NOTES IN LAND TITLES & DEEDS

Republic v Camacho (not legible OCT - wear and tear; reconstitution)

The nature of the proceeding for reconstitution of a certificate of title

under R.A. No. 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed
to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition. The purpose
of such a proceeding is merely to have the certificate of title reproduced, after
proper proceedings, in the same form it was in when its loss or destruction
occurred. The same R.A. No. 26 specifies the requisites to be met for the
trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for reconstitution of a
certificate of title. Failure to comply with any of these jurisdictional
requirements for a petition for reconstitution renders the proceedings null and
void. Thus, in obtaining a new title in lieu of the lost or destroyed one, R.A.
No. 26 laid down procedures which must be strictly followed in view of the
danger that reconstitution could be the source of anomalous titles or
unscrupulously availed of as an easy substitute for original registration of title
proceedings (People vs. Camacho G.R. No. 185604 June 13, 2013)

In sum, Section 10, in relation to Section 9, requires that 30 days before

the date of hearing, (1) a notice be published in two successive issues of the
Official Gazette at the expense of the petitioner, and that (2) such notice be
posted at the main entrances of the provincial building and of the municipal
hall where the property is located. The notice shall state the following: (1) the
number of the certificate of title, (2) the name of the registered owner, (3)
the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate
of title, (4) the location of the property, and (5) the date on which all persons
having an interest in the property, must appear and file such claims as they
may have. (People vs. Camacho G.R. No. 185604 June 13, 2013)

Verily, while the CA invoked the appropriate provisions of R.A. No. 26, it
failed, however, to take note that Section 9 thereof mandatorily requires that
the notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of
title and the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted
certificate of title. In this case, the RTC failed to indicate these jurisdictional
facts in the notice. (People vs. Camacho G.R. No. 185604 June 13, 2013)

In view of these lapses, the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction to proceed
with the case since the mandatory manner or mode of obtaining jurisdiction
as prescribed by R.A. No. 26 had not been strictly followed, thereby rendering
the proceedings utterly null and void. (People vs. Camacho G.R. No. 185604
June 13, 2013)

LOGARTA v MANGAHIS
 Mangahis (owner) - Zamora (agent to sell) - Pena (assigned by
Zamora)
  Pena contracted with Carmona Realty (Logarta)
 MOA was entered and escrow deposits were agreed
 MOA was annotated in TCT
 Respondent original owner filed a petition
 RTC and CA granted decision ruling that subject entries should be
cancelled for they are adverse claims

Issue: Whether or not the subject entries should be cancelled

SC: No.
 Being a conditional sale, MOA is a voluntray instrument, which as
a rule, must be registered as such and not as an adverse claim.
 It is only when the owner refuses or fails to surrender the
duplicate certificate for annotation that a statement setting forth
an adverse claim may be filed with the Register of Deeds.
Otherwise, the adverse claim filed will not have the effect of a
conveyance of any right or interest in the disouted property that
could prejudice the rights that have been subsequently acquired
by third persons.
 The prevailing rule is that voluntary instruments such as contracts
of sale, contract to sell and conditional sales are registered by
presenting the owner’s duplicate copy of the title for annotation,
pursuant to Sections 51 to 53 of PD 1529.
 In the case at hand, there was no showing that respondent
refused or failed to present the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. CLO-
763, which would have prompted Carmona Realty to cause the
annotation of the MOA as an adverse claim instead of a voluntary
dealing.

SEBASTIAN v CRUZ
In this case, Sebastian's petition for annulment of judgment before the
CA clearly alleged that, contrary to the claim of Spouses Cruz in LRC Case No.
421, the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-41566 was not really lost, as
the same was surrendered to her by Lamberto, Nelson's father and attorney-
in-fact, and was in her possession all along. Should such allegation be proven
following the conduct of further proceedings, then there would be no other
conclusion than that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
LRC Case No. 421. As a consequence, the Decision dated March 27, 2014 of
the RTC in the said case would then be annulled on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.

Thus, the Court finds prima facie merit in Sebastian's petition for
annulment of judgment before the CA. As such, the latter erred in denying it
due course and in dismissing the same outright. (Sebastian vs. Cruz G.R. No.
220940 March 20, 2017)

In reconstitution proceedings, the Court has repeatedly ruled that before

jurisdiction over the case can be validly acquired, it is a condition sine qua
non that the certificate of title has not been issued to another person.If a
certificate of title has not been lost but is in fact in the possession of another
person, the reconstituted title is void and the court rendering the decision has
not acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of new title. The courts
simply have no jurisdiction over petitions by (such) third parties for
reconstitution of allegedly lost or destroyed titles over lands that are already
covered by duly issued subsisting titles in the names of their duly registered
owners. The existence of a prior title Ipso Facto nullifies the reconstitution
proceedings. The proper recourse is to assail directly in a proceeding before
the regional trial court the validity of the Torrens title already issued to the
other person.

RODRIGUEZ v CA (Spouses Calingo - Barrameda with assumption of

mortgage with DBP and HMDF until Spouses Rodriguez filed their claims)

 Respondents Barrameda anchor their claim on the property on the

deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by them and respondents
Calingo in 1992. The Property Registration Decree requires that such
document be registered with Register of Deeds in order to be binding to third
persons.
 The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or
affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under
this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register of
Deeds to make registration.
 It is admitted in this case that the deed of sale with assumption of
mortgage was not registered, but instead, respondents Barrameda filed an
affidavit of adverse claim with Register of Deeds.
 The deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by
respondents Caligo and Barrameda is a registrable instrument. In order to
bind third parties, it must be registered with the Office of the Register of
Deeds. It was not shown in this case that there was justifiable reason why the
deed could not be registered. Hence, the remedy of adverse claim
cannot substitute for registration.

SABITSANA v MUERTEGUI (Garcia sold to Muertegui but it was

unnotarized, Garcia then sold to Atty Sabitsana, family lawyer of Muerteguis.
Atty was the one who was able to register the deed. Who has a better right?)

 The first buyer has a better right to the lot, while the subsequent sale
to petitioners is null and void, because when it was made, the seller
was no longer the owner of it. Nemo dat quod non habet.
 The fact that the sale of Juanito was not notarized does not alter
anything, since the sale between him and Garcia remains valid
nonetheless. Notarization, or the requirement of a public document
under the Civil Code, is only for convenience and not for validity or
 enforceability.
 Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title.
Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than
what he actually has.
 Petitioner’s actual and prior knowledge of the first sale to Juanito
makes them purchasers in bad faith.

VALDEVIESO v DAMALERIO
(Spouses Uy sold to Valdevieso; failed to register and title of the land
was not transferred to Valdevieso. Meanwhile, respondents went after the
seller Spouses Uy and attached the property)

Issue: W/N a registered writ of attachment on the land is superior lien

over that of an earlier unregistered deed of sale.

Held:
 The settled rule is that the levy on attachment, duly registered,
takes preference over a prior unregistered sale. This result is a
necessary consequence of the fact that the property involved was
duly covered by the Torrens system which works under the
fundamental principle that registration is the operative act which
gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon the land.
 In registry, the attachment in favor of respondents appeared in
the nature of a real lien when petitioner had his purvhase
recorded. The effect of the notation of said lien was to subject
and subordinate the right of petitioner, as purchaser, to the lien.
 Petitioner acquired ownership of the land only from the date of
the recording of his title in the register, and the right of
ownership which he inscribed was not absolute but a limited right,
subject to a prior registered lien of the respondents, a right which
is preferred and superior to that of the petitioner.

RURAL BANK OF STA BARBARA v MANILA MISSION

(Spouses Soliven, registered owner of parcel of land in Pangasinan sold
the same to Manila Mission which 2 years thereafterr, a TCT issued under its
name. Rural Bank filed a complaint against spoeses for some of money, WPA)

Issue: Which between the 2 transactions should be given priority: the

previous unregistered sale of Spouses Soliven to Manila Mission or the
subsequent but duly annotated attachment of Rural Bank?

Held: The attachment duly annotated.

 It is settled, that a duly registered levy on attachment takes
preference over a prior unregistered sale.
 Corollary to case of Valdevieso v Damalerio
 There is no constructive registration since Manila Mission presented
 no evidence of building the chapel other than its bare allegation
thereof.
 There was no evidence on the part of Rural Bank of any third-party
interest in the subject property at the time of the attachment.

EVY CONSTRUCTION AND DEV’T CORP. v VALIANT ROLL FORMING

SALES CORP.
(Evy Corp. bought from Ang a parcel of land and the Deed of Aboslute
sale was notarized. At the time of the sale, there was no encumbrance or lien
annotated on the title. Subsequently, the subject property was attached in
favor of Valiant roll, which Ang is indebted to. It was later pa that Evy Corp.
Was able to register the property, hence it carried with it the attachment)

Issue: Between petititioner and respondent, who has a better right?

Held:
Respondent.
 A levy on attachment, duly registered, has preference over a prior
unregistered sale and, even if the prior unregistered sale is
subsequently registered before the sale on execution but after the
levy is made, the validity of the execution sale should be upheld
because it retroacts to the date of the levy.
 The prior levy on attachment carries over to the new certificate of
title, effectively placing the buyers in the position of their vendor
under litigation.
 An exception to the rule is that knowledge of an unregistered sale is
equivalent to registration. If a party presents evidentiary proof that
the judgment creditor had knowledge of a valid sale between the
judgment debtor and an innocent third party, that knowledge would
have the effect of registration on the judgment creditor.

PHILIPPINE COTTON CORP v CHINA BANKING CORP

(QC Hall razed by fire, destroying documents; reconstitution defective)
SC:
 It is not the ministerial function of the Register of Deeds to record a
right or an interest that was not duly noted in the reconstituted
certificate of title. It is for the court to determine the merits of the
petition and render judgment as justice and equity may require.
 PD 1529 principally pertains to the registration of the property while
RA 26 is a special law on the procedure for the reconstitution of
Torrens certificates of title that were lost or destroyed.

CHAPTER 8

CAMPER REALTY CORP v REYES

 A forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title when an innocent
purchaser for value intervenes. For a prospective buyer of a property
registered under the Torrens system need not go beyond the title,
 especially when he has no notice of any badge of fraud or defect that
would place him on guard. His rights are thus entitled to full
protection, for the law considers him an innocent purchaser.

SPOUSES PERALTA v HEIRS OF ABALON

Issue: W/N a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title in
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, even if the true owner thereof
has been in possession of the genuine title, which is valid and has not been
cancelled.

Held:
 The established rule is that a forged deed is generally null and
cannot convey title, the exception thereto, pursuant to Section 55
of the LRA, denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the
innocent purchaser for value. Thus, the qualifying point here is
that there must be complete chain of registered titles. This means
that all transfers starting from the original rightful owner to the
innocent holder for value -- and that includes the transfer to
transferee.
 As for Spouses Peralta, they are indeed buyers in bad faith. They
merely relied on the photocopy of the title should have made
Spouses Peralta suspicious that there was some flaw in the title of
Rellama, because he was not in possession of the original copy.

LEVIN v BASS

RUIZ v DIMAILIG