3rd Assignment:
no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent
LAWS:
1. P.D. 1529; Sections;
Section 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of
decree. The judgment rendered in a land registration proceedings becomes
final upon the expiration of thirty days to be counted from the data of
receipt of notice of the judgment. An appeal may be taken from the
judgment of the court as in ordinary civil cases.
After judgment has become final and executory, it shall devolve upon the
court to forthwith issue an order in accordance with Section 39 of this
Decree to the Commissioner for the issuance of the decree of registration
and the corresponding certificate of title in favor of the person adjudged
entitled to registration.
Section 31. Decree of registration. Every decree of registration issued by
the Commissioner shall bear the date, hour and minute of its entry, and
shall be signed by him. It shall state whether the owner is married or
unmarried, and if married, the name of the husband or wife: Provided,
however, that if the land adjudicated by the court is conjugal property, the
decree shall be issued in the name of both spouses. If the owner is under
disability, it shall state the nature of disability, and if a minor, his age. It
shall contain a description of the land as finally determined by the court,
and shall set forth the estate of the owner, and also, in such manner as to
show their relative priorities, all particular estates, mortgages, easements,
liens, attachments, and other encumbrances, including rights of tenant-
farmers, if any, to which the land or owners estate is subject, as well as
any other matters properly to be determined in pursuance of this Decree.
The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title thereto,
subject only to such exceptions or liens as may be provided by law. It shall
be conclusive upon and against all persons, including the National
Government and all branches thereof, whether mentioned by name in the
application or notice, the same being included in the general description
To all whom it may concern.
Section 32. Review of decree of registration; Innocent purchaser for
value. The decree of registration shall not be reopened or revised by
reason of absence, minority, or other disability of any person adversely
affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for reversing
judgments, subject, however, to the right of any person, including the
government and the branches thereof, deprived of land or of any estate or
interest therein by such adjudication or confirmation of title obtained by
actual fraud, to file in the proper Court of First Instance a petition for
reopening and review of the decree of registration not later than one year
from and after the date of the entry of such decree of registration, but in
purchaser for value has acquired the land or an interest therein, whose
rights may be prejudiced. Whenever the phrase innocent purchaser for
value or an equivalent phrase occurs in this Decree, it shall be deemed to
include an innocent lessee, mortgagee, or other encumbrancer for value.
Upon the expiration of said period of one year, the decree of registration
and the certificate of title issued shall become incontrovertible. Any person
aggrieved by such decree of registration in any case may pursue his
remedy by action for damages against the applicant or any other persons
responsible for the fraud.
D. HEARING; JUDGMENT; DECREE
Section 38. Hearing, Judgment, Decree. The trial of the case may occur at
any convenient place within the province in which the lands are situated
and shall be conducted, and orders for default and confessions entered, in
the same manner as in ordinary land registration proceedings and shall be
governed by the same rules. All conflicting interests shall be adjudicated by
the court and decrees awarded in favor of the persons entitled to the lands
or to parts thereof and such decrees shall be the basis for issuance of
original certificates of title in favor of said persons and shall have the same
effect as certificates of title granted on application for registration of land
under ordinary land registration proceedings.
CHAPTER IV
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Section 39. Preparation of decree and Certificate of Title. After the
judgment directing the registration of title to land has become final, the
court shall, within fifteen days from entry of judgment, issue an order
directing the Commissioner to issue the corresponding decree of
registration and certificate of title. The clerk of court shall send, within
fifteen days from entry of judgment, certified copies of the judgment and
of the order of the court directing the Commissioner to issue the
corresponding decree of registration and certificate of title, and a certificate
stating that the decision has not been amended, reconsidered, nor
appealed, and has become final. Thereupon, the Commissioner shall cause
to be prepared the decree of registration as well as the original and
duplicate of the corresponding original certificate of title. The original
certificate of title shall be a true copy of the decree of registration. The
decree of registration shall be signed by the Commissioner, entered and
filed in the Land Registration Commission. The original of the original
certificate of title shall also be signed by the Commissioner and shall be
sent, together with the owners duplicate certificate, to the Register of
Deeds of the city or province where the property is situated for entry in his
registration book.

Section 40. Entry of Original Certificate of Title. Upon receipt by the
Register of Deeds of the original and duplicate copies of the original
certificate of title the same shall be entered in his record book and shall be
numbered, dated, signed and sealed by the Register of Deeds with the seal
of his office. Said certificate of title shall take effect upon the date of entry
thereof. The Register of Deeds shall forthwith send notice by mail to the
registered owner that his owners duplicate is ready for delivery to him
upon payment of legal fees.
Section 41. Owners duplicate certificate of title. The owners duplicate
certificate of title shall be delivered to the registered owner or to his duly
authorized representative. If two or more persons are registered owners,
one owners duplicate certificate may be issued for the whole land, or if the
co-owners so desire, a separate duplicate may be issued to each of them in
like form, but all outstanding certificates of title so issued shall be
surrendered whenever the Register of Deeds shall register any subsequent
voluntary transaction affecting the whole land or part thereof or any
interest therein. The Register of Deeds shall note on each certificate of title
a statement as to whom a copy thereof was issued.
Section 42. Registration Books. The original copy of the original certificate
of title shall be filed in the Registry of Deeds. The same shall be bound in
consecutive order together with similar certificates of title and shall
constitute the registration book for titled properties.
Section 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. The subsequent certificate of title
that may be issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any voluntary or
involuntary instrument relating to the same land shall be in like form,
entitled Transfer Certificate of Title, and likewise issued in duplicate. The
certificate shall show the number of the next previous certificate covering
the same land and also the fact that it was originally registered, giving the
record number, the number of the original certificate of title, and the
volume and page of the registration book in which the latter is found.
Section 44. Statutory liens affecting title. Every registered owner
receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a decree of registration, and
every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title
for value and in good faith, shall hold the same free from all encumbrances
except those noted in said certificate and any of the following
encumbrances which may be subsisting, namely:
First. Liens, claims or rights arising or existing under the laws and
Constitution of the Philippines which are not by law required to appear of
record in the Registry of Deeds in order to be valid against subsequent
purchasers or encumbrancers of record.
Second. Unpaid real estate taxes levied and assessed within two years
immediately preceding the acquisition of any right over the land by an
innocent purchaser for value, without prejudice to the right of the
government to collect taxes payable before that period from the delinquent
taxpayer alone.
Third. Any public highway or private way established or recognized by law,
or any government irrigation canal or lateral thereof, if the certificate of
title does not state that the boundaries of such highway or irrigation canal
or lateral thereof have been determined.
Fourth. Any disposition of the property or limitation on the use thereof by
virtue of, or pursuant to, Presidential Decree No. 27 or any other law or
regulations on agrarian reform.
Section 45. Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate. Every
certificate of title shall set forth the full names of all persons whose
interests make up the full ownership in the whole land, including their civil
status, and the names of their respective spouses, if married, as well as
their citizenship, residence and postal address. If the property covered
belongs to the conjugal partnership, it shall be issued in the names of both
spouses.
Section 46. General incidents of registered land. Registered land shall be
subject to such burdens and incidents as may arise by operation of law.
Nothing contained in this decree shall in any way be construed to relieve
registered land or the owners thereof from any rights incident to the
relation of husband and wife, landlord and tenant, or from liability to
attachment or levy on execution, or from liability to any lien of any
description established by law on the land and the buildings thereon, or on
the interest of the owner in such land or buildings, or to change the laws of
descent, or the rights of partition between co-owners, or the right to take
the same by eminent domain, or to relieve such land from liability to be
recovered by an assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankcruptcy under the
laws relative to preferences, or to change or affect in any way other rights
or liabilities created by law and applicable to unregistered land, except as
otherwise provided in this Decree.
Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title to
registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
Section 48. Certificate not subject to collateral attack. A certificate of title
shall not be subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified, or
canceled except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.
Section 49. Splitting, or consolidation of titles. A registered owner of
several distinct parcels of land embraced in and covered by a certificate of
title desiring in lieu thereof separate certificates, each containing one or
more parcels, may file a written request for that purpose with the Register
of Deeds concerned, and the latter, upon the surrender of the owners
duplicate, shall cancel it together with its original and issue in lieu thereof
separate certificates as desired. A registered owner of several distinct
parcels of land covered by separate certificates of title desiring to have in
lieu thereof a single certificate for the whole land, or several certificates for
the different parcels thereof, may also file a written request with the
Register of Deeds concerned, and the latter, upon the surrender of the
owners duplicates, shall cancel them together with their originals, and
issue in lieu thereof one or separate certificates as desired.
Section 50. Subdivision and consolidation plans. Any owner subdividing a
tract of registered land into lots which do not constitute a subdivision
project has defined and provided for under P.D. No. 957, shall file with the
Commissioner of Land Registration or with the Bureau of Lands a
subdivision plan of such land on which all boundaries, streets, passageways
and waterways, if any, shall be distinctly and accurately delineated.
If a subdivision plan, be it simple or complex, duly approved by the
Commissioner of Land Registration or the Bureau of Lands together with
the approved technical descriptions and the corresponding owners
duplicate certificate of title is presented for registration, the Register of
Deeds shall, without requiring further court approval of said plan, register
the same in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act, as
amended: Provided, however, that the Register of Deeds shall annotate on
the new certificate of title covering the street, passageway or open space,
a memorandum to the effect that except by way of donation in favor of the
national government, province, city or municipality, no portion of any
street, passageway, waterway or open space so delineated on the plan
shall be closed or otherwise disposed of by the registered owner without
the approval of the Court of First Instance of the province or city in which
the land is situated.
A registered owner desiring to consolidate several lots into one or more,
requiring new technical descriptions, shall file with the Land Registration
Commission, a consolidation plan on which shall be shown the lots to be
affected, as they were before, and as they will appear after the
consolidation. Upon the surrender of the owners duplicate certificates and
the receipt of consolidation plan duty approved by the Commission, the
Register of Deeds concerned shall cancel the corresponding certificates of
title and issue a new one for the consolidated lots.
The Commission may not order or cause any change, modification, or
amendment in the contents of any certificate of title, or of any decree or
plan, including the technical description therein, covering any real property
registered under the Torrens system, nor order the cancellation of the said
certificate of title and the issuance of a new one which would result in the
enlargement of the area covered by the certificate of title.
CHAPTER VIII
REGISTRATION OF PATENTS
Section 103. Certificates of title pursuant to patents. Whenever public
land is by the Government alienated, granted or conveyed to any person,
the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this Decree. It
shall be the duty of the official issuing the instrument of alienation, grant,
patent or conveyance in behalf of the Government to cause such
instrument to be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city
where the land lies, and to be there registered like other deeds and
conveyance, whereupon a certificate of title shall be entered as in other
cases of registered land, and an owners duplicate issued to the grantee.
The deed, grant, patent or instrument of conveyance from the Government
to the grantee shall not take effect as a conveyance or bind the land but
shall operate only as a contract between the Government and the grantee
and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
It is the act of registration that shall be the operative act to affect and
convey the land, and in all cases under this Decree, registration shall be
made in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where
the land lies. The fees for registration shall be paid by the grantee. After
due registration and issuance of the certificate of title, such land shall be
deemed to be registered land to all intents and purposes under this Decree.
CHAPTER IX
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT,
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY
Section 104. Provisional Register of Documents. The Department of
Agrarian Reform shall prepare by automate data processing a special
registry book to be known as the Provisional Register of Documents issued
under PD-27 which shall be kept and maintained in every Registry of
Deeds throughout the country. Said Registry Book shall be a register of:
a. All Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT) issued pursuant to P.D. No. 27;
and
b. All subsequent transactions affecting Certificates of Land Transfer such
as adjustments, transfer, duplication and cancellations of erroneous
Certificates of Land Transfer.
2. P.D. 957; Sections;
REGISTRATION AND LICENSE TO SELL
Section 4. Registration of Projects The registered owner of a parcel of land
who wishes to convert the same into a subdivision project shall submit his
subdivision plan to the Authority which shall act upon and approve the
same, upon a finding that the plan complies with the Subdivision
Standards' and Regulations enforceable at the time the plan is submitted.
The same procedure shall be followed in the case of a plan for a
condominium project except that, in addition, said Authority shall act upon
and approve the plan with respect to the building or buildings included in
the condominium project in accordance with the National Building Code
(R.A. No. 6541).
The subdivision plan, as so approved, shall then be submitted to the
Director of Lands for approval in accordance with the procedure prescribed
in Section 44 of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496, as amended by
R.A. No. 440): Provided, that it case of complex subdivision plans, court
approval shall no longer be required. The condominium plan as likewise so
approved, shall be submitted to the Register of Deeds of the province or
city in which the property lies and the same shall be acted upon subject to
the conditions and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 4
of the Condominium Act (R.A. No. 4726).
The owner or the real estate dealer interested in the sale of lots or units,
respectively, in such subdivision project or condominium project shall
register the project with the Authority by filing therewith a sworn
registration statement containing the following information:
(a) Name of the owner;
(b) The location of the owner's principal business office, and if the owner is
a non-resident Filipino, the name and address of his agent or
representative in the Philippines is authorized to receive notice;
(c) The names and addresses of all the directors and officers of the
business firm, if the owner be a corporation, association, trust, or other
entity, and of all the partners, if it be a partnership;
(d) The general character of the business actually transacted or to be
transacted by the owner; and
(e) A statement of the capitalization of the owner, including the authorized
and outstanding amounts of its capital stock and the proportion thereof
which is paid-up.
The following documents shall be attached to the registration statement:
(a) A copy of the subdivision plan or condominium plan as approved in
accordance with the first and second paragraphs of this section.
(b) A copy of any circular, prospectus, brochure, advertisement, letter, or
communication to be used for the public offering of the subdivision lots or
condominium units;
(c) In case of a business firm, a balance sheet showing the amount and
general character of its assets and liabilities and a copy of its articles of
incorporation or articles of partnership or association, as the case may be,
with all the amendments thereof and existing by-laws or instruments
corresponding thereto.
(d) A title to the property which is free from all liens and encumbrances:
Provided, however, that in case any subdivision lot or condominium unit is
mortgaged, it is sufficient if the instrument of mortgage contains a
stipulation that the mortgagee shall release the mortgage on any
subdivision lot or condominium unit as soon as the full purchase price for
the same is paid by the buyer.
The person filing the registration statement shall pay the registration fees
prescribed therefor by the Authority.
Thereupon, the Authority shall immediately cause to be published a notice
of the filing of the registration statement at the expense of the applicant-
owner or dealer, in two newspapers general circulation, one published in
English and another in Pilipino, once a week for two consecutive weeks,
reciting that a registration statement for the sale of subdivision lots or
condominium units has been filed in the National Housing Authority; that
the aforesaid registration statement, as well as the papers attached
thereto, are open to inspection during business hours by interested parties,
under such regulations as the Authority may impose; and that copies
thereof shall be furnished to any party upon payment of the proper fees.
The subdivision project of the condominium project shall be deemed
registered upon completion of the above publication requirement. The fact
of such registration shall be evidenced by a registration certificate to be
issued to the applicant-owner or dealer.
Section 7. Exempt transactions. A license to sell and performance bond
shall not be required in any of the following transactions:
(a) Sale of a subdivision lot resulting from the partition of land among co-
owners and co-heirs.
(b) Sale or transfer of a subdivision lot by the original purchaser thereof
and any subsequent sale of the same lot.
(c) Sale of a subdivision lot or a condominium unit by or for the account of
a mortgagee in the ordinary course of business when necessary to liquidate
a bona fide debt.

CASES:
1. Conrado C. Fule and Lourdes Aragon vs. Emilia De legare and CA
FACTS:
Emilia was the owner of a parcel of land as evidenced by TCT issued
by the RD
She was living with John Legare (adopted son) and Purita Tarossa
(maid)
September 26, 1951, Emilia Legare mortgage the land to defendant
Tomas Soriano to guarantee the payment of a loan in the amount
of 8,000, it was recorded in the RD and annotated in the
memorandum of encumbrances of TCT
the latter obtained additional loans from Tomas Soriano but these
transactions however, were not annotated on the memorandum of
encumbrances of TCT
March 29, 1953, unknown man approached EL, JWL and PT
threatening EL to be killed if she cannot give him 10,000 (john did
not call for help nor made any attempt to defend his mother)
After the incident, JL approached EL and asked her to sign the
paper (Deed of Sale for 12,000) so they could secure form the US
Veterans Administration the amount which they need to deliver to
the intruder
EL, who did not know how to read nor write, EL asked JL what the
paper was, JL answered that it was an application for payment of
compensation.
EL signed the paper and JL had PT sign it as a witness, without
however, allowing the latter to read it.
After the paper was signed, JL told PT EL and PT to pack up their
things as they were leaving the house to hide in a hotel and stayed
in the said hotel for a month
Eventually EL and PT left the hotel and went direct to her house
and found out that it was occupied by strangers (Conrado Fule and
Lourdes Aragon) it was sold to them by John Legare
May 9, 1953, JL approached Elias Fermin, a real estate broker who
intervened in the securing of the Loan contracted by Emilia from
Tomas and sought said brokers help to sell the lot to Sps. Conrado
and Lourdes
The plaintiff sought an action for annulment of certain deeds of sale
and conveyance of the property.
RTC:
GRANTED
Leaving the TCT in the name of Emilia Legare with the encumbrance
in favour of Tomas Soriano
Delivery of possession of the land to Emilia
Award of damages
CA:
Affirmed the decision of RTC
ISSUE:
Whether Conrado and Lourdes are purchasers in good faith and for
value of the properties
RULING of the Supreme Court:
The Spouses are innocent purchasers for value of house and lot and
adjudge the lawful owners
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of
another, without notice that some other person has a right
to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair
price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before
he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons
in the property.
Good faith consists in an honest intention to abstain from
taking any unconscientious advantage of another (Cui and
Joven vs. Henson, 51 Phil., 606). We have measured the
conduct of the petitioner spouses by this yardstick.
the deed of sale was regular upon its face, and no one would have
questioned its authenticity since it was duly acknowledged before a
notary public
 Moreover, even if the petitioners had the opportunity to compare
the signature of the respondent on the deed of conveyance with a
specimen of her genuine signature, the effort, nonetheless, would
have been in vain since the respondent's signature on the document
was admittedly hers
it should not be overlooked that the respondent, during the whole
period of the negotiation, was nowhere available to confirm or deny
the execution of the deed. She was then in hiding, or, hidden, at
the Windsor Hotel in Manila.
The records show that they did not rely solely and fully upon the
deed of sale in favor of John W. Legare
They demanded more. They insisted that the sale in favor of John
W. Legare be first registered and that the transfer in their favor be
thereafter likewise registered
In other words, the petitioner spouses relied not really on the
documents exhibited to them by John W. Legare, but, on the
registerability of those documents. This in our view, satisfies the
measure of good faith contemplated by law.
Under Section 5 of Act 496, as amended, John's possession
of the certificate and his subsequent production of it to the
herein petitioners operated as a "conclusive authority from
the registered owner to the register of deeds to enter a
new certificate."
the purchaser is not required to explore farther than what
the Torrens title upon its face indicates in quest for any
hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently
defeat his right thereto
When, therefore, he transferred this title to the herein petitioners,
third persons, the entire transaction fell within the purview of Article
1434 of the Civil Code. The registration in John W. Legare's name
effectively operated to convey the properties to him.
"Art. 1434 When a person who is not the owner of a thing
sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or
grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by
operation of law to the buyer or grantee."
RULING ON FRAUD:
Although the deed of sale in favor of John W. Legare was fraudulent,
the fact remains that he was able to secure a registered title to the
house and lot. It was this title which he subsequently conveyed to
the herein petitioners. We have indeed ruled that a forged or
fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title (Director of Lands
vs. Addison, 49 Phil., 19).
However, we have also laid down the doctrine that there are
instances when such a fraudulent document may become the
root of a valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of
title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to
the forger, and while it remained that way, the land was
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee
had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate
(Inquimboy vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-13953, July 28, 1960).
This Court sympathizes with the respondent. It is aware of
the treacherous, painful fraud committed on her by her
adopted son. But positive provisions of law and settled
jurisprudence cannot be subordinated to that feeling.
DISPOSITION:
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and set aside
Dismissing the respondent's complaint and declaring the petitioners
herein the lawful owners of the properties here involved
2. Aurelio Balbin and Francisco Balbin vs. RD of ilocos Sur
FACTS:
November 15, 1961 petitioners presented to the register of deeds
of Ilocos Sur a duplicate copy of the registered owner's certificate
of title and an instrument entitled "Deed of Donation inter-vivos,"
with the request that the same be annotated on the title
Cornelio Balbin, registered owner of the parcel of land appears to
have donated inter-vivos an undivided two-thirds (2/3) portion
thereof in favor of petitioners
REGISTERED OF DEEDS:
It denied the requested annotation for being "legally defective or
otherwise not sufficient in law."
It appears that previously annotated in the memorandum of
encumbrances on the certificate are three separate sales of
undivided portions of the land earlier executed by Cornelio Balbin
in favor of three different buyers
 1st: Florentino Gabayin
2nd: Roberto Bravo
3rd: Juana Gabayan
the annotations referring to the above-mentioned sales contains an
additional memorandum stating that "three co-owner's duplicate
certificates of title in the name of Florentino Gabayan, Roberto
Bravo and Juana Gabayan upon verbal request of Mr. Andres
Cabeldo, Notary Public of Caoayan, I. Sur, for and in the name of
the vende
Unsatisfied, petitioners referred the matter to the Commissioner of
Land Registration
COMMISSIONER OF LAND REGISTRATION:
Upheld the action of the Register of Deeds
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the request made by the Petitioner should be
granted
RULING of the Supreme Court:
The donor is now merely a co-owner of the property described in
the Original Certificate of Title having previously sold undivided
portions thereof on three different occasions in favor of three
different buyers.
The claim of counsel for the donees that the issuance of the three
co-owner's duplicates was unauthorized is beside the point. Unless
and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules to the contrary,
these titles are presumed to have been lawfully issued."
PETITIONERs CONTENTION:
petitioners would want to compel annotation of the deed of donation
upon the copy in their possession, citing Section 55 of Act 496,
which provides that "the production of the owner's duplicate
certificate of title whenever any voluntary instrument is presented
for registration shall be conclusive authority from the registered
owner to the register of deeds to make a memorandum of
registration in accordance with such instrument."
We find no merit in petitioners' contention. Section 55, supra,
obviously assumes that there is only one duplicate copy of the title
in question, namely, that of the registered owner himself, such that
its production whenever a voluntary instrument is presented
constitutes sufficient authority from him for the register of deeds to
make the corresponding memorandum of registration
In the case at bar, the three other copies of the title were in
existence, presumably issued under Section 43 * of Act 496. As
correctly observed by the Land Registration Commissioner,
petitioners' claim that the issuance of those copies was
unauthorized or illegal is beside the point, its legality being
presumed until otherwise declared by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
GROUND ON THE CONJUGALITY OF THE PROPERTY
the property subject of the donation is presumed conjugal, that is,
property of the marriage of the donor, Cornelio Balbin, and his
deceased wife, Nemesia Mina
"There should first be a liquidation of the partnership before the
surviving spouse may make such a conveyance."
it is not to be denied that, if the conjugal character of the property
is assumed, the deed of donation executed by the husband, Cornelio
Balbin, bears on its face an infirmity which justified the denial of its
registration, namely, the fact that the two-thirds portion of said
property which he donated was more than his one-half share, not
to say more than what remained of such share after he had sold
portions of the same land to three other parties.
CASE PENDING:
case pending in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur (CC No.
2221), wherein the civil status of the donor Cornelio Balbin and the
character of the land in question are in issue, as well as the validity
of the different conveyances executed by him
DISPOSITION
The decisions of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur and that of the
Commissioner of Land Registration are affirmed.
3. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Lazaro mangawang ET AL of appellant is merely a derivation of the one issued to Amposta on
November 29, 1920, or seven months after the decision rendered
FACTS: in the cadastral case.
Gavino Amposta applied with the Director of Lands for the issuance ISSUE:
of a homestead patent over a parcel of land
Pending action on his application, cadastral proceedings were Who of the two buyers should be considered as the rightful owner
instituted by the government in said municipality wherein Amposta of the land?
filed an answer praying for the adjudication of the same land in his
favor RULING:
On March 8, 1920, the cadastral court rendered decision awarding
There is no doubt that if the two original certificates of title were
the land to Amposta
issued on different occasions to two different persons
November 29, 1920, issued in favor of Amposta Homestead Patent
he took advantage of the situation by selling the land to two
No. 2388 covering the same land
different persons surrendering to each purchaser the pertinent
On November 24, 1941, Amposta sold the land to Santos Camacho
certificate of title
surrendering to him Original Certificate of Title
Note that Amposta first sold the land to Santos Camacho on
On November 18, 1946, Santos Camacho sold the land to Bonifacio
November 24, 1941, who registered it in his name on the same date
Camacho as a result of which Transfer Certificate of Title
seven years thereafter, or on March 17, 1948, Amposta again sold
On April 28, 1948, Bonifacio Camacho mortgaged the land to the
the land to the Mangawang brothers, who also registered it in their
Rehabilitation Finance Corporation (now Development Bank of the
name on the same date
Philippines), and having failed to pay the loan as agreed upon the
the sale made by Amposta to Santos Camacho is the valid
land was sold at public auction to said bank as the highest bidder
one
Meanwhile, or on June 11, 1947, Gavino Amposta again sold the
It can also be treated as one of double sale, where a person sells
same property to Lazaro and Arsenio Mangawang
the same land to two different persons who are unaware of the flaw
the Mangawang brothers took possession thereof
that lies in its title, and where the law adjudicates the property
the Development Bank of the Philippines, which as already stated
to the purchaser who first registers the transaction in his
became the owner of the property, commenced the present action
name in the registry of property.
against them in the Court of First Instance of Bataan to recover its
And applying this principle, we cannot but conclude that the title
possession and damages
should likewise be adjudicated to appellant whose predecessor-in-
RTC: interest acquired and registered the property much ahead in point
of time than the appellees.
the court a quo rendered decision awarding the land to the
Mangawang brothers DISPOSITION

DBPs CONTENTION: the decision appealed from is reversed

their right over the property in litigation should be respected
because the certificate of title they are holding is derived from that
issued pursuant to a decision rendered by a cadastral court, while
the title being held by appellant was merely based on the title issued
in an administrative proceeding, upon the theory that a judicial title
is deemed preferred to one issued administratively.
since the decision which gave rise to their title was rendered on
March 8, 1920, which become final thirty days thereafter, their right
over the land must be deemed vested on said date whereas the title
declare appellant owner of Lot of the Balanga cadastre and uphold
the validity of Transfer Certificate of Title issued in its favour
Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of appellees is hereby
ordered cancelled.
4. Encarnacion Gatioan Vs. Sixto Gaffud Et Al, PNB
FACTS:
 Rufina Permison owner of the land in question and registered under
her name (free patent)
Rufina subsequently sold the land to Sibreno Novestras, who in
turn, conveyed to appellee Encarnacion Gatioan
The OCT in the name of Rufina was cancelled and TCT T-1212 was
issued in favour of Encarnacion Gatiaon
June 12, 1950, Gatiaon obtained loans (3 loans) from PNB and as
a security therefor, mortgage the land described in TCT No. 1212
and duly inscribed at the back of the title
On January 23, 1956, Sps. Gaffud and Logan procured free patent
covering the IDENTICAL PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED in TCT
No. 1212 of Encarnacion Gatioan on the basis of OCT No. 6038
On May 15, 1956 and January 8, 1957, Sps Gaffud obtained 2 loans
from PNB and they mortgaged the said land covered by OCTNo. P-
6038
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources recommended to
cancel the said OCTP-6038
Bank refused to have the said OCT cancelled.
Bank filed a complaint for quieting of title
RTC:
Declaring the patent and Certificate of title P-6038 null and void ab
initio issued in the name of Sps gaffud
Declaring REM in favour of the bank also null and void
Dismissing the PNBs complaint and its prayer and order the PNB to
cancel or release the mortgage in the name of Gatiaon
CA:
PNB does not, However, impugn the lower courts ruling in declaring
null and void and cancelling the OCT P-6038 in favour of Sps. Gaffud
It only insists that the lower court should have declared it an
INNOCENT MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE as
regards the mortgages executed in its favour by defendant Sps
AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE RTC
ISSUE:
Whether PNB is an INNOCENT MORTGAGEE IN GOOD FAITH AND
FOR VALUE as regards the mortgages executed in its favour by
defendant Sps or NOT
RULING of the Supreme Court:
From the stipulated facts, it can be seen that prior to the execution
of the mortgage between appellant and the defendant spouses, the
appellee had been mortgaging the land described in TCT No. T-1212
to it
the appellant Bank had possession of, or at least, must have
examined appellee's title, TCT No. T-1212, wherein appear clearly
the technical description, exact area, lot number and cadastral
number of the land covered by said title.
In other words, by the time the defendant spouses offered OCT. P-
6038, in their names, for scrutiny in connection with their own
application for loan with appellant, the latter was charged with the
notice of the identity of the technical descriptions, areas, lot
numbers and cadastral numbers of the lands purportedly covered
by the two titles and was in a position to know, if it did not have
such knowledge actually, that they referred to one and the same
lot.
Under the circumstances; appellant had absolutely no excuse for
approving the application of the defendant spouses and giving the
loans in question
"One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect
or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has
acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true
owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same
rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts
which should have put him upon such inquiry and
investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with
the defects in the title of his vendor. A purchaser cannot
close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man
upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith
under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the
vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such defect exists,
or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the
existence of a defect in his vendor's title will not make him
an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops
 that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he
had such notice of the defect as would have led to its
discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution
which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a
like situation . . ." (Dayao v. Diez, supra; citing the case of
Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644)
Moreover, it is a matter of judicial notice that before a bank grants
a loan on the security of land, it first undertakes a careful
examination of the title of the applicant as well as physical and on-
the-spot investigation of the land itself offered as security.
rule that where two certificates of title are issued to different
persons covering the same land in whole or in part, the earlier in
date must prevail as between original parties and in case of
successive registrations where more than one certificate is
issued over the land, the person holding under the prior
certificate is entitled to the land as against the person who rely on
the second certificate. The purchaser from the owner of the later
certificate and his successors, should resort to his vendor for
redress, rather than molest the holder of the first certificate and his
successors, who should be permitted to rest secure in their title."
(Citing Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590) [Emphasis supplied]
Undoubtedly, had herein appellant Bank taken such a step which is
demanded by the most ordinary prudence, it would have easily
discovered the flaw in the title of the defendant spouses; and if it
did not conduct such examination and investigation, it must be held
to be guilty of gross negligence in granting them the loans in
question. In either case, appellant Bank cannot be considered as a
mortgagee in good faith within the contemplation of the law
REMEDY of PNB
appears that defendant spouses have another land covered by OCT
3137 which is also mortgaged to it and which perhaps may yet be
sufficient to cover the loans in question
DISPOSITION:
AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE CA
5. Francisco, Severo, Valentina, Rustico, Dominador Nicomedes, all
surnamed BERGADO vs. CA and RP
NATURE:
Property is claimed by both BERGADO and the RP under 2 separate
deeds of sale executed by Marciana Trinidad
FACTS:
The subject land in dispute is in the name of Alejandro Trinidad and
Aniceta Soriano
The land was inherited by Marciana Trinidad, their sole heir
Marciana transferred the land by virtue of ESCRITURA DE
COMPRAVENTA (deed of sale) in 1928 to Pedro BERGADO and
Justina Galinato, the petitioners parents
Then Marciana subsequently conveyed it again through a deed of
sale dated 1947 to the PTA
PETITIONER VERSION:
The petitioner claim the property by right of inheritance for their
parents
REPUBLIC VERSION:
The land was donated to them by PTA on 1977
RTC:
Decision in favour of RP
The respondent court held that the petitioners had slept on
whatever right they might have had and were now barred by
prescription and laches from asserting it.
CA:
Affirmed the decision of RTC
ISSUE:
Who is the rightful and lawful owner of the disputed land in the case
at bar
RULING of the Supreme Court
PTA had been in the possession of the property since it acquired by
virtue of deed of sale dated February, 1947
PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
And by the Republic of the Philippines since July 25, 1947 (date of
donation)
PTA and RP had been construction improvements on the land
(symbolizes exclusive claim of ownership)
The land was also enclosed with a barbed wire and later with an
adobe wall before 1965-1966 (symbolizes exclusive claim of
ownership) which the BERGADO could not ignore. Not one of
them protested
BERGADOs maintained their tolerant silence for 34 years,
breaking it only in 1981, when they filed their complaint to
nullify the RPs title to disputed land
Fernando BERGADO (brother) was a treasurer of the PTA who
released the funds for the construction of improvements
An action for recovery of title to or possession of real
property or an interest therein can be brought only
within ten years from the date the cause of action
accrues
o the cause of action accrued as early as 1947 when
the property was sold to the PTA or at the very
latest in 1960-1966 when the adobe wall
enclosing the property was erected
o Counted from either year, the ten-year
prescriptive period has indisputably elapsed
o The petitioners' complaint was clearly barred
already when it was filed on October 21, 1981,
almost three and a half decades after the PTA had
taken possession of the land
o Laches in a general sense is failure or
neglect, for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which,
by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier; it is negligence or
omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.
That neither prescription nor laches can operate against them
because their title to the property is registered under the Torrens
system and therefore imprescriptible
They contend that in cases of double sale, assuming the sale to the
private respondent was also valid, the buyer who registers the
property first shall be preferred.
SC:
while admittedly correct, are nonetheless not applicable
to the case at bar
The reason is that what the petitioners registered was
not their ownership of the property but the Escritura
de Compraventa, and at that only in 1964, thirty-six
years after it was executed by Marciana Trinidad
The most she conveyed to the petitioners' parents was
inchoate ownership as she herself was not the registered
owner.
The property remained in the names of Trinidad's parents
no transfer certificate of title had been issued in her favour
Consequently, no certificate could also be issued in the
petitioners' names
Moreover, the petitioners did not take possession of the land
as they could have on the strength of the Escritura de
Compraventa. Worse, they permitted the PTA and later the
Republic to do so and made no protest at all until 1981
Even Trinidad was the sole heir of her parents, the affidavit of
adjudication she executed on 1947 was only a formal
affirmation of her ownership by right of succession
It was still necessary for the purpose of registering the
property in the name of her vendees
 The registered owners of the land were still Alejandro
Trinidad and Aniceta Soriano per the original certificate of
title.
Escritura de Compraventa cannot itself be considered the
affidavit of adjudication for the fact is that it did not comply
with the requirements of Rule 74, Section 1, particularly the
notice by publication
In the view of the Court, the most telling consideration is that the
petitioners' parents did not immediately take possession of the
property upon the execution by Marciana Trinidad of the Escritura
de Compraventa in 1928
the petitioners have not shown that they had paid the
corresponding realty taxes on the land during any of the years they
were supposedly occupying the same
it has been established that the PTA did immediately enter the
property when the deed of sale was concluded in 1947
In fact, the land had long been in the hands of the government
when it finally occurred to the petitioners to register the Escritura
de Compraventa on December 1, 1964
It was obviously made in bad faith because the petitioners were at
that time already aware that the respondent Republic of the
Philippines was in possession of the property
MOVABLE PROPERTY- If the same thing should have
been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken
possession thereof in good faith
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY- , the ownership shall belong to
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it
in the Registry of Property
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith
The inscription of the Escritura de Compraventa in 1964 produced
no legal effect because it was made in bad faith. Ownership should
therefore vest in the respondent Republic of the Philippines because
it was first in possession of the property in good faith
REMEDY of PETITIONER:
not against the Republic of the Philippines
may be addressed only to Marciana Trinidad who, for reasons still
to be discovered, sold the same land once, and then once again, to
separate purchasers
DISPOSITION:
petition is DENIED (Action for the nullity of the title in possession
of RP)
6. The heirs of Claro L. Laureta vs. CA, Marcos Mata and Codici Mata
NATURE:
a petition to review on appeal by certiorari the decision of the then
Intermediate Appellate Court entitled "Marcos Mata and Codidi Mata
vs. Heirs of Claro L. Laureta promulgated on April 30, 1985, which
affirmed in toto the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch I, in Tagum, Davao in Civil Case No. 1071 thereof, as well
as the resolution of respondent court denying petitioners' motion
for reconsideration.
FACTS:
Petitioners herein are the Heirs of Late Claro L. Laureta substituted
their father who died during the litigation case in RTC and Private
respondents Spouses Marcos Mata (substitured also by Heirs) and
Codici Mata
June 10, 1945, Marcos Mata sold the agricultuiral land in favour of
Claro Laureta but it was not registered because it was not
acknowledge before a notary public, however the property was
delivered to Laureta being the peaceful and lawful possessor of the
premise of land together with the pertinent papers thereof
Since june 10, 1945, Laureta had been and is still in O,C,E,N
possession of said land and paying its realty taxes and introduced
improvements
May 15, 1947, Same land was sold again by Marcos Mata to Fermin
Caram
May 22, 1947, Marcos Mata through Atty. Abelardo filed with RTC,
petition for the issuance of new Owners Duplicate of OCT no. 3019
 Alleging that the title was lost
RTC issued and order directing RD to issue a new Owners
duplicate of OCT in favour of MATA and declaring the lost
title NULL AND VOID
December 9, 1947, the sale between Marcos and Fermin was
registered with the RD and the same was issued in favour of
FERMIN CARAM
June 25, 1959, Claro Laureta filed with RTC an action for NULLITY,
RECOVERY OF OWNERSHIP and or RECONVEYANCE WITH
DAMAGES against spouses MATA and CARAM (civil case no. 3083)
RTC: a. declaring the deed of sale by Mata in favour of
Laureta stands prevail over Fermin Caram
b. Declaring the deed of sale in favour of CARAM
NULL AND VOID
CA: Affirming the decision of RTC
2 separate petitions were filed
Spouses Mata vs.Laureta (denied) june 20, 1968, and
became final and executory
Fermin caram vs. Laureta (dismissed and affirming the
decision of respondent court)
After judgment in the latter case became final and executory on
February 12, 1982 and was duly entered 8 herein petitioners moved
for the execution of said judgment on May 10, 1982
An alias writ of execution was issued on February 2, 1983. Upon
order of the lower court in Civil Case No. 3083, the branch clerk of
court executed the required new deed of sale in favor of Claro
Laureta which was acknowledged by the court's officer-in-charge on
August 23, 1983
On February 21, 1984, the deed of absolute sale was duly approved
by the Minister of Natural Resources
Finally, on May 9, 1985, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-46346
was issued in the name of Claro L. Laureta
February 23, 1979, Mata spouses had filed an action for recovery
of ownership and possession of said land
Marcos Mata, et al vs. Heirs of Claro Laureta; Fermin
Caram, intervenor (CIVIL CASE NO. 1071)
Private respondents' action was predicated on the fact that
the deed of sale executed by Marcos Mata over his parcel
of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3019 in
favor of Claro L. Laureta in June, 1945 is null and void and
or unenforceable because the same had not been approved
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as
required by law
RTC: a. Case No. 3083 in favour of Laureta has become
stale and unenforceable due to prescription
b. Returning the ownership of land in question to
plaintiffs who are forced heirs of the deceased
homesteader, Marcos Mata
ISSUE:
Who is the rightful and lawful owner of disputed land
RULING of the Supreme Court
the interests of Mata and Caram are so intimately interwoven and
dependent on each other that whatever may be the outcome of
either or both cases would necessarily affect the ownership rights
of herein petitioners
It is also readily apparent that in filing their aforesaid respective
petitions with this Court, both the Matas and Caram elevated the
entire decision of respondent court in CA without, as correctly
observed by herein petitioners, referring to or appealing from only
a particular portion of said decision
the first sale made in favor of Claro Laureta in ruling against the
legality of the subsequent sale to Fermin Caram, Jr. Precisely, the
validity of Caram's title depends largely on whether he had
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the prior sale to Laureta
Hence, whatever would be the decision of the Court in G.R. No. L-
28740 (which eventually turned out to be a reaffirmance of the
judgment of the trial court in Civil Case No. 3083) would necessarily
have a direct bearing on the judgment of said trial court declaring
that the sale to Laureta prevails over that made to Caram
 as well as its mandates therein for the cancellation of the title of
Caram and the issuance of another one in the name of Laureta
DISPOSITION
the judgment appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and Civil Case No. 1071 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao is
hereby DISMISSED
7. Leonora Roxas vs Pedro Dinglasan, francisca and Victoria
dinglasan
NATURE:
Appeal by intervenors Francisca Mojica and Victoria
Dinglasan from the judgment of the Court of First Instance
ordering foreclosure of the mortgage constituted on a piece
of land by defendant Pedro Dinglasan who, by falsifying a
public document, had secured a transfer certificate of title in
his name to the land previously sold to intervenors by its
registered owner, Felisa Kalaw
FACTS:
Felisa Kalaw was the registered owner of land with Certificate of
Title
June 11, 1959, Felisa Kalaw sold the land to Francisca Mojica by
means of public instrument (11,530sqm)
In the same month and year, Felisa kalaw sold to Victoria DIngsalan
by means of private instrument(15,000)
The vendors Certificate of title was not delivered to the vendees
because it was in the possession of another person to whom the
land had been mortgaged by Felisa kalaw
Prior toDecember 29, 1961, Pedro Dinglasan succeeded in having
Certificate of title issued in the name of FK cancelled and issued a
new one in HIS NAME
December 29, 1961, PD mortgaged the lot to LEONORA ROXAS as
a security for a loan (tile was delivered to mortgagee)
Leonora Roxas caused the instrument to be REGISTERED ON THE
BACK OF THE TCT
April 3, 1962, PedroDinglasan having failed to pay he obligation,
Leonora Roxas instituted a forclosure suit against him
FRANCISCA MOJICA and VICTORIA DINGLASAN moved to
intervened and that their complaint in intervention annexed to the
motion be admitted
Complaint alleged that they were the owners of the land
having purchased the same form Felisa Kalaw
And the title to said land was fraudulently transferred by
pedro dinglasan in his name
Pedro mortgaged the land to Leonora
Pedro was convicted of Falsification of Public Document
by a private individual
INTERVENORS prayed that they be declared the ture and
absolute owners of the land and the title obtained thru
fraud by Pedro be declared null and void and cancelled and
issuance of a new title in their name
RTC
Rendered decision that the mortgage was validly constituted
The forclosure was in order
That is not the time and place for the intervenors to raise their claim
of ownership over the property
That the intervenors were not entitled to any relief
CA:
Certified the appeal to SC on the ground that it involves only
QUESTIONS OF LAW
ISSUE:
Whether the mortgage was valid or not
RULING of the Supreme Court
The complaint in intervention was appropriate, because the
intervenors , as alledged owners of the land sought to be foreclosed
by the plaintiff, have an interest in the matter in litigation of such
 direct and immediate character that they stand to gain or lose by
the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment
The vendees-intervenors not having acquired the ownership of the
land, their action to vindicate ownership must fail because such
action can propser only upon proof by plaintiff that he is the owner
The intervenors DID NOT ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP of the land
because their deed of sale were not registered
Under Article 2085, requires that the mortgagor be the owner of the
property mortgaged
Although Pedro Dinglasan was not the owner of the property
mortgaged because he had secured title thereto thru fraud or
falsification of a public document the mortgage was valid
because Leonora T. Roxas was an innocent mortgagee for
value, having relied upon the mortgagor's transfer
certificate of title which according to the Register of Deeds
was genuine and free from any objection
The deeds of sale involving the parcel of land covered by Certificate
of Title in the name of the vendor, Felisa Kalaw, not having been
registered, the said intervenors did not acquire ownership of the
land
It is well settled that in case of sale of a piece of land titled
under the Torrens System, it is the act of registration, and
not tradition, that transfers the ownership of the land sold
REMEDY/PREVENTION:
they should have consulted a good lawyer who could have advised
them to protect their rights by filing with the Office of the Register
of Deeds an adverse claim under Section 110 of Act No. 496, as
amended
Had they filed an adverse claim, Pedro Dinglasan would not have
been able to obtain cancellation of Felisa Kalaw's certificate of title
and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in his name
They were, thus, negligent, and their negligence was the proximate
cause of their loss.
DISPOSTION
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the judgment appealed from is affirmed
8. Philippine National Bank vs. Hon. Intermediate appellate court,
jose delfin, Amado Ergina, Miguel Cabreros, Espifania cabreros,
Patrocino Ergina, Filomeno Laput
FACTS:
Fr. Reynes filed a petition before the RTC for consolidation and
subdivision of 2 parcels of land
Court issued an order approving the plan and directing RD to issue
TCT under Fr. Reynes name
One of lots involved was described as a PUBLIC OPEN SPACE (Not
annotated in the title)
Fr. Reynes donated the land to SPS ROMERO and SUAREZ (deed of
donation was annotated) and new TCT was issued under the donees
name
Spouses mortgaged the property to Philippine Commercial and
Industrial Bank then mortgaged to PNB thereafter
Spouses sold the property to ILDEFONSO MERCADO and ISABLE
PALACIO and assumed the loan with PNB and titles were issued in
the name of the buyer
January 18, 1978, Subdivision owners and/or residents of
Friendship village filed an action that the lot in question had been
reserved as a PARK or PLAYGROUND and that Fr. Reynes acted
in bad faith using his influence that the annotation of PUBLIC OPEN
SPACE should not be included in the title
RTC:
Complaint was dismissed as well as the counterclaim
CA:
Reversed the decision of RTC (complaint granted)
Ordering the RD to issue another title in the name of Fr. Reynes
TCT nos. 12135 (annulled, being public open space)
ISSUE:
Whether the annulment of TCT no. 12135 was proper declaring it
as open public space without an annotation

RULING of the SUPREME COURT
Every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance
of a decree of registration and every subsequent purchaser of
registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith
shall hold the same free from all encumbrances not noted on the
title
When transfer certificates of title were issued in favor of the
transferees (the donees and the purchaser) nothing was
said therein about the land having been reserved for a public
open space
Persons dealing with a property covered by a Torrens Certificate of
Title are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the
title
When there is nothing on the face of the title to indicate any cloud
or vice in the ownership of the property or any encumbrances
thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what
the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right
thereto
a bank is not required before accepting a mortgage to make
a detailed investigation of the history of the title of the
property being given as security
And where innocent third persons like the mortgagees relying on
the certificate of title acquire rights over the property, their rights
cannot be disregarded (See Sec. 51, PD No. 1529
Registration is the operative act that gives validity to the
transfer or creates a lien upon the land
A Torrens title is the certificate of ownership issued under
the Torrens system of registration by the government
through the Register of Deeds, naming and declaring the
owner in fee simple of the real property described therein
free from all liens and encumbrances except such as may
be expressly noted thereon or otherwise reserved by law
The liens and encumbrances which may be
subsisting despite their non-annotation in the
certificate of title are the following:
o First, Liens, claims or rights arising or existing
under the laws and Constitution of the Philippines
which are not by law required to appear of record
in the Registry of Deeds in order to be valid
against subsequent purchasers and
encumbrances of record;
o Second, Unpaid real estate taxes levied and
assessed within two years immediately preceding
the acquisition of any right over the land by an
innocent purchaser for value, without prejudice to
the right of the government to collect taxes
payable before that period from the delinquent
taxpayer alone;
o Third, Any public highway or private way
established or recognized by law or any
government irrigation canal or lateral thereof, if
the certificate of title does not state that the
boundaries of such highway or irrigation canal or
lateral thereof have been determined;
o Fourth, Any disposition of the property or
limitation in the use thereof by virtue of or
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 or any
other law or regulation on agrarian reform. (Sec.
44, Presidential Decree No. 1529).
DISPOSITION:
the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
new one is issued upholding the validity of the donation inter vivos
and sustaining the validity of the real estate mortgage executed by
the spouses Luis Romero and Rosario Suarez in favor of the
petitioner Philippine National Bank.
9. NATALIA REALTY CORPORATION vs. VALLEZ, 173 SCRA 534,
(1989)
FACTS:
In these appeals in five (5) consolidated cases 1 certified by the Court of
Appeals to this Court since they involve only a question of law, We affirm the
summary judgment rendered by the court a quo.
Said appeals originated from five (5) civil cases commenced by herein
appellee Natalia Realty Corporation against the five (5) appellants, namely,
Protacio Ranchu Vallez, 2 Ceferino Martinez, 3 Pablo Espemeda 4 Augusta
Arizola, 5 and Ceriaco Bandoc, 6 which were consolidated and assigned to
the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXI, at Antipolo, Rizal. 7 Plaintiff alleged
that the defendants unlawfully occupied portions of the parcels of land
belonging to it and registered in its name under Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. 31527 and 31528 (now N-67845) of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. It
was prayed that defendants be adjudged without valid right whatsoever in
plaintiffs land, that they be ordered to vacate the same and to pay the
reasonable compensation and financial reliefs stated in the respective
complaints against them.
After filing their consolidated answer, defendants sought the dismissal of all
the aforesaid complaints for ejectment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Their motion was denied on September 26, 1983 on a holding that the
grounds therefor are not indubitable.
On October 29, 1983, plaintiff corporation moved for a summary judgment
on the consolidated cases under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. Plaintiff
claimed that the only issue for resolution, if any, is strictly legal; and that
"the pleadings manifestly show that there is no genuine issue or issues as to
any material fact averred in the complaint and that defendants in their
common answer to complaint have put up sham defenses and counterclaims
all of which are mere pretended denials and flimsy defenses." Annexed to
said motion is the affidavit of the company's executive vice-president,
Eugenia Oliveros, attesting to the truth of the averments therein. An
opposition was filed by defendants on November 4, 1983 through a "Joint
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment."
On December 16, 1983, the trial court rendered a summary judgment upon
finding that no valid issue was raised by defendants but only "conclusions
that because they have been in actual possession for over 30 years of their
respective farm lots they are entitled to be respected of (sic) such occupancy
and as such the complaints should be dismissed, (par. 4, p. 7, Record,
Answer, Civil Case No. 11 7-A) that the titles of plaintiff are null and void ab
initio and should be cancelled and in lieu thereof issued new certificates of
titles (sic) to the defendants in accordance with the land reform program
under P.D. No. 2." 8
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff ordering the defendants to
vacate the portions of land involved, to forthwith remove therefrom all
improvements they may have constructed thereon, and to pay rentals of
P50.00 a month from January, 1980 until the defendant concerned shall have
vacated the premises he occupied.
In a joint notice of appeal, defendants sought appellate review in the then
Intermediate Appellate Court. Their brief, dated June 23, 1984, prayed for
the reversal of the summary judgment rendered by the court below and for
the confirmation of their alleged just titles supposedly under Article 541 of
the Civil Code. It does not appear that appellee corporation filed a brief
therein.
As earlier stated, the Court of Appeals, in its resolution of November 27,
1986, certified the aforesaid consolidated appeals to this Court on its finding
that "no question of fact has been raised by appellants for determination by
this Court." The only question, according to the Court of Appeals, is whether
or not the court a quo acted correctly in rendering a summary judgment in
the aforesaid cases.
It is settled that a summary judgment under Rule 34 of the Rules of Court is
proper only if there is no genuine issue as to the existence of any material
fact. 10 It is intended to expedite or promptly dispose of cases where the
facts appear undisputed and certain from the pleadings, depositions,
admissions and affidavits on record. 11 This elucidation of its role in
procedural law is instructive:
... This Summary Judgment or Accelerated Judgment is a device for weeding
out sham claims or defenses at an early stage of the litigation, thereby
avoiding the expense and loss of time involved in a trial. The very object is
"to separate what is formal or pretended in denial or averment from what is
genuine and substantial, so that only the latter may subject a suitor to the
burden of a trial." In conducting the hearing, the purpose of the judge is not
to try the issue, but merely to determine whether there is a meritorious issue
to be tried. Where a motion is made for summary judgment, such motion is
not directed to the pleadings and deals only with the question of whether
there are triable issues of facts and where such issue exists summary
judgment must be denied. Summary judgment should not be granted where
it fairly appears that there is a triable issue to be tried. The Court should not
pass on questions of credibility or weight of evidence, and that the summary
judgment procedure should not be perverted to the trial of disputed
questions of fact upon affidavits'. The test, therefore, of a motion for
summary judgment is whether the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in
support of the motions are sufficient to overcome the opposing papers and
to justify a finding as a matter of law that there is no defense to the action
or the claim is clearly meritorious.
In proceedings for summary judgment, the burden of proof is upon the
plaintiff to prove the cause of action and to show that the defense is
interposed solely for the purpose of delay. After plaintiffs burden has been
discharged, defendant has the burden to show facts sufficient to entitle him
to defend. 12
The focal point of inquiry is whether or not there is a factual controversy in
these consolidated cases. To resolve this query, the pleadings and
documents on file and an analysis thereof are both indispensable and
decisive. The sine qua non of such an adjudicative recourse is spelled out
thus: After the hearing, the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if
the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file together with the
affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of damages, there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law. 13
The mimeographed complaints filed against the defendants are identical in
their substantial allegations, with the plaintiff alleging as follows:
3. Plaintiff is the registered owner and in possession of parcels of land
situated at Barrio Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificates
Nos. 31527 and 31528 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal;
4. That for more than a year before the filing of this Complaint,
defendant/s has/have (sic) unlawfully occupying and possessing a portion
of------ square meters, more or less, with an assessed value of P-----------
included in Pcs---------- and within the aforesaid parcel of land, where
his/her/their house and other construction stand, without the knowledge or
consent of the plaintiff, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the possession of
the said portion;
5. Notwithstanding the demands made upon defendant/s to vacate the
premises in question and to remove his/her/their houses and/ or
construction therefrom, he/she/they has/have failed and refused, and still
continues to fail and refuse to do so;
6. As a consequence of the acts of usurpation committed by the
defendant's (sic) plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer damages at the
rate of P50.00 monthly from January 1980 representing the fair rental value
of the premises in question; 14
On the other hand, the position of defendants is the same all throughout the
case and is set out in their "joint and common answer to the complaint," as
follows:
3. In answer to paragraph No. 3 of the plaintiff's complaint, defendants
have no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of plaintiffs claim of titles and consequently denies (sic) the same in that the
alleged judgment or decision from where it derived said titles are null and
void as said title numbers have the same serial numbers as those in the
different municipalities of the Province of Rizal and those included in Metro
Manila that said titles are null and void ab initio and should be cancelled and
in lieu thereof issue new certificates of titles (sic) to the defendants and their
privies pursuant to the contract of legal services with the undersigned
counsel for the defendants and their privies who are members of the
Confederation of Farm and Home Lots Proprietors of the Philippines in
accordance with the land reform program as called for under PD No. 2 dated
September 26, 1972 and the authority of this Honorable Court under Section
10 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
4. In answer to paragraph No. 4 of the plaintiffs complaint, defendants
and their privies denies (sic) the same, the truth of the matter being that
the defendants and their privies having tacked their respective possessions
of their farm and home lots through their several predecessors in interest
without interruption in open, continuous, public, and adverse (sic) in the
concept of owner since time immemorial by actual possession under claim of
ownership as required by Article 433 of the Civil Code and the plaintiff has
never identified the property of the respective defendants in paragraph No.
4 of the complaint that Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that "In an
action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely
on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim'
and said paragraph No. 4 of the complaint of the plaintiff shows that it is for
an accion reivindicatoria which cannot be had under the circumstances since
many of the defendants and their privies had been in actual, physical, and
material possession of the land in the concept of owner through their
predecessors in interest for more than fifty (50) years beyond the thirty (30)
year limit for an accion reivindicatoria to prosper hence plaintiff (sic) claim
by virtue of a null and void title is untenable because the plaintiff's claim of
ownership of the land in question cannot be maintained in these class suit of
cases (sic), that is, the plaintiff and their privies versus the defendants and
their privies and predecessors in interest.
5. In answer to paragraph No. 5 of the plaintiffs complaint, defendants
and their privies deny the same the truth of the matter being that as stated
in the foregoing paragraphs Nos. 3 and 4 above, defendants and their privies
exercised their ownership of the land in question in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code and the land reform program that the plaintiff
should be prosecuted for violation of the law. 15
Additionally, but inexplicably, defendants insist that the filing of a motion for the Land Registration Act shall be governed by special laws. Correlatively,
summary judgment is an admission by plaintiff of the prescription of their Act No. 496 provides that no title to registered land in derogation of that of
action because said motion is applicable only in the inferior courts. They then the registered owner shall be acquired by adverse possession. 21
pontificate that only three kinds of actions are available to recover
possession of real property, that is, forcible entry or illegal detainer, accion Consequently, proof of possession by the defendants is both immaterial and
publiciana, and accion de reivindicacion which actions, according to them, inconsequential.
cannot be availed of by the plaintiff because the only issue in all the three
There is nothing either in Presidential Decree No. 2 which may be said to
kinds of actions is possession which the plaintiff allegedly never had from
justify appellants' claim that said decree granted the ownership of said lands
the beginning. 16 The incongruity of their said propositions dictate that they
to them and their successors by title. 22 Apparently, appellants were misled
should be disregarded.
or induced to believe that they acquired the parcels of land in question when
the whole country was declared by the previous regime as a land reform
area.
We are, consequently, convinced that the rendition of the questioned
summary judgment by the trial court is proper and valid. Tested against the ACCORDINGLY, the assailed summary judgment rendered by the trial court
statutory and jurisprudential rules above stated, the very allegations of the is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. This decision is immediately executory.
defendants prove that no valid issue has been tendered by them, They relied
10. REPUBLIC vs. CA, 306 SCRA 81, (1999)
mainly on two points, the alleged invalidity of the title of the plaintiff and
their supposed acquisition of the properties by adverse possession.
Defendants' theses are obviously puerile but they are entitled to the benefit
of clarification.

We note with approval the lower court's patient explanation that, inter alia,
the certificates of title issued in the name of the plaintiff in accordance with
the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) is indefeasible after the expiration
of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Under Section 38
thereof, a petition for review of the decree must be presented within one
year after its entry as described and defined in Section 40 of the same. After
the lapse of one year, the decree of registration becomes incontrovertible 17
and is binding upon and conclusive against all persons whether or not they
were notified of or participated in the registration proceedings. 18 The
certificates of title of appellee corporation were issued more than thirty years
ago: Title No. 31527 was issued on September 11, 1953, while Title No.
31528 (now N-67845) was issued on February 19, 1952,

Even assuming arguendo that said titles may still be challenged, the present
case does not provide the vehicle for that remedy since the judicial action
required is a direct, and not a collateral, attack. 19 In fact, under the existing
law, Section 48 of the Property Registration Decree 20 expressly provides
that a certificate of title cannot be subject to collateral attack and can be
altered, modified or cancelled only in a direct proceeding in accordance with
law.

Appellants' claim of acquisitive prescription is likewise baseless. Under Article

1126 of the Civil Code, prescription of ownership of lands registered under