Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GUSTILO
GR No. 81163 September 26, 1988
FACTS:
A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta.Barbara, Iloilo covered by
original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of thedispute between petitioner (Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez, Maria Gotera and Susan Silao). Both
parties claimed ownership andpossession over the said land. However during the trial, it was found that
the transfercertificate of title held by respondents was fraudulently acquired. So the transfercertificate
of title was ordered to be put in the name of petitioners. In compliance withthe order or the RTC, the
Acting Register of Deeds Avito Saclauso annotated the orderdeclaring TCT T-25772 null and void,
cancelled the same and issued new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of
a separate case pending inthe Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new
certificate of title. This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lispendens
in the new certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Alpha Bonifacio. Cherry
Chao. Myra Chavez. Harriett Gutierrez. Jose Sotelo. KimVillanueva
Deeds for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for
reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.
ISSUE:
What is the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate or annul anotice of lis pendens in a
Torrens certificate of title?
HELD:
Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deedsstand that the notice of lis
pendens cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the case in the Court of Appeals. The
function of the Register of Deeds with referenceto the registration of deeds, encumbrances, instrument
and the like is ministerial innature. The acting register of deeds did not have any legal standing to file a
motionfor reconsideration of the Judges Order directing him to cancel the notice of lispendens. Sec. 10
of PD 1529 states that: It shall be the duty of the register of deedsto immediately register an
instrument presented for registration dealing with real
orpersonal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. If theinstrument is not
registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and informthe presentor or such denial in
writing, stating the ground and reasons therefore, andadvising him of his right to appeal by consulta in
accordance with Sec 117 of thisdecree. On the other hand, Sec 117 of PD 117 states that: When the
Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memoranda to bemade in
pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him forregistration or where any
party in interest does not agree with the action taken by theRegister of Deeds with reference to any
such instrument, the question shall besubmitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register
of Deeds, or by theparty in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
MATEO CARIO, vs. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, respondent-appellee.
Facts:On June 23, 1903, Mateo Cario went to the Court of Land Registration to petition his
inscription as the owner of a 146 hectare land hes been possessing in the then municipality of
Baguio. Mateo only presented possessory information and no other documentation. The State
opposed the petition averring that the land is part of the US military reservation. The CLR ruled in
favor of Mateo. The State appealed. Mateo lost. Mateo averred that a grant should be given to him
by reason of immemorial use and occupation as in the previous case Cansino vs Valdez & Tiglao vs
Government.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mateo is the rightful owner of the land by virtue of his possession of it for
some time.
HELD: No. The statute of limitations did not run against the government. The government is still the
absolute owner of the land (regalian doctrine). Further, Mateos possession of the land has not been
of such a character as to require the presumption of a grant. No one has lived upon it for many
years. It was never used for anything but pasturage of animals, except insignificant portions thereof,
and since the insurrection against Spain it has apparently not been used by the petitioner for any
purpose.
While the State has always recognized the right of the occupant to a deed if he proves a possession
for a sufficient length of time, yet it has always insisted that he must make that proof before the
proper administrative officers, and obtain from them his deed, and until he did the State remained
the absolute owner.