pray to correct such
defects/deficiencies. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the HLURB over cases enumerated in Section 1 of PD
No. 1344 is exclusive. Thus, we have ruled that the board has sole jurisdiction in a
The trial court favored the respondents ordering the petitioners to correct its complaint of specific performance for the delivery of a certificate of title to a buyer
deficiencies. CA also favored the respondents for the reason that petitioner had
of a subdivision lot; for claims of refund regardless of whether the sale is perfected As to representation and warranties: Under the Law of PD 957 Representation and
or not; and for determining whether there is a perfected contract of sale. warranties are part of the sale contract. It corresponds with the sale of contract and
25
it should be complied with.
In Solid Homes v. Payawal, we declared that the NHA had the competence
to award damages as part of the exclusive power conferred upon it — the As to damages: In favor of respondent damages, for the failure of petitioner BPI to
power to hear and decide "claims involving refund and any other claims comply with the obligation under the contract as well as the law.
filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the project
owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman." Clearly then, respondent's
counterclaim — being one for specific performance (correction of c. Redemption of Mortgage Amortization
defects/deficiencies in the condominium unit) and damages — falls under
the jurisdiction of the HLURB as provided by Section 1 of PD No. 1344. De Vera vs. CA
Facts:
However, BPI is already barred to raise this issue under the applicability of Respondent Q.P. San Diego Construction, Inc. (QPSDCI), entered into a Syndicate
estoppels as it only raises this issue when it did not have a favorable decision. Loan Agreement with respondent banks (hereafter collectively known as Funders) to
finance the construction and development of Lourdes I Condominium. QPSDCI
mortgaged to the creditor banks as security its Panay Avenue Property and the
condominium constructed thereon. Petitioner and QPSDCI entered into a
Second Issue: Condominium Reservation Agreement where petitioner undertook to buy Unit 211-
A modify decision was concluded by the SC. 2C of the condominium. Petitioner's remaining balance of the purchase price was to
be secured through his housing loan. As petitioner failed to obtain said loan, he was
The brochure that was disseminated indicated features that would be provided each not able to pay the balance of the purchase price.
condominium unit; and that, under Section 19 of PD No. 957, would form part of
the sales warranties of petitioner. Respondent relied on the brochure in its decision Petitioner, upon discovering that the Funders had already published a notice of
to purchase a unit. Since the former failed to deliver certain items stated therein, extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage, filed a complaint against respondents for
then there was a clear violation of its warranties and representations. [Basically, damages. Meanwhile, QPSDCI failed to pay its obligations to the Funders. Asiatrust
this feature was missing the court held it should have provided the closed-circuit TV extra-judicially foreclosed the mortgage on the condominium units, including that of
monitor.] petitioner.
As to the issue of the storage facilities, the brochure reads: "Storage facilities in the According to petitioners, the letter came a total surprise to him; all the while he
apartment units and the ground floor." Apparent from the letter of petitioner dated thought that his loan had already been released to QPSDCI and the title was
June 18, 1982, was its compliance with its promise of storage facilities on the transferred to his name. He promptly wrote a letter to seek the clarification and
ground floor. In that letter, respondent was also informed that it may course a thereupon learned that the individual titles were mortgage in favor of Funders to
reservation of those facilities through the building superintendent. secure the loan, shall be paid out of the net proceeds of the PAGIBIG loan of the
buyers. Moreover, ASIATRUST would only grant the PAGIBIG Housing Loan with the
release of mortgage liens upon the buyers fully payment of their respective loans.
Atty. G. Discussion: Who have jurisdiction over this case? This case is filed in the Moreover, QPSDCI said it can no longer extend a loan to buyers, including
regular court. Now on appeal BPI question the jurisdiction of the regular courts. petitioners herein as he was already disqualified due to old age.
IOW what are the cases under HLURB? (Please refer to the case above.)
The trial court decided in favor of petitioner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
As to estoppel: You cannot question anymore the jurisdiction of the court once you decision of the trial court and ordered respondents to pay nominal damages, but
had submitted yourself to the court. BPI is barred. deleted the award for actual and exemplary damages.
Issue:
1. WON it is proper for the propriety of the award of damages in favor of the to ASIATRUST. If QPSDCI had not been negligent, then even the possibility of
petitioner. charges, liens or penalties would not have arisen. Therefore, as between QPSDCI
26
2. WON the petitioners are liable to penalties for the non-payment of the of and petitioner, the former should be held liable for any charge, lien or penalty that
the balance of the purchase price. may arise.
Held:
Atty. G. Discussion and Questions:
First Issue:
Petitioner did not present any proof that he suffered any damage as a result of the Was the rule granted in favor De Vera? In this case there was a bridge financing, a
breach of seller's warranty. He did not lose possession of his condominium unit, temporary financing given to De Vera in the meantime the loan won’t be approved.
although the same had not yet been registered in his name. Article 2199 of the Civil Note also that one of the reasons why the loan was not approved was due to his
Code provides that one is entitled to adequate compensation only for such age. [Atty. Opinion: Is it not discrimination just because you are old you can no
pecuniary loss suffered by him as duly proved. This provision denies the grant of longer have the ability to loan.] What the bearer aware that there was a mortgage
speculative damages, or such damage not actually proved to have existed and to constituted over the property?
have been caused to the party claiming the same. Actual damages, to be
recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with Note in this case that it was the responsibility of the seller to see to it that even if
reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture there was a valid mortgage constituted in the property just the same he has to give
or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages. it to De Vera without any additional expenses of his part. This is one rule of PD 957.
Second Issue:
The tenor of the letters sent by ASIATRUST would lead a reasonable man to believe
that there was nothing left to do but await the release of the loan. ASIATRUST
cannot hide behind the pithy excuse that the grant of the bridge financing loan was d. Suspension of Monthly Amortization
subject to the release of the Pag-IBIG loan. The essence of bridge financing loans is Gold Loop Properties vs. CA
to obtain funds through an interim loan while the Pag-IBIG funds are not yet
available. To await the release of the Pag-IBIG loan would render any bridge Facts:
financing nugatory. Thus, we agree with the trial court when it said that "the
conclusion is inevitable that although the plaintiff was not able to pay, he was a On July 16, 1988, private respondents Sadhwanis submitted through St. Martin
victim of circumstances and his failure was not due to his own fault." Realty Corporation, a realtor agent of petitioner GLPI, a signe dpro forma
reservation application addressed to GLPI for the purchase of one (1) condominium
Furthermore, Sec. 25 of PD 957 provides: unit. One of the terms of the reservation was the execution of a contract to sell
SECTION 25. Issuance of Title. — The owner or developer shall deliver the once the downpayment was paid in full. Upon submission of the reservation, the
title of the lot or unit to the buyer upon full payment of the lot or unit. No Sadwhanis issued a check for P50,000.00 to cover the reservation fees to Josephine
fee, except those required for the registration of the deed of sale in the Flores Guina, agent of St. Martin Realty who issued a receipt to them.
Registry of Deeds, shall be collected for the issuance of such title. In the
event a mortgage over the lot or unit is outstanding at the time of the On November 18, 1988, the Sadhwanis paid GLPI the amount of P819,531.25.
issuance of the title to the buyer, the owner or developer shall redeem the Subsequently, Bhavna Harilela signed a "Contract To Sell" assured them that they
mortgage or the corresponding portion thereof within six months from such would be furnished with a copy of the contract after its notarization, and that the
issuance in order that the title over any fully paid lot or unit may be amount, representing the balance of the purchase price, would be included in a loan
secured and delivered to the buyer in accordance herewith. application with a bank. However, the contract to sell was not notarized, as the
private respondents were not able to supply GLPI with a copy of their passports.
From the foregoing it is clear that upon full payment, the seller is duty-bound to
deliver the title of the unit to the buyer. Even with a valid mortgage over the lot, Under the contract, GLPI agreed to sell to Sadhwanis a 198.75 square meters
the seller is still bound to redeem said mortgage without any cost to the buyer apart condominium unit particularly Unit R-84 of Southwest Tower. The contract price was
from the balance of the purchase price and registration fees. It has been established P2,484,375.00, inclusive of a reservation deposit of P50,000.00.
that respondent QPSDCI had been negligent in failing to remit petitioner's payments
GLPI informed the Sadhwanis that the bank loan accommodation which was to In other words they fail to pay the monthly amortization. What was the reason why
serve as payment of the balance of the purchase price was disapproved, and thus, the loan was suspended? In this case they were not given the copy of the contract
27
per the terms of the Contract to Sell, the balance would become payable through itself. So what was the importance of the contract to sell. It was necessary to have
the Co-terminus Payment Plan schedule of payments. Private respondent then offer contract of sale to know the details what could have been the details of the
to resell their right however it was rejected. payment and the obligations.
On March 19 and April 25, 1989, respondent Ramesh J. Sadhwani demanded a copy Under the law the buyer should be provided of the copy of the contract to sell. But
of the contract to sell, noting that his wife had no official document to show that she in reality the best remedy is to annotate to register the contract of sell. That is one
bought a condominium unit from GLPI and there were conditions and/or stipulations way to protect the buyer. The contract of sell is a registrable document as a
in the contract which she could not be expected to comply with, unless a copy of the voluntary instrument.
same be given to her. The letter was made by a counsel.
What could have been the reason why that developer has not issued the contract to
On August 14, 1990, spouses Sadhwanis filed with the HLURB, a complaint for sell? [Actually, one the reason why they refuse probably is that they want to
specific performance with an alternative prayer for refund against GLPI. Spouses rescission the contract.] If you notice in this case the couple engages in a service of
Sadhwanis prayed that they be furnished with a copy of the contract to sell and the lawyer. That means they are really asserting there right under the contract.
allowed them to remit the balance of the consideration to GLPI and to deliver to
them the title and possession of the condominium unit, or to be reimbursed of the
amount they paid with interest and damages.
e. Alteration of Plans
Issue: GOAL Inc. vs. CA
WON there was a valid ground to suspend the payment of there monthly Facts:
amortization due to the failures of the petitioners to furnish a copy of the contract.
On 23 May 1983 GOAL and the National Housing Authority (NHA) entered into an
Held: We agree with private respondents. agreement whereby NHA extended to GOAL a loan of P4.425 million for the
construction of Gemin I Condominium. A "Contract Agreement" was entered into
Private respondents were indeed justified in suspending payment of their monthly between GOAL and Matson International Corporation for the construction of the
amortizations. The failure of petitioners to give them a copy of the Contract to Sell condominium within one (1) year at the cost of P4.2 million. However, in the later
sued upon, despite repeated demands therefore, and notwithstanding the private part of 1984, the contractor abandoned the project with only 60% of it finished. In
respondents' payment of P878,366.35 for the subject condominium unit was a valid 1985 GOAL offered the condominium units for sale with private respondents among
ground for private respondents to suspend their payments. its buyers. To remedy the situation brought about by the abandonment of the
project by the first contractor, GOAL subsequently pursued the construction of the
And contrary to petitioner's stance, records disclose that they were the ones who fifth floor with NHA granting additional funding on the condition that it would hold
did fraudulent acts against private respondents by entering into a Contract to Sell on to the condominium certificates of title of private respondents.
with the latter and accepting their downpayment of P878,366.35, withholding a
copy thereof for no valid reason at all, and then threatening them with rescission In August 1989 private respondents filed with the HLURB, Office of Appeals,
and forfeiture, when private respondents only suspended payment of the balance of Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA), a complaint against GOAL. Among the
the purchase price while waiting for their copy of the Contract to Sell. The private issues raised were the illegal construction of the fifth floor of Gemin I Condominium,
respondents are entitled to a copy of the contract to sell, otherwise they would not the failure to deliver the title of private respondent Filomeno Teng despite his
be informed of their rights and obligations under the contract. When the Sadhwanis repeated demands, and the failure to provide adequate parking spaces for the unit
parted with P878,366.35 or more than one third of the purchase price for the owners.
condominium unit, the contract to sell, or what it represents is concrete proof of the
purchase and sale of the condominium unit. On 31 March 1989 OAALA rendered its decision ordering GOAL, inter alia, (a) to
stop the construction of the fifth floor, (b) to deliver the title of private respondent
Teng, and (c) to provide adequate parking space for the unit owners. CA affirmed
this decision. Hence, this petition.
Atty. G. Discussion:
Issue: What about the parking spaces? You now in the condominium there are also the
ownership of the parking lot or normally it is a common area. What the rules in the
28
WON the CA erred in not appreciating that the construction of the fifth floor was parking spaces? The owner of the condominium has also an undivided interest on
within the requirement of Sec. 22 of PD 597 the open spaces including the parking spaces. It is not the developer who owners
the rules it is partly owned by the owner. Because they had undivided interest being
Held: the owner of the condominium owners.
Under Sec. 22. Alteration of Plans. — No owner or developer shall change or alter
the roads, open spaces, infrastructures, facilities for public use and/or other form of
subdivision development as contained in the approved subdivision plan and/or
represented in its advertisements, without the permission of the Authority and the
written conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in XX. Subdivision and Condominium Protective Buyer’s Decree (P.D 957)
the absence of the latter, by majority of the lot buyers in the subdivision.
a. Jurisdiction of the HLURB
The Court held that approval is not sufficient. It must be coupled with the written
conformity or consent of the duly organized homeowners association or the majority Dela Cruz vs. CA
of the lot buyers.
Facts:
Question as to the “offstreet”
Petitioner dela Cruz and Respondent Aguila enter into a contract to sell of a house
Petitioners contends what should be given for free are only "off-street" parking and subject to the terms and conditions. Upon the downpayment of the initial
spaces and not indoor parking areas. Petitioner is wrong. It has for purposes of its amount of the respondents, petitioner delivered the keys to the house, and
own construed "off-street" to mean "not including indoor." On the other hand, the whereupon the respondent entered and occupied the property. But on Jan. 13,
law does not exclude "indoor parking." What it specifically excludes is "street 1999, petitioners file a complaint in RTC for cancellation of the contract to sell, with
parking." Therefore, parking may be in the basement or, in the absence thereof, in penalties and damages. Petitioners claim that respondents failed to pay the
the first floor. subsequent monthly amortization.
Furthermore, at this point, a definition of terms may be necessary. In a Respondents asked then for extension of time to file their answer, which the trial
condominium, common areas and facilities are "portions of the condominium court granted, both parties filed a Compromise Agreement. The trial court agreed to
property not included in the units," whereas, a unit is "a part of the condominium the compromise agreement as it was not contrary to law, morals, public policy and
property which is to be subject to private ownership." Inversely, that which is not etc. Then petitioner files an action for motion of execution against respondent for
considered a unit should fall under common areas and facilities. Hence, the parking gross violation of the compromise agreement.
spaces not being subject to private ownership form part of the common area over
which the condominium unit owners hold undivided interest. Petitioner alone does Respondents countered with motion to dismiss, alleging that the HLURB has
not own the parking area. The parking space is owned in common by the developer exclusive jurisdiction over the case under PD No. 957. Thus they file to HLURB an
and the unit owners. Private respondents must be allowed to use the parking area. action for recovery of payment and the cancellation of contract.
The trial court held that there is already a final judgment thus dismissed the
respondent action and allowed the motion of the petitioners. However, CA reversed
Atty. G. Discussion: and favored the respondents. Ruling that the compromise agreement is void and the
applicable law is Sec. 3 and 4 of RA 6552.
So when it comes to amendment and alterations under the master deed what are
the rules to be followed? IOW whose approval is necessary for you to alter and Issues:
change the plan? The HLURB gives approval for the amendment and in addition for
that the owners majority to give the consent which the petitioner failed to do so. 1. WON HLURB has jurisdiction over the case
2. WON the CA is correct in ruling nullifying the compromise agreement.
Held: Atty. G. Discussion

29
First Issue: SC favor the petitioners What was the ruling in here? What is the ruling of HLURB? IOW what is meant by
The Jurisdiction of HLURB, according to PD. 1344, shall have the exclusive the subdivision project? A subdivision project is a draft of land which is registered,
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: take note what is covered in HLURB are only registered land. So ang subdivision
a. Unsound real estate business practices; project is a partition of tract of land use for residential and etc. industrial purposes.
b. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or IOW if it is not in the definition then it is not in the jurisdiction of the HLURB. Just
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, an ordinary relationship between a buyer and a seller so a subdivision lot is a lat
broker or salesman; and within a subdivision project. In this case HLURB has no jurisdiction on this case.
c. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
Additional Notes:
P.D. No. 957 provides that a subdivision owner shall refer to the registered owner of
the land subject of a subdivision or a condominium project. Also, a subdivision Pertaining to Sec. 71 of PD 1529 - it speaks also about the Sec.71 is also a
developer shall mean the person who develops or improves the subdivision project surrender of certificate of involuntary dealing. You might confuse this with Sec. 107
or condominium project for and in behalf of the owner thereof. which is also a surrender of withheld certificate under Sec. 71 the register of deeds
is mandated by law that within the period of 36 hours he is supposed to notify the
The law clearly defines who is considered a subdivision owner or developer, and the registered owner whose property is subject of an involuntary dealing. Somebody
petitioners are neither. They are merely owners of a number of lot within the files an adverse claim a notice of lis pendedns, a levy against your property the
subdivision owned and developed by Pasig Properties. But even if petitioners were register of deeds was supposed to notify you the registered owner to surrender your
subdivision owners or developers, this would not bar them from seeking redress of ownership or the copy of the title.
this court.
Then under Sec. 71 it says that if he registered owner fails to surrender
The complaint rest on the failure of the payment of stipulated installments which the register of deeds is supposed to notify the board but there is already a
within is a clear jurisdiction of the Lower Court. supreme court ruling that whether or not the owners surrenders it copy or
not it does not really matter because the registration of the two voluntary
documents is deemed considered as (?) even without the surrender,
because it is just a way of notifying him that somebody has an adverse
Second Issue: Favor in petitioners claim over the property so whether you surrender your title or not it does
The compromise is an agreement between two or more persons who, aiming to not matter for the claim will still be valid xx.. As compared to Sec. 107 Sec
prevent or put an end to a lawsuit, adjust their respective positions by mutual 107 there is really a necessity to surrender the owners duplicate copy for
consent. Reciprocal concessions are the very heart and life of every compromise the purpose registering a voluntary dealing or involuntary dealing. That is
agreement. Each party approximates and concedes a point in the hope of gaining, an insurance of a title. Exception of course is the one in Toledo vs. Banaga
balanced by the danger of losing, its own advantage. It is, in essence, a contract. It it speaks that it is not necessary to surrenders the owners duplicate copy
is binding and has the force of law between the parties unless it is a void contract of title for there is already a final and executory made by the court then
under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, or unless the consent of a party is vitiated the registered owner was a party to the case and there is already a writ of
(such as by mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation or undue influence) or when there execution issued. According to the Supreme Court the surrenders of the
is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so palpably unconscionable. owners duplicate copy is implied in the final and executory decision.
The contract between the parties is a contract to sell real property. As reflected in
the records, the respondents as buyers paid to the petitioners as sellers one
installment of P50,000 after the initial downpayment of P1.5 million.[36] But it is
not a contract involving a subdivision owner or developer but only between two
couples i.e., the original house-owners (petitioners) and the subsequent buyers of
the house and lot (respondents).
(Ana man si Atty. this is a possible bar question. So basin naa chances for our
exam. Please refer nalang sa digest above  )
30
1. Toledo vs. Banaga
2. View Master vs. Maulit
3. Naguit Case
4. Malabanan Case
5. Sajonas Case
6. Padilla vs. Philippine Producer
-o-

Land Title Ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016 - Atty. Gimarino - EH 408

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Title Ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016 - Atty. Gimarino - EH 408

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Title Ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016 - Atty. Gimarino - EH 408

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Land Title ad Deeds Final Reviewer 2016| Atty.

September 12, 2016 (no class)

The production of the owner's duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary

Under Article 1542 of the Civil Code:

When can we consider a mortgagee in good faith?

Atty. G.: What was the main agreement?

It is advisable that such parties

Domingo Realty v CA September 19, 2016

Atty. G.: Remember this case Sept. 19, 2016

ADVERSE CLAIM REQUISITE

 there should be an action or petition to cancel the notice pendence

Chapter 8 REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS, PARTITION

What about the interest of the Republic? Alonso?

Oliva vs. Republic

Questions asked ni sir

Petitioner Doris Chiongbian-Oliva is the registered owner of a parcel of land. This

The Court finds the petition meritorious.

Saint Mary Crusade v Riel

For non-compliance with the actual notice requirement in Section 13 in relation to

RECAP: October 3, 2016 (no class)

Held: Atty. G. Discussion

You might also like