***
Jurisprudence:
The argument that the land on which the buildings levied upon in execution is necessarily included is, likewise, tenuous (meaning weak, dense and lacking of intelligent understanding of things). Article 415 of the Civil Code provides the explanation.
The Court said:
. . . while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.[40] (emphasis and italics supplied)
In this case, considering that what was sold by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785, which by themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand.
*
The argument that the land on which the buildings levied upon in execution is necessarily included is, likewise, tenuous (meaning weak, dense and lacking of intelligent understanding of things). Article 415 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking them material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are also included;
x x x x x x x x x
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or coast;
x x x x x x x x x.
The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only mean that a building is, by itself, considered immovable.[39] Thus, it has been held that –
. . . while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.[40] (emphasis and italics supplied)
In this case, considering that what was sold by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785, which by themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
===============================================================
Xxx
True, public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish the presumption of their validity. However, their probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties in the controversy, much more so in this case where the contents of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is being contested. No reason has been offered how and why the questioned entry was subsequently intercalated in the copy of the certificate of sale subsequently registered with the Registry of Deeds. Absent any satisfactory explanation as to why said entry was belatedly inserted, the surreptitiousness of its inclusion coupled with the furtive manner of its intercalation casts serious doubt on the authenticity of petitioner’s copy of the Certificate of Sale. Thus, it has been held that while a public document like a notarized deed of sale is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.
=====================================================================
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 156295. September 23, 2003]
MARCELO R. SORIANO, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RICARDO and ROSALINA GALIT, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Petitioner was issued a writ of possession in Civil Case No. 6643[1] for Sum of Money by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, Branch 1. The writ of possession was, however, nullified by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65891[2] because it included a parcel of land which was not among those explicitly enumerated in the Certificate of Sale issued by the Deputy Sheriff, but on which stand the immovables covered by the said Certificate. Petitioner contends that the sale of these immovables necessarily encompasses the land on which they stand.
Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Respondent Ricardo Galit contracted a loan from petitioner Marcelo Soriano, in the total sum of P480,000.00, evidenced by four promissory notes in the amount of P120,000.00 each dated August 2, 1996;[3] August 15, 1996;[4] September 4, 1996[5] and September 14, 1996.[6] This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 569.[7] After he failed to pay his obligation, Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money against him with the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 6643.[8]
Respondents, the Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, failed to file their answer. Hence, upon motion of Marcelo Soriano, the trial court declared the spouses in default and proceeded to receive evidence for petitioner Soriano ex parte.
On July 7, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1 rendered judgment[9] in favor of petitioner Soriano, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering the latter to pay:
1. the plaintiff the amount of P350,000.00 plus 12% interest to be computed from the dates of maturity of the promissory notes until the same are fully paid;
2. the plaintiff P20,000.00, as attorney’s fees; and
3. the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The judgment became final and executory. Accordingly, the trial court issued a writ of execution in due course, by virtue of which, Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles levied on the following real properties of the Galit spouses:
1. A parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. T-569 (Homestead Patent No. 14692) situated in the Bo. of Tapulac, Orani, Bataan. Bounded on the SW, along line 1-2 by Lot No. 3, Cad. 145; containing an area of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY NINE (35,759) SQUARE METERS, more or less x x x;
2. STORE/HOUSE – CONSTRUCTED on Lot No. 1103 made of strong materials G.I. roofing situated at Centro I, Orani, Bataan, x x x containing an area of 30 sq. meters, more or less x x x (constructed on TCT No. T40785);
3. BODEGA – constructed on Lot 1103, made of strong materials, G.I. roofing, situated in Centro I, Orani, Bataan, x x x with a floor area of 42.75 sq. m. more or less x x x.[11]
At the sale of the above-enumerated properties at public auction held on December 23, 1998, petitioner was the highest and only bidder with a bid price of P483,000.00. Accordingly, on February 4, 1999, Deputy Sheriff Robles issued a Certificate of Sale of Execution of Real Property,[12] which reads:
CERTIFICATE OF SALE ON EXECUTION OF REAL PROPERTY
TO ALL WHO MAY SEE THESE PRESENTS:
GREETINGS:
I HEREBY that (sic) by virtue of the writ of execution dated October 16, 1998, issued in the above-entitled case by the HON. BENJAMIN T. VIANZON, ordering the Provincial Sheriff of Bataan or her authorized Deputy Sheriff to cause to be made (sic) the sum of P350,000.00 plus 12% interest to be computed from the date of maturity of the promissory notes until the same are fully paid; P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus legal expenses in the implementation of the writ of execution, the undersigned Deputy Sheriff sold at public auction on December 23, 1998 the rights and interests of defendants Sps. Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, to the plaintiff Marcelo Soriano, the highest and only bidder for the amount of FOUR HNDRED EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND PESOS (P483,000.00, Philippine Currency), the following real estate properties more particularly described as follows :
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-569
A parcel of land (Homestead Patent No. 14692) situated in the Bo. of Tapulac, Orani, Bataan, x x x. Bounded on the SW., along line 1-2 by Lot No. 3, Cad. 145, containing an area of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY NINE (35,759) SQUARE METERS, more or less x x x
TAX DEC. NO. – PROPERTY INDEX NO. 018-09-001-02
STOREHOUSE – constructed on Lot 1103, made of strong materials G.I. roofing situated at Centro I, Orani, Bataan x x x containing an area of 30 sq. meters, more or less x x (constructed on TCT No. 40785)
TAX DEC. NO. 86 – PROPERTY INDEX No. 018-09-001-02
BODEGA – constructed on Lot 1103, made of strong materials G.I. roofing situated in Centro I, Orani, Bataan, x x x with a floor area of 42.75 sq. m. more or less x x x
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED, that the aforesaid highest and lone bidder, Marcelo Soriano, being the plaintiff did not pay to the Provincial Sheriff of Bataan the amount of P483,000.00, the sale price of the above-described property which amount was credited to partial/full satisfaction of the judgment embodied in the writ of execution.
The period of redemption of the above described real properties together with all the improvements thereon will expire One (1) year from and after the registration of this Certificate of Sale with the Register of Deeds.
This Certificate of Sheriff’s Sale is issued to the highest and lone bidder, Marcelo Soriano, under guarantees prescribed by law.
Balanga, Bataan, February 4, 1999.
On April 23, 1999, petitioner caused the registration of the “Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property” with the Registry of Deeds.
The said Certificate of Sale registered with the Register of Deeds includes at the dorsal portion thereof the following entry, not found in the Certificate of Sale on file with Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles:[13]
ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-40785
A parcel of land (Lot No. 1103 of the Cadastral Survey of Orani) , with the improvements thereon, situated in the Municipality of Orani, Bounded on the NE; by Calle P. Gomez; on the E. by Lot No. 1104; on the SE by Calle Washington; and on the W. by Lot 4102, containing an area of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY NINE (139) SQUARE METERS, more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan; bearing true; declination 0 deg. 40’E., date of survey, February 191-March 1920.
On February 23, 2001, ten months from the time the Certificate of Sale on Execution was registered with the Registry of Deeds, petitioner moved[14] for the issuance of a writ of possession. He averred that the one-year period of redemption had elapsed without the respondents having redeemed the properties sold at public auction; thus, the sale of said properties had already become final. He also argued that after the lapse of the redemption period, the titles to the properties should be considered, for all legal intents and purposes, in his name and favor.[15]
On June 4, 2001, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1 granted the motion for issuance of writ of possession.[16] Subsequently, on July 18, 2001, a writ of possession[17] was issued in petitioner’s favor which reads:
WRIT OF POSSESSION
Mr. Renato E. Robles
Deputy Sheriff
RTC, Br. 1, Balanga City
Greetings :
WHEREAS on February 3, 2001, the counsel for plaintiff filed Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Possession;
WHEREAS on June 4, 2001, this court issued an order granting the issuance of the Writ of Possession;
WHEREFORE, you are hereby commanded to place the herein plaintiff Marcelo Soriano in possession of the property involved in this case situated (sic) more particularly described as:
1. STORE HOUSE constructed on Lot No. 1103 situated at Centro 1, Orani, Bataan covered by TCT No. 40785;
2. BODEGA constructed on Lot No. 1103 with an area of 42.75 square meters under Tax Declaration No. 86 situated at Centro 1, Orani, Bataan;
3. Original Certificate of Title No. 40785 with an area of 134 square meters known as Lot No. 1103 of the Cadastral Survey of Orani…
against the mortgagor/former owners Sps. Ricardo and Rosalinda (sic) Galit, her (sic) heirs, successors, assigns and all persons claiming rights and interests adverse to the petitioner and make a return of this writ every thirty (30) days from receipt hereof together with all the proceedings thereon until the same has been fully satisfied.
WITNESS THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN T. VIANZON, Presiding Judge, this 18th day of July 2001, at Balanga City.
(Sgd) GILBERT S. ARGONZA
OIC
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 65891, assailing the inclusion of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785 among the list of real properties in the writ of possession.[18] Respondents argued that said property was not among those sold on execution by Deputy Sheriff Renato E. Robles as reflected in the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Property.
In opposition, petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the petition because respondent spouses failed to move for the reconsideration of the assailed order prior to the filing of the petition. Moreover, the proper remedy against the assailed order of the trial court is an appeal, or a motion to quash the writ of possession.
On May 13, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, on 18 July 2001 is declared NULL and VOID.
In the event that the questioned writ of possession has already been implemented, the Deputy Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, and private respondent Marcelo Soriano are hereby ordered to cause the redelivery of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785 to the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.[19]
Aggrieved, petitioner now comes to this Court maintaining that–
1.) THE SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION OF CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 IS NOT THE PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY OF THE RESPONDENTS IN ASSAILING THE WRIT OF POSSESSION ISSUED BY THE LOWER COURT BUT THERE WERE STILL OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM AND WHICH WERE NOT RESORTED TO LIKE THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR MOTION TO QUASH OR EVEN APPEAL.
2.) THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARAING THE CERTIFICATE OF SALE ON EXECUTION OF REAL PROPERTY AS NULL AND VOID AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE WRIT OF POSSESSION BECAUSE THE SAME IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT WHICH ENJOYS THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND IT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY A MERE STRANGE FEELING THAT SOMETHING IS AMISS ON ITS SURFACE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TYPEWRITTEN WORDS ON THE FRONT PAGE AND AT THE DORSAL PORTION THEREOF IS DIFFERENT OR THAT IT IS UNLIKELY FOR THE SHERIFF TO USE THE DORSAL PORTION OF THE FIRST PAGE BECAUSE THE SECOND PAGE IS MERELY HALF FILLED AND THE NOTATION ON THE DORSAL PORTION COULD STILL BE MADE AT THE SECOND PAGE.
On the first ground, petitioner contends that respondents were not without remedy before the trial court. He points out that respondents could have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order dated June 4, 1999, but they did not do so. Respondents could also have filed an appeal but they, likewise, did not do so. When the writ of possession was issued, respondents could have filed a motion to quash the writ. Again they did not. Respondents cannot now avail of the special civil action for certiorari as a substitute for these remedies. They should suffer the consequences for sleeping on their rights.
We disagree.
Concededly, those who seek to avail of the procedural remedies provided by the rules must adhere to the requirements thereof, failing which the right to do so is lost. It is, however, equally settled that the Rules of Court seek to eliminate undue reliance on technical rules and to make litigation as inexpensive as practicable and as convenient as can be done.[20] This is in accordance with the primary purpose of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as provided in Rule 1, Section 6, which reads:
Section 6. Construction. – These rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.[21]
The rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense and are used only to help secure substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim would be defeated.[22] They should be liberally construed so that litigants can have ample opportunity to prove their claims and thus prevent a denial of justice due to technicalities.[23] Thus, in China Banking Corporation v. Members of the Board of Trustees of Home Development Mutual Fund,[24] it was held:
…while certiorari as a remedy may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, especially for a lost appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious.[25] It has been said that where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.[26] (Emphasis ours)
Indeed, well-known is the rule that departures from procedure may be forgiven where they do not appear to have impaired the substantial rights of the parties.[27] Apropos in this regard is Cometa v. CA,[28] where we said that –
There is no question that petitioners were remiss in attending with dispatch to the protection of their interests as regards the subject lots, and for that reason the case in the lower court was dismissed on a technicality and no definitive pronouncement on the inadequacy of the price paid for the levied properties was ever made. In this regard, it bears stressing that procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantive rights as in this case. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except when only for the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.[29] (emphasis and italics supplied.)
In short, since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.[30] Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[31]
Eschewing, therefore, the procedural objections raised by petitioner, it behooves us to address the issue of whether or not the questioned writ of possession is in fact a nullity considering that it includes real property not expressly mentioned in the Certificate of Sale of Real Property.
Petitioner, in sum, dwells on the general proposition that since the certificate of sale is a public document, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and all entries therein are presumed to be done in the performance of regular functions.
The argument is not persuasive.
There are actually two (2) copies of the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Properties issued on February 4, 1999 involved, namely: (a) copy which is on file with the deputy sheriff; and (b) copy registered with the Registry of Deeds. The object of scrutiny, however, is not the copy of the Certificate of Sale on Execution of Real Properties issued by the deputy sheriff on February 4, 1999,[32] but the copy thereof subsequently registered by petitioner with the Registry of Deeds on April 23, 1999,[33] which included an entry on the dorsal portion of the first page thereof describing a parcel of land covered by OCT No. T-40785 not found in the Certificate of Sale of Real Properties on file with the sheriff.
True, public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish the presumption of their validity. However, their probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with other evidence adduced by the parties in the controversy, much more so in this case where the contents of a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is being contested. No reason has been offered how and why the questioned entry was subsequently intercalated in the copy of the certificate of sale subsequently registered with the Registry of Deeds. Absent any satisfactory explanation as to why said entry was belatedly inserted, the surreptitiousness of its inclusion coupled with the furtive manner of its intercalation casts serious doubt on the authenticity of petitioner’s copy of the Certificate of Sale. Thus, it has been held that while a public document like a notarized deed of sale is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.[34]
It must be pointed out in this regard that the issuance of a Certificate of Sale is an end result of judicial foreclosure where statutory requirements are strictly adhered to; where even the slightest deviations therefrom will invalidate the proceeding[35] and the sale.[36] Among these requirements is an explicit enumeration and correct description of what properties are to be sold stated in the notice. The stringence in the observance of these requirements is such that an incorrect title number together with a correct technical description of the property to be sold and vice versa is deemed a substantial and fatal error which results in the invalidation of the sale.[37]
The certificate of sale is an accurate record of what properties were actually sold to satisfy the debt. The strictness in the observance of accuracy and correctness in the description of the properties renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. Thus, subsequently including properties which have not been explicitly mentioned therein for registration purposes under suspicious circumstances smacks of fraud. The explanation that the land on which the properties sold is necessarily included and, hence, was belatedly typed on the dorsal portion of the copy of the certificate subsequently registered is at best a lame excuse unworthy of belief.
The appellate court correctly observed that there was a marked difference in the appearance of the typewritten words appearing on the first page of the copy of the Certificate of Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds[38] and those appearing at the dorsal portion thereof. Underscoring the irregularity of the intercalation is the clearly devious attempt to let such an insertion pass unnoticed by typing the same at the back of the first page instead of on the second page which was merely half-filled and could accommodate the entry with room to spare.
The argument that the land on which the buildings levied upon in execution is necessarily included is, likewise, tenuous. Article 415 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.
x x x x x x x x x
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking them material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are also included;
x x x x x x x x x
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or coast;
x x x x x x x x x.
The foregoing provision of the Civil Code enumerates land and buildings separately. This can only mean that a building is, by itself, considered immovable.[39] Thus, it has been held that –
. . . while it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land.[40] (emphasis and italics supplied)
In this case, considering that what was sold by virtue of the writ of execution issued by the trial court was merely the storehouse and bodega constructed on the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-40785, which by themselves are real properties of respondents spouses, the same should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they stand.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 13, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 65891, which declared the writ of possession issued by the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1, on July 18, 2001, null and void, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on leave.
[1] Entitled Marcelo R. Soriano v. Spouses Ricardo L. Galit and Rosalina Galvez.
[2] Entitled Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit v. Hon. Benjamin Vianzon, Marcelo Soriano, et al.
[3] Record, p. 16.
[4] Id., p. 21.
[5] Id., p. 26.
[6] Id., p. 32.
[7] Id., p. 20.
[8] Id., p. 9.
[9] Id., pp. 37-40.
[10] Id., p. 40.
[11] Id., pp. 41-42.
[12] Id.
[13] Id., pp. 43-44.
[14] Id., p. 13.
[15] Id., p. 14.
[16] Id., p. 12.
[17] Id., p. 15.
[18] Entitled Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit v. Hon. Benjamin T. Vianzon, Marcelo Soriano, et al.
[19] Rollo, p. 37; penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. Tria-Tirona; concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Rodrigo V. Cosico.
[20] Francisco V.J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. I, 1973 ed., pp. 155-156, citing an article of Professor Sunderland in the University of Cincinnati.
[21] See Casil v. CA, G.R. No. 121534, 28 January 1998, 285 SCRA 264.
[22] Director of Lands v. CA, 363 Phil. 117 [1999].
[23] Cometa v. CA, 361 Phil. 383 [1999].
[24] 366 Phil. 913 (1999).
[25] De la Paz v. Panis, 315 Phil.238 [1995]; Vasquez v. Hobilla-Alinio, 337 Phil. 517 [1997].
[26] Nerves v. CSC, 342 Phil. 578 [1997].
[27] Mercader v. DBP (Cebu Branch), 387 Phil. 283 [2000].
[28] G.R. No. 141855, 6 February 2001, 351 SCRA 294, 306.
[29] Citing Limpot v. CA, G.R. No. 44642, 20 February 1989, 170 SCRA 367.
[30] RCPI v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 101181-84, 22 June 1992, 210 SCRA 222.
[31] Casa Filipina Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, 311 Phil. 170 [1995], citing Rapid Manpower Consultants, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 88683, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 747.
[32] Rollo, pp. 41-42.
[33] Id., pp. 43-44.
[34] Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 138842, 18 October 2000, 343 SCRA 637, 652.
[35] Tambunting v. CA, G.R. No. L-48278, 8 November 1988, 167 SCRA 16.
[36] Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 100480, 11 May 1993, 221 SCRA 729.
[37] San Jose v. CA, G.R. No. 106953, 19 August 1993, 225 SCRA 450, 545.
[38] Rollo, pp. 43-44.
[39] Lopez v. Orosa, G.R. No. L-10817-18, 28 February 1958; Associated Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. v. Isabel Iya, G.R. No. L-10837-38, 30 May 1958.
[40] Prudential Bank v. Panis, G.R. No. L-50008, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 390, 396, citing Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644 [1918].
*****
- how a house constructed by the lessee of the land on which it is built be treated under the law.
- A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the land belonging to another.
====
In Cruz vs. Cabana, the SC said that transactions registered under Act No. 3344 cannot defeat a third person with a better right. Of course[,] the law does not define exactly what may be considered a better right, leaving the matter of its construction to the courts. The main reason for the difference in the operation of Act No. 3344 compared with the other systems of registration lies obviously in the fact that recordings under said Act No. 3344 are not preceded by any investigation, judicial or administrative, as to the validity or efficacy of the title sought to be recorded. (G.R. No. 171535, June 5, 2009)
=============================
That the City Government of Lipa tax-declared the property and its improvements in its name cannot defeat the Mendozas’ title. This Court has allowed tax declarations to stand as proof of ownership only in the absence of a certificate of title.[20] Otherwise, they have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership.[21]
(G.R. No. 185091, August 8, 2010 , REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DIVISION OF LIPA CITY (FOR PANINSINGIN PRIMARY SCHOOL vs. PRIMO MENDOZA and MARIA LUCERO)
==============================
Radiowealth Finance Co. v. Palileo25 explained the difference in the rules of registration under Act 3344 and those under the Torrens system in this wise:
“Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a better right.’ The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. (G.R. No. 154409 June 21, 2004)
=============================
In this regard, well-settled is the rule that registration of instruments must be done in the proper registry in order to effect and bind the land. Prior to the Property Registration Decree of 1978, Act No. 496 (or the Land Registration Act) governed the recording of transactions involving registered land, i.e., land with a Torrens title. On the other hand, Act No. 3344, as amended, provided for the system of recording of transactions over unregistered real estate without prejudice to a third party with a better right. Accordingly, if a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title is sold, but the sale is registered under Act No. 3344 and not under the Land Registration Act, the sale is not considered registered and the registration of the deed does not operate as constructive notice to the whole world.
(MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, versus SPOUSES EDITO and MERIAN TIROL and SPOUSES ALEJANDRO and MIRANDA NGO)
============================
REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS DEALING WITH UNREGISTERED LAND
> All instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 until the land shall have been brought under the operation of the Torrens system
RECORDING OF MINISTERIAL OFFICERS
> Opening paragraph in substance declares that no instrument or deed affecting rights to real property not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid except as between the persons thereto, until such instrument or deed shall have been registered in the manner prescribed therein
> This provision cannot be interpreted to include conveyances made by ministerial officers, such as sheriff’s deeds
> It contemplates only instruments as may be created through agreement between parties
RECORDING SHALL BE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A THIRD PERSON WITH BETTER RIGHT RECORDING OF RD MINISTERIAL
> Register of Deeds doesn’t exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial power in the registration of sheriff’s deeds or certificates of sale
> If the Register of Deeds refuses to register the instrument, he shall advise the party in interest in writing of the grounds for his refusal, and the latter may elevate the matter to the Administrator en consulta
HOW RECORDING IS EFFECTED
> The Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry book and a registration book
> The primary entry book shall contain an entry number, names of parties, nature of the document, and the date, hour and minute it was presented
> The recording shall be effected by annotating on the registration book after the same shall have been entered in the primary entry book
Ø After recording, the Register of Deeds shall endorse on the original of the instrument the file number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the instrument is received, returning to the registrant the duplicate of the instrument with a certification that he has recorded the same
DUTY OF REGISTER OF DEEDS TO REGISTER DOCUMENT PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IS MINISTERIAL
MATTERS SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COURTS FOR DETERMINATION
> The powers of the RD are generally regarded as ministerial only and said officer has no power to pass upon the legality of an order issued by a court of justice
> Whether the document presented for registration is invalid, frivolous or intended to harass, is not the duty of the RD to decide but a court of competent jurisdiction
> The question of whether or not a conveyance was made to defraud creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination of the proper court
=====================
n Consulta No. 2887, citing Consulta No. 1302, this Authority held that:
” There are two systems of registration prevailing in our jurisdiction. One is the Torrens System of registration for registered land under Presidential Decree No. 1529, and the other is the system of registration for unregistered land under Act No. 3344 (now Sec. 113 of P.D. 1529). These systems of registration are separate and distinct from each other in scope and subject matter. Thus, registration under P.D. 1529 refers to the titled lands, while registration under Act No. 3344 concerns unregistered lands. Documents involving registered lands should be recorded only under P.D. 1529. The registration therefore of an instrument under the wrong system of registration produces no legal effect.”
All the documents recorded and issued by the Register of Deeds, Capiz, which include the transfer certificate of title issued in the name of Lee Liong, were all destroyed during the war. The fact that the original of the transfer certificate of title was not in the files of the Office of the Register of Deeds did not imply that a transfer certificate of title had not been issued
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 128195. October 3, 2001]
ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YU LEE, HON. JUDGE JOSE D. ALOVERA,* Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Roxas City, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ROXAS CITY, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, * respondents .
D E C I S I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case under consideration is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision [1 of the Court of Appeals nullifying that of the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, in Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, [2 pertaining to Lot 398, Capiz Cadastre, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389.
Sometime in March 1936, Rafael, Carmen, Francisco, Jr., Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Manuel, Rizal and Jimmy, all surnamed Dinglasan sold to Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, a parcel of land with an approximate area of 1,631 square meters, designated as Lot 398 and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389, situated at the corner of Roxas Avenue and Pavia Street, Roxas City. [3
However, in 1948, the former owners filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action against the heirs of Lee Liong for annulment of sale and recovery of land. [4 The plaintiffs assailed the validity of the sale because of the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring ownership of private agricultural land, including residential, commercial or industrial land. Rebuffed in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 27, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled thus:
granting the sale to be null and void and can not give title to the vendee, it does not necessarily follow therefrom that the title remained in the vendor, who had also violated the constitutional prohibition, or that he (vendor) has the right to recover the title of which he has divested himself by his act in ignoring the prohibition. In such contingency another principle of law sets in to bar the equally guilty vendor from recovering the title which he had voluntarily conveyed for a consideration, that of pari delicto.[5
On July 1, 1968, the same former owners Rafael A. Dinglasan, together with Francisco, Carmen, Ramon, Lourdes, Mercedes, Concepcion, Mariano, Jose, Loreto, Rizal, Jimmy, and Jesse Dinglasan filed with the Court of First Instance, Capiz an action for recovery of the same parcel of land. [6 Citing the case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Lui She,[7 they submitted that the sale to Lee Liong was null and void for being violative of the Constitution. On September 23, 1968, the heirs of Lee Liong filed with the trial court a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of res judicata.[8 On October 10, 1968, and November 9, 1968, the trial court denied the motion. [9 The heirs of Lee Liong elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari. On April 22, 1977, the Supreme Court annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it to dismiss the case, holding that the suit was barred by res judicata. [10
On September 7, 1993, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City a petition for reconstitution of title of Lot No. 398 of the Capiz Cadastre, formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 3389 of the Register of Deeds of Roxas City. [11 Petitioners alleged that they were the widows of the deceased Lee Bing Hoo and Lee Bun Ting, who were the heirs of Lee Liong, the owner of the lot. Lee Liong died intestate in February 1944. On June 30, 1947, Lee Liongs widow, Ang Chia, and his two sons, Lee Bun Ting and Lee Bing Ho, executed an extra-judicial settlement of the estate of Lee Liong, adjudicating to themselves the subject parcel of land. [12 Petitioner Elizabeth Lee acquired her share in Lot No. 398 through an extra-judicial settlement and donation executed in her favor by her deceased husband Lee Bing Hoo. Petitioner Pacita Yu Lee acquired her share in the same lot by succession from her deceased husband Lee Bun Ting, as evidenced by a deed of extra-judicial settlement. [13
Previously, on December 9, 1948, the Register of Deeds, Capiz, Salvador Villaluz, issued a certification that a transfer certificate of title over the property was issued in the name of Lee Liong. [14 However, the records of the Register of Deeds, Roxas City were burned during the war. Thus, as heretofore stated, on September 7, 1968, petitioners filed a petition for reconstitution of title.
On June 10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17, ordered the reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong on the basis of an approved plan and technical description. [15The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision reads thus:
WHEREFORE, in reiteration, the Register of Deeds for the City of Roxas is ordered to reconstitute the lost or destroyed certificate of title in the name of Lee Liong, deceased, of Roxas City, with all the conditions stated in paragraph 2 of this decision. This decision shall become final after the lapse of thirty (30) days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of LRA of a notice of such judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials.
SO ORDERED.
Given at Roxas City, Philippines,
June 10, 1994.
JOSE O. ALOVERA
Judge[16
On August 18, 1994, the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17 issued an Entry of Judgment. [17
On January 25, 1995, the Solicitor General filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of judgment in Reconstitution Case No. 1928, alleging that the Regional Trial Court, Roxas City had no jurisdiction over the case.[18 The Solicitor General contended that the petitioners were not the proper parties in the reconstitution of title, since their predecessor-in-interest Lee Liong did not acquire title to the lot because he was a Chinese citizen and was constitutionally not qualified to own the subject land.
On April 30, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision declaring the judgment of reconstitution void. [19
On May 24, 1996, Elizabeth Manuel-Lee and Pacita Yu Lee filed with the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision. [20 On February 18, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the motion. [21
Hence, this petition. [22
Petitioners submitted that the Solicitor General was estopped from seeking annulment of the judgment of reconstitution after failing to object during the reconstitution proceedings before the trial court, despite due notice. Petitioners alleged that the Solicitor General merely acted on the request of private and politically powerful individuals who wished to capitalize on the prime location of the subject land.
Petitioners emphasized that the ownership of the land had been settled in two previous cases of the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled in favor of their predecessor-in-interest, Lee Liong. Petitioners also pointed out that they acquired ownership of the land through actual possession of the lot and their consistent payment of taxes over the land for more than sixty years.
On the other hand, the Solicitor General submitted that the decision in the reconstitution case was void; otherwise, it would amount to circumventing the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring ownership of private or public agricultural lands.
We grant the petition.
The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed instrument attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. [23 The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction occurred. [24
In this case, petitioners sought a reconstitution of title in the name of Lee Liong, alleging that the transfer certificate of title issued to him was lost or destroyed during World War II. All the documents recorded and issued by the Register of Deeds, Capiz, which include the transfer certificate of title issued in the name of Lee Liong, were all destroyed during the war. The fact that the original of the transfer certificate of title was not in the files of the Office of the Register of Deeds did not imply that a transfer certificate of title had not been issued. [25 In the trial court proceedings, petitioners presented evidence proving the sale of the land from the Dinglasans to Lee Liong and the latters subsequent possession of the property in the concept of owner. Thus, the trial court, after examining all the evidence before it, ordered the reconstitution of title in the name of Lee Liong.
However, there is a question as to whether Lee Liong has the qualification to own land in the Philippines.
The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, [26 aliens could not acquire private agricultural lands, save in cases of hereditary succession. [27 Thus, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in question. [28
The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not validate the transaction, for it was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring lands of the public or private domain. However, the proper party to assail the illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction. [29 In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being thus in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party. [30 The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this case when the Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action. Prescription never lies against the State. [31
Although ownership of the land cannot revert to the original sellers, because of the doctrine of pari delicto, the Solicitor General may initiate an action for reversion or escheat of the land to the State, subject to other defenses, as hereafter set forth. [32
In this case, subsequent circumstances militate against escheat proceedings because the land is now in the hands of Filipinos. The original vendee, Lee Liong, has since died and the land has been inherited by his heirs and subsequently their heirs, petitioners herein. Petitioners are Filipino citizens, a fact the Solicitor General does not dispute.
The constitutional proscription on alien ownership of lands of the public or private domain was intended to protect lands from falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. In this case, however, there would be no more public policy violated since the land is in the hands of Filipinos qualified to acquire and own such land. If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid. [33 Thus, the subsequent transfer of the property to qualified Filipinos may no longer be impugned on the basis of the invalidity of the initial transfer. [34 The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
Incidentally, it must be mentioned that reconstitution of the original certificate of title must be based on an owners duplicate, secondary evidence thereof, or other valid sources of the title to be reconstituted. [35 In this case, reconstitution was based on the plan and technical description approved by the Land Registration Authority. [36 This renders the order of reconstitution void for lack of factual support. [37 A judgment with absolutely nothing to support it is void. [38
As earlier mentioned, a reconstitution of title is the re-issuance of a new certificate of title lost or destroyed in its original form and condition. [39 It does not pass upon the ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. [40 Any change in the ownership of the property must be the subject of a separate suit. [41 Thus, although petitioners are in possession of the land, a separate proceeding is necessary to thresh out the issue of ownership of the land.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 36274. In lieu thereof, the Court sets aside the order of reconstitution of title in Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, and dismisses the petition, without prejudice.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Kapunan, J., on official leave.
Endnotes:
* Neither the judge nor the Court of Appeals is a proper party as petitioner or respondent (Rule 45, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Court).
* Neither the judge nor the Court of Appeals is a proper party as petitioner or respondent (Rule 45, Sec. 4, Revised Rules of Court).
[1 In CA-G. R. SP No. 36274, promulgated on April 30, 1996. Salas, J., ponente, Caizares-Nye and Carpio-Morales,JJ., concurring.
[2 Dated June 10, 1994.
[3 Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, 99 Phil. 427, 429 [1956].
[4 Ibid., at p. 432.
[5 Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, supra, Note 3, p. 431.
[6 Civil Case No. V-3064.
[7 21 SCRA 52 [1967].
[8 Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen, 76 SCRA 416, 420 [1977].
[9 Ibid., at pp. 421-422.
[10 Ibid., at p. 425.
[11 Comment, Rollo, pp. 148-160, at p. 149; Memorandum, Solicitor General, Rollo, pp. 199-211, at p. 199-200.
[12 CA Decision, Rollo, p. 82.
[13 Ibid.
[14 Petition, Annex E (Annex 2), Rollo, p. 66.
[15 In Reconstitution Case No. R-1928, Regional Trial Court, Roxas City, Branch 17, Judge Jose O. Alovera, presiding.
[16 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[17 Petition, Annex B, Rollo, p. 38.
[18 Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 36274. CA Rollo, pp. 1-11. On February 17, 1995, the Republic filed an amended complaint, impleading the Administrator, Land Registration Authority, as plaintiff (Docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 36517, CA Rollo, pp. 57-65).
[19 CA Decision, CA Rollo, pp. 148-157.
[20 Petition, Annex H, Rollo, pp. 90-100.
[21 Rollo, p. 117.
[22 Filed on April 3, 1997, Rollo, pp. 12-35. On July 12, 1999, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 182-183). The case was considered submitted for decision on December 13, 1999 upon the filing of petitioners memorandum (Rollo, pp. 216-226).
[23 Republic v. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 110, 118 [1999]; Rivera v. Court of Appeals, 314 Phil. 57 [1995].
[24 Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 23; Heirs of Pinote v. Dulay, 187 SCRA 12, 19-20 [1990].
[25 Alipoon v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 591, 597 [1999].
[26 Article XIII, Section 5, 1935 Constitution.
[27 Krivenko v. Register of Deeds, 79 Phil. 461 [1947]; Halili v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 906, 914-915 [1998].
[28 Ong Ching Po v. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 341, 346 [1994].
[29 Lee Bun Ting v. Aligaen, supra, Note 8. Dinglasan v. Lee Bun Ting, supra, Note 3.
[30 Vasquez v. Li Seng Giap, 96 Phil. 447, 451 [1955].
[31 Republic v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 95533, November 20, 2000, citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 606, 624 (1998); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 721, 734 (1989); de la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 898, 905 [1998].
[32 Rellosa v. Gaw Chee Hun, 93 Phil. 827 [1953].
[33 United Church Board of World Ministries v. Sebastian, 159 SCRA 446, 451-452 [1988].
[34 Halili v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 27, at p. 917.
[35 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 7 [2000].
[36 Petition, Annex A, Rollo, pp. 36-37.
[37 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 35.
[38 Yangco v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 29 Phil. 183, 191 [1915].
[39 Heirs of Eulalio Ragua v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 35, at p. 23 [2000], citing Strait Times Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 356 Phil. 217, 230 [1998]; Stilianopulos v. The City of Legaspi, 316 SCRA 523, 538 [1999].
[40 Strait Times Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra, Note 39.
[41 Bunagan v. CFI of Cebu, Branch VI, 97 SCRA 72, 76 [1980].
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45192 April 10, 1939
Sumulong, Lavides and Sumulong for appellant.
Vicente J. Francisco for appellee.
LAUREL, J.:
On January 21, 1936, the spouses Francisco Vicuña and Maxima Caballes made an absolute sale of three parcels of land, covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. 13395, 13396, and 13397, in favor of Domingo Cabantog for the sum of P2,500. The deed of sale was presented for registration, and the senior clerk in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna, in the absence of the latter official, made a notation thereon to the effect that the same was presented at 12.15 o’clock on January 25, 1936, as per entry number 18624, vol. II of the day book. On his return to duty on January 27, 1936, the register of deeds had the aforesaid notation cancelled and substituted by the following:
18624. — The inscription of the proceeding deed of sale is hereby suspended until after the resolution to be rendered by the Supreme Court on the appeal intended to be presented by Maxima Caballes against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Civil Case No. 6600 instituted by Apolonia Coronado et al. vs. Maxima Caballes et al., in which the latter has been condemned to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P1,000,000 (should be P100,000).
The undersigned is of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decisions may be effective due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in a case after same have been handled down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations.
Pending the appeal of Maxima Caballes to this court from the decision in civil case No. 6600 sentencing her to pay Apolonia Coronado the sum of P100,000, the latter secured an attachment of the three parcels of land sold by Maxima Caballes to Domingo Cabantog, which attachment was entered in the day book of the register of deeds of Laguna on January 27, 1936. Against the refusal of the register of deeds to register the deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog, his counsel elevated a consulta to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, through the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, requesting answer to the following:
QUESTIONS
1. Is it not the ministerial duty of the register of deeds of Laguna, upon presentation to him of the absolute deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog of the three (3) parcels of land in question, with the corresponding owners’ duplicate certificates of title, to register said deed of sale, cancel said outstanding certificates in the name of the vendors, and prepare and issue the proper transfer certificates of title in the name of the vendee, the proper registration fees having been tendered and accepted and there being no judicial order suspending such action?
2. Does the register of deeds of Laguna have the authority to deny issuance of the proper transfer certificates of title in favor of the vendee on the ground alleged by him that, “it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decision may be effective (or ineffective) due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in case after same have been handed down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations’, or should the register of deeds leave this question to the determination of the proper court in case the same is submitted to it for determination by any interested party?
A copy of the consulta having been served on the register of deeds, the latter filed his answer thereto justifying his action upon the following grounds, among others:
La resolucion del que suscribe al suspender la inscripcion de la escritura de venta otorgada por Maxima Caballes a favor del recurrente Domingo Cabantog y la negativa del mismo a expedir nuevos certificados de titulo libre de gravamen a favor del comprador Domingo Cabantog, se basa en que dicha escritura de venta es un traspaso hecho en fraude de la acreedora Apolonia Coronado, demandante en la Causa Civil No. 6600 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Laguna, en la cual la vendedora Maxima Caballes ha sido condenada a pagar a dicha Apolonia Coronado la suma de P100,000. En apoyo de esta afirmacion, se hace constar que la sentencia dictada en contra de dicha vendedora esta fechada el 14 de diciembre de 1935, mientras que la venta de que aqui se trata y cuya inscripcion se pide por Domingo Cabantog ha sido otorgada por Maxima Caballes el 21 de enero de 1936, o sea, mas de un mes despues de haber recaido el pronunciamiento judicial de condena. Se hace constar igualmente que el valor de todos los bienes inmuebles registrados a nombre de Maxima Caballes no puede llegar a cubrir la mitad siquiera del importe de la sentencia dictada contra ella, pues los mismos apenas si valen P30,000 vendiendolos al precio corriente.
El que suscribe cree sinceramente que es su deber denegar o al menos suspender la inscripcion de traspasos fraudulentos, sobre todo cuando como en el presente caso le consta a el personalmente que hay un pronunciamiento judicial condenatorio previo al otorgamiento de la escritura cuya inscripcion se pide, mientras tanto o hasta que un tribunal competente pueda decidir la naturaleza verdadera de dicho traspaso. Este es un paso prudente que evita no solamente el perjuicio que se puede irrogar a los acreedores del vendedor sino tambien al gobierno por los litigios que puedan entablar terceras personas que aleguen despues ser compradores inocentes. Se evita asi mismo el que una sentencia judicial quede ineficaz por actos imprudentes y precipitados sometidos por un Registrador de Titulos en la inscripcion de documentos de dudosa legalidad.
The case came up to the oral hearing, at which attorney Vicente J. Francisco for Domingo Cabantog, Fiscal Villanueva for the register of deeds, and Attorney Lorenzo Sumulong for Apolonia Coronado extensively argued their respective sides of the controversy. After hearing, the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, His Honor, Judge Montemayor presiding, entered a resolution setting out the controlling facts and closing with the following conclusion:
After carefully studying the case, the court agrees with Attorney Francisco and Fiscal Villanueva that, without considering the merits of the contention of Apolonia Coronado as to the alleged fraud in the transfer of the three parcels of land, strictly as a matter of procedure, the register of deeds should have given due course to the registration of the deed of sale in favor of Cabantog. Without doubting the good faith of the register of deeds and even commending his civic spirit and his desire to help the courts, it is believed that in the present case the law did not expect, much less require him to make use of his personal knowledge of the facts or of what he believed to be the intention of the parties, in the performance of his official duties as register of deeds, namely the registration of instruments presented to him for recording. The parties interested are supposed and expected by the law to take the steps necessary to protect their own interests and take the necessary precautions. The undersigned does not understand why long before the deed of sale presented for registration, and even pending trial of civil case No. 6600, Apolonia did not take the steps necessary to protect her interests and insure the satisfaction of the judgment which she expected from the court. Again, if the defendant Maxima Caballes received copy of the decision in civil case No. 6600 on January 17, 1936, it is reasonable to presume that Apolonia Coronado must have received copy of the same about the same time, if not earlier, and yet we find that attachment of the three parcels of land was not presented for recording or registration with the register of deeds until January 27, 1936, that is, two days after the presentation of deed of sale. Moreover, there is no evidence to show, as far as the present consulta is concerned, that Maxima Caballes is now insolvent and that the deed of sale under consideration was really made in fraud of creditors. There is no showing either that by authorizing and directing the register of deeds to admit the deed of sale of registration in his office, Apolonia would be losing and be deprived of all under her remedies against the said parcels of land. It should also be borne in mind that civil case No. 6600 of the Court of First Instance is now pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, this court rules that the register of deeds of the Province of Laguna should have registered the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. It should be understood, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to any action that may be taken be Apolonia Coronado in the proper court to guide or control the action of the register of deeds with respect to the deed in question. Furthermore, this ruling does not in any manner touch upon the nature, propriety or validity of the transfer of the three parcels of land to Cabantog.
Apolonia Coronado moved for reconsideration but was unsuccessful, and has appealed from the foregoing resolution of the lower court, assigning various errors specified in her brief.
Consolidating the several errors assigned, the present appeal calls for a determination of the nature of the function of a register of deeds with reference to the registration of a deed of sale of a registered land. Is that function ministerial or discretional under the law? Section 57 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496) provides:
SEC. 57. An owner desiring to convey in fee his registered land or any portion thereof shall execute a deed of conveyance, which the grantor or grantee may present to the register of deeds in the province where the land lies. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be produced and presented at the fame time. The register of deeds shall thereupon, in accordance with the rules and instructions of the court, make out in the registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee, and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s duplicate certificate. The register of deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to last prior certificate. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be surrendered, and the word “canceled” stamped upon it. The original certificate shall also be stamped `canceled’. The deed of conveyance shall be filed and endorsed with the number and place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed.
According to this provision of the law, upon presentation of a deed of conveyance of a registered land, together with the grantor’s duplicate certificate, the register of deeds shall (1) make out in the registration book new certificate of title; (2) prepare and deliver to the grantee an owner’s duplicate certificate of title; (3) note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to the last prior certificate; (4) require the surrender of the grantor’s duplicate certificate for purposes of cancellation; (5) cancel likewise the original certificate and (6) file and endorse in the manner required the deed of conveyance presented for registration. The duties enjoined upon the register of deed by the aforecited section of the Land Registration Act are clearly ministerial and mandatory in character not only as is indicated by the auxiliary “shall” but by the nature of such functions required to be performed by him. Upon the other hand, section 193 of the Administrative Code, in referring to the “general functions of register of deeds” provides that “it is the duty of a register of deeds to record in proper form all instruments relative to such lands, the recording whereof shall be required or allowed by law.” We have not overlooked reference to the case of Debrunner vs. Jaramillo (12 Phil., 316), in which it was said that the duties of a registrar of property when he is acting under the Mortgage Law, are to a large extent judicial, as indicated in articles 18, 100 and 101 et seq. of that law, and to the case of Betco vs. La Flor de Intal (43 Phil., 517), where it was said that “registers of deeds perform both functions of an administrative character and functions which are at least of a quasi-judicial nature.” Notwithstanding divergence of facts between these cases and the present case, we have given weight to what seem are logical inferences of counsel for the appellant in the application of general principles, but we find that as plausible an argument to the contrary may be found in Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo (44 Phil., 630); and Garcia Sanchez vs. Rosauro (40 Phil., 231); and Williams vs. Suñer (49 Phil., 534) with the same divergence of facts and the laws involved.
Limiting ourselves to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds of Laguna under the law to register the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. If the register of deed is on doubt as to the propriety of recording any given instrument, section 200 of the Administrative Code provides the procedure to be followed:
SEC. 200. Reference of doubtful matter to judge of fourth branch of Court of First Instance at Manila. — Where the register of deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instruments presented for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the register of deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be referred to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District either on the certificate of the register of deeds stating the question upon which he is in doubt or upon the suggestion in writing of the party in interest; and thereupon said judge, upon consideration of the matter as shown by the record certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made.
The question of whether or not the conveyance was made for defraud creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination by the proper court. There is as much danger in giving this authority to the register of deeds without judicial intervention as there would be injustice in the suggested frustration of a judicial victory for Apolonia Coronado.
The resolution of the lower court is confirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
|
TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
- versus -
|
G.R. No. 150462
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
|
|
LUIS FAJARDO AND
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY,
Respondents.
|
Promulgated:
June 15, 2011
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
x x x.
In Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite[1][38] we held that if two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. Citing our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals[2][39] we declared:
x x x where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of title, x x x, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.[3][40]
From the recitals in the transfer certificates of title respectively held by petitioner and private respondent, as well as the records of the LRA, there appears not just one but two different original certificates. TCT No. T-8129 on its face shows that the land covered was originally registered as OCT No. 5678 under Decree No. N-111862 (Velasquez), while TCT No. T-27380 indicates the original registration as OCT No. 9587 under Decree No. N-141990 (Gregorio). Both the LRC and CA found TCT No. 107729 and its derivative titles TCT Nos. 4635 and T-8129 as void and inexistent since OCT No. 5678 in the name of Velasquez had been nullified under the order for execution of the final judgment in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416 in which Gregorio prevailed. Consequently, the lower courts upheld the title of private respondent which alone can be traced to the original certificate in the name of Emilio Gregorio (OCT No. 9578).
Petitioner, however, asserts that the entries in his TCT contain errors and insists that TCT Nos. 107729, 4635 and T-8129 actually emanated from the application for registration of Emilio Gregorio in LRC Case No. N-5053, LRC Record No. N-27523 pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial Court in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416, as in fact TCT No. 107729 were issued along with TCT Nos. 107727 and 107728 covering two other lots also in the name of the Heirs of Emilio Gregorio by way of implementing the final judgment of said court in the case between Gregorio and Velasquez, as affirmed by the CA and this Court.
We disagree.
TCT No. 107729 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio issued on April 29, 1986, on its face showed badges of irregularity in its issuance. First, the technical description stated that it covers a portion of Lot 1, plan Psu-204785, LRC Case No. N-5416 instead of N-5053. Second, the decree number and date of issuance, as well as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to Velasquez and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in the original certificate is not Velasquez or Gregorio but “Delta Motor Corp.” And fourth, the certificate from which TCT No. 107729 was supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein. The annotations regarding the supposed original registration of TCT No. 107729 read as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 12th day of December in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal Volume A-69 page 78 as Original Certificate of Title No. 5678 pursuant to Decree No. N-111862 issued in L.R.C. _____________ Record No. N-28735 Case No. N-5416 in the name of Delta Motor Corp. .
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27737/A/T-145-A S-8722/T-41 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.[4][41] (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing errors are not mere typographical as petitioner claims, but serious discrepancies in the registration process. In fact, it is not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to one and the same lot adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to petitioner. The heirs of Gregorio knew that their TCT No. S-91911 bore encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending litigation (Lis Pendens) involving the property covered by said title before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 35305, which Trinidad caused to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly identical entries as that of TCT No. S-91911 (as to its original registration) would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be carried over to such new certificate. Strangely, it is TCT No. 107729 which RD Alejandro R.Villanueva upheld in his February 5, 1989 Report notwithstanding its later issuance and the glaring errors in the entries of its original registration. It must be stressed that OCT No. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680 and its derivative titles were ordered cancelled precisely because they were issued pursuant to Decree Nos. N-111862 to N-111865 issued in LRC Case No. N-5416 in the name of Velasquez, who lost in the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, and whose claim to the lots covered thereby were declared null and void. Logically, therefore, any new certificate of title to be issued to the heirs of Gregorio by virtue of the aforesaid final judgment adjudicating the land to Emilio Gregorio, could not possibly be a transfer or replacement of the aforesaid void OCTs in the name of Velasquez.
But even granting that the subject entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and assuming arguendo that said certificate was issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, such execution is tainted with infirmity. The March 21, 1986 order issued by the RTC of Pasig did not only cancel OCT No. 5678 (and other titles in the name of Velasquez covering the same lots adjudicated to Gregorio), it also ordered the issuance of new certificates of title in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio despite having been informed by the LRA and the Register of Deeds that there was already issued OCT No. 9587 over the same lot in the name of Emilio Gregorio, which was replaced with TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio following the decision rendered by the appellate court (CA-G.R. No. 56015-R) in another case filed by Gregorio against spouses Parami (Civil Case No. 16977).
At this point, it serves well to emphasize that upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with the land registration court for the issuance of an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original certificate of title.[5][42] The LRC upon the finality of the judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant shall, following the prescribed procedure, merely issues an order for the issuance of a decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in the name of such applicant.[6][43]
In this case, the RTC of Pasig, cognizant of a previous decree of registration instead ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates in favor of the heirs of Gregorio, erroneously declaring that such certificates are in lieu of OCT Nos. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680. Said court exceeded its authority when it ordered the issuance of transfer certificates in the name of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them covering the sae parcel of land. This caused the duplication of titles held by the heirs of Gregorio over Lot 1. Thus, while there was only one decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and private respondent, Emilio Gregorio, the latter’s heirs were able to secure two transfer certificates covering the same land. Indeed it could not order the issuance of another OCT as it would result to duplication of titles or “double titling.”[7][44] A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.[8][45] Issuance of another decree covering the same land is therefore null and void.[9][46]
In the light of the LRA Report dated September 12, 1984 stating that compliance with the July 30, 1971 final judgment rendered by the CA which reversed the LRC decision and adjudicated Lots 1, 3 and 4 in favor of Emilio Gregorio, would result in duplication of titles, it was grave error for the RTC of Pasig to grant the motion for execution filed by the heirs of Emilio Gregorio who sought, — in the guise of implementing the July 30, 1971 CA decision – the issuance of new titles in their name notwithstanding the existence of OCT No. 9587 and TCT No. S-91911. Given such vital information, there exists a compelling need for the land registration court to ascertain the facts and “address the likelihood of duplication of titles x x x, an eventuality that will undermine the Torrens system of land registration.”[10][47]
Petitioner nonetheless assails OCT No. 9587 as null and void, having been issued when the adverse decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was elevated by it to this Court. Following the doctrine in Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), it is asserted that OCT No. 9587 should not have been issued because the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was not yet final at the time, pending resolution by this Court of the appeal by Velasquez (G.R. No. L-34239-40).
In Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), this Court laid down the rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding and the certificate of title thereby issued is null and void. In that case, the assignee of the original applicant applied for a motion for issuance of a decree of registration before the lower court pending the approval of the Record on Appeal. The motion was opposed by the Government which appealed the lower court’s decision adjudicating the land to the said assignee. We thus ruled:
Under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the appellants to serve a copy of their Notice of Appeal to the counsel for the adjudicatee Roman C. Tamayo is not fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he was served with a copy of the original, as well as the Amended Record on Appeal in both of which the Notice of Appeal is embodied. Hence, such failure cannot impair the right of appeal.
What is more, the appeal taken by the Government was from the entire decision, which is not severable. Thus, the appeal affects the whole decision.
In any event, We rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title.
Consequently, the lower court acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of registration despite the appeal timely taken from the entire decision a quo.[11][48]
OCT No. 9587 on its face showed that its basis was Decree No. N-141990 issued on October 31, 1972 pursuant to the January 31, 1966 decision of the CFI in Land Reg. Case No. N-5053 and CA decision dated July 30, 1971. Per records of this Court, however, Velasquez had filed a petition for review of the CA decision. Be that as it may, the premature issuance of the decree in favor of Emilio Gregorio and the corresponding original certificate of title in his name did not affect his acquisition of title over the subject land considering that Velasquez’s petition was eventually dismissed. Neither can petitioner, by reason alone of defective issuance of OCT No. 9587, claim a right over the subject land superior to that acquired by the private respondent.
A reading of the annotations of encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-27380 which were carried over from TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the Heirs of Gregorio, would show that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 35305 filed before the CFI of Rizal by private respondent and Trinidad, the latter caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens involving the same properties of the defendants therein, the heirs of Emilio Gregorio. The notice of lis pendens was registered as Entry No. 21398[12][49] on TCT No. S-91911.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[13][50]
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.[14][51] Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any subsequent transaction affecting the land involved would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation.[15][52]
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC of Pasig in Civil Case No. 35305 had become final and executory on December 6, 1988, it is bound by the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Psu-204875 in favor of private respondent and Trinidad. As such buyer of one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the court’s decree with notice that said properties are in litigation, petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the case. Such vested right acquired by the private respondent under the final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent issuance of another certificate of title to the heirs of Gregorio respecting the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an involuntary transaction, entry of the notice of lis pendens in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.[16][53]
“It is to be noted that the notation of the lis pendens on the back of the owner’s duplicate is not mentioned for the purpose of constituting a constructive notice because usually such owner’s duplicate certificate is presented for the purpose of the annotation later, and sometimes not at all until [it is] ordered by the court.”[17][54] Strictly speaking, the lis pendens annotation is not to be referred to “as a part of the doctrine of notice; the purchaser pendente lite is affected, not by notice, but because the law does not allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the opposite party. The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice.”[18][55] Thus we have held that one who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith; neither can he have acquired better rights than those of his predecessor in interest.[19][56]
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the CA did not err in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner’s complaint for quieting of title and ordering the cancellation of its TCT No. T-8129.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2001 and Resolution dated October 23, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60712 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
|
[20][1] Rollo, pp. 34-49. Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[21][2] Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[22][3] Id. at 54-59. Penned by Judge Alfredo R. Enriquez.
[23][4] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 460-463.
[24][5] Id. at 479.
[25][6] Id. at 479-480.
[26][7] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 39-47.
[27][8] Id. at 47.
[28][9] Id. at 34.
[29][10] Id. at 35-37.
[30][11] Id. at 37.
[31][12] Records (Vol. 2), p. 476.
[32][13] Id. at 491.
[33][14] Id. at 481-482.
[34][15] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[35][16] Records (Vol. 2), p. 483.
[36][17] Id. at 495-496.
[37][18] Id.
[38][19] Id. at 487-488.
[39][20] Id. at 487 (back), 489-490.
[40][21] Id. at 370.
[41][22] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 14-15.
[42][23] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 485-486.
[43][24] Id. at 492-494.
[44][25] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[45][26] Id. at 62.
[46][27] Id. at 63.
[47][28] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 7-11.
[48][29] Rollo, p. 60.
[49][30] Top Management Programs Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102996, May 28, 1993, 222 SCRA 763.
[50][31] Id. at 772.
[51][32] Rollo, pp. 54-59.
[52][33] Id. at 59.
[53][34] Id. at 34-49.
[54][35] Nos. L-27594 & 28144, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177.
[55][36] Secuya v. Vda. de Selma, G.R. No. 136021, February 22, 2000, 326 SCRA 244, 246.
[56][37] Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137, 146-147.
[1][38] G.R. No. 161433, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 108, 115.
[2][39] G.R. No. 115788, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 556.
[3][40] Id. at 578.
[4][41] Records (Vol. 2), p. 487.
[5][42] Republic v. Heirs of Abrille, No. L-39248, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 57, 66; Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, No. L-67451, May 4, 1988, 161 SCRA 56, 61.
[6][43] SEC. 30 of P.D. No. 1529 provides:
Sec. 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. –x x x
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.
[7][44] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 168848 & 169019, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 299, 314.
[8][45] Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333, 343.
[9][46] See Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783, 788.
[10][47] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, supra note 44.
[11][48] Supra note 35 at 185-186.
[12][49] Rollo, p. 62.
[13][50] Associated Bank v. Pronstroller, G.R. No. 148444, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 113, 133, citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483, 492.
[14][51] Id., citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, id. at 492-493 and Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173, 186.
[15][52] Vicente v. Avera, G.R. No. 169970, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 634, 643.
[16][53] Director of Lands v. Reyes, supra note 35 at 188; Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 102648, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 24, 32, citing Levin v. Bass, et al., 91 Phil. 419, 437 (1952).
[17][54] A. H. Noblejas and E. H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 2007 Ed., pp. 436-437.
[18][55] Id. at 437, citing 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, p. 2033, SCRA Annotation on Civil Law, the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, 1983 Ed., pp. 118-119 quoted in Tirado v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 84201, August 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 321, 326-327.
[19][56] Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109078, December 25, 1995, 251 SCRA 509, 513-514, citing Constantino v. Espiritu, No. L-23268, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 557, 563 and Tanchoco v. Aquino, No. L-30670, September 15, 1987, 154 SCRA 1, 15; see Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34404, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207, 232.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45192 April 10, 1939
In re Consulta filed by Attorney VICENTE J. FRANCISCO on behalf of DOMINGO CABANTOG.
Sumulong, Lavides and Sumulong for appellant.
Vicente J. Francisco for appellee.
LAUREL, J.:
On January 21, 1936, the spouses Francisco Vicuña and Maxima Caballes made an absolute sale of three parcels of land, covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. 13395, 13396, and 13397, in favor of Domingo Cabantog for the sum of P2,500. The deed of sale was presented for registration, and the senior clerk in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna, in the absence of the latter official, made a notation thereon to the effect that the same was presented at 12.15 o’clock on January 25, 1936, as per entry number 18624, vol. II of the day book. On his return to duty on January 27, 1936, the register of deeds had the aforesaid notation cancelled and substituted by the following:
18624. — The inscription of the proceeding deed of sale is hereby suspended until after the resolution to be rendered by the Supreme Court on the appeal intended to be presented by Maxima Caballes against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Civil Case No. 6600 instituted by Apolonia Coronado et al. vs. Maxima Caballes et al., in which the latter has been condemned to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P1,000,000 (should be P100,000).
The undersigned is of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decisions may be effective due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in a case after same have been handled down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations.
Pending the appeal of Maxima Caballes to this court from the decision in civil case No. 6600 sentencing her to pay Apolonia Coronado the sum of P100,000, the latter secured an attachment of the three parcels of land sold by Maxima Caballes to Domingo Cabantog, which attachment was entered in the day book of the register of deeds of Laguna on January 27, 1936. Against the refusal of the register of deeds to register the deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog, his counsel elevated a consulta to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, through the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, requesting answer to the following:
QUESTIONS
1. Is it not the ministerial duty of the register of deeds of Laguna, upon presentation to him of the absolute deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog of the three (3) parcels of land in question, with the corresponding owners’ duplicate certificates of title, to register said deed of sale, cancel said outstanding certificates in the name of the vendors, and prepare and issue the proper transfer certificates of title in the name of the vendee, the proper registration fees having been tendered and accepted and there being no judicial order suspending such action?
2. Does the register of deeds of Laguna have the authority to deny issuance of the proper transfer certificates of title in favor of the vendee on the ground alleged by him that, “it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decision may be effective (or ineffective) due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in case after same have been handed down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations’, or should the register of deeds leave this question to the determination of the proper court in case the same is submitted to it for determination by any interested party?
A copy of the consulta having been served on the register of deeds, the latter filed his answer thereto justifying his action upon the following grounds, among others:
La resolucion del que suscribe al suspender la inscripcion de la escritura de venta otorgada por Maxima Caballes a favor del recurrente Domingo Cabantog y la negativa del mismo a expedir nuevos certificados de titulo libre de gravamen a favor del comprador Domingo Cabantog, se basa en que dicha escritura de venta es un traspaso hecho en fraude de la acreedora Apolonia Coronado, demandante en la Causa Civil No. 6600 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Laguna, en la cual la vendedora Maxima Caballes ha sido condenada a pagar a dicha Apolonia Coronado la suma de P100,000. En apoyo de esta afirmacion, se hace constar que la sentencia dictada en contra de dicha vendedora esta fechada el 14 de diciembre de 1935, mientras que la venta de que aqui se trata y cuya inscripcion se pide por Domingo Cabantog ha sido otorgada por Maxima Caballes el 21 de enero de 1936, o sea, mas de un mes despues de haber recaido el pronunciamiento judicial de condena. Se hace constar igualmente que el valor de todos los bienes inmuebles registrados a nombre de Maxima Caballes no puede llegar a cubrir la mitad siquiera del importe de la sentencia dictada contra ella, pues los mismos apenas si valen P30,000 vendiendolos al precio corriente.
El que suscribe cree sinceramente que es su deber denegar o al menos suspender la inscripcion de traspasos fraudulentos, sobre todo cuando como en el presente caso le consta a el personalmente que hay un pronunciamiento judicial condenatorio previo al otorgamiento de la escritura cuya inscripcion se pide, mientras tanto o hasta que un tribunal competente pueda decidir la naturaleza verdadera de dicho traspaso. Este es un paso prudente que evita no solamente el perjuicio que se puede irrogar a los acreedores del vendedor sino tambien al gobierno por los litigios que puedan entablar terceras personas que aleguen despues ser compradores inocentes. Se evita asi mismo el que una sentencia judicial quede ineficaz por actos imprudentes y precipitados sometidos por un Registrador de Titulos en la inscripcion de documentos de dudosa legalidad.
The case came up to the oral hearing, at which attorney Vicente J. Francisco for Domingo Cabantog, Fiscal Villanueva for the register of deeds, and Attorney Lorenzo Sumulong for Apolonia Coronado extensively argued their respective sides of the controversy. After hearing, the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, His Honor, Judge Montemayor presiding, entered a resolution setting out the controlling facts and closing with the following conclusion:
After carefully studying the case, the court agrees with Attorney Francisco and Fiscal Villanueva that, without considering the merits of the contention of Apolonia Coronado as to the alleged fraud in the transfer of the three parcels of land, strictly as a matter of procedure, the register of deeds should have given due course to the registration of the deed of sale in favor of Cabantog. Without doubting the good faith of the register of deeds and even commending his civic spirit and his desire to help the courts, it is believed that in the present case the law did not expect, much less require him to make use of his personal knowledge of the facts or of what he believed to be the intention of the parties, in the performance of his official duties as register of deeds, namely the registration of instruments presented to him for recording. The parties interested are supposed and expected by the law to take the steps necessary to protect their own interests and take the necessary precautions. The undersigned does not understand why long before the deed of sale presented for registration, and even pending trial of civil case No. 6600, Apolonia did not take the steps necessary to protect her interests and insure the satisfaction of the judgment which she expected from the court. Again, if the defendant Maxima Caballes received copy of the decision in civil case No. 6600 on January 17, 1936, it is reasonable to presume that Apolonia Coronado must have received copy of the same about the same time, if not earlier, and yet we find that attachment of the three parcels of land was not presented for recording or registration with the register of deeds until January 27, 1936, that is, two days after the presentation of deed of sale. Moreover, there is no evidence to show, as far as the present consulta is concerned, that Maxima Caballes is now insolvent and that the deed of sale under consideration was really made in fraud of creditors. There is no showing either that by authorizing and directing the register of deeds to admit the deed of sale of registration in his office, Apolonia would be losing and be deprived of all under her remedies against the said parcels of land. It should also be borne in mind that civil case No. 6600 of the Court of First Instance is now pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, this court rules that the register of deeds of the Province of Laguna should have registered the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. It should be understood, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to any action that may be taken be Apolonia Coronado in the proper court to guide or control the action of the register of deeds with respect to the deed in question. Furthermore, this ruling does not in any manner touch upon the nature, propriety or validity of the transfer of the three parcels of land to Cabantog.
Apolonia Coronado moved for reconsideration but was unsuccessful, and has appealed from the foregoing resolution of the lower court, assigning various errors specified in her brief.
Consolidating the several errors assigned, the present appeal calls for a determination of the nature of the function of a register of deeds with reference to the registration of a deed of sale of a registered land. Is that function ministerial or discretional under the law? Section 57 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496) provides:
SEC. 57. An owner desiring to convey in fee his registered land or any portion thereof shall execute a deed of conveyance, which the grantor or grantee may present to the register of deeds in the province where the land lies. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be produced and presented at the fame time. The register of deeds shall thereupon, in accordance with the rules and instructions of the court, make out in the registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee, and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s duplicate certificate. The register of deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to last prior certificate. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be surrendered, and the word “canceled” stamped upon it. The original certificate shall also be stamped `canceled’. The deed of conveyance shall be filed and endorsed with the number and place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed.
According to this provision of the law, upon presentation of a deed of conveyance of a registered land, together with the grantor’s duplicate certificate, the register of deeds shall (1) make out in the registration book new certificate of title; (2) prepare and deliver to the grantee an owner’s duplicate certificate of title; (3) note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to the last prior certificate; (4) require the surrender of the grantor’s duplicate certificate for purposes of cancellation; (5) cancel likewise the original certificate and (6) file and endorse in the manner required the deed of conveyance presented for registration. The duties enjoined upon the register of deed by the aforecited section of the Land Registration Act are clearly ministerial and mandatory in character not only as is indicated by the auxiliary “shall” but by the nature of such functions required to be performed by him. Upon the other hand, section 193 of the Administrative Code, in referring to the “general functions of register of deeds” provides that “it is the duty of a register of deeds to record in proper form all instruments relative to such lands, the recording whereof shall be required or allowed by law.” We have not overlooked reference to the case of Debrunner vs. Jaramillo (12 Phil., 316), in which it was said that the duties of a registrar of property when he is acting under the Mortgage Law, are to a large extent judicial, as indicated in articles 18, 100 and 101 et seq. of that law, and to the case of Betco vs. La Flor de Intal (43 Phil., 517), where it was said that “registers of deeds perform both functions of an administrative character and functions which are at least of a quasi-judicial nature.” Notwithstanding divergence of facts between these cases and the present case, we have given weight to what seem are logical inferences of counsel for the appellant in the application of general principles, but we find that as plausible an argument to the contrary may be found in Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo (44 Phil., 630); and Garcia Sanchez vs. Rosauro (40 Phil., 231); and Williams vs. Suñer (49 Phil., 534) with the same divergence of facts and the laws involved.
Limiting ourselves to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds of Laguna under the law to register the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. If the register of deed is on doubt as to the propriety of recording any given instrument, section 200 of the Administrative Code provides the procedure to be followed:
SEC. 200. Reference of doubtful matter to judge of fourth branch of Court of First Instance at Manila. — Where the register of deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instruments presented for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the register of deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be referred to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District either on the certificate of the register of deeds stating the question upon which he is in doubt or upon the suggestion in writing of the party in interest; and thereupon said judge, upon consideration of the matter as shown by the record certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made.
The question of whether or not the conveyance was made for defraud creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination by the proper court. There is as much danger in giving this authority to the register of deeds without judicial intervention as there would be injustice in the suggested frustration of a judicial victory for Apolonia Coronado.
The resolution of the lower court is confirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
|
TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No. 150462 Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
LUIS FAJARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondents. |
Promulgated: June 15, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
x x x.
In Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite[1][38] we held that if two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. Citing our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals[2][39] we declared:
x x x where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of title, x x x, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.[3][40]
From the recitals in the transfer certificates of title respectively held by petitioner and private respondent, as well as the records of the LRA, there appears not just one but two different original certificates. TCT No. T-8129 on its face shows that the land covered was originally registered as OCT No. 5678 under Decree No. N-111862 (Velasquez), while TCT No. T-27380 indicates the original registration as OCT No. 9587 under Decree No. N-141990 (Gregorio). Both the LRC and CA found TCT No. 107729 and its derivative titles TCT Nos. 4635 and T-8129 as void and inexistent since OCT No. 5678 in the name of Velasquez had been nullified under the order for execution of the final judgment in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416 in which Gregorio prevailed. Consequently, the lower courts upheld the title of private respondent which alone can be traced to the original certificate in the name of Emilio Gregorio (OCT No. 9578).
Petitioner, however, asserts that the entries in his TCT contain errors and insists that TCT Nos. 107729, 4635 and T-8129 actually emanated from the application for registration of Emilio Gregorio in LRC Case No. N-5053, LRC Record No. N-27523 pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial Court in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416, as in fact TCT No. 107729 were issued along with TCT Nos. 107727 and 107728 covering two other lots also in the name of the Heirs of Emilio Gregorio by way of implementing the final judgment of said court in the case between Gregorio and Velasquez, as affirmed by the CA and this Court.
We disagree.
TCT No. 107729 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio issued on April 29, 1986, on its face showed badges of irregularity in its issuance. First, the technical description stated that it covers a portion of Lot 1, plan Psu-204785, LRC Case No. N-5416 instead of N-5053. Second, the decree number and date of issuance, as well as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to Velasquez and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in the original certificate is not Velasquez or Gregorio but “Delta Motor Corp.” And fourth, the certificate from which TCT No. 107729 was supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein. The annotations regarding the supposed original registration of TCT No. 107729 read as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 12th day of December in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal Volume A-69 page 78 as Original Certificate of Title No. 5678 pursuant to Decree No. N-111862 issued in L.R.C. _____________ Record No. N-28735 Case No. N-5416 in the name of Delta Motor Corp. .
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27737/A/T-145-A S-8722/T-41 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.[4][41] (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing errors are not mere typographical as petitioner claims, but serious discrepancies in the registration process. In fact, it is not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to one and the same lot adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to petitioner. The heirs of Gregorio knew that their TCT No. S-91911 bore encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending litigation (Lis Pendens) involving the property covered by said title before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 35305, which Trinidad caused to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly identical entries as that of TCT No. S-91911 (as to its original registration) would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be carried over to such new certificate. Strangely, it is TCT No. 107729 which RD Alejandro R.Villanueva upheld in his February 5, 1989 Report notwithstanding its later issuance and the glaring errors in the entries of its original registration. It must be stressed that OCT No. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680 and its derivative titles were ordered cancelled precisely because they were issued pursuant to Decree Nos. N-111862 to N-111865 issued in LRC Case No. N-5416 in the name of Velasquez, who lost in the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, and whose claim to the lots covered thereby were declared null and void. Logically, therefore, any new certificate of title to be issued to the heirs of Gregorio by virtue of the aforesaid final judgment adjudicating the land to Emilio Gregorio, could not possibly be a transfer or replacement of the aforesaid void OCTs in the name of Velasquez.
But even granting that the subject entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and assuming arguendo that said certificate was issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, such execution is tainted with infirmity. The March 21, 1986 order issued by the RTC of Pasig did not only cancel OCT No. 5678 (and other titles in the name of Velasquez covering the same lots adjudicated to Gregorio), it also ordered the issuance of new certificates of title in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio despite having been informed by the LRA and the Register of Deeds that there was already issued OCT No. 9587 over the same lot in the name of Emilio Gregorio, which was replaced with TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio following the decision rendered by the appellate court (CA-G.R. No. 56015-R) in another case filed by Gregorio against spouses Parami (Civil Case No. 16977).
At this point, it serves well to emphasize that upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with the land registration court for the issuance of an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original certificate of title.[5][42] The LRC upon the finality of the judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant shall, following the prescribed procedure, merely issues an order for the issuance of a decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in the name of such applicant.[6][43]
In this case, the RTC of Pasig, cognizant of a previous decree of registration instead ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates in favor of the heirs of Gregorio, erroneously declaring that such certificates are in lieu of OCT Nos. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680. Said court exceeded its authority when it ordered the issuance of transfer certificates in the name of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them covering the sae parcel of land. This caused the duplication of titles held by the heirs of Gregorio over Lot 1. Thus, while there was only one decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and private respondent, Emilio Gregorio, the latter’s heirs were able to secure two transfer certificates covering the same land. Indeed it could not order the issuance of another OCT as it would result to duplication of titles or “double titling.”[7][44] A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.[8][45] Issuance of another decree covering the same land is therefore null and void.[9][46]
In the light of the LRA Report dated September 12, 1984 stating that compliance with the July 30, 1971 final judgment rendered by the CA which reversed the LRC decision and adjudicated Lots 1, 3 and 4 in favor of Emilio Gregorio, would result in duplication of titles, it was grave error for the RTC of Pasig to grant the motion for execution filed by the heirs of Emilio Gregorio who sought, — in the guise of implementing the July 30, 1971 CA decision – the issuance of new titles in their name notwithstanding the existence of OCT No. 9587 and TCT No. S-91911. Given such vital information, there exists a compelling need for the land registration court to ascertain the facts and “address the likelihood of duplication of titles x x x, an eventuality that will undermine the Torrens system of land registration.”[10][47]
Petitioner nonetheless assails OCT No. 9587 as null and void, having been issued when the adverse decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was elevated by it to this Court. Following the doctrine in Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), it is asserted that OCT No. 9587 should not have been issued because the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was not yet final at the time, pending resolution by this Court of the appeal by Velasquez (G.R. No. L-34239-40).
In Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), this Court laid down the rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding and the certificate of title thereby issued is null and void. In that case, the assignee of the original applicant applied for a motion for issuance of a decree of registration before the lower court pending the approval of the Record on Appeal. The motion was opposed by the Government which appealed the lower court’s decision adjudicating the land to the said assignee. We thus ruled:
Under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the appellants to serve a copy of their Notice of Appeal to the counsel for the adjudicatee Roman C. Tamayo is not fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he was served with a copy of the original, as well as the Amended Record on Appeal in both of which the Notice of Appeal is embodied. Hence, such failure cannot impair the right of appeal.
What is more, the appeal taken by the Government was from the entire decision, which is not severable. Thus, the appeal affects the whole decision.
In any event, We rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title.
Consequently, the lower court acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of registration despite the appeal timely taken from the entire decision a quo.[11][48]
OCT No. 9587 on its face showed that its basis was Decree No. N-141990 issued on October 31, 1972 pursuant to the January 31, 1966 decision of the CFI in Land Reg. Case No. N-5053 and CA decision dated July 30, 1971. Per records of this Court, however, Velasquez had filed a petition for review of the CA decision. Be that as it may, the premature issuance of the decree in favor of Emilio Gregorio and the corresponding original certificate of title in his name did not affect his acquisition of title over the subject land considering that Velasquez’s petition was eventually dismissed. Neither can petitioner, by reason alone of defective issuance of OCT No. 9587, claim a right over the subject land superior to that acquired by the private respondent.
A reading of the annotations of encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-27380 which were carried over from TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the Heirs of Gregorio, would show that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 35305 filed before the CFI of Rizal by private respondent and Trinidad, the latter caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens involving the same properties of the defendants therein, the heirs of Emilio Gregorio. The notice of lis pendens was registered as Entry No. 21398[12][49] on TCT No. S-91911.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[13][50]
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.[14][51] Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any subsequent transaction affecting the land involved would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation.[15][52]
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC of Pasig in Civil Case No. 35305 had become final and executory on December 6, 1988, it is bound by the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Psu-204875 in favor of private respondent and Trinidad. As such buyer of one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the court’s decree with notice that said properties are in litigation, petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the case. Such vested right acquired by the private respondent under the final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent issuance of another certificate of title to the heirs of Gregorio respecting the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an involuntary transaction, entry of the notice of lis pendens in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.[16][53]
“It is to be noted that the notation of the lis pendens on the back of the owner’s duplicate is not mentioned for the purpose of constituting a constructive notice because usually such owner’s duplicate certificate is presented for the purpose of the annotation later, and sometimes not at all until [it is] ordered by the court.”[17][54] Strictly speaking, the lis pendens annotation is not to be referred to “as a part of the doctrine of notice; the purchaser pendente lite is affected, not by notice, but because the law does not allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the opposite party. The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice.”[18][55] Thus we have held that one who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith; neither can he have acquired better rights than those of his predecessor in interest.[19][56]
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the CA did not err in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner’s complaint for quieting of title and ordering the cancellation of its TCT No. T-8129.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2001 and Resolution dated October 23, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60712 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
|
[20][1] Rollo, pp. 34-49. Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[21][2] Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[22][3] Id. at 54-59. Penned by Judge Alfredo R. Enriquez.
[23][4] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 460-463.
[24][5] Id. at 479.
[25][6] Id. at 479-480.
[26][7] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 39-47.
[27][8] Id. at 47.
[28][9] Id. at 34.
[29][10] Id. at 35-37.
[30][11] Id. at 37.
[31][12] Records (Vol. 2), p. 476.
[32][13] Id. at 491.
[33][14] Id. at 481-482.
[34][15] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[35][16] Records (Vol. 2), p. 483.
[36][17] Id. at 495-496.
[37][18] Id.
[38][19] Id. at 487-488.
[39][20] Id. at 487 (back), 489-490.
[40][21] Id. at 370.
[41][22] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 14-15.
[42][23] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 485-486.
[43][24] Id. at 492-494.
[44][25] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[45][26] Id. at 62.
[46][27] Id. at 63.
[47][28] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 7-11.
[48][29] Rollo, p. 60.
[49][30] Top Management Programs Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102996, May 28, 1993, 222 SCRA 763.
[50][31] Id. at 772.
[51][32] Rollo, pp. 54-59.
[52][33] Id. at 59.
[53][34] Id. at 34-49.
[54][35] Nos. L-27594 & 28144, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177.
[55][36] Secuya v. Vda. de Selma, G.R. No. 136021, February 22, 2000, 326 SCRA 244, 246.
[56][37] Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137, 146-147.
[1][38] G.R. No. 161433, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 108, 115.
[2][39] G.R. No. 115788, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 556.
[3][40] Id. at 578.
[4][41] Records (Vol. 2), p. 487.
[5][42] Republic v. Heirs of Abrille, No. L-39248, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 57, 66; Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, No. L-67451, May 4, 1988, 161 SCRA 56, 61.
[6][43] SEC. 30 of P.D. No. 1529 provides:
Sec. 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. –x x x
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.
[7][44] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 168848 & 169019, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 299, 314.
[8][45] Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333, 343.
[9][46] See Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783, 788.
[10][47] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, supra note 44.
[11][48] Supra note 35 at 185-186.
[12][49] Rollo, p. 62.
[13][50] Associated Bank v. Pronstroller, G.R. No. 148444, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 113, 133, citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483, 492.
[14][51] Id., citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, id. at 492-493 and Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173, 186.
[15][52] Vicente v. Avera, G.R. No. 169970, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 634, 643.
[16][53] Director of Lands v. Reyes, supra note 35 at 188; Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 102648, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 24, 32, citing Levin v. Bass, et al., 91 Phil. 419, 437 (1952).
[17][54] A. H. Noblejas and E. H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 2007 Ed., pp. 436-437.
[18][55] Id. at 437, citing 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, p. 2033, SCRA Annotation on Civil Law, the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, 1983 Ed., pp. 118-119 quoted in Tirado v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 84201, August 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 321, 326-327.
[19][56] Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109078, December 25, 1995, 251 SCRA 509, 513-514, citing Constantino v. Espiritu, No. L-23268, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 557, 563 and Tanchoco v. Aquino, No. L-30670, September 15, 1987, 154 SCRA 1, 15; see Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34404, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207, 232.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-45192 April 10, 1939
In re Consulta filed by Attorney VICENTE J. FRANCISCO on behalf of DOMINGO CABANTOG.
Sumulong, Lavides and Sumulong for appellant.
Vicente J. Francisco for appellee.
LAUREL, J.:
On January 21, 1936, the spouses Francisco Vicuña and Maxima Caballes made an absolute sale of three parcels of land, covered by transfer certificates of title Nos. 13395, 13396, and 13397, in favor of Domingo Cabantog for the sum of P2,500. The deed of sale was presented for registration, and the senior clerk in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna, in the absence of the latter official, made a notation thereon to the effect that the same was presented at 12.15 o’clock on January 25, 1936, as per entry number 18624, vol. II of the day book. On his return to duty on January 27, 1936, the register of deeds had the aforesaid notation cancelled and substituted by the following:
18624. — The inscription of the proceeding deed of sale is hereby suspended until after the resolution to be rendered by the Supreme Court on the appeal intended to be presented by Maxima Caballes against the decision of the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Civil Case No. 6600 instituted by Apolonia Coronado et al. vs. Maxima Caballes et al., in which the latter has been condemned to pay to the plaintiff the amount of P1,000,000 (should be P100,000).
The undersigned is of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decisions may be effective due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in a case after same have been handled down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations.
Pending the appeal of Maxima Caballes to this court from the decision in civil case No. 6600 sentencing her to pay Apolonia Coronado the sum of P100,000, the latter secured an attachment of the three parcels of land sold by Maxima Caballes to Domingo Cabantog, which attachment was entered in the day book of the register of deeds of Laguna on January 27, 1936. Against the refusal of the register of deeds to register the deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog, his counsel elevated a consulta to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, through the Chief of the General Land Registration Office, requesting answer to the following:
QUESTIONS
1. Is it not the ministerial duty of the register of deeds of Laguna, upon presentation to him of the absolute deed of sale in favor of Domingo Cabantog of the three (3) parcels of land in question, with the corresponding owners’ duplicate certificates of title, to register said deed of sale, cancel said outstanding certificates in the name of the vendors, and prepare and issue the proper transfer certificates of title in the name of the vendee, the proper registration fees having been tendered and accepted and there being no judicial order suspending such action?
2. Does the register of deeds of Laguna have the authority to deny issuance of the proper transfer certificates of title in favor of the vendee on the ground alleged by him that, “it is the duty of the register of deeds to aid the courts, avoiding that their decision may be effective (or ineffective) due to transfers of properties made by the party losing in case after same have been handed down; and also to protect the interest of the winning party by preventing the multiplicity of litigations’, or should the register of deeds leave this question to the determination of the proper court in case the same is submitted to it for determination by any interested party?
A copy of the consulta having been served on the register of deeds, the latter filed his answer thereto justifying his action upon the following grounds, among others:
La resolucion del que suscribe al suspender la inscripcion de la escritura de venta otorgada por Maxima Caballes a favor del recurrente Domingo Cabantog y la negativa del mismo a expedir nuevos certificados de titulo libre de gravamen a favor del comprador Domingo Cabantog, se basa en que dicha escritura de venta es un traspaso hecho en fraude de la acreedora Apolonia Coronado, demandante en la Causa Civil No. 6600 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Laguna, en la cual la vendedora Maxima Caballes ha sido condenada a pagar a dicha Apolonia Coronado la suma de P100,000. En apoyo de esta afirmacion, se hace constar que la sentencia dictada en contra de dicha vendedora esta fechada el 14 de diciembre de 1935, mientras que la venta de que aqui se trata y cuya inscripcion se pide por Domingo Cabantog ha sido otorgada por Maxima Caballes el 21 de enero de 1936, o sea, mas de un mes despues de haber recaido el pronunciamiento judicial de condena. Se hace constar igualmente que el valor de todos los bienes inmuebles registrados a nombre de Maxima Caballes no puede llegar a cubrir la mitad siquiera del importe de la sentencia dictada contra ella, pues los mismos apenas si valen P30,000 vendiendolos al precio corriente.
El que suscribe cree sinceramente que es su deber denegar o al menos suspender la inscripcion de traspasos fraudulentos, sobre todo cuando como en el presente caso le consta a el personalmente que hay un pronunciamiento judicial condenatorio previo al otorgamiento de la escritura cuya inscripcion se pide, mientras tanto o hasta que un tribunal competente pueda decidir la naturaleza verdadera de dicho traspaso. Este es un paso prudente que evita no solamente el perjuicio que se puede irrogar a los acreedores del vendedor sino tambien al gobierno por los litigios que puedan entablar terceras personas que aleguen despues ser compradores inocentes. Se evita asi mismo el que una sentencia judicial quede ineficaz por actos imprudentes y precipitados sometidos por un Registrador de Titulos en la inscripcion de documentos de dudosa legalidad.
The case came up to the oral hearing, at which attorney Vicente J. Francisco for Domingo Cabantog, Fiscal Villanueva for the register of deeds, and Attorney Lorenzo Sumulong for Apolonia Coronado extensively argued their respective sides of the controversy. After hearing, the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, His Honor, Judge Montemayor presiding, entered a resolution setting out the controlling facts and closing with the following conclusion:
After carefully studying the case, the court agrees with Attorney Francisco and Fiscal Villanueva that, without considering the merits of the contention of Apolonia Coronado as to the alleged fraud in the transfer of the three parcels of land, strictly as a matter of procedure, the register of deeds should have given due course to the registration of the deed of sale in favor of Cabantog. Without doubting the good faith of the register of deeds and even commending his civic spirit and his desire to help the courts, it is believed that in the present case the law did not expect, much less require him to make use of his personal knowledge of the facts or of what he believed to be the intention of the parties, in the performance of his official duties as register of deeds, namely the registration of instruments presented to him for recording. The parties interested are supposed and expected by the law to take the steps necessary to protect their own interests and take the necessary precautions. The undersigned does not understand why long before the deed of sale presented for registration, and even pending trial of civil case No. 6600, Apolonia did not take the steps necessary to protect her interests and insure the satisfaction of the judgment which she expected from the court. Again, if the defendant Maxima Caballes received copy of the decision in civil case No. 6600 on January 17, 1936, it is reasonable to presume that Apolonia Coronado must have received copy of the same about the same time, if not earlier, and yet we find that attachment of the three parcels of land was not presented for recording or registration with the register of deeds until January 27, 1936, that is, two days after the presentation of deed of sale. Moreover, there is no evidence to show, as far as the present consulta is concerned, that Maxima Caballes is now insolvent and that the deed of sale under consideration was really made in fraud of creditors. There is no showing either that by authorizing and directing the register of deeds to admit the deed of sale of registration in his office, Apolonia would be losing and be deprived of all under her remedies against the said parcels of land. It should also be borne in mind that civil case No. 6600 of the Court of First Instance is now pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
In view of the foregoing, this court rules that the register of deeds of the Province of Laguna should have registered the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. It should be understood, however, that this ruling is without prejudice to any action that may be taken be Apolonia Coronado in the proper court to guide or control the action of the register of deeds with respect to the deed in question. Furthermore, this ruling does not in any manner touch upon the nature, propriety or validity of the transfer of the three parcels of land to Cabantog.
Apolonia Coronado moved for reconsideration but was unsuccessful, and has appealed from the foregoing resolution of the lower court, assigning various errors specified in her brief.
Consolidating the several errors assigned, the present appeal calls for a determination of the nature of the function of a register of deeds with reference to the registration of a deed of sale of a registered land. Is that function ministerial or discretional under the law? Section 57 of the Land Registration Act (No. 496) provides:
SEC. 57. An owner desiring to convey in fee his registered land or any portion thereof shall execute a deed of conveyance, which the grantor or grantee may present to the register of deeds in the province where the land lies. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be produced and presented at the fame time. The register of deeds shall thereupon, in accordance with the rules and instructions of the court, make out in the registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee, and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s duplicate certificate. The register of deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to last prior certificate. The grantor’s duplicate certificate shall be surrendered, and the word “canceled” stamped upon it. The original certificate shall also be stamped `canceled’. The deed of conveyance shall be filed and endorsed with the number and place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed.
According to this provision of the law, upon presentation of a deed of conveyance of a registered land, together with the grantor’s duplicate certificate, the register of deeds shall (1) make out in the registration book new certificate of title; (2) prepare and deliver to the grantee an owner’s duplicate certificate of title; (3) note upon the original and duplicate certificates the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book where the new certificate is registered, and a reference by number to the last prior certificate; (4) require the surrender of the grantor’s duplicate certificate for purposes of cancellation; (5) cancel likewise the original certificate and (6) file and endorse in the manner required the deed of conveyance presented for registration. The duties enjoined upon the register of deed by the aforecited section of the Land Registration Act are clearly ministerial and mandatory in character not only as is indicated by the auxiliary “shall” but by the nature of such functions required to be performed by him. Upon the other hand, section 193 of the Administrative Code, in referring to the “general functions of register of deeds” provides that “it is the duty of a register of deeds to record in proper form all instruments relative to such lands, the recording whereof shall be required or allowed by law.” We have not overlooked reference to the case of Debrunner vs. Jaramillo (12 Phil., 316), in which it was said that the duties of a registrar of property when he is acting under the Mortgage Law, are to a large extent judicial, as indicated in articles 18, 100 and 101 et seq. of that law, and to the case of Betco vs. La Flor de Intal (43 Phil., 517), where it was said that “registers of deeds perform both functions of an administrative character and functions which are at least of a quasi-judicial nature.” Notwithstanding divergence of facts between these cases and the present case, we have given weight to what seem are logical inferences of counsel for the appellant in the application of general principles, but we find that as plausible an argument to the contrary may be found in Standard Oil Co. of New York vs. Jaramillo (44 Phil., 630); and Garcia Sanchez vs. Rosauro (40 Phil., 231); and Williams vs. Suñer (49 Phil., 534) with the same divergence of facts and the laws involved.
Limiting ourselves to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the register of deeds of Laguna under the law to register the deed executed by Maxima Caballes and Francisco Vicuna in favor of Domingo Cabantog. If the register of deed is on doubt as to the propriety of recording any given instrument, section 200 of the Administrative Code provides the procedure to be followed:
SEC. 200. Reference of doubtful matter to judge of fourth branch of Court of First Instance at Manila. — Where the register of deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage, or other instruments presented for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with the register of deeds with reference to any such matter, the question shall be referred to the judge of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of the Ninth Judicial District either on the certificate of the register of deeds stating the question upon which he is in doubt or upon the suggestion in writing of the party in interest; and thereupon said judge, upon consideration of the matter as shown by the record certified to him, and in case of registered lands, after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made.
The question of whether or not the conveyance was made for defraud creditors of the transferor should better be left for determination by the proper court. There is as much danger in giving this authority to the register of deeds without judicial intervention as there would be injustice in the suggested frustration of a judicial victory for Apolonia Coronado.
The resolution of the lower court is confirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
|
TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
- versus -
|
G.R. No. 150462
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
|
|
LUIS FAJARDO AND
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY,
Respondents.
|
Promulgated:
June 15, 2011
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
x x x.
In Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite[1][38] we held that if two certificates of title purport to include the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title were derived. Citing our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals[2][39] we declared:
x x x where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of title, x x x, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.[3][40]
From the recitals in the transfer certificates of title respectively held by petitioner and private respondent, as well as the records of the LRA, there appears not just one but two different original certificates. TCT No. T-8129 on its face shows that the land covered was originally registered as OCT No. 5678 under Decree No. N-111862 (Velasquez), while TCT No. T-27380 indicates the original registration as OCT No. 9587 under Decree No. N-141990 (Gregorio). Both the LRC and CA found TCT No. 107729 and its derivative titles TCT Nos. 4635 and T-8129 as void and inexistent since OCT No. 5678 in the name of Velasquez had been nullified under the order for execution of the final judgment in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416 in which Gregorio prevailed. Consequently, the lower courts upheld the title of private respondent which alone can be traced to the original certificate in the name of Emilio Gregorio (OCT No. 9578).
Petitioner, however, asserts that the entries in his TCT contain errors and insists that TCT Nos. 107729, 4635 and T-8129 actually emanated from the application for registration of Emilio Gregorio in LRC Case No. N-5053, LRC Record No. N-27523 pursuant to the Order of the Regional Trial Court in LRC Case Nos. N-5053 and N-5416, as in fact TCT No. 107729 were issued along with TCT Nos. 107727 and 107728 covering two other lots also in the name of the Heirs of Emilio Gregorio by way of implementing the final judgment of said court in the case between Gregorio and Velasquez, as affirmed by the CA and this Court.
We disagree.
TCT No. 107729 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio issued on April 29, 1986, on its face showed badges of irregularity in its issuance. First, the technical description stated that it covers a portion of Lot 1, plan Psu-204785, LRC Case No. N-5416 instead of N-5053. Second, the decree number and date of issuance, as well as OCT number clearly indicate that the original decree pertained to Velasquez and not Gregorio. Third, the name of the registered owner in the original certificate is not Velasquez or Gregorio but “Delta Motor Corp.” And fourth, the certificate from which TCT No. 107729 was supposedly a transfer should have been the OCT (of Gregorio) and not those unfamiliar TCT numbers indicated therein. The annotations regarding the supposed original registration of TCT No. 107729 read as follows:
IT IS FURTHER CERTIFIED that said land was originally registered on the 12th day of December in the year nineteen hundred and sixty-six in the Registration Book of the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal Volume A-69 page 78 as Original Certificate of Title No. 5678 pursuant to Decree No. N-111862 issued in L.R.C. _____________ Record No. N-28735 Case No. N-5416 in the name of Delta Motor Corp. .
This certificate is a transfer from Transfer Certificate of Title No. 27737/A/T-145-A S-8722/T-41 which is cancelled by virtue hereof in so far as the above-described land is concerned.[4][41] (Emphasis supplied.)
The foregoing errors are not mere typographical as petitioner claims, but serious discrepancies in the registration process. In fact, it is not far-fetched that the erroneous entries could have been intended to create the impression that TCT No. 107729 was a separate and distinct title from the previously issued TCT No. S-91911 even if they pertain to one and the same lot adjudicated to Emilio Gregorio. Such conclusion is reinforced by the unexplained inaction or failure of the heirs of Gregorio to rectify the alleged errors in their title before selling the property to petitioner. The heirs of Gregorio knew that their TCT No. S-91911 bore encumbrances in favor of third parties, notably the notice of pending litigation (Lis Pendens) involving the property covered by said title before the CFI of Pasig, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 35305, which Trinidad caused to be annotated thereon. The issuance of a new certificate with exactly identical entries as that of TCT No. S-91911 (as to its original registration) would mean that the aforesaid annotations had to be carried over to such new certificate. Strangely, it is TCT No. 107729 which RD Alejandro R.Villanueva upheld in his February 5, 1989 Report notwithstanding its later issuance and the glaring errors in the entries of its original registration. It must be stressed that OCT No. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680 and its derivative titles were ordered cancelled precisely because they were issued pursuant to Decree Nos. N-111862 to N-111865 issued in LRC Case No. N-5416 in the name of Velasquez, who lost in the final judgment rendered in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, and whose claim to the lots covered thereby were declared null and void. Logically, therefore, any new certificate of title to be issued to the heirs of Gregorio by virtue of the aforesaid final judgment adjudicating the land to Emilio Gregorio, could not possibly be a transfer or replacement of the aforesaid void OCTs in the name of Velasquez.
But even granting that the subject entries in TCT No. 107729 were mere clerical errors and assuming arguendo that said certificate was issued to implement the final judgment in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R, such execution is tainted with infirmity. The March 21, 1986 order issued by the RTC of Pasig did not only cancel OCT No. 5678 (and other titles in the name of Velasquez covering the same lots adjudicated to Gregorio), it also ordered the issuance of new certificates of title in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio despite having been informed by the LRA and the Register of Deeds that there was already issued OCT No. 9587 over the same lot in the name of Emilio Gregorio, which was replaced with TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the heirs of Emilio Gregorio following the decision rendered by the appellate court (CA-G.R. No. 56015-R) in another case filed by Gregorio against spouses Parami (Civil Case No. 16977).
At this point, it serves well to emphasize that upon finality of judgment in land registration cases, the winning party does not file a motion for execution as in ordinary civil actions. Instead, he files a petition with the land registration court for the issuance of an order directing the Land Registration Authority to issue a decree of registration, a copy of which is then sent to the Register of Deeds for inscription in the registration book, and issuance of the original certificate of title.[5][42] The LRC upon the finality of the judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant shall, following the prescribed procedure, merely issues an order for the issuance of a decree of registration and the corresponding certificate of title in the name of such applicant.[6][43]
In this case, the RTC of Pasig, cognizant of a previous decree of registration instead ordered the Register of Deeds to issue new certificates in favor of the heirs of Gregorio, erroneously declaring that such certificates are in lieu of OCT Nos. 5677, 5678, 5679 and 5680. Said court exceeded its authority when it ordered the issuance of transfer certificates in the name of the heirs of Gregorio despite the existence of TCT No. S-91911 already issued to them covering the sae parcel of land. This caused the duplication of titles held by the heirs of Gregorio over Lot 1. Thus, while there was only one decree and original certificate issued to the common predecessor-in-interest of petitioner and private respondent, Emilio Gregorio, the latter’s heirs were able to secure two transfer certificates covering the same land. Indeed it could not order the issuance of another OCT as it would result to duplication of titles or “double titling.”[7][44] A land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case.[8][45] Issuance of another decree covering the same land is therefore null and void.[9][46]
In the light of the LRA Report dated September 12, 1984 stating that compliance with the July 30, 1971 final judgment rendered by the CA which reversed the LRC decision and adjudicated Lots 1, 3 and 4 in favor of Emilio Gregorio, would result in duplication of titles, it was grave error for the RTC of Pasig to grant the motion for execution filed by the heirs of Emilio Gregorio who sought, — in the guise of implementing the July 30, 1971 CA decision – the issuance of new titles in their name notwithstanding the existence of OCT No. 9587 and TCT No. S-91911. Given such vital information, there exists a compelling need for the land registration court to ascertain the facts and “address the likelihood of duplication of titles x x x, an eventuality that will undermine the Torrens system of land registration.”[10][47]
Petitioner nonetheless assails OCT No. 9587 as null and void, having been issued when the adverse decision of the appellate court in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was elevated by it to this Court. Following the doctrine in Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), it is asserted that OCT No. 9587 should not have been issued because the decision in CA-G.R. No. 40739-40-R was not yet final at the time, pending resolution by this Court of the appeal by Velasquez (G.R. No. L-34239-40).
In Director of Lands v. Reyes (supra), this Court laid down the rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding and the certificate of title thereby issued is null and void. In that case, the assignee of the original applicant applied for a motion for issuance of a decree of registration before the lower court pending the approval of the Record on Appeal. The motion was opposed by the Government which appealed the lower court’s decision adjudicating the land to the said assignee. We thus ruled:
Under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the appellants to serve a copy of their Notice of Appeal to the counsel for the adjudicatee Roman C. Tamayo is not fatal to the appeal because, admittedly, he was served with a copy of the original, as well as the Amended Record on Appeal in both of which the Notice of Appeal is embodied. Hence, such failure cannot impair the right of appeal.
What is more, the appeal taken by the Government was from the entire decision, which is not severable. Thus, the appeal affects the whole decision.
In any event, We rule that execution pending appeal is not applicable in a land registration proceeding. It is fraught with dangerous consequences. Innocent purchasers may be misled into purchasing real properties upon reliance on a judgment which may be reversed on appeal.
A Torrens title issued on the basis of a judgment that is not final is a nullity, as it is violative of the explicit provisions of the Land Registration Act which requires that a decree shall be issued only after the decision adjudicating the title becomes final and executory, and it is on the basis of said decree that the Register of Deeds concerned issues the corresponding certificate of title.
Consequently, the lower court acted without jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the issuance of a decree of registration despite the appeal timely taken from the entire decision a quo.[11][48]
OCT No. 9587 on its face showed that its basis was Decree No. N-141990 issued on October 31, 1972 pursuant to the January 31, 1966 decision of the CFI in Land Reg. Case No. N-5053 and CA decision dated July 30, 1971. Per records of this Court, however, Velasquez had filed a petition for review of the CA decision. Be that as it may, the premature issuance of the decree in favor of Emilio Gregorio and the corresponding original certificate of title in his name did not affect his acquisition of title over the subject land considering that Velasquez’s petition was eventually dismissed. Neither can petitioner, by reason alone of defective issuance of OCT No. 9587, claim a right over the subject land superior to that acquired by the private respondent.
A reading of the annotations of encumbrances at the back of TCT No. T-27380 which were carried over from TCT No. S-91911 in the name of the Heirs of Gregorio, would show that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 35305 filed before the CFI of Rizal by private respondent and Trinidad, the latter caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens involving the same properties of the defendants therein, the heirs of Emilio Gregorio. The notice of lis pendens was registered as Entry No. 21398[12][49] on TCT No. S-91911.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment. Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation. Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[13][50]
The filing of a notice of lis pendens has a two-fold effect: (1) to keep the subject matter of the litigation within the power of the court until the entry of the final judgment to prevent the defeat of the final judgment by successive alienations; and (2) to bind a purchaser, bona fide or not, of the land subject of the litigation to the judgment or decree that the court will promulgate subsequently.[14][51] Once a notice of lis pendens has been duly registered, any subsequent transaction affecting the land involved would have to be subject to the outcome of the litigation.[15][52]
Petitioner being a mere transferee at the time the decision of the RTC of Pasig in Civil Case No. 35305 had become final and executory on December 6, 1988, it is bound by the said judgment which ordered the heirs of Emilio Gregorio to convey Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Psu-204875 in favor of private respondent and Trinidad. As such buyer of one of the lots to be conveyed to private respondent pursuant to the court’s decree with notice that said properties are in litigation, petitioner merely stepped into the shoes of its vendors who lost in the case. Such vested right acquired by the private respondent under the final judgment in his favor may not be defeated by the subsequent issuance of another certificate of title to the heirs of Gregorio respecting the same parcel of land. For it is well-settled that being an involuntary transaction, entry of the notice of lis pendens in the primary entry book of the Register of Deeds is sufficient to constitute registration and such entry is notice to all persons of such claim.[16][53]
“It is to be noted that the notation of the lis pendens on the back of the owner’s duplicate is not mentioned for the purpose of constituting a constructive notice because usually such owner’s duplicate certificate is presented for the purpose of the annotation later, and sometimes not at all until [it is] ordered by the court.”[17][54] Strictly speaking, the lis pendens annotation is not to be referred to “as a part of the doctrine of notice; the purchaser pendente lite is affected, not by notice, but because the law does not allow litigating parties to give to others, pending the litigation, rights to the property in dispute so as to prejudice the opposite party. The doctrine rests upon public policy, not notice.”[18][55] Thus we have held that one who buys land where there is a pending notice of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith; neither can he have acquired better rights than those of his predecessor in interest.[19][56]
In view of the foregoing, we hold that the CA did not err in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner’s complaint for quieting of title and ordering the cancellation of its TCT No. T-8129.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 30, 2001 and Resolution dated October 23, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60712 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
|
[20][1] Rollo, pp. 34-49. Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices Mercedes Gozo-Dadole and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[21][2] Id. at 51-52. Penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Alicia L. Santos concurring.
[22][3] Id. at 54-59. Penned by Judge Alfredo R. Enriquez.
[23][4] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 460-463.
[24][5] Id. at 479.
[25][6] Id. at 479-480.
[26][7] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 39-47.
[27][8] Id. at 47.
[28][9] Id. at 34.
[29][10] Id. at 35-37.
[30][11] Id. at 37.
[31][12] Records (Vol. 2), p. 476.
[32][13] Id. at 491.
[33][14] Id. at 481-482.
[34][15] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[35][16] Records (Vol. 2), p. 483.
[36][17] Id. at 495-496.
[37][18] Id.
[38][19] Id. at 487-488.
[39][20] Id. at 487 (back), 489-490.
[40][21] Id. at 370.
[41][22] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 14-15.
[42][23] Records (Vol. 2), pp. 485-486.
[43][24] Id. at 492-494.
[44][25] Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[45][26] Id. at 62.
[46][27] Id. at 63.
[47][28] Records (Vol. 1), pp. 7-11.
[48][29] Rollo, p. 60.
[49][30] Top Management Programs Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102996, May 28, 1993, 222 SCRA 763.
[50][31] Id. at 772.
[51][32] Rollo, pp. 54-59.
[52][33] Id. at 59.
[53][34] Id. at 34-49.
[54][35] Nos. L-27594 & 28144, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177.
[55][36] Secuya v. Vda. de Selma, G.R. No. 136021, February 22, 2000, 326 SCRA 244, 246.
[56][37] Baricuatro, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105902, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137, 146-147.
[1][38] G.R. No. 161433, August 29, 2006, 500 SCRA 108, 115.
[2][39] G.R. No. 115788, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 556.
[3][40] Id. at 578.
[4][41] Records (Vol. 2), p. 487.
[5][42] Republic v. Heirs of Abrille, No. L-39248, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 57, 66; Realty Sales Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, No. L-67451, May 4, 1988, 161 SCRA 56, 61.
[6][43] SEC. 30 of P.D. No. 1529 provides:
Sec. 30. When judgment becomes final; duty to cause issuance of decree. –x x x
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.
[7][44] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 168848 & 169019, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 299, 314.
[8][45] Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, G.R. No. 101387, March 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333, 343.
[9][46] See Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Systems v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103558, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783, 788.
[10][47] See Heirs of the Late Jose De Luzuriaga v. Republic, supra note 44.
[11][48] Supra note 35 at 185-186.
[12][49] Rollo, p. 62.
[13][50] Associated Bank v. Pronstroller, G.R. No. 148444, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 113, 133, citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483, 492.
[14][51] Id., citing Romero v. Court of Appeals, id. at 492-493 and Heirs of Eugenio Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262, January 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173, 186.
[15][52] Vicente v. Avera, G.R. No. 169970, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 634, 643.
[16][53] Director of Lands v. Reyes, supra note 35 at 188; Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 102648, November 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 24, 32, citing Levin v. Bass, et al., 91 Phil. 419, 437 (1952).
[17][54] A. H. Noblejas and E. H. Noblejas, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 2007 Ed., pp. 436-437.
[18][55] Id. at 437, citing 2 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, p. 2033, SCRA Annotation on Civil Law, the Public Land Act and the Property Registration Decree, 1983 Ed., pp. 118-119 quoted in Tirado v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 84201, August 3, 1990, 188 SCRA 321, 326-327.
[19][56] Yu v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109078, December 25, 1995, 251 SCRA 509, 513-514, citing Constantino v. Espiritu, No. L-23268, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 557, 563 and Tanchoco v. Aquino, No. L-30670, September 15, 1987, 154 SCRA 1, 15; see Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, No. L-34404, June 25, 1980, 98 SCRA 207, 232.
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Special Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day of February, two thousand seven.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9485
June 02, 2007
AN ACT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC BY REDUCING BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE, PREVENTING GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the “Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007“.
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government.
Sec. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are excluded from the coverage of this Act.
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) “Simple Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.
(b) “Complex Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned.
(c) “Frontline Service” refers to the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.
(d) “Action” refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(e) “Officer or Employee” refers to a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(f) “Irrevelant requirement” refer to any document or performance of an act not directly material to the resolution of the issues raised in the request or needed in the application submitted by the client.
(g) “Fixer” refers to any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration.
Sec. 5 Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. - All offices and agencies which provide frontline services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.
Sec. 6. Citizen’s Charter. - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen’s Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:
(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;
(b) The person/s responsible for each step;
(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;
(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, if necessary;
(e) The amount of fees, if necessary; and
(f) The procedure for filing complaints.
Sec. 7. Accountability of the Heads of Offices and Agencies. - The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
Sec. 8. Accessing Frontline Services. - The following shall be adopted by all government offices and agencies:
(a) Acceptance of Applications and Request - (1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by clients of the office or agencies.
(2) The responsible officer or employee shall acknowledge receipt of such application and/or request by writing or printing clearly thereon his/her name, the unit where he/she is connected with, and the time and date of receipt.
(3) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the request so as to promote a more expeditious action on requests.
(b) Action of Offices - (1) All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen’s Charter which shall not be longer than five working days in the case of simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request or application was received. Depending on the nature of the frontline services requested or the mandate of the office or agency under unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension due to nature of frontline services or the mandate of the office or agency concerned the period for the delivery of frontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen’s Charter. The office or agency concerned shall notify the requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and the final date of release for the extension and the final date of release of the frontline service/s requested.
(2) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from the receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including a list of specific requirement/s which the client failed to submit.
(c) Denial of Request for Access to Government Service - Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
(d) Limitation of Signatories - The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.
(e) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads of offices and agencies which render frontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.
(f) Identification Card - All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which should be visibly worn during office hours.
(g) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices.
Sec. 9. Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. - - If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal: Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
Sec. 10. Report Card Survey. - All offices and agencies providing frontline services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Civil Service Commission, in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines, which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions in the Citizen’s Charter are being followed and how the agency is performing.
The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by clients to access frontline services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers.
A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report.
Sec. 11. Violations. - After compliance with the substantive and procedural due process, the following shall constitute violations of this Act together with their corresponding penalties:
(a) Light Offense - (1) Refusal to accept application and/or request within the prescribed period or any document being submitted by a client;
(2) Failure to act on an application and/or request or failure to refer back to the client a request which cannot be acted upon due to lack of requirement/s within the prescribed period;
(3) Failure to attend to clients who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch
(4) Failure to render frontline services within the prescribed period on any application and/or request without due cause;
(5) Failure to give the client a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request; and
(6) Imposition of additional irrelevant requirements other than those listed in the first notice.
Penalties for light offense shall be as follows:
First Offense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values Orientation Program;
Second Offense - Three (3) months suspension without pay; and
Third Offense - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
(b) Grave Offense - Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage.
Penalty - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
Sec. 12. Criminal Liability for Fixers. - In addition to Sec. 11 (b), fixers, as defined in this Act, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six years or a fine not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Sec. 13. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred. - The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated.
Sec. 14. Administrative Jurisdiction. - The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances.
Sec. 15. Immunity; Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. - Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;
(c) The testimony of said respondent/accused-informant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) The responden/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
(e) Said responden/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.
Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Civil Service Commission in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act.
Sec. 17. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act.
Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. - All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.
Sec. 19. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved:
|
JOSE DE VENECIA JR. |
MANNY VILLAR |
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2589 and House Bill No. 3776 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February 20, 2007 respectively.
|
ROBERTO P. NAZARENO |
OSCAR G. YABES |
Approved: JUN 02, 2007
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
It is worthwhile to discuss here the different types of registration of properties for a better understanding of systems of registration in the Registries of Deeds throughout the Philippines. The system of registration of registered lands (covered by titles) is by virtue of Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act (now Presidential Decree No. 1529). On the other hand, the system of recording of transactions of unregistered estate including structures or improvements thereon is by virtue of Act No. 3344, as amended (now Sec. 113 of P.D. 1529). These systems of registration are separate and distinct from each other in scope and subject matter (LRC Consulta No. 2887, citing Consulta No. 1302).
As far as the Original/Transfer Certificate of Title is concerned, the duty of the Registrar of Deeds is not merely the recording of documents submitted by the transacting public but also the registration of the same by the performance of some overt acts which, by law (Act 496/Presidential Decree No. 1529) is mandatory and ministerial: annotation/inscription and/or cancellation of Title and, in lieu thereof, the issuance of new certificates in favor of registrants pursuant to the documents sufficient in form and substance. The transaction is then recorded in the Books of the Registry known as the Registration Book/Day Book.
It is different with other properties, i.e., properties covered by Tax Declarations including improvements/buildings/structures. These properties, being merely tax – declared are covered under the system of registration pursuant to Act No. 3344, as amended. In this case, the duty of the Registrar of Deeds is merely the recording of documents pertinent thereto in the Books of the Registry under Act No.3344.
The main reason for the difference in the operation of Act No. 3344 compared with PD 1529 lies obviously in the fact that recordings under said Act No. 3344 are not preceded by any investigation, judicial or administrative, as to the validity or efficacy of the instrument sought to be recorded. Moreover, as held in numerous cases, transactions registered under Act No. 3344 cannot defeat a third person with a better right since tax-declared properties and/or its improvements have little evidentiary weight as proof of ownership. Act No. 3344 itself expresses that registration thereunder would not prejudice prior rights in good faith (Cruz vs. Cabana/Carumba vs. Court of Appeals, 31 SCRA 558/G.R. No. 154409/June 21, 2004/G.R. No. 171535, June 5, 2009/G.R. No. 185091, August 8, 2010). In tax declarations, a disclaimer exist at the bottom or at the side of the document: that the declaration is for taxation purposes only and it does not and cannot by itself alone confer any ownership or legal title to the property.
Transactions in the Registry involving tax declarations are for recording only. The transaction involving its cancellation/transfer is within the exclusive authority of the Local Government Unit particularly the Office of the Assessor of the Local Government where the property is located.
PD 1529 MALACAÑANG PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1529 AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS, there is a need to update the Land Registration Act and to codify the various laws relative to registration of property, in order to facilitate effective implementation of said laws; WHEREAS, to strengthen the Torrens system, it is deemed necessary to adopt safeguards to prevent anomalous titling of real property, and to streamline and simplify registration proceedings and the issuance of certificates of title; WHEREAS, the decrees promulgated relative to the registration of certificates of land transfer and emancipation patents issued pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 to hasten the implementation of the land reform program of the country form an integral part of the property registration laws; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree the following: CHAPTER I Section 1. Title of Decree. This Decree shall be known as the PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE. Section 2. Nature of registration proceedings; jurisdiction of courts. Judicial proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the Philippines shall be in rem and shall be based on the generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens system. Courts of First Instance shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications for original registration of title to lands, including improvements and interests therein, and over all petitions filed after original registration of title, with power to hear and determine all questions arising upon such applications or petitions. The court through its clerk of court shall furnish the Land Registration Commission with two certified copies of all pleadings, exhibits, orders, and decisions filed or issued in applications or petitions for land registration, with the exception of stenographic notes, within five days from the filing or issuance thereof. Section 3. Status of other pre-existing land registration system. The system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law is hereby discontinued and all lands recorded under said system which are not yet covered by Torrens title shall be considered as unregistered lands. Hereafter, all instruments affecting lands originally registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law may be recorded under Section 113 of this Decree, until the land shall have been brought under the operation of the Torrens system. The books of registration for unregistered lands provided under Section 194 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3344, shall continue to remain in force; provided, that all instruments dealing with unregistered lands shall henceforth be registered under Section 113 of this Decree. CHAPTER II Section 4. Land Registration Commission. In order to have a more efficient execution of the laws relative to the registration of lands, geared to the massive and accelerated land reform and social justice program of the government, there is created a commission to be known as the Land Registration Commission under the executive supervision of the Department of Justice. Section 5. Officials and employees of the Commission. The Land Registration Commission shall have a chief and an assistant chief to be known, respectively, as the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Land Registration who shall be appointed by the President. The Commissioner shall be duly qualified member of the Philippine Bar with at least ten years of practice in the legal profession, and shall have the same rank, compensation and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The Deputy Commissioner, who shall possess the same qualifications as those required of the Commissioner, shall receive compensation which shall be three thousand pesos per annum less than that of the Commissioner. He shall act as Commissioner of Land Registration during the absence or disability of the Commissioner and when there is a vacancy in the position until another person shall have been designated or appointed in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner shall also perform such other functions as the Commissioner may assign to him. They shall be assisted by such number of division chiefs as may be necessary in the interest of the functioning of the Commission, by a Special Assistant to the Commissioner, and by a Chief Geodetic Engineer who shall each receive compensation at the rate of three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. All other officials and employees of the Land Registration Commission including those of the Registries of Deeds whose salaries are not herein provided, shall receive salaries corresponding to the minimum of their respective upgraded ranges as provided under paragraph 3.1 of Budget Circular No. 273, plus sixty per centum thereof across the board, notwithstanding the maximum salary allowed for their respective civil service eligibilities. The salaries of officials and employees provided in this Decree shall be without prejudice to such benefits and adjustments as may from time to time be granted by the President or by the legislature to government employees. All officials and employees of the Commission except Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. Section 6. General Functions. (1) The Commissioner of Land Registration shall have the following functions: (a) Issue decrees of registration pursuant to final judgments of the courts in land registration proceedings and cause the issuance by the Registers of Deeds of the corresponding certificates of title; (b) Exercise supervision and control over all Registers of Deeds and other personnel of the Commission; (c) Resolve cases elevated en consulta by, or on appeal from decision of, Registers of Deeds; (d) Exercise executive supervision over all clerks of court and personnel of the Courts of First Instance throughout the Philippines with respect to the discharge of their duties and functions in relation to the registration of lands; (e) Implement all orders, decisions, and decrees promulgated relative to the registration of lands and issue, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, all needful rules and regulations therefor; (f) Verify and approve subdivision, consolidation, and consolidation-subdivision survey plans of properties titled under Act No. 496 except those covered by P.D. No. 957. (2) The Land Registration Commission shall have the following functions: (a) Extend speedy and effective assistance to the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank, and other agencies in the implementation of the land reform program of the government; (b) Extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings; (c) Be the central repository of records relative to original registration of lands titled under the Torrens system, including subdivision and consolidation plans of titled lands. Section 7. Office of the Register of Deeds. There shall be at least one Register of Deeds for each province and one for each city. Every Registry with a yearly average collection of more than sixty thousand pesos during the last three years shall have one Deputy Register of Deeds, and every Registry with a yearly average collection of more than three hundred thousand pesos during the last three years, shall have one Deputy Register of Deeds and one second Deputy Register of Deeds. The Secretary of Justice shall define the official station and territorial jurisdiction of each Registry upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration, with the end in view of making every registry easily accessible to the people of the neighboring municipalities. The province or city shall furnish a suitable space or building for the office of the Register of Deeds until such time as the same could be furnished out of national funds. Section 8. Appointment of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies and other subordinate personnel; salaries. Registers of Deeds shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. Deputy Registers of Deeds and all other subordinate personnel of the Registries of Deeds shall be appointed by the Secretary of Justice upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration. The salaries of Registers of Deeds and their Deputies shall be at the following rates: (1) First Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in first class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than that of the Deputy Commissioner. (2) Second Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in second class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in first class Registries. (3) Third Class Registries The salaries of Registers of Deeds in third class Registries shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than those of Registers of Deeds in second class Registries. (4) The salaries of Deputy Registers of Deeds and Second Deputy Registers of Deeds shall be three thousand four hundred pesos per annum less than those of their corresponding Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds, respectively. The Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Land Registration, shall cause the reclassification of Registries based either on work load or the class of province/city, whichever will result in a higher classification, for purposes of salary adjustments in accordance with the rates hereinabove provided. Section 9. Qualifications of Registers of Deeds and Deputy Registers of Deeds. No person shall be appointed Register of Deeds unless he has been admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines and shall have been actually engaged in such practice for at least three years or has been employed for a like period in any branch of government the functions of which include the registration of property. The Deputy Register of Deeds shall be a member of the Philippine Bar. Provided, however, that no Register of Deeds or Deputy Register of Deeds holding office as such upon the passage of this Decree shall by reason hereof, be removed from office or be demoted to a lower category or scale of salary except for cause and upon compliance with due process as provided for by law. Section 10. General functions of Registers of Deeds. The office of the Register of Deeds constitutes a public repository of records of instruments affecting registered or unregistered lands and chattel mortgages in the province or city wherein such office is situated. It shall be the duty of the Register of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. He shall see to it that said instrument bears the proper documentary and science stamps and that the same are properly canceled. If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reason therefor, and advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this Decree. Section 11. Discharge of duties of Register of Deeds in case of vacancy, etc. (1) Until a regular Register of Deeds shall have been appointed for a province or city, or in case of vacancy in the office, or upon the occasion of the absence, illness, suspension, or inability of the Register of Deeds to discharge his duties, said duties shall be performed by the following officials, in the order in which they are mentioned below, unless the Secretary of Justice designates another official to act temporarily in his place: (a) For the province or city where there is a Deputy Register of Deeds, by said Deputy Register of Deeds, or by the second Deputy Register of Deeds, should there be one; (b) For the province or city where there is no Deputy or second Deputy Register of Deeds, by the Provincial or City Fiscal, or any Assistant Fiscal designated by the Provincial or City Fiscal; (2) In case of absence, disability or suspension of the Register of Deeds without pay, or in case of vacancy in the position, the Secretary of Justice may, in his discretion, authorize the payment of an additional compensation to the official acting as Register of Deeds, such additional compensation together with his actual salary not to exceed the salary authorized for the position thus filled by him. (3) In case of a newly-created province or city and pending establishment of a Registry of Deeds and the appointment of a regular Register of Deeds for the new province or city, the Register of Deeds of the mother province or city shall be the ex-officio Register of Deeds for said new province or city. Section 12. Owner’s Index; reports. There shall be prepared in every Registry an index system which shall contain the names of all registered owners alphabetically arranged. For this purpose, an index card which shall be prepared in the name of each registered owner which shall contain a list of all lands registered in his name. The Register of Deeds shall submit to the Land Registration Commission within ten days after the month to which they pertain his monthly reports on collections and accomplishments. He shall also submit to the Commission at the end of December of each year, an annual inventory of all titles and instruments in his Registry. Section 13. Chief Geodetic Engineer. There shall be a Chief Geodetic Engineer in the Land Registration Commission who shall be the technical adviser of the Commission on all matters involving surveys and shall be responsible to him for all plats, plans and works requiring the services of a geodetic engineer in said office. He shall perform such other functions as may, from time to time, be assigned to him by the Commissioner. CHAPTER III I A. APPLICATIONS Section 14. Who may apply. The following persons may file in the proper Court of First Instance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through their duly authorized representatives: (1) Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain under a bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or earlier. (2) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription under the provision of existing laws. (3) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the existing laws. (4) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other manner provided for by law. Where the land is owned in common, all the co-owners shall file the application jointly. Where the land has been sold under pacto de retro, the vendor a retro may file an application for the original registration of the land, provided, however, that should the period for redemption expire during the pendency of the registration proceedings and ownership to the property consolidated in the vendee a retro, the latter shall be substituted for the applicant and may continue the proceedings. A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply for original registration of any land held in trust by him, unless prohibited by the instrument creating the trust. Section 15. Form and contents. The application for land registration shall be in writing, signed by the application or the person duly authorized in his behalf, and sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths for the province or city where the application was actually signed. If there is more than one applicant, the application shall be signed and sworn to by and in behalf of each. The application shall contain a description of the land and shall state the citizenship and civil status of the applicant, whether single or married, and, if married, the name of the wife or husband, and, if the marriage has been legally dissolved, when and how the marriage relation terminated. It shall also state the full names and addresses of all occupants of the land and those of the adjoining owners, if known, and, if not known, it shall state the extent of the search made to find them. The application, shall, in form, be substantially as follows: Republic of the Philippines The undersigned, ____________________________________________________________hereby applies (or apply) to have the land hereinafter described brought under the operation of the Property Registration Decree, and to have the title thereto registered and confirmed: AND DECLARE . . . . . 1. That the applicants/s is/are the owners of the land (by virtue of inheritance or deed of sale or conveyance and/or possession in accordance with Section 14 of said Decree), together with the building and improvements thereon, with the exception of the following:__________________________________________________________________ which is/are the property of _________________________ residing at _________________________ The said land, consisting of ____________________ parcel/s is/are situated, bounded and described as shown on the plan and technical descriptions attached hereto and made a part hereof, with the following exception:___________________________________________________________________ 2. That said land at the last assessment for taxation was assessed at P ____, Philippine currency, and the buildings and other improvements at P ___________, Philippine currency. 3. That to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, there is no mortgage or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land, nor any other person having any interest therein, legal or equitable, or in possession, other than as follows: _______________________________________________________________________________ 4. That the applicant/s has/have acquired said land in the following manner: ________________________________ (Note: Refer to Sec. 14 of said Decree. State also whether the property is conjugal, paraphernal or exclusive property of the applicant/s) 5. That said land is occupied by the following person: _____________________________ ______________________________________________ 6. That the names in full and addresses, as far as known to the undersigned, of the owners of all adjoining properties, of the persons mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5, and of the persons shown on the plan as claimants, are as follows: ________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. That the applicant/s is/are single or married to ____________________ (Note: if marriage has been legally dissolved, state when and how the marriage relation terminated.)_________________________________________________________________ _____________________ 8. That the applicant’s/s’ full name, age, citizenship, residence, and postal address/es is/are as follows: ___________________________________________________________________ 9. That (Note: If the land included in the application is bounded by a public or private way or road, there should be stated in this paragraph whether or not the applicant claims any and what land within the limits of the way or road and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or road determined.) ________________________________________ ___________________________ 10. That the following documents are attached hereto and made a part hereof: ___________________________________ ________________________________ Signed at ___________________ this _____________________ day of ____________________, in the year nineteen hundred and ______________________. __________________________ _________________________
M a n i l a
GENERAL PROVISIONS
THE LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
ORDINARY REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
Court of First Instance of _________________
Applicant
(Post Office Address)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROVINCE (OR CITY) OF _______________
On this _______________ day of _________________________,19 ________ personally appeared before me the above- named __________________________________________________ known to me to be the person/s who executed the foregoing application and made oath that the statements therein are true of his/their knowledge, information and belief.
The Residence Certificate/s ______________________ of the applicant/s ______________ was/were exhibited to me being No. _________________ issued at ___________________ dated ____________, 19 __________.
________________________
(Notary Public, or other Officer
authorized to administer oaths)
PTR NO. _________________
Section 16. Non-resident applicant. If the applicant is not a resident of the Philippines, he shall file with his application an instrument in due form appointing an agent or representative residing in the Philippines, giving his full name and postal address, and shall therein agree that the service of any legal process in the proceedings under or growing out of the application made upon his agent or representative shall be of the same legal effect as if made upon the applicant within the Philippines. If the agent or representative dies, or leaves the Philippines, the applicant shall forthwith make another appointment for the substitute, and, if he fails to do so the court may dismiss the application.
Section 17. What and where to file. The application for land registration shall be filed with the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the land is situated. The applicant shall file together with the application all original muniments of titles or copies thereof and a survey plan of the land approved by the Bureau of Lands.
The clerk of court shall not accept any application unless it is shown that the applicant has furnished the Director of Lands with a copy of the application and all annexes.
Section 18. Application covering two or more parcels. An application may include two or more parcels of land belonging to the applicant/s provided they are situated within the same province or city. The court may at any time order an application to be amended by striking out one or more of the parcels or by a severance of the application.
Section 19. Amendments. Amendments to the application including joinder, substitution, or discontinuance as to parties may be allowed by the court at any stage of the proceedings upon just and reasonable terms.
Amendments which shall consist in a substantial change in the boundaries or an increase in area of the land applied for or which involve the inclusion of an additional land shall be subject to the same requirements of publication and notice as in an original application.
Section 20. When land applied for borders on road. If the application describes the land as bounded by a public or private way or road, it shall state whether or not the applicant claims any and what portion of the land within the limits of the way or road, and whether the applicant desires to have the line of the way or road determined.
Section 21. Requirement of additional facts and papers; ocular inspection. The court may require facts to be stated in the application in addition to those prescribed by this Decree not inconsistent therewith and may require the filing of any additional paper. It may also conduct an ocular inspection, if necessary.
Section 22. Dealings with land pending original registration. After the filing of the application and before the issuance of the decree of registration, the land therein described may still be the subject of dealings in whole or in part, in which case the interested party shall present to the court the pertinent instruments together with a subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands in case of transfer of portions thereof and the court, after notice to the parties, shall order such land registered subject to the conveyance or encumbrance created by said instruments, or order that the decree of registration be issued in the name of the person to whom the property has been conveyed by said instruments.
B. PUBLICATION, OPPOSITION AND DEFAULT
Section 23. Notice of initial hearing, publication, etc. The court shall, within five days from filing of the application, issue an order setting the date and hour of the initial hearing which shall not be earlier than forty-five days nor later than ninety days from the date of the order.
The public shall be given notice of the initial hearing of the application for land registration by means of (1) publication; (2) mailing; and (3) posting.
1. By publication.
Upon receipt of the order of the court setting the time for initial hearing, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause notice of initial hearing to be published once in the Official Gazette and once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines: Provided, however, that the publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Said notice shall be addressed to all persons appearing to have an interest in the land involved including the adjoining owners so far as known, and “to all whom it may concern”. Said notice shall also require all persons concerned to appear in court at a certain date and time to show cause why the prayer of said application shall not be granted.
2. By mailing.
(a) Mailing of notice to persons named in the application. The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also, within seven days after publication of said notice in the Official Gazette, as hereinbefore provided, cause a copy of the notice of initial hearing to be mailed to every person named in the notice whose address is known.
(b) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Public Highways, the Provincial Governor and the Mayor. If the applicant requests to have the line of a public way or road determined, the Commissioner of Land Registration shall cause a copy of said notice of initial hearing to be mailed to the Secretary of Public Highways, to the Provincial Governor, and to the Mayor of the municipality or city, as the case may be, in which the land lies.
(c) Mailing of notice to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Public Works, the Director of Forest Development, the Director of Mines and the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. If the land borders on a river, navigable stream or shore, or on an arm of the sea where a river or harbor line has been established, or on a lake, or if it otherwise appears from the application or the proceedings that a tenant-farmer or the national government may have a claim adverse to that of the applicant, notice of the initial hearing shall be given in the same manner to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Solicitor General, the Director of Lands, the Director of Mines and/or the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, as may be appropriate.
3. By posting.
The Commissioner of Land Registration shall also cause a duly attested copy of the notice of initial hearing to be posted by the sheriff of the province or city, as the case may be, or by his deputy, in a conspicuous place on each parcel of land included in the application and also in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the municipality or city in which the land or portion thereof is situated, fourteen days at least before the date of initial hearing.
The court may also cause notice to be served to such other persons and in such manner as it may deem proper.
The notice of initial hearing shall, in form, be substantially as follows:
(Caption and Title)
NOTICE OF INITIAL HEARING
To (here insert the names of all persons appearing to have an interest and the adjoining owners so far as known, and to all whom it may concern):
An application (or petition) having been filed in the above-entitled case by (full name and address) praying for the registration and confirmation (or for the settlement and adjudication, in case of petition in cadastral proceedings) of title to the following described lands:
(Insert description)
You are hereby served this notice to appear before this Court at its session to be held at _________________ on the ______________ day of _______________, 19 ______, at _____________ o’clock in the _________ then and there to present such claims as you may have to said lands or any portion thereof, and to submit evidence in support of such claim; and unless you appear at said Court at the time and place aforesaid, your default will be recorded and the title to the lands will be adjudicated and determined in accordance with law and the evidence before the Court, and thereafter you will forever be barred from contesting said application (or petition) or any decree entered thereon.
Witness, the Hon. ________________________ Judge of the Court of First Instance of _______ this _______ day of _________________, in the year 19______.
Attest:
Commissioner of Land Registration
Section 24. Proof of publication and notice. The certification of the Commissioner of Land Registration and of the sheriff concerned to the effect that the notice of initial hearing, as required by law, has been complied with shall be filed in the case before the date of initial hearing, and shall be conclusive proof of such fact.
Section 25. Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings. Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file an opposition on or before the date of initial hearing, or within such further time as may be allowed by the court. The opposition shall state all the objections to the application and shall set forth the interest claimed by the party filing the same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to by him or by some other duly authorized person.
If the opposition or the adverse claim of any person covers only a portion of the lot and said portion is not properly delimited on the plan attached to the application, or in case of undivided co-ownership, conflicting claims of ownership or possession, or overlapping of boundaries, the court may require the parties to submit a subdivision plan duly approved by the Director of Lands.
Section 26. Order of default; effect. If no person appears and answers within the time allowed, the court shall, upon motion of the applicant, no reason to the contrary appearing, order a default to be recorded and require the applicant to present evidence. By the description in the notice “To all Whom It May Concern”, all the world are made parties defendant and shall be concluded by the default order.
Where an appearance has been entered and an answer filed, a default order shall be entered against persons who did not appear and answer.
C. HEARING JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION
Section 27. Speedy hearing; reference to a referee. The trial court shall see to it that all registration-proceedings are disposed or within ninety days from the date the case is submitted for decision,
The Court, if it deems necessary, may refer the case or any part thereof to a referee who shall hear the parties and their evidence, and the referee shall submit his report thereon to the Court within fifteen days after the termination of such hearing. Hearing before a referee may be held at any convenient place within the province or city as may be fixed by him and after reasonable notice thereof shall have been served the parties concerned. The court may render judgment in accordance with the report as though the facts have been found by the judge himself: Provided, however, that the court may in its discretion accept the report, or set it aside in whole or in part, or order the case to be recommitted for further proceedings:
Section 28. Partial judgment. In a case where only a portion of the land subject of registration is contested, the court may render partial judgment provided that a subdivision plan showing the contested and uncontested portions approved by the Director of Lands is previously submitted to said court.
Section 29. Judgment confirming title. All conflicting claims of ownership and interest in the land subject of the application shall be determined by the court. If the court, after considering the evidence and the reports of the Commissioner of Land Registration and the Director of Lands, finds that the applicant or the oppositor has sufficient title proper for registration, judgment shall be rendered confirming the title of the applicant, or the oppositor, to the land or portions thereof.
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 owner’s 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 no case shall such petition be entertained by the court where an innocent 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.
Section 33. Appeal from judgment, etc. The judgment and orders of the court hearing the land registration case are appealable to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary actions:
Section 34. Rules of procedure. The Rules of Court shall, insofar as not inconsistent with the provision of this Decree, be applicable to land registration and cadastral cases by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.
II
CADASTRAL REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
A. ORDER FOR SPEEDY SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION; SURVEY; NOTICES
Section 35. Cadastral Survey preparatory to filing of petition.
(a) When in the opinion of the President of the Philippines public interest so requires that title to any unregistered lands be settled and adjudicated, he may to this end direct and order the Director of Lands to cause to be made a cadastral survey of the lands involved and the plans and technical description thereof prepared in due form.
(b) Thereupon, the Director of Lands shall give notice to persons claiming any interest in the lands as well as to the general public, of the day on which such survey will begin, giving as fully and accurately as possible the description of the lands to be surveyed. Such notice shall be punished once in the Official Gazette, and a copy of the notice in English or the national language shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the bulletin board of the municipal building of the municipality in which the lands or any portion thereof is situated. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the mayor of such municipality as well as to the barangay captain and likewise to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Sangguniang Bayan concerned.
(c) The Geodetic Engineers or other employees of the Bureau of Lands in charge of the survey shall give notice reasonably in advance of the date on which the survey of any portion of such lands is to begin, which notice shall be posted in the bulletin board of the municipal building of the municipality or barrio in which the lands are situated, and shall mark the boundaries of the lands by monuments set up in proper places thereon. It shall be lawful for such Geodetic Engineers and other employees to enter upon the lands whenever necessary for the purposes of such survey or the placing of monuments.
(d) It shall be the duty of every person claiming an interest in the lands to be surveyed, or in any parcel thereof, to communicate with the Geodetic Engineer upon his request therefor all information possessed by such person concerning the boundary lines of any lands to which he claims title or in which he claims any interest.
(e) Any person who shall willfully obstruct the making of any survey undertaken by the Bureau of Lands or by a licensed Geodetic Engineer duly authorized to conduct the survey under this Section, or shall maliciously interfere with the placing of any monument or remove such monument, or shall destroy or remove any notice of survey posted on the land pursuant to law, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.
B. PETITION; LOT NUMBERS
Section 36. Petition for registration. When the lands have been surveyed or plotted, the Director of Lands, represented by the Solicitor General, shall institute original registration proceedings by filing the necessary petition in the Court of First Instance of the place where the land is situated against the holders, claimants, possessors, or occupants of such lands or any part thereof, stating in substance that public interest requires that the title to such lands be settled and adjudicated and praying that such titles be so settled and adjudicated:
The petition shall contain a description of the lands and shall be accompanied by a plan thereof, and may contain such other data as may serve to furnish full notice to the occupants of the lands and to all persons who may claim any right or interest therein.
Where the land consists of two or more parcels held or occupied by different persons, the plan shall indicate the boundaries or limits of the various parcels as accurately as possible. The parcels shall be known as “lots” and shall on the plan filed in the case be given separate numbers by the Director of Lands, which numbers shall be known as “cadastral lot numbers”. The lots situated within each municipality shall, as far as practicable, be numbered consecutively beginning with number “one”, and only one series of numbers shall be used for that purpose in each municipality. However in cities or townsites, a designation of the landholdings by blocks and lot numbers may be employed instead of the designation by cadastral lot numbers.
The cadastral number of a lot shall not be changed after final decision has been entered decreasing the registration thereof, except by order of court. Future subdivisions of any lot shall be designated by a letter or letters of the alphabet added to the cadastral number of the lot to which the respective subdivisions pertain. The letter with which a subdivision is designated shall be known as its “cadastral letter”: Provided, however, that the subdivisions of cities or townsites may be designated by blocks and lot numbers.
C. ANSWER
Section 37. Answer to petition in cadastral proceedings. Any claimant in cadastral proceedings, whether named in the notice or not, shall appear before the court by himself or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall file an answer on or before the date of initial hearing or within such further time as may be allowed by the court. The answer shall be signed and sworn to by the claimant or by some other authorized person in his behalf, and shall state whether the claimant is married or unmarried, and if married, the name of the spouse and the date of marriage, his nationality, residence and postal address, and shall also contain:
(a) The age of the claimant;
(b) The cadastral number of the lot or lots claimed, as appearing on the plan filed in the case by the Director of Lands, or the block and lot numbers, as the case may be;
(c) The name of the barrio and municipality in which the lots are situated;
(d) The names and addresses of the owners of the adjoining lots so far as known to the claimant;
(e) If the claimant is in possession of the lots claimed and can show no express grant of the land by the government to him or to his predecessors-in-interest, the answer shall state the length of time he has held such possession and the manner in which it has been acquired, and shall also state the length of time, as far as known, during which the predecessors, if any, held possession;
(f) If the claimant is not in possession or occupation of the land, the answer shall fully set forth the interest claimed by him and the time and manner of his acquisition;
(g) if the lots have been assessed for taxation, their last assessed value; and
(h) The encumbrances, if any, affecting the lots and the names of adverse claimants, as far as known.
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 owner’s 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 owner’s duplicate is ready for delivery to him upon payment of legal fees.
Section 41. Owner’s duplicate certificate of title. The owner’s 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 owner’s 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 owner’s 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 owner’s 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 owner’s 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 owner’s 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 V
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION
I
VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
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 for the province or city where the land lies.
Section 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
Section 53. Presentation of owner’s duplicate upon entry of new certificate. No voluntary instrument shall be registered by the Register of Deeds, unless the owner’s duplicate certificate is presented with such instrument, except in cases expressly provided for in this Decree or upon order of the court, for cause shown.
The production of the owner’s duplicate certificate, whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and in good faith.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. After the entry of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void.
Section 54. Dealings less than ownership, how registered. No new certificate shall be entered or issued pursuant to any instrument which does not divest the ownership or title from the owner or from the transferee of the registered owners. All interests in registered land less than ownership shall be registered by filing with the Register of Deeds the instrument which creates or transfers or claims such interests and by a brief memorandum thereof made by the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title, and signed by him. A similar memorandum shall also be made on the owner’s duplicate. The cancellation or extinguishment of such interests shall be registered in the same manner.
Section 55. Grantee’s name, nationality, etc., to be stated. Every deed or other voluntary instrument presented for registration shall contain or have endorsed upon it the full name, nationality, residence and postal address of the grantee or other person acquiring or claiming an interest under such instrument, and every deed shall also state whether the grantee is married or unmarried, and if married, the name in full of the husband or wife. If the grantee is a corporation or association, the instrument must contain a recital to show that such corporation or association is legally qualified to acquire private lands. Any change in the residence or postal address of such person shall be endorsed by the Register of Deeds on the original copy of the corresponding certificate of title, upon receiving a sworn statement of such change. All names and addresses shall also be entered on all certificates.
Notices and processed issued in relation to registered land in pursuance of this Decree may be served upon any person in interest by mailing the same to the addresses given, and shall be binding, whether such person resides within or without the Philippines, but the court may, in its discretion, require further or other notice to be given in any case, if in its opinion the interest of justice so requires.
Section 56. Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies. Each Register of Deeds shall keep a primary entry book in which, upon payment of the entry fee, he shall enter, in the order of their reception, all instruments including copies of writs and processes filed with him relating to registered land. He shall, as a preliminary process in registration, note in such book the date, hour and minute of reception of all instruments, in the order in which they were received. They shall be regarded as registered from the time so noted, and the memorandum of each instrument, when made on the certificate of title to which it refers, shall bear the same date: Provided, that the national government as well as the provincial and city governments shall be exempt from the payment of such fees in advance in order to be entitled to entry and registration.
Every deed or other instrument, whether voluntary or involuntary, so filed with the Register of Deeds shall be numbered and indexed and endorsed with a reference to the proper certificate of title. All records and papers relative to registered land in the office of the Register of Deeds shall be open to the public in the same manner as court records, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Register of Deeds, under the direction of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may prescribe.
All deeds and voluntary instruments shall be presented with their respective copies and shall be attested and sealed by the Register of Deeds, endorsed with the file number, and copies may be delivered to the person presenting them.
Certified copies of all instruments filed and registered may also be obtained from the Register of Deeds upon payment of the prescribed fees.
(A) CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS
Section 57. Procedure in registration of conveyances. An owner desiring to convey his registered land in fee simple shall execute and register a deed of conveyance in a form sufficient in law. The Register of Deeds shall thereafter make out in the registration book a new certificate of title to the grantee and shall prepare and deliver to him an owner’s duplicate certificate. The Register of Deeds shall note upon the original and duplicate certificate the date of transfer, the volume and page of the registration book in which the new certificate is registered and a reference by number to the last preceding certificate. The original and the owner’s duplicate of the grantor’s certificate shall be stamped “canceled”. The deed of conveyance shall be filled and indorsed with the number and the place of registration of the certificate of title of the land conveyed.
Section 58. Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land. If a deed or conveyance is for a part only of the land described in a certificate of title, the Register of Deeds shall not enter any transfer certificate to the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the portions or lots into which it has been subdivided and the corresponding technical descriptions shall have been verified and approved pursuant to Section 50 of this Decree. Meanwhile, such deed may only be annotated by way of memorandum upon the grantor’s certificate of title, original and duplicate, said memorandum to serve as a notice to third persons of the fact that certain unsegregated portion of the land described therein has been conveyed, and every certificate with such memorandum shall be effectual for the purpose of showing the grantee’s title to the portion conveyed to him, pending the actual issuance of the corresponding certificate in his name.
Upon the approval of the plan and technical descriptions, the original of the plan, together with a certified copy of the technical descriptions shall be filed with the Register of Deeds for annotation in the corresponding certificate of title and thereupon said officer shall issue a new certificate of title to the grantee for the portion conveyed, and at the same time cancel the grantor’s certificate partially with respect only to said portion conveyed, or, if the grantor so desires, his certificate may be canceled totally and a new one issued to him describing therein the remaining portion: Provided, however, that pending approval of said plan, no further registration or annotation of any subsequent deed or other voluntary instrument involving the unsegregated portion conveyed shall be effected by the Register of Deeds, except where such unsegregated portion was purchased from the Government or any of its instrumentalities. If the land has been subdivided into several lots, designated by numbers or letters, the Register of Deeds may, if desired by the grantor, instead of canceling the latter’s certificate and issuing a new one to the same for the remaining unconveyed lots, enter on said certificate and on its owner’s duplicate a memorandum of such deed of conveyance and of the issuance of the transfer certificate to the grantee for the lot or lots thus conveyed, and that the grantor’s certificate is canceled as to such lot or lots.
Section 59. Carry over of encumbrances. If, at the time of any transfer, subsisting encumbrances or annotations appear in the registration book, they shall be carried over and stated in the new certificate or certificates; except so far as they may be simultaneously released or discharged.
(B) MORTGAGES AND LEASES
Section 60. Mortgage or lease of registered land. Mortgage and leases shall be registered in the manner provided in Section 54 of this Decree. The owner of registered land may mortgage or lease it by executing the deed in a form sufficient in law. Such deed of mortgage or lease and all instruments which assign, extend, discharge or otherwise deal with the mortgage or lease shall be registered, and shall take effect upon the title only from time of registration.
No mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate certificate of title shall hereafter be issued by the Registers of Deeds, and those issued prior to the effectivity of this Decree are hereby deemed canceled and the holders thereof shall immediately surrender the same to the Register of Deeds concerned.
Section 61. Registration. Upon presentation for registration of the deed of mortgage or lease together with the owner’s duplicate, the Register of Deeds shall enter upon the original of the certificate of title and also upon the owner’s duplicate certificate a memorandum thereof, the date and time of filing and the file number assigned to the deed, and shall sign the said memorandum. He shall also note on the deed the date and time of filing and a reference to the volume and page of the registration book in which it is registered.
Section 62. Discharge or cancellation. A mortgage or lease on registered land may be discharge or canceled by means of an instrument executed by the mortgage or lessee in a form sufficient in law, which shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall make the appropriate memorandum upon the certificate of title.
Section 63. Foreclosure of Mortgage. (a) If the mortgage was foreclosed judicially, a certified copy of the final order of the court confirming the sale shall be registered with the Register of Deeds. If no right of redemption exists, the certificate of title of the mortgagor shall be canceled, and a new certificate issued in the name of the purchaser.
Where the right of redemption exists, the certificate of title of the mortgagor shall not be canceled, but the certificate of sale and the order confirming the sale shall be registered by a brief memorandum thereof made by the Register of Deeds upon the certificate of title. In the event the property is redeemed, the certificate or deed of redemption shall be filed with the Register of Deeds, and a brief memorandum thereof shall be made by the Register of Deeds on the certificate of title of the mortgagor.
If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall be registered with the Register of Deeds; whereupon the title of the mortgagor shall be canceled, and a new certificate issued in the name of the purchaser.
(b) If the mortgage was foreclosed extrajudicially, a certificate of sale executed by the officer who conducted the sale shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall make a brief memorandum thereof on the certificate of title.
In the event of redemption by the mortgagor, the same rule provided for in the second paragraph of this section shall apply.
In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at foreclosure sale shall file with the Register of Deeds, either a final deed of sale executed by the person authorized by virtue of the power of attorney embodied in the deed of mortgage, or his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-redemption; whereupon, the Register of Deeds shall issue a new certificate in favor of the purchaser after the owner’s duplicate of the certificate has been previously delivered and canceled.
(C) POWERS OF ATTORNEY; TRUSTS
Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power of attorney, convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the same shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney shall be registered in like manner.
Section 65. Trusts in registered land. If a deed or other instrument is filed in order to transfer registered land in trust, or upon any equitable condition or limitation expressed therein, or to create or declare a trust or other equitable interests in such land without transfer, the particulars of the trust, condition, limitation or other equitable interest shall not be entered on the certificate; but only a memorandum thereof shall be entered by the words “in trust”, or “upon condition”, or other apt words, and by a reference by number to the instrument authorizing or creating the same. A similar memorandum shall be made upon the original instrument creating or declaring the trust or other equitable interest with a reference by number to the certificate of title to which it relates and to the volume and page in the registration book in which it is registered.
Section 66. Trust with power of sale, etc., how expressed. If the instrument creating or declaring a trust or other equitable interest contains an express power to sell, mortgage or deal with the land in any manner, such power shall be stated in the certificate of title by the words “with power to sell”, or “power to mortgage”, or by apt words of description in case of other powers. No instrument which transfers, mortgages or in any way deals with registered land in trust shall be registered, unless the enabling power thereto is expressly conferred in the trust instrument, or unless a final judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction has construed the instrument in favor of the power, in which case a certified copy of such judgment or order may be registered.
Section 67. Judicial appointment of new trustee. If a new trustee of registered land is appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction, a new certificate may be issued to him upon presentation to the Register of Deeds of a certified copy of the order or judicial appointment and the surrender for cancellation of the duplicate certificate.
Section 68. Implied, trusts, how established. Whoever claims an interest in registered land by reason of any implied or constructive trust shall file for registration with the Register of Deeds a sworn statement thereof containing a description of the land, the name of the registered owner and a reference to the number of the certificate of title. Such claim shall not affect the title of a purchaser for value and in good faith before its registration.
II
INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS
Section 69. Attachments. An attachment, or a copy of any writ, order or process issued by a court of record, intended to create or preserve any lien, status, right, or attachment upon registered land, shall be filed and registered in the Registry of Deeds for the province or city in which the land lies, and, in addition to the particulars required in such papers for registration, shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners thereof, and also if the attachment, order, process or lien is not claimed on all the land in any certificate of title a description sufficiently accurate for identification of the land or interest intended to be affected. A restraining order, injunction or mandamus issued by the court shall be entered and registered on the certificate of title affected, free of charge.
Section 70. Adverse claim. Whoever claims any part or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, arising subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if no other provision is made in this Decree for registering the same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the registered owner, the name of the registered owner, and a description of the land in which the right or interest is claimed.
The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall state the adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at which all notices may be served upon him. This statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim may be canceled upon filing of a verified petition therefor by the party in interest: Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance where the land is situated for the cancellation of the adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim, and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration thereof shall be ordered canceled. If, in any case, the court, after notice and hearing, shall find that the adverse claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant in an amount not less than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition to that effect.
Section 71. Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings. If an attachment or other lien in the nature of involuntary dealing in registered land is registered, and the duplicate certificate is not presented at the time of registration, the Register of Deeds shall, within thirty-six hours thereafter, send notice by mail to the registered owner, stating that such paper has been registered, and requesting him to send or produce his duplicate certificate so that a memorandum of the attachment or other lien may be made thereon. If the owner neglects or refuses to comply within a reasonable time, the Register of Deeds shall report the matter to the court, and it shall, after notice, enter an order to the owner, to produce his certificate at a time and place named therein, and may enforce the order by suitable process.
Section 72. Dissolution, etc. of attachments, etc. Attachments and liens of every description upon registered land shall be continued, reduced, discharged and dissolved by any method sufficient in law, and to give effect to the continuance, reduction, discharge or dissolution thereof the certificate or other instrument for that purpose shall be registered with the Register of Deeds.
Section 73. Registration of orders of court, etc. If an attachment is continued, reduced, dissolved, or otherwise affected by an order, decision or judgment of the court where the action or proceedings in which said attachment was made is pending or by an order of a court having jurisdiction thereof, a certificate of the entry of such order, decision or judgment from the clerk of court or the judge by which such decision, order or judgment has been rendered and under the seal of the court, shall be entitled to be registered upon presentation to the Register of Deeds.
Section 74. Enforcement of liens on registered land. Whenever registered land is solved on execution, or taken or sold for taxes or for any assessment or to enforce a lien of any character, or for any costs and charges incident to such liens, any execution or copy of execution, any officer’s return, or any deed, demand, certificate, or affidavit, or other instrument made in the course of the proceedings to enforce such liens and required by law to be recorded, shall be filed with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies and registered in the registration book, and a memorandum made upon the proper certificate of title in each case as lien or encumbrance.
Section 75. Application for new certificate upon expiration of redemption period. Upon the expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption after registered land has been sold on execution taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien, the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a new certificate of title to him.
Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.
Section 76. Notice of lis pendens. No action to recover possession of real estate, or to quiet title thereto, or to remove clouds upon the title thereof, or for partition, or other proceedings of any kind in court directly affecting the title to land or the use or occupation thereof or the buildings thereon, and no judgment, and no proceeding to vacate or reverse any judgment, shall have any effect upon registered land as against persons other than the parties thereto, unless a memorandum or notice stating the institution of such action or proceeding and the court wherein the same is pending, as well as the date of the institution thereof, together with a reference to the number of the certificate of title, and an adequate description of the land affected and the registered owner thereof, shall have been filed and registered.
Section 77. Cancellation of lis pendens. Before final judgment, a notice of lis pendens may be canceled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for the purpose of molesting the adverse party, or that it is not necessary to protect the rights of the party who caused it to be registered. It may also be canceled by the Register of Deeds upon verified petition of the party who caused the registration thereof.
At any time after final judgment in favor of the defendant, or other disposition of the action such as to terminate finally all rights of the plaintiff in and to the land and/or buildings involved, in any case in which a memorandum or notice of lis pendens has been registered as provided in the preceding section, the notice of lis pendens shall be deemed canceled upon the registration of a certificate of the clerk of court in which the action or proceeding was pending stating the manner of disposal thereof.
CHAPTER VI
REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENTS; ORDERS; PARTITIONS
Section 78. Judgment for Plaintiff. Whenever in any action to recover possession or ownership of real estate or any interest therein affecting registered land judgment is entered for the plaintiff, such judgment shall be entitled to registration on presentation of a certificate of the entry thereof from the clerk of court where the action is pending to the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies, who shall enter a memorandum upon the certificate of title of the land to which such judgment relates. If the judgment does not apply to all the land described in the certificate of title, the certificate of the clerk of the court where the action is pending and the memorandum entered by the Register of Deeds shall contain a description of the land affected by the judgment.
Section 79. Judgment adjudicating ownership. When in any action to recover the ownership of real estate or an interest therein execution has been issued in favor of the plaintiff, the latter shall be entitled to the entry of a new certificate of title and to the cancellation of the original certificate and owner’s duplicate of the former registered owner. If the registered owner neglects or refuses within a reasonable time after request of the plaintiff to produce his duplicate certificate in order that the same may be canceled, the court shall, on application and after notice, enter an order to the owner to produce his certificate at the time and place designated, and may enforce the order by suitable process.
Section 80. Execution of deed by virtue of judgment. Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting registered land shall, upon petition of said plaintiff, order and parties before it to execute for registration any deed or instrument necessary to give effect to the judgment, and shall require the registered owner to deliver his duplicate certificate to the plaintiff or to the Register of Deeds to be canceled or to have a memorandum annotated upon it. In case the person required to execute any deed or other instrument necessary to give effect to the judgment is absent from the Philippines, or is a minor, or insane, or for any reason not amenable to the process of the court rendering the judgment, said court may appoint a suitable person as trustee to execute such instrument which, when executed, shall be entitled to registration.
Section 81. Judgment of partition. In proceedings for partition of registered land, after the entry of the final judgment of partition, a copy of such final judgment, certified by the clerk of the court rendering the same, shall be filed and registered; thereupon, if the land is set of to the owners in severalty, each owner shall be entitled to have his certificate entered showing the share set off to him in severalty, and to receive an owner’s duplicate thereof.
If the land is ordered by the court to be sold, the purchaser or his assigns shall be entitled to certificate of title entered in his or their favor upon presenting a certified copy of the judgment confirming the sale.
In case the land is ordered by the court to be assigned to one of the parties upon payment to the others of the sum ordered by the court, the party to whom the land is thus assigned shall be entitled to have a certificate of title entered in his favor upon presenting a certified copy of the judgment: Provided, however, that any new certificate entered in pursuance of partition proceedings, whether by way of set-off or of assignment or of sale, shall contain a reference memorandum to the final judgment of partition, and shall be conclusive as to the title to the same extent and against the same persons as such judgment is made conclusive by the laws applicable thereto: and provided, further, that any person holding such certificate of title or a transfer thereof shall have the right to petition the court at any time to cancel the memorandum relating to such judgment or order and the court, after notice and hearing, may grant the petition. Such certificate shall thereafter be conclusive in the same manner and to the same extent as other certificates of title.
Section 82. Registration of prior registered mortgaged or lease on partitioned property. If a certified copy of a final judgment or decree of partition is presented and it appears that a mortgage or lease affecting a specific portion or an undivided share of the premises had previously been registered, the Register of Deeds shall carry over such encumbrance on the certificate of title that may be issued.
Section 83. Notice of insolvency. Whenever proceeding in bankruptcy or insolvency, or analogous proceedings, are instituted against a debtor who owns registered land, it shall be the duty of the officer serving the notice of the institution of such proceedings on the debtor to file a copy thereof with the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land of the debtor lies. The assignee or trustee appointed by the court in such proceedings shall be entitled to the entry of a new certificate of the registered land of the debtor or bankrupt, upon presenting and filing a certified copy of the assignment in insolvency or order or adjudication in bankruptcy with the insolvent’s or bankrupt’s duplicate certificate of title; but the new certificate shall state that it is entered to him as assignee in insolvency or trustee in bankruptcy or other proceedings, as the case may be.
Section 84. Judgment or order vacating insolvency proceedings. Whenever any of the proceedings of the character named in the preceding section against a registered owner, of which notice has been registered, is vacated by judgment, a certified copy of the judgment or order may be registered. Where a new certificate has been entered in the name of the assignee or trustee, such certificate shall be surrendered for cancellation and forthwith the debtor shall be entitled to the entry of a new certificate to him.
Section 85. Land taken by eminent domain. Whenever any registered land, or interest therein, is expropriated or taken by eminent domain, the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right shall file for registration in the proper Registry a certified copy of the judgment which shall state definitely, by an adequate description, the particular property or interest expropriated, the number of the certificate of title, and the nature of the public use. A memorandum of the right or interest taken shall be made on each certificate of title by the Register of Deeds, and where the fee simple title is taken, a new certificate shall be issued in favor of the National Government, province, city, municipality, or any other agency or instrumentality exercising such right for the land so taken. The legal expenses incident to the memorandum of registration or issuances incident to the memorandum of registration or issuance of a new certificate shall be for the account of the authority taking the land or interest therein.
Section 86. Extrajudicial settlement of estate. When a deed of extrajudicial settlement has been duly registered, the Register of Deeds shall annotate on the proper title the two-year lien mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of Court. Upon the expiration of the two-year period and presentation of a verified petition by the registered heirs, devisees or legatees or any other party in interest that no claim or claims of any creditor, heir or other person exist, the Register of Deeds shall cancel the two-year lien noted on the title without the necessity of a court order. The verified petition shall be entered in the Primary Entry Book and a memorandum thereof made on the title.
No deed of extrajudicial settlement or affidavit of adjudication shall be registered unless the fact of extrajudicial settlement or adjudication is published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province and proof thereof is filed with the Register of Deeds. The proof may consist of the certification of the publisher, printer, his foreman or principal clerk, or of the editor, business or advertising manager of the newspaper concerned, or a copy of each week’s issue of the newspaper wherein the publication appeared.
Section 87. Filing of letters of administration and will. Before the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased owner of registered land may deal with the same, he shall file with the office of the Register of Deeds a certified copy of his letters of administration or if there is a will, a certified copy thereof and the order allowing the same, together with the letters testamentary or of administration with the will annexed, as the case may be, and shall produce the duplicate certificate of title, and thereupon the Register of Deeds shall enter upon the certificate a memorandum thereof, making reference to the letters and/or will by their file number, and the date of filing the same.
Section 88. Dealings by administering subject to court approval. After a memorandum of the will, if any, and order allowing the same, and letters testamentary or letters of administration have been entered upon the certificate of title as hereinabove provided, the executor or administrator may alienate or encumber registered land belonging to the estate, or any interest therein, upon approval of the court obtained as provided by the Rules of Court.
Section 89. Land devised to executor. When it appears by will, a certified copy of which with letters testamentary had already been filed as provided in this Decree, that registered land is devised to the executor to his own use, or upon some trust, the executor may have the land transferred to himself upon the register in like manner and subject to like terms and conditions and to like rights as in the case of a transfer pursuant to a deed filed in the office of the Register of Deeds.
Section 90. When executor empowered by will to sell, etc. When the will of a deceased owner of registered lands, or an interest therein, empowers the executor to sell, convey, encumber, charge or otherwise deal with the land, a certified copy of the will and letters testamentary being filed as provided in this Decree, such executor may sell, convey, encumber, charge or otherwise deal with the land pursuant to the power in like manner as if he were registered owner, subject to the terms and conditions and limitations expressed in the will.
Section 91. Transfer in anticipation of final distribution. Whenever the court having jurisdiction of the testate or intestate proceedings directs the executor or administrator to take over and transfer to the devisees or heirs, or any of them, in anticipation of final distribution a portion or the whole of the registered land to which they might be entitled on final distribution, upon the filing of a certified copy of such order in the office of the Register of Deeds, the executor or administratory may cause such transfer to be made upon the register in like manner as in case of a sale, and upon the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate to the Register of Deeds, the devisees or heirs concerned shall be entitled to the issuance of the corresponding certificates of title.
Section 92. Registration of final distribution of estate. A certified copy of the partition and distribution, together with the final judgment or order of the court approving the same or otherwise making final distribution, supported by evidence of payment of estate taw or exemption therefrom, as the case may be, shall be filed with the Register of Deeds, and upon the presentation of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, new certificates of title shall be issued to the parties severally entitled thereto in accordance with the approved partition and distribution.
CHAPTER VII
ASSURANCE FUND
Section 93. Contribution to Assurance Fund. Upon the entry of a certificate of title in the name of the registered owner, and also upon the original registration on the certificate of title of a building or other improvements on the land covered by said certificate, as well as upon the entry of a certificate pursuant to any subsequent transfer of registered land, there shall be paid to the Register of Deeds one-fourth of one per cent of the assessed value of the real estate on the basis of the last assessment for taxation purposes, as contribution to the Assurance Fund. Where the land involved has not yet been assessed for taxation, its value for purposes of this decree shall be determined by the sworn declaration of two disinterested persons to the effect that the value fixed by them is to their knowledge, a fair valuation.
Nothing in this section shall in any way preclude the court from increasing the valuation of the property should it appear during the hearing that the value stated is too small.
Section 94. Custody and investment of fund. All money received by the Register of Deeds under the preceding section shall be paid to the National Treasurer. He shall keep this money in an Assurance Fund which may be invested in the manner and form authorized by law, and shall report annually to the Commissioner of the Budget the condition and income thereof.
The income of the Assurance Fund shall be added to the principal until said fund amounts to five hundred thousand pesos, in which event the excess income from investments as well as from the collections of such fund shall be paid into the National Treasury to the account of the Assurance Fund.
Section 95. Action for compensation from funds. A person who, without negligence on his part, sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest therein in consequence of the bringing of the land under the operation of the Torrens system of arising after original registration of land, through fraud or in consequence of any error, omission, mistake or misdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or memorandum in the registration book, and who by the provisions of this Decree is barred or otherwise precluded under the provision of any law from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or the estate or interest therein, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of damages to be paid out of the Assurance Fund.
Section 96. Against whom action filed. If such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any estate or interest therein arising wholly through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of the court personnel, Register of Deeds, his deputy, or other employees of the Registry in the performance of their respective duties, the action shall be brought against the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land is situated and the National Treasurer as defendants. But if such action is brought to recover for loss or damage or for deprivation of land or of any interest therein arising through fraud, negligence, omission, mistake or misfeasance of person other than court personnel, the Register of Deeds, his deputy or other employees of the Registry, such action shall be brought against the Register of Deeds, the National Treasurer and other person or persons, as co-defendants. It shall be the duty of the Solicitor General in person or by representative to appear and to defend all such suits with the aid of the fiscal of the province or city where the land lies: Provided, however, that nothing in this Decree shall be construed to deprive the plaintiff of any right of action which he may have against any person for such loss or damage or deprivation without joining the National Treasurer as party defendant. In every action filed against the Assurance Fund, the court shall consider the report of the Commissioner of Land Registration.
Section 97. Judgment, how satisfied. If there are defendants other than the National Treasurer and the Register of Deeds and judgment is entered for the plaintiff and against the National Treasury, the Register of Deeds and any of the other defendants, execution shall first issue against such defendants other than the National and the Register of Deeds. If the execution is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part, and the officer returning the same certificates that the amount due cannot be collected from the land or personal property of such other defendants, only then shall the court, upon proper showing, order the amount of the execution and costs, or so much thereof as remains unpaid, to be paid by the National treasurer out of the Assurance Fund. In an action under this Decree, the plaintiff cannot recover as compensation more than the fair market value of the land at the time he suffered the loss, damage, or deprivation thereof.
Section 98. General Fund when liable. If at any time the Assurance Fund is not sufficient to satisfy such judgment, the National Treasurer shall make up for the deficiency from any funds available in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Section 99. Subrogation of government to plaintiff’s rights. In every case where payment has been made by the National Treasurer in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines shall be subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff against any other parties or securities. The National Treasurer shall enforce said rights and the amount recovered shall be paid to the account of the Assurance Fund.
Section 100. Register of Deeds as party in interest. When it appears that the Assurance Fund may be liable for damages that may be incurred due to the unlawful or erroneous issuance of a certificate of title, the Register of Deeds concerned shall be deemed a proper party in interest who shall, upon authority of the Commissioner of Land Registration, file the necessary action in court to annul or amend the title.
The court may order the Register of Deeds to amend or cancel a certificate of title or to do any other act as may be just and equitable.
Section 101. Losses not recoverable. The Assurance Fund shall not be liable for any loss, damage or deprivation caused or occasioned by a breach of trust, whether express, implied or constructive or by any mistake in the resurveyed or subdivision of registered land resulting in the expansion of area in the certificate of title.
Section 102. Limitation of Action. Any action for compensation against the Assurance Fund by reason of any loss, damage or deprivation of land or any interest therein shall be instituted within a period of six years from the time the right to bring such action first occurred: Provided, That the right of action herein provided shall survive to the legal representative of the person sustaining loss or damage, unless barred in his lifetime; and Provided, further, That if at the time such right of action first accrued the person entitled to bring such action was a minor or insane or imprisoned, or otherwise under legal disability, such person or anyone claiming from, by or under him may bring the proper action at any time within two years after such disability has been removed, notwithstanding the expiration of the original period of six years first above provided.
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 owner’s 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.
Section 105. Certificates of Land Transfer Emancipation Patents. The Department of Agrarian reform shall pursuant to P.D. No. 27 issue in duplicate, a Certificate of Land Transfer for every land brought under “Operation Land Transfer”, the original of which shall be kept by the tenant-farmer and the duplicate, in the Registry of Deeds.
After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under P.D. No. 27, an Emancipation Patent which may cover previously titled or untitled property shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform.
The Register of Deeds shall complete the entries on the aforementioned Emancipation Patent and shall assign an original certificate of title number in case of unregistered land, and in case of registered property, shall issue the corresponding transfer certificate of title without requiring the surrender of the owner’s duplicate of the title to be canceled.
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds accordingly.
In case of subsequent transfer of property covered by an Emancipation Patent or a Certificate of Title emanating from an Emancipation Patent, the Register of Deeds shall affect the transfer only upon receipt of the supporting papers from the Department of Agrarian Reform.
No fee, premium, of tax of any kind shall be charged or imposed in connection with the issuance of an original Emancipation Patent and for the registration or related documents.
Section 106. Sale of agricultural land; affidavit. No voluntary deed or instrument purporting to be a subdivision, mortgage, lease, sale or any other mode of encumbrance or conveyance of private agricultural land principally devoted to rice or corn or any portion thereof shall be registered unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor or executor stating that the land involved is not tenanted, or if tenanted, the same is not primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or corn.
If only a portion of the land is primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or corn, and such area so devoted is tenanted, no such deed or instrument shall be registered unless accompanied by an affidavit stating the area (size) of the portion which is tenanted and primarily devoted to rice and/or corn, and stating further that the deed or instrument covers only the untenanted portion or that which is not primarily devoted to the production of rice and/or corn. A memorandum of said affidavit shall be annotated on the certificate of title. The Register of Deeds shall cause a copy of the registered deed or instrument, together with the affidavit, to be furnished the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Office where the land is located. The affidavit provided in this section shall not be required in the case of a tenant-farmer who deals with his Certificate of Land Transfer or Emancipation Patent in accordance with law.
CHAPTER X
PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Section 107. Surrender of withhold duplicate certificates. Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any involuntary instrument which divests the title of the registered owner against his consent or where a voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal or failure of the holder to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the party in interest may file a petition in court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or memorandum upon such surrender. If the person withholding the duplicate certificate is not amenable to the process of the court, or if not any reason the outstanding owner’s duplicate certificate cannot be delivered, the court may order the annulment of the same as well as the issuance of a new certificate of title in lieu thereof. Such new certificate and all duplicates thereof shall contain a memorandum of the annulment of the outstanding duplicate.
Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance. A registered owner of other person having an interest in registered property, or, in proper cases, the Register of Deeds with the approval of the Commissioner of Land Registration, may apply by petition to the court upon the ground that the registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant or inchoate appearing on the certificate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interest not appearing upon the certificate have arisen or been created; or that an omission or error was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or, on any duplicate certificate; or that the same or any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has married, or, if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated and no right or interests of heirs or creditors will thereby be affected; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not convened the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court may hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry or cancellation of a new certificate, the entry or cancellation of a memorandum upon a certificate, or grant any other relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security or bond if necessary, as it may consider proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to reopen the judgment or decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs and assigns, without his or their written consent. Where the owner’s duplicate certificate is not presented, a similar petition may be filed as provided in the preceding section.
All petitions or motions filed under this Section as well as under any other provision of this Decree after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree or registration was entered.
Section 109. Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate. In case of loss or theft of an owner’s duplicate certificate of title, due notice under oath shall be sent by the owner or by someone in his behalf to the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered. If a duplicate certificate is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced by a person applying for the entry of a new certificate to him or for the registration of any instrument, a sworn statement of the fact of such loss or destruction may be filed by the registered owner or other person in interest and registered.
Upon the petition of the registered owner or other person in interest, the court may, after notice and due hearing, direct the issuance of a new duplicate certificate, which shall contain a memorandum of the fact that it is issued in place of the lost duplicate certificate, but shall in all respects be entitled to like faith and credit as the original duplicate, and shall thereafter be regarded as such for all purposes of this decree.
Section 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. The procedure relative to administrative reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificate prescribed in said Act is hereby abrogated.
Notice of all hearings of the petition for judicial reconstitution shall be given to the Register of Deeds of the place where the land is situated and to the Commissioner of Land Registration. No order or judgment ordering the reconstitution of a certificate of title shall become final until the lapse of thirty days from receipt by the Register of Deeds and by the Commissioner of Land Registration of a notice of such order or judgment without any appeal having been filed by any of such officials.
CHAPTER XI
SCHEDULE OF FEES: SPECIAL FUND
Section 111. Fees payable. The fees payable to the Clerk of Court, the Sheriff, the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Commission shall be as follows:
A. Fees payable to the Clerk of Court. The fees payable to the clerk of court or his deputies shall be as follows:
1. For filing an application for the registration of land, the fees shall be based on the assessed value of the property for the current year, in accordance with the following schedule
(a) When the value of the property does not exceed two thousand pesos, fifteen pesos for the first five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, and five pesos for each additional five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(b) When the value of the property does not exceed two thousand pesos but does not exceed ten thousand pesos, thirty five pesos for the first three thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and five pesos for each additional one thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(c) When the value of the property is more than ten thousand pesos but does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos, eighty pesos for the first twenty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and ten pesos for each additional ten thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(d) When the value of the property is more than one hundred thousand pesos but does not exceed five hundred thousand pesos, one hundred eighty pesos for the first one hundred twenty-five thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and twenty pesos for each additional twenty-five thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(e) When the value of the property is more than five hundred thousand pesos, five hundred twenty pesos for the first five hundred fifty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and forty pesos for each additional fifty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
If the property has not been assessed for taxation, the fees above prescribed shall be based on the current market value; and the applicant shall file with his application a sworn declaration of three disinterested persons that the value fixed by him is to their knowledge a fair valuation.
2. For filing a petition for review of judgment and decree, or other claim adverse to the registered owner, for each petition, twenty pesos.
3. For filing a petition after the decision has become final, twenty pesos. If it affects land decrees in more than one case, for each additional case, one peso. If it affects several lots or parcels of land in which the petitioners have no common interest, each of such petitioners shall pay the corresponding fees as if separate petitions had been filed by him.
B. Fees payable to the Sheriff. The sheriff shall collect fees for his services rendered in connection with land registration and cadastral proceedings as follows:
1. For posting notices of initial hearing of land registration cases in conspicuous places on the lands described in the notice, for each parcel of land on which a copy of such notice is posted, besides travel fees, three pesos.
2. For posting notices of initial hearing of cadastral cases in conspicuous places on the lands included in the survey, for each group of one hundred lots on which a copy of the notice is posted, besides travel fees, three pesos.
3. For posting one copy of a notice of initial hearing in a conspicuous place upon the municipal building of the city, municipality, or municipal district in which the land or portion thereof lies, besides travel fees, three pesos.
4. For serving notices upon cadastral claimants to appear before the court, travel fees only as provided in the Rules of Court.
5. For all other services not mentioned above, the same fees including travel fees as provided in the Rules of Court for similar services.
C. Fees payable to the Register of Deeds. The Register of Deeds shall collect fees for all services rendered by him under this Decree in accordance with the following schedule:
1. Original certificate of title. For the entry of one original certificate of title and issuance of one owner’s duplicate certificate, ten pesos for the first parcel of land described thereon and five pesos for each additional parcel.
2. Entry fee. For each entry fee in the primary entry book, five pesos.
3. Attachment, levy, etc. For the annotation of an attachment, levy, writ of execution, adverse claim, five pesos for each parcel of land affected thereby.
4. Lis Pendens, etc. For the annotation of a notice of lis pendens, or of any document or order in connection therewith, for each of land affected thereby, five pesos.
5. Release of encumbrance. For the annotation of a release of any encumbrance, except mortgage, lease, or other lien for the cancellation of which a specific fee is prescribed herein, for each parcel of land so released, five pesos; but the total amount of fees to be collected shall not exceed the amount of fees paid for the registration of such encumbrance.
6. Court Order. For the annotation of an order of the court for the amendment of, or the making of a memorandum on, a certificate of title, except inclusion of buildings or improvements, or any order directing the registration of a document, or of any right or interest referred to in said order, or the cancellation of a certificate of title and/or the issuance of a new one, ten pesos for each certificate of title on which the annotation is made, in addition to the fees prescribed under paragraphs sixteen or seventeen, as the case may be, of this subsection, in the same are also due for the registration of such document, right or interest.
7. Building. For the annotation of an order of the court for the inclusion of building and/or improvement in a certificate of title, ten pesos for each certificate of title.
8. Powers of attorney, letters of administration, appointment of guardian, resolution or revocation thereof. For registering and filing a power of attorney, letters of administration or letters testamentary whether or not accompanied by a copy of the testament, certificate of allowance of a will with attested copy of the will annexed, appointment of guardian for a minor or incompetent person, appointment of receiver, trustee, or administrator, articles of incorporation of any corporation, association or partnership, or resolution of its board of directors empowering an officer or member thereof to act in behalf of the same, twenty pesos; and for the annotation of such papers on certificates of title when required by existing laws or regulations, five pesos for each certificate of title so annotated: Provided, however, that when the certificate of allowance of a will and the letters testamentary or letters of administration are filed together, only one fee shall be collected. For registering an instrument of revocation of any of the paper mentioned above, five pesos, and if annotated on the corresponding certificate of title, three pesos for each certificate of title.
9. Notice of tax lien, loss, etc. For the annotation of a notice of tax lien of any description notice of lost duplicate or copy of a certificate of title, order of the court declaring such duplicate or copy null and void, notice of change of address, or the cancellation of any such annotation, for each certificate of title, five pesos.
10. Carry over of annotation. For transferring the memorandum of an encumbrance of any kind from one certificate of title which is canceled to a new one in lieu thereof, for each memorandum thus transferred, five pesos.
11. Annotation on additional copy of title. For any memorandum made in a standing co-owner’s copy of a certificate of title after a similar memorandum has been made in the original thereof, of each certificate of title, five pesos.
12. No specific fee. For any memorandum made in a certificate of title for which no specific fee is prescribe above, for each certificate of title, five pesos.
13. Transfer to trustee, executor, administrator receiver. For the issuance of a transfer certificate of title, including its duplicate, to a trustee, executor, administrator, or receiver, or for the cancellation of such certificate of title and issuance of a new one, including its duplicate, to the cestui que trust in case of trusteeship, ten pesos. If the certificate covers more than one parcel or lot, an additional fee of five pesos shall be collected for each additional parcel or lot.
14. Transfer certificate of title. For the issuance of a transfer certificate of title, including its duplicate, to a person other than those named in the next preceding paragraph, ten pesos, in addition to the fees hereinafter prescribed in paragraph sixteen or seventeen, as the case may be, of this subsection, if the same are also due. If the certificate covers more than one parcel or lot, an additional fee of five pesos shall be collected for each additional parcel or lot.
15. Additional copy of title. For the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate or a co-owner’s copy of a certificate of title, or any additional duplicate or copy thereof, ten pesos for the first page and five pesos for each subsequent page, or fraction thereof.
16. Registration fee. For the registration of a deed of sale, conveyance, transfer, exchange, partition, or donation; a deed of sale with pacto de retro, conditional sale, sheriff’s sale at public auction, sale for non-payment of taxes, or any sale subject to redemption, or the repurchase or redemption of the property so sold; any instrument, order, judgment or decree divesting the title of the registered owner, except in favor of a trustee, executor, administrator or receiver; option to purchase or promise to sell; any mortgage, surety, bond, lease, easement, right-of-way, or other real right or lien created or constituted by virtue of a distinct contract or agreement, and not as an incidental condition of sale, transfer or conveyance; the assignment, enlargement, extension or novation of a mortgage or of any other real right, or a release of mortgage, termination of lease, or consolidation of ownership over a property sold with pacto de retro; where no specific fee is prescribed therefor in the preceding paragraphs, the fees shall be based on the value of the consideration in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) Six thousand pesos maximum. When the value of the consideration does not exceed six thousand pesos, seven pesos for the first five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, and three pesos for each additional five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(b) Thirty thousand pesos maximum. When the value of the consideration is more than six thousand pesos but does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and eight pesos for each additional two thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(c) One hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the value of the consideration is more than thirty thousand pesos but does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos, one hundred fifty pesos for the first thirty-five thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and fourteen pesos or each additional five thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(d) Five hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the value of the consideration is more than one hundred thousand pesos but does not exceed five hundred thousand pesos, three hundred fifty-two pesos for the first one hundred ten thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and twenty pesos for each additional ten thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(e) More than five hundred thousand pesos. When the value of the consideration is more than five hundred thousand pesos, one thousand one hundred sixty-two pesos for the first five hundred twenty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof, and thirty pesos for each additional twenty thousand pesos, or fractional part thereof.
17. Fees for specific transactions. In the following transactions, however, the basis of the fees collectible under paragraph sixteen of this subsection, whether or not the value of the consideration is stated in the instrument, shall be as hereunder set forth:
(a) Exchange. In the exchange of real property the basis of the fees to be paid by each party shall be the current assessed value of the properties acquired by one party from the other, in addition to the value of any other consideration, if any, stated in the contract.
(b) Hereditary transfer. In the transmission of an hereditary estate without partition or subdivision of the property among the heirs, devisees or legatees, although with specification of the share of each in the value of the estate, the basis shall be the total current assessed value of the property thus transmitted.
(c) Partition of hereditary estate; Conjugal property. In the partition of an hereditary estate which is still in the name of the deceased, in which determinate properties are adjudicated to each heir devisee or legatee, or to each group of heirs, devisees or legatees, the basis of the fees to be paid by each person or group, as the case may be, shall be the total current assessed value of the properties thus adjudicated to each person or group. In the case, however, of conjugal property, the basis of the fees for the registration of one-half thereof in the name of the surviving spouse shall be the total current assessed value of the properties adjudicated to said spouse.
(d) Subdivision or partition. In the partition of real property held in common by several registered co-owner’s the basis of the fees to be paid by each co-owner or group of co-owners shall be the total assessed value of the property taken by each co-owner or group.
(e) Conveyance: several lots and parties. In the sale, conveyance or transfer of two or more parcels of land in favor of two or more separate parties but executed in one single instrument, the basis shall be the total selling price paid by each party-buyer, or, in the case of lump sum consideration, such portion thereof as apportioned in accordance with the assessed value of the respective land acquired by each party-buyer.
(f) Conveyance of properties in different places. In the sale, conveyance, or transfer of properties situated in different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in each Registry of Deeds where the instrument is to be registered shall be the total selling price of the properties situated in the respective city or province, or, in the case of lump sum consideration, such portion thereof as obtained for those properties lying within the jurisdiction of the respective registry after apportioning the total consideration of the sale, conveyance or transfer in accordance with the current assessed value of such properties.
(g) Conveyance of mortgaged properties. In the sale, conveyance, or transfer of a mortgaged property, the basis shall be the selling price of the property proper plus the full amount of the mortgage, or the unpaid balance thereof if the latter is stated in the instrument. If the properties are situated in different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in each Registry of Deeds where the instrument is to be registered shall be such sum as obtained for the properties situated in the respective city or province after apportioning in accordance with the current assessed values of said properties the total amount of consideration as above computed, unless the selling price of the properties in each city or province and the proportionate share thereof in the amount of unpaid balance of the mortgage are stated in the instrument, in which case, the aggregate of such selling price and share shall be the basis. In any case, however, where the aggregate value of the consideration as above computed shall be less than the current assessed value of the properties in the city or province concerned, such assessed value shall be the basis of the fees in the respective Registry.
(h) Mortgage of properties in different places. In a mortgage affecting properties situated in different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in each Registry of Deeds where the document is to be registered shall be such amount as obtained for the properties lying within the jurisdiction of said Registry after apportioning the total amount of the mortgage in accordance with the current assessed value of such properties.
(i) Release of mortgage. In the release of a mortgage the basis of the fees shall be an amount equal to ten per centum of the total amount of obligation secured by the mortgage. If the properties are situated in different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be ten per centum of such sum as obtained for the properties in the respective city or province after apportioning the amount of the mortgage in accordance with the current assessed values of such properties. In the case of a partial release, the fees shall be based on ten per centum of the current assessed value of the property so released in the respective city or province; Provided, however, That where several partial releases had been registered, the fees corresponding to the final release shall be computed on the basis of ten per centum of the difference between the amount of the mortgage and the aggregate of the consideration used as basis for the collection of the fees paid for the registration of all previous partial releases.
(j) Certificate of sale. In a certificate of sale at public auction by virtue of an order of execution or sale for delinquency in the payment of taxes, or repurchase of the property so sold, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be ten per centum of the selling or repurchase price of the property lying within the jurisdiction of the Registry.
(k) Affidavit of consolidation of ownership. In an affidavit for the consolidation of ownership over a property sold with pacto de retro or pursuant to an extra judicial foreclosure under the provisions of Act Numbered Thirty-one hundred and thirty-five, as amended, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be an amount equivalent to ten per centum of the consideration of the sale in the respective city or province.
(l) Contract of lease. In contracts of lease, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be the sum total to be paid by the lessee for the properties situated in the respective city or province during the entire period specified in the contract, including the extension contemplated by the parties which may be given effect without the necessity of further registration. If the period is from year to year, or otherwise not fixed, the basis shall be the total amount of rentals due for thirty months. If the rentals are not distributed, the total amount thereof as above computed shall be apportioned to said properties in accordance with their assessed values, and the proportionate sum thus obtained for each city or province shall be the basis of the fees to be collected in the Registry concerned.
(m) Termination of lease. In the termination of lease, the basis of the fees in each registry shall be ten per centum of the amount used as basis for the collection of the fees paid for the registration of said lease.
(n) Option to purchase or promise to sell. In contracts of option to purchase or promise to sell, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be ten per centum of the current assessed value of the property subject of such contract in the respective city or province.
(o) Consideration not stated or fixed or less than assessed value. In other transactions where the actual value of the consideration is not fixed in the contract or cannot be determined from the terms thereof, or, in case of a sale, conveyance, or transfer, the consideration stated is less than the current assessed value of the property, the basis of the fees shall be the current assessed value of the property involved in the transaction. If the properties are situated in different cities or provinces, the basis of the fees in each Registry shall be the current assessed value of the properties lying within the jurisdiction of the Registry concerned.
18. Issuance of copy of document. For furnishing copies of any entry, decree, document, or other papers on file, fifty centavos for each hundred words of fraction thereof contained in the copies thus furnished.
19. Certified copy. For certifying a copy furnished under the next preceding paragraph, for each certification, five pesos for one page and one peso for each additional page certified.
20. Certification. For issuing a certificate relative to, or showing the existence or non-existence of, an entry in the registration books or a document on file, for each such certificate containing not more than two hundred words, five pesos; if it exceeds that number an additional fee of one peso shall be collected for every hundred words, or fraction thereof, in excess of the first two hundred words.
21. Research fee. For services rendered in attending to request for reference or researches on any records or documents on file in the Registry, there shall be collected two pesos per document or record.
D. Fees payable to the Commissioner of Land Registration. The fees payable to the Commissioner of Land Registration shall be as follows:
1. For verification and approval of subdivision plans, the fee shall be:
|
(a) |
For each lot ………………………………………………. |
P2.00 |
|
(b) |
For each corner of a lot, irrespective of whether such corner is common to two or more lots …………… |
0.20 |
|
(c) |
For each traverse station ………………………………… |
0.10 |
|
(d) |
For each observation ………..…………………………… |
0.50 |
|
(e) |
In case the plan is a resurveyed or relocation plan an additional 40 per cent of the rates prescribed above shall be collected. |
Provided, however, that the total fee as computed above, whether for subdivision and/or consolidation-subdivision survey, resurveyed or relocation plan, shall in no case be less than P8.00 per plan.
2. For changing or correcting the name of any person appearing on the subdivision plan or other plan in order to have it conform to that stated in the certificate of title covering the land, and for the cancellation of an approved plan when so requested by the interested party, there shall be a fee of P5.00 per plan.
3. The rates of fees prescribed in paragraph 1 and 2, inclusive, shall apply to similar services rendered in connection with the examination, verification, and approval of consolidation, consolidation-subdivision, resubdivision, and reconsolidation plans, special work order plans on the basis of certified copies of technical descriptions of plans approved by the Land Registration Commission or the Bureau of Lands, private surveys, and other plans of similar nature.
In the computation of fees relative to lots subject of consolidation and consolidation-subdivision plans, a fee of two pesos shall be collected per lot as appearing in the old survey in addition to the fee collectible in paragraph 1 hereof for the new lots.
4. For the preparation of a plan in a tracing cloth of any survey, the data of which are available in the Commission, except when the same is merely traced from an existing plan, the fees shall be computed as follows:
(a) When the plan to be so prepared contains only one lot:
|
1. |
For the first ten corners or fraction thereof ………………… |
P40.00 |
|
2. |
For the next ten corners or fraction thereof ….………………… |
6.00 |
|
3. |
For each corner in excess of the first twenty corners ……….. |
0.40 |
(b) When the plan to be so prepared contains two or more lots:
|
1. |
For the first lot, which must be the biggest of the group, irrespective of the number of its corner ………………………………………. |
P40.00 |
|
2. |
For each additional lot, irrespective of the number of its corners, said lot being adjacent to the first lot or any other lot …………………….. |
P15.00 |
|
3. |
For each non-adjacent lot (other than the first charged lot), irrespective of the number of its corners ……..……………………………… |
P20.00 |
|
4. |
If any lot contains more than twenty corners for each corner of such lot in the first twenty corners ……..……………………………………. |
P0.40 |
5. For the preparation of a plan in tracing cloth, to be traced from an existing plan, complete with bearings and distances of corners and tie lines, the fee shall be 30 per centum of the fees prescribed in paragraph 4 above.
6. For the preparation of a plan in tracing cloth, to be copied from an existing plan, complete with bearings and distances of sides and tie-lines, but using a different scale, the fee shall be 50 per centum of the fees prescribed under paragraph 4 above, if made on a reduced scale; or 60 per centum of the same fees, if made on an enlarged scale.
7. For the preparation of a simple plan or sketch of any available survey or plan on any paper other than a tracing cloth, the fee on the basis of each lot, shall be as follows:
|
(a) |
For the first ten corners or fraction thereof ….………………………………………….. |
P20.00 |
|
(b) |
For the second ten corners or fraction thereof …….………………………………………. |
5.00 |
|
(c) |
For the third ten corners or fraction thereof ……..…………………………………………. |
2.00 |
|
(d) |
For each corner in excess of the first thirty corners ……………………………………….. |
0.20 |
|
(e) |
If the sketch is prepared in tracing cloth, add to the total fees as above computed … |
5.00 |
|
(f) |
If the plan or sketch so prepared contains the bearing and distances of the sides and tie-lines, add to the total fees as above computed 10 per centum thereof. |
8. For furnishing a plan copy (blue-print, or white print) of any plan on file in the Commission, the fee shall be as follows:
|
(a) |
For the copy of any size not exceeding forty square decimeters ..……………….. |
P3.00 |
|
(b) |
For one copy of more than forty square decimeters but not exceeding eighty square decimeters in size …..………………………………. |
6.00 |
|
(c) |
For one copy of more than eighty square decimeters but not exceeding one hundred twenty square decimeter in size ………………….. |
9.00 |
|
(d) |
For one copy in excess of one hundred twenty square decimeters in size, the basis rate of nine pesos plus for every twenty square decimeters or fraction thereof in excess ……………………………………….. |
0.50 |
9. For the preparation of technical descriptions, other than mere copying from an existing copy, there shall be collected the following fees:
|
(a) |
For technical descriptions of lots or parcels, typewritten in triplicate and double-spaced, including certification: |
|
|
1. |
For each lot ……….. |
P3.00 |
|
2. |
For each corner of a lot ……….. |
0.20 |
|
3. |
For each extra carbon copy, extra charge …. |
0.20 |
|
4. |
Minimum total charge …………. |
3.00 |
|
(b) |
For lot description prepared in tracing cloth (on tabulated form) including certification: |
|
|
1. |
For each sheet ……… |
P1.50 |
|
2. |
For each lot ………. |
0.20 |
|
3. |
For each corner in excess of ten for a lot …. |
0.10 |
|
(c) |
Any common corner shall be counted as many items as there are lots to which it pertains. |
|
10. For certification of plans or copies of plans as to the correctness of the same, per plan or print copy P3.00 and for the issuance of all other certification P5.00 plus one 30-centavo documentary stamp to be affixed thereto.
11. For inspection of land subject of private surveys, simple or complex subdivision plans, or consolidation, consolidation-subdivision, resubdivision, or reconsolidation plans, special work orders, and other plans of similar nature for the purpose of verification and/or approval:
|
(a) |
For each plan with an aggregate area of 1,000 sq. m. or less ……… |
P100.00 |
|
(b) |
For each subdivision with an aggregate area of more than 1,000 sq. m.: |
|
|
1. |
For the first 1,000 s.m. …………. |
P100.00 |
|
2. |
For every succeeding 1,000 sq. m. or fraction thereof ……….. |
10.00 |
12. For actual field work of subdivision survey, relocation survey and resurveyed of land, the fees shall be as follows:
(a) Subdivision survey:
1. Rural (Agricultural)
|
Area |
Survey Fee |
|
For the first hectare ……….. |
P 350.00 |
|
For the 2nd ha. to 10th ha. |
An additional 60.00 per ha. |
|
For the 11th ha. to 20th ha. |
An additional P30.00 per ha. |
|
For the 21st ha. to 30th ha. |
An additional P20.00 per ha. |
|
For the 31st ha. to 200th ha. |
An additional P10.00 per ha. |
|
For the 201st ha. or over |
An additional P8.00 per ha. |
A fraction of a hectare shall be considered one hectare.
2. Urban (Solar):
|
First 200 sq. m. or less ……… |
P350.00 |
|
Succeeding 201 sq. m. or more ……….. |
P20.00 100 sq. m. |
(b) Relocation Survey or Resurveyed:
The fee for relocation survey or resurveyed shall be one hundred fifty per cent (150%) of the amount of survey fee collectible on the basis of the schedule of fees for subdivision survey as provided in the preceding paragraph plus one per cent (1%) of the assessed value of the land.
Special Account. Twenty per centum of all the collections of the Registers of Deeds and of the Land Registration Commission under this Section and Sections 118 and 116 of this Decree shall be appropriated and upon approval of a budget for it by the Ministry of the Budget, such amounts shall be disbursed and all offices under the Land Registration Commission, for the purchase of necessary equipment, for payment of allowances of officials and employees of the Commission, including those of the Registries of Deeds, as authorized by the Commissioner, for contracts regarding security printing of Land title forms, for survey contracts, and for the maintenance and other operating expenses of the Commission.
CHAPTER XII
FORMS USED IN LAND REGISTRATION AND CONVEYANCING
Section 112. Forms in conveyancing. The Commissioner of Land Registration shall prepare convenient blank forms as may be necessary to help facilitate the proceedings in land registration and shall take charge of the printing of land title forms.
Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in accordance with law in the form of public instruments shall be registerable: Provided, that, every such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the same in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon, and shall acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the person or persons executing the same before a notary public or other public officer authorized by law to take acknowledgment. Where the instrument so acknowledged consists of two or more pages including the page whereon acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy which is to be registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, or if registration is not contemplated, each page of the copy to be kept by the notary public, except the page where the signatures already appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left margin thereof by the person or persons executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the ages sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be stated in the acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale, transfer, mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof shall likewise be set forth in said acknowledgment.
CHAPTER XIII
DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS
Section 113. Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands. No deed, conveyance, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument affecting land not registered under the Torrens system shall be valid, except as between the parties thereto, unless such instrument shall have been recorded in the manner herein prescribed in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies.
(a) The Register of Deeds for each province or city shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book. The Primary Entry Book shall contain, among other particulars, the entry number, the names of the parties, the nature of the document, the date, hour and minute it was presented and received. The recording of the deed and other instruments relating to unregistered lands shall be effected by any of annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same shall have been entered in the Primary Entry Book.
(b) If, on the face of the instrument, it appears that it is sufficient in law, the Register of Deeds shall forthwith record the instrument in the manner provided herein. In case the Register of Deeds refuses its administration to record, said official shall advise the party in interest in writing of the ground or grounds for his refusal, and the latter may appeal the matter to the Commissioner of Land Registration in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of this Decree. It shall be understood that any recording made under this section shall be without prejudice to a third party with a better right.
(c) After recording on the Record Book, the Register of Deeds shall endorse among other things, upon the original of the recorded instruments, the file number and the date as well as the hour and minute when the document was received for recording as shown in the Primary Entry Book, returning to the registrant or person in interest the duplicate of the instrument, with appropriate annotation, certifying that he has recorded the instrument after reserving one copy thereof to be furnished the provincial or city assessor as required by existing law.
(d) Tax sale, attachment and levy, notice of lis pendens, adverse claim and other instruments in the nature of involuntary dealings with respect to unregistered lands, if made in the form sufficient in law, shall likewise be admissible to record under this section.
(e) For the services to be rendered by the Register of Deeds under this section, he shall collect the same amount of fees prescribed for similar services for the registration of deeds or instruments concerning registered lands.
CHAPTER XIV
REGISTRATION OF CHATTEL MORTGAGES
Section 114. Recording of chattel mortgages. A chattel mortgage shall be recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the mortgagor resides as well as where the property is situated or ordinarily kept.
Section 115. Manner of recording chattel mortgages. Every Register of Deeds shall keep a Primary Entry Book and a Registration Book for chattel mortgages; shall certify on each mortgage filed for record, as well as on its duplicate, the date, hour, and minute when the same was by him received; and shall record in such books any chattel mortgage, assignment or discharge thereof, and any other instrument relating to a recorded mortgage, and all such instruments shall be presented to him in duplicate, the original to be filed and the duplicate to be returned to the person concerned.
The recording of a mortgage shall be effected by making an entry, which shall be given a correlative number, setting forth the names of the mortgagee and the mortgagor, the sum or obligation guaranteed, date of the instrument, name of the notary before whom it was sworn to or acknowledged, and a note that the property mortgaged, as well as the terms and conditions of the mortgage, is mentioned in detail in the instrument filed, giving the proper file number thereof. The recording of other instruments relating to a recorded mortgage shall be effected by way of annotation on the space provided therefor in the Registration Book, after the same shall have been entered in the primary Entry Book.
The Register of Deeds shall also certify the officer’s return of sale upon any mortgage, making reference upon the record of such officer’s return to the volume and page of the record of the mortgage, and a reference of such return on the record of the mortgage itself, and give a certified copy thereof, when requested, upon payment of the legal fees for such copy thereof, when requested, upon payment of the legal fees for such copy and certify upon each mortgage officer’s return of sale or discharge of mortgage, and upon any other instrument relating to such a recorded mortgage, both on the original and in the duplicate, the date, hour, and minute when the same is received for record and record such certificate index of mortgagors and mortgagees, which record and index shall be open to public inspection.
Duly certified copies of such records and of filed instruments shall be receivable as evidence in any court.
Section 116. Fees for chattel mortgages, etc. The register of Deeds shall collect the following fees for services rendered by him under this section:
1. Entry fee. For entry or presentation of any document in the Primary Entry Book, five pesos. Supporting papers presented together with the principal document need not be charged any entry or presentation fee unless the party in interest desires that they be likewise entered.
2. Chattel Mortgage. For filing and recording each chattel mortgage, including the necessary certificates and affidavits, the fees established in the following schedule shall be collected:
(a) Six thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage does not exceed six thousand pesos, seven pesos for the first five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof, and three pesos for each additional five hundred pesos, or fractional part thereof.
(b) Thirty thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage is more than six thousand pesos but does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, forty-eight pesos for the initial amount not exceeding eight thousand pesos, and eight pesos for each additional two thousand pesos or fractional part thereof.
(c) One hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage is more than thirty thousand pesos but does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos, one hundred fifty pesos for the initial amount not exceeding thirty-five thousand pesos, and fourteen pesos for each additional five thousand pesos of fractional part thereof.
(d) Five hundred thousand pesos maximum. When the amount of the mortgage is more than one hundred thousand pesos but does not exceed five hundred thousand pesos, three hundred fifty-two pesos for the initial amount not exceeding one hundred ten thousand pesos and twenty pesos for each additional ten thousand pesos or fractional part thereof.
(e) More than five hundred thousand pesos. When the amount of the mortgage is more than five hundred thousand pesos, one thousand one hundred sixty-two pesos for the initial amount not exceeding five hundred twenty thousand pesos, and thirty pesos for each additional twenty thousand pesos or fractional part thereof: Provided, however, that registration of the mortgage in the province where the property is situated shall be sufficient registration and provided, further, that if the mortgage is to be registered in more than one city or province, the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the instrument is first presented for registration shall collect the full amount of the fees due in accordance with the schedule prescribed above, and the Register of Deeds of the other city of province where the same instrument is also to be registered shall collect only a sum equivalent to twenty per centum of the amount of fees due and paid in the first city of province, but in no case shall the fees payable in any Registry be less than the minimum fixed in this schedule.
3. Conveyance of mortgaged property, etc. For recording each instrument of sale, conveyance, or transfer of the property which is subject of a recorded mortgage, or of the assignment of mortgage credit, the fees established in the preceding schedule shall be collected on the bases of ten per centum of the amount of the mortgage or unpaid balance thereof, provided, that the latter is stated in the instrument.
4. Notice of attachment. For recording each notice of attachment, including the necessary index and annotations, eight pesos.
5. Release of mortgage. For recording such release of mortgage, including the necessary index and references, the fees established in the schedule under paragraph (b) above shall be collected on the basis of five per centum of the amount of the mortgage.
6. Release of attachment. For recording each release of attachment, including the proper annotations, five pesos.
7. Sheriff’s return of sale. For recording each sheriff’s return of sale, including the index and references, seven pesos.
8. Power of attorney, appointment of guardian, administrator or trustee. For recording a power of attorney, appointment of judicial guardian, administrator, or trustee, or any other instrument in which a person is given power to act in behalf of another in connection with a mortgage, ten pesos.
9. No specific fee. For recording each instrument or order relating to a recorded mortgage, including the necessary index and references, for which no specific fee is provided above, five pesos.
10. Certified copy. For certified copies of records, such fees as are allowed by law for copies kept by the Register of Deeds.
11. Certification. For issuing a certificate relative to, or showing the existence or non-existence of an entry in the registration book, or a document on file, for each such certificate containing not more than two hundred words, five pesos; if it exceeds that number, an additional fee of one peso shall be collected for every one hundred words or fractional part thereof, in excess of the first two hundred words.
12. Research Fee. For services rendered in attending to requests for references to, or researches on any document on file in the Registry, there shall be collected a fee of two pesos per document.
CHAPTER XV
CONSULTAS
Section 117. Procedure. When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of Deeds.
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the pending consulta on the certificate of title which shall be canceled motu proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records certified to him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and binding upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner relative to consultas may appeal to the Court of Appeals within the period and in manner provided in Republic Act No. 5434.
CHAPTER XVI
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 118. Appropriation. There is hereby appropriated initially the sum of TWELVE MILLION THREE HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P12,340,000.00) from the National Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the implementation of this decree; thereafter, said sum shall be added to the regular appropriation act of every year.
Section 119. Postage exemption. No postage stamps or mailing charges shall be required in all matters transmitted by the Land Registration Commission or any of its Registry of Deeds in the implementation of Sections 21, 40, 106, 118 and 117 of this Decree.
Section 120. Repealing clause. All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, in conflict or inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 121. Separability clause. In the event that any provision of this Decree is declared unconstitutional, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected thereby.
Section 122. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon its approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight.
Boracay
Boracay, Malay, Aklan, Philippines The Republic of the Philippines, to give it its official title, is made up of 7,107 islands, although the majority of its almost 98 million population lives on just 11 of those islands. The country is divided into the three main geographical divisions of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The Luzon group of islands includes Luzon itself, the largest island and home to the capital city, Manila. The next largest island is Mindanao, which lends its name to the group of islands also including the Sulu Archipelago. The Visayas division is a group of several small islands including Panay, Bohol and Negros[1] In Panay is the famous Boracay[2] Island. Boracay Island is located off the northwest corner of Panayin Region VI of the Philippines. The island is approximately seven kilometers long, dog-bone shaped with the narrowest spot being less than one kilometer wide, and has a total land area of 10.32 square kilometers[3]. The name Boracay has various rumoured origins. One of which was that it is drived from the local word of borac or sagay which means cotton in reference to the white cotton like colour and texture of Boracays sand[4]. The Native Islanders and Ati people[5] lived together in harmony in the island. The Atis are the indiginous peoples of Boracay, being the first settlers and were farmers and fishermen.[6] Fishing , Copra and Tobacco[7] ( first class products believed to have been introduced and propagated by the Greener of Boracay Dona Sofing[8] and traded on the nearby mainland of Aklan ) were the main trades of the island. It was only in the late 70’s when the main income of the island changed to tourism when tourists started to arrive. It is often told that Boracay Beach has a shaded and uncertain past[9]. This is because the island in the early 1900’s was just one private home of the Atis, the islanders and a couple belonging to one of the prominent families in Aklan. It all began when Lamberto H. Tirol and Sofia Ner Gonzales settled in the island. They lived among the islanders. There weren’t too many people that time so that life was simple. As fishing was the main livelihood, the couple began to cultivate the land, planted millions of trees and plants. Even upon the demise of Don Lamberto H. Tirol, cultivation continued, progressed, and trade continually existed under the watch of the young widow Dona Sofia Ner Gonzales vda. de Tirol. It was her green thumb[10], her perseverance and courage, and her investment of heart and soul that she gained recognition as the “Woman behind the greening of Boracay Island” featured in The Sunday Times Magazine, November 8, 1978[11]. A large portion of Boracay is state - owned[12], except for the lots of Lamberto H. Tirol and Sofia Ner Gonzales[13], along with the Tirol[14] kin who were able to obtained land titles over portions of the island. Among the private owners are the heirs of Don Lamberto H. Tirol and Sofia Ner Gonzales, the heirs of Don Ciriaco Tirol, the Elizalde, Sarabia, Carpio, Solidum, Andan, Dignos, Menez, Kimpo, Tirol(those with roots from Panay), Rojo, Marte, Dimacali, Tan and other businessmen and corporations. Recent Supreme Court pronouncement upheld the State’s ownership[15]saved in the cases of the Tirol Family of Aklan[16] and their predecessors in interests whose rights are preferred. Various government agencies vowed to protect and preserve boracay. We believe that is likewise the sentiments of the inhabitants of the island. Boracay’s first visitors[17] were mainly Europeans - German tourists, and the Swiss even jokingly called Boracay a ‘Canton of Switzerland’ or so we heard. Eventually, more foreigners visit the island which contributed to the multicultural facets of Boracay’s culinary choices and the island’s further development in terms of accommodation, activities, and eating. Nowadays, Boracay is not a private and unspoilt paradise like it used to be under the watch of Dona Sofing, but a major tourist and holiday destination for the Philippines[18]. []References
Question:
I have a legal document (e.g., power of attorney, deed of sale) to be sent to the Philippines. How do I have this acknowledged or authenticated?
Legal documents for use in the Philippines must be acknowledged before a Consular Officer. Those appearing in person are requested to bring a proof of identity such as driver’s license, state ID or passport. (Applicants should submit the original document, a photocopy of the document and photocopy of the proof of identity)
If the person who signed the document could not appear in person, it is required that the document be notarized by a notary public, and further authenticated by the County Clerk or Secretary of State (where the notary public is registered), and then the Philippine Consulate.
The notarial fee is $25.00 per d
GUIDELINES ON THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS
I. TWO MODES OF AUTHENTICATING DOCUMENTS:
1. Acknowledgment
Interested party/parties must sign before a consular official of the Consulate.
Requirements:
2. Authentication
Requirement: original and one (1) photocopy of each set of document to be authenticated.
Authentication Fee - Under Department Order 23-92, the fee for authentication and acknowledgment of a deed or power of attorney with one or more signatures is$25.00 per set of document. The applicant should pay for the corresponding number of sets of documents that he or she actually needs. Payment can be made through cash, Money Order or Company Check payable to the Philippine Consulate General. Personal checks are not accepted.
Application by mail - If the applicant wishes the documents to be mailed by the Consulate, a self-addressed stamped priority/certified/express mail envelope or prepaid FEDEX/UPS/DHL for return of documents is required.
II. Additional Requirements for Patent and Trademark Documents:
Additional requirements for trademark; patent application; combined oath; corporate power of attorney and petition for trademark and patent; affidavit of non-use; appointment of resident agent, Certificate to Foreign Governments and assignment of letters of patent: the foregoing Document must also be authenticated by the SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES with address at:
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of Authentications
Columbia Plaza (State Annex -#1)
518 - 23rd Street, NW
Washington D.C. 20520
Tel. No. (202) 647-5002
======================
Any individual who executes an affidavit or other documents requiring oath or any person who executes legal document, such as power of attorney, deed or other writings acknowledged before a notary public shall appear personally at the Consulate General, if the document is to be used in the Philippines.
Philippine passport (for Filipino citizens), Canadian citizenship card or Canadian passport (for Canadian citizens) should be presented as proof of identification. Please bring copy of said document i.e. Philippine or Canadian passport, citizenship card.
In case the document is executed by a resident of Manitoba and notarized by a notary public appointed in Manitoba, the said document should be submitted for authentication by the Office of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Manitoba located at 10th Floor, Rm. 1034, at 405 Broadway, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3L6 at telephone number 1-204.945 26 54. Authentication fee is CAD$12.00. The authenticated document should then be submitted to the Consulate General for final authentication.
In case the document is executed by a resident and notarized by a notary public appointed in Saskatchewan, the said document should be submitted for authentication by the Office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary, Legislative Services, Saskatchewan Justice 800 - 1874 Scarth Street, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4P 4B3. The authenticated document should then be submitted to the Consulate General for final authentication.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 354 - DISMISSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FILED AGAINST ATTY. TURIANO U. TAMAYO, REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAGUPAN CITY
This refers to Administrative Case No. 93-1 filed by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) against Atty. Turiano U. Tamayo, Register of Deeds of Dagupan City, for abuse of authority, dishonesty and grave misconduct.
On November 10, 1992, complainant Eladio Sison filed before the LRA a letter-complaint against respondent Atty. Tamayo for denying the registration/annotation of the Alias Writ of Attachment issued by the court in Civil Case No. 16930 against a certain piece of land owned by Johnny Gutierrez and covered by TCT No. 56404.
On October 22, 1992, Deputy Sheriff Romulo Jimenez presented for annotation the aforesaid writ together with the Notice of Attachment issued on the same date over TCT Nos. 56403, 56404 and 56405, all in the name of Gutierrez, and a copy of the Cancellation of Mortgage, dated October 15, 1992, issued by the Development Bank of the Philippines over TCT No. 56404. This was denied by respondent on the ground that the writ was defective in form. Respondent then advised the Deputy Sheriff to secure from the court another order with specific reference to TCT No. 56404.
On October 23, 1992, Julian Ong Cuna, General Manager of New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation, went to respondent’s office and presented his Affidavit of Adverse Claim for annotation on TCT No. 56404. Finding the document to be in order, respondent annotated the said affidavit on TCT No. 56404. Later that day, the Deputy Sheriff returned with a new court order. Consequently, respondent instructed his employees to cause the entry of the court order in the Primary Entry Book and type the necessary annotations on TCT No. 56404 (Entries Nos. 155511 and 155512).
However, when TCT No. 56404 and its supporting documents were forwarded to respondent for signature, it was discovered that the Court Order referred to TCT No. 55404 in the name of Geneva Coquia, a stranger, and not to TCT No. 56404. Likewise, it appears that the court order was not signed by the issuing judge nor authenticated by the Clerk of Court. By reason thereof, respondent ordered the Deputy Sheriff to return with the correct court order.
In the meantime, respondent approved the inscription of the Notice of Attachment on TCT Nos. 56403 and 56405 but wrote “denied” on Entries Nos. 155511 and 155512. Thereafter, complainant withdrew his documents.
On October 26, 1992, respondent annotated on TCT No. 56404 the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by spouses Johnny and Aida Gutierrez in favor of the New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation as Entry No. 155544. Subsequently, TCT No. 56404 was cancelled and a new title, TCT No. 59188, was issued in the name of New Dagupan Metro Gas Corporation. However, on that same day, the order, dated October 23, 1992, which the Deputy Sheriff sought to be corrected, was amended by the court to read as TCT No. 56404. When the amended order was presented to respondent for annotation in TCT No. 56404, the same was denied.
On March 1, 1993, the LRA Administrator, based on the letter-complaint of Sison, administratively charged respondent with abuse of authority, dishonesty and grave misconduct.
After a formal investigation of the case and finding no substantial evidence to sustain the charges, the LRA Administrator, in his letter of May 23, 1994, recommended the exoneration of respondent. The Secretary of Justice agreed with the findings of the LRA Administrator and likewise recommended the exoneration of the respondent.
I concur with the findings of both the LRA Administrator and the Secretary of Justice.
Under Section 69 of Presidential Decree 1529 (Land Registration Decree), an order issued by the court “shall contain a reference to the number of the certificate of title to be affected and the registered owner or owners thereof.”
The denial by the respondent to annotate the Alias Writ of Attachment was based upon an erroneous court order which referred to TCT No. 56404 as 55404 in the name of a certain Geneva Coquia, a stranger to the civil suit for the recovery of a sum of money between the complainant and Johnny Gutierrez. This erroneous referral was affirmed by the Sheriff’s Partial Return filed before the trial court wherein he sought its rectification, which subsequently resulted in the issuance of an amended order, dated October 26, 1992.
While it is true that the duty of the Register of Deeds is ministerial, the latter may properly refuse registration if the court order upon which it is based contains clerical error(s) that may prejudice an innocent third person. The ministerial character of the function of Registers of Deeds should not leave them without authority to determine the registerability of the deed or document sought to be registered.
Where the law itself has provided for standards, the same must be complied with. Indiscriminate registration could only result in the erosion of public faith in the land registration system.
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that respondent did not deprive complainant of the right to elevate the matter en consulta, it appearing that the latter withdrew his documents from the Registry. As provided under Section 117 (2nd paragraph) of PD 1529:
“Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the document from the Registry, elevate the matter within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration upon payment of a consulta fee in such amount as shall be prescribed by the Commissioner of Land Registration. . . .”
Lastly, counsel for complainant, in his letter dated February 12, 1994, manifested that the complainant has decided to withdraw the complaint against respondent and requested that the matter be considered closed.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Atty. Turiano Tamayo, is hereby EXONERATED from the charges of abuse of authority, dishonesty and grave misconduct.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 7th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs (Rule 74, Section 1):
If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in an ordinary action of partition.
If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds.
1. The parties to an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit shall file,
2. simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to the value of the personal property involved as certified to under oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment of any just claim that may be filed under Section 4 of this rule. It shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years after the death of the decedent.
3. The fact of the extrajudicial settlement or administration shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner provided in the next succeeding section; but no extrajudicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
However, extrajudicial settlement of estate cannot be resorted to every time. There are conditions which must be satisfied such as:
1. The decedent left no will
2. The decedent has no debts or his debts have been fully paid.
3. The heirs are all of legal age or the minors are duly represented by their judicial or legal representatives.
4. A public instrument is duly executed by the heirs and filed with the Register of Deeds.
Extrajudicial settlement of estate is often recommended to expedite the transfer of properties of the decedent to his heirs. This is in view of the fact that judicial settlement of estate takes years before the case is concluded. Furthermore, this is more adversarial and is resorted to when the heirs disagree on the properties to be partitioned and the corresponding shares of the respective heirs.
An extrajudicial settlement of estate is done by executing an “Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs”. This is a legal document specifying:
1. Compliance with the legal conditions for an extrajudicial settlement
2. Description of the properties to be extrajudicially settled (title number, value, location, lot size, technical description, etc.)
3. Nature of the property (if conjugal property)
4. Name of the heirs
5. How the properties shall be divided amongst the heirs.
6. Posting of a bond if there is personal property involved.
7. Undertaking that the Deed will be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks.
It must be noted that the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement must be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Kindly consult with the Register of Deeds where the property is located for the listing of these newspapers.
Before filing the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with the Register of Deeds where the land is located, it is necessary that the estate taxes be paid first. Under Philippine laws, estate tax is defined as a tax on the right of the deceased person to transmit his estate to his lawful heirs and beneficiaries at the time of death and on certain transfers, which are made by law as equivalent to testamentary disposition. According to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, estate tax is not a tax on property but rather imposed on the privilege of transmitting property upon the death of the owner.
It bears great emphasis that the Estate Tax Return must be filed within six (6) months from the decedent’s death. The deadline may be extended by the Commissioner of the BIR, in meritorious cases, not exceeding thirty (30) days. It must be noted that the estate itself is assigned its own Tax Identification Number (TIN). The Estate Tax Return is filed with Revenue District Office (RDO) having jurisdiction over the place of residence of the decedent at the time of his death. If the decedent has no legal residence in the Philippines, then the return can be filed with:
1. The Office of the Revenue District Officer, Revenue District Office No. 39, South Quezon City; or
2. The Philippine Embassy or Consulate in the country where decedent is residing at the time of his death.
Furthermore, the estate tax shall be paid at the time the return is filed. However, upon request and if the Commissioner of the BIR finds that payment on the due date of the Estate Tax or of any part thereof would impose undue hardship upon the estate or any of the heirs, he may extend the time for payment of such tax or any part thereof not to exceed five (5) years, in case the estate is settled through the courts or two (2) years in case the estate is settled extra-judicially. If an extension is granted, the BIR Commissioner may require a bond in such amount, not exceeding double the amount of tax, as it deems necessary.
The estate tax is based on the value of the net estate as follows:
1. If not over P200,000, it is exempt
2. If over P200,000 but not over P500,000, then tax is 5% of the excess over P200,000
3. If over P500,000 but not over P2,000,000, then tax is P15,000 PLUS 8% of the excess over P500,000
4. If over P2,000,000 but not over P5,000,000, then tax is P135,000 PLUS 11% of the excess over P2,000,000
5. If over P5,000,000 but not over P10,000,000, then tax is P465,000 PLUS 15% of the excess over P5,000,000
6. If over P10,000,000, then tax is P1,215,000 PLUS 20% of the excess over P10,000,000
The basis shall be the net estate. That means that there are allowable deductions on the estate. These deductions include funeral expenses, share of the surviving spouse, medical expenses incurred by the decedent within 1 year prior to his death, family home deduction of not more than P1,000,000.00, standard deduction of P1,000,000.00, among others. It is best to consult with an accountant on this matter to determine the accurate estate tax.
For extrajudicial settlement of estate, the following documents must be submitted with the BIR:
1. Notice of Death
2. Certified true copy of the Death Certificate
3. Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate
4. Certified true copy of the land titles involved
5. Certified true copy of the latest Tax Declaration of real properties at the time of death
6. Photo copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicles and other proofs showing their correct value
7. Photo copy of certificate of stocks
8. Proof of valuation of shares of stocks at the time of death
a. For listed stocks - newspaper clippings or certification from the Stock Exchange
b. For unlisted stocks - latest audited Financial Statement of issuing corporation with computation of book value per share
9. Proof of valuation of other types of personal property
10. CPA Statement on the itemized assets of the decedent, itemized deductions from gross estate and the amount due if the gross value of the estate exceeds two million pesos
11. Certification of Barangay Captain for claimed Family Home
Other documents may also be requested by the BIR.
After the estate taxes have been paid, the heirs may proceed to the Register of Deeds where the land is situated. If the Register of Deeds would allow it, the filing with the BIR and Register of Deeds may be simultaneous. The proof of payment of the estate tax, Affidavit of Publication of the Deed, the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate are the basic requirements to be submitted to the Register of Deeds. When all pertinent documents are submitted, the Register of Deeds will correspondingly issue the Transfer of Certificates of Title to the proper heirs.
On a final note, it must be borne in mind that the extrajudicial settlement can be nullified if it was done in fraud of creditors or other rightful heirs. Furthermore, this can open the erring heirs to criminal liabilities.
Petitioner DAR maintains that the subject properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declarations.[i][6] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and petitioner DAR are one in contending that the classification of lands once determined by law may not be varied or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial inspection.[ii][7]
We are unable to sustain petitioner’s contention. There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP.[iii][8] In Halili vs. Court of Appeals[iv][9], we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent than that of the tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and the community thereat.[v][10]
[G.R. No. 139592. October 5, 2000]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GREEN CITY ESTATE & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the Decision[v][1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 9, 1998 that reversed the Order of petitioner, the Department of Agrarian Reform (petitioner DAR), by exempting the parcels of land of private respondent Green City Estate and Development Corporation (private respondent) from agrarian reform. Also assailed in this instant petition is the Resolution dated May 11, 1998 issued by the same court that denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner DAR.
The five parcels of land in issue has a combined area of approximately 112.0577 hectares situated at Barangay Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. M-45856, M-45857, M-45858, M-45859 and M-45860 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. Private respondent acquired the land by purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marcela Borja vda. De Torres. The tax declarations classified the properties as agricultural.
On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Land Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
On July 21, 1994, private respondent filed with the DAR Regional Office an application for exemption of the land from agrarian reform, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994[v][2] and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990. Administrative Order No. 6 provides the guidelines for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage while DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, authorizes the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA 6651 to non-agricultural uses effective June 15 1988.
In support of its application for exemption, private respondent submitted the following documents:
1. Certified photocopies of the titles and tax declarations.
2. Vicinity and location plans.
3. Certification of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of the Office of the Mayor of Jala-Jala.
4. Resolution No. R-36, series of 1981 of the HLURB.
5. Certification from the National Irrigation Administration.
On October 12, 1994, the DAR Regional Director recommended a denial of the said petition, on the ground that private respondent “failed to substantiate their (sic) allegation that the properties are indeed in the municipality’s residential and forest conservation zone and that portions of the properties are not irrigated nor irrigable”.
On February 15, 1995, private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP coverage. This time, private respondent alleged that the property should be exempted since it is within the residential and forest conservation zones of the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala. The amended petition for exemption showed that a portion of about 15 hectares of the land is irrigated riceland which private respondent offered to sell to the farmer beneficiaries or to the DAR. In support of its amended petition, private respondent submitted the following additional documents:
1. Certification letter from the HLURB that the specific properties are within the residential and forest conservation zone.
2. Certification from the HLURB that the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala was approved on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Commission.
3. Undertaking that the landowner is ready and willing to pay disturbance compensation to the tenants for such amount as may be agreed upon or directed by the DAR.
4. Vicinity plan.
5. Amended survey plan which indicates the irrigated riceland that is now excluded from the application.
6. Certification of the Jala-Jala Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator to the effect that the properties covered are within the residential and forest conservation areas pursuant to the zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala.
On October 19, 1995, the DAR Secretary issued an Order denying the application for exemption of private respondent, on the grounds that the land use plan of Jala-Jala, which differs from its land use map, intends to develop 73% of Barangay Punta into an agricultural zone; that the certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) is not definite and specific; and that the certification issued by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) that the area is not irrigated nor programmed for irrigation, is not conclusive on the DAR, since big areas in the municipality are recipients of JICA-funded Integrated Jala-Jala Rural Development Projects. The motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent was likewise denied by the DAR Secretary.
Private respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the course of the appeal, said court created a commission composed of three (3) members tasked to conduct an ocular inspection and survey of the subject parcels of land and to submit a report on the result of such inspection and survey. To verify the report of the commission, the DAR constituted its own team to inspect and report on the property in question. The verification report of the DAR, duly filed with the Court of Appeals, objected to the report of the commission mainly due to the lack of specific boundaries delineating the surveyed areas.
On December 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision that reversed the assailed DAR orders, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Orders of the respondent Secretary dated October 19, 1995 and November 15, 1995 are hereby REVERSED, and judgement is hereby rendered declaring those portions of the land of the petitioner which are mountainous and residential, as found by the Courts (sic) commissioners, to be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, subject to their delineation. The records of this case are hereby ordered remanded to the respondent Secretary for further proceedings in the determination of the boundaries of the said areas.”[v][3]
Hence this petition for review wherein petitioner DAR seeks the reversal of the foregoing decision on the ground that the honorable Court of Appeals erred:
1. WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFINITE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED WHEN, PER THE CORRESPONDING TAX DECLARATIONS, THEY ARE GENERALLY CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL.
2. WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAND AS OF 1980 OR BEFORE AS APPEARING IN TABLE 3-3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS THE PRESENT CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDHOLDINGS INVOLVED; and
3. WHEN IT MADE A RULING ON HOW SUBJECT LANDHOLDING BE CLASSIFIED (WHETHER COVERED BY AGRARIAN REFORM FOR BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT) AND DISPOSED OF SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE LAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED ON THEIR LEGAL CLASSIFICATION, A FUNCTION THAT IS VESTED IN CONGRESS.[v][4]
The petition has no merit.
Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1998 covers all public and private agricultural lands. The same law defines agricultural as “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land”.[v][5]
Private respondent sought exemption from the coverage of CARL on the ground that its five parcels of land are not wholly agricultural. The land use map of the municipality, certified by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) of Jala-Jala and the report of the commission constituted by the Court of Appeals established that the properties lie mostly within the residential and forest conservation zone.
Petitioner DAR maintains that the subject properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declarations.[v][6] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and petitioner DAR are one in contending that the classification of lands once determined by law may not be varied or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial inspection.[v][7]
We are unable to sustain petitioner’s contention. There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP.[v][8] In Halili vs. Court of Appeals[v][9], we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent than that of the tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and the community thereat.[v][10]
In this case, the Court of Appeals was constrained to resort to an ocular inspection of said properties through the commission it created considering that the opinion of petitioner DAR conflicted with the land use map submitted in evidence by private respondent. Respondent court also noted that even from the beginning the properties of private respondent had no definite delineation and classification.[v][11] Hence, the survey of the properties through the court appointed commissioners was the judicious and equitable solution to finally resolve the issue of land classification and delineation.
The OSG stresses that to be exempt from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, the land must have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. [v][12] Based on this premise, the OSG points out that no such classification was presented except the municipality’s alleged land use map in 1980 showing that subject parcels of land fall within the municipality’s forest conservation zone.[v][13] The OSG further argues that assuming that a change in the use of the subject properties in 1980 may justify their exemption from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, such land use of 1980 was, nevertheless, repealed/amended when the HLURB approved the municipality’s Comprehensive Development Plan for Barangay Punta for the years 1980 to 2000 in its Resolution No. 33, series of 1981.[v][14] The plan for Barangay Punta, where the parcels of land in issue are located, allegedly envision the development of the barangay into a progressive agricultural community with the limited allocation of only 51 hectares for residential use and none for commercial and forest conservation zone use.[v][15]
The foregoing arguments are untenable. We are in full agreement with respondent Court when it rationalized that the land use map is the more appropriate document to consider, thus:
“The petitioner (herein private respondent) presented a development plan of the Municipality of Jala-Jala, which was approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on December 2, 1981. It also presented certifications from the HLURB and the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Jala-Jala that the subject properties fall within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones of the municipality. Extant on the record is a color-coded land use map of Jala-Jala, showing that the petitioner’s land falls mostly within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones. This notwithstanding, the respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform denied the petitioner’s application on the ground that the town plan of the municipality, particularly Table 4-4 thereof, shows that Barangay Punta is intended to remain and to become a progressive agricultural community in view of the abundance of fertile agricultural areas in the barangay, and that there is a discrepancy between the land use map which identifies a huge forest conservation zone and the land use plan which has no area classified as forest conservation.
However, a closer look at the development plan for the municipality of Jala-Jala shows that Table 4-4 does not represent the present classification of land in that municipality, but the proposed land use to be achieved. The existing land use as of 1980 is shown by Table 3-3, wherein Barangay Punta is shown to have a forest area of 35 hectares and open grassland (which was formerly forested area) of 56 hectares. The land use map is consistent with this.”[v][16]
Moreover, the commissioner’s report on the actual condition of the properties confirms the fact that the properties are not wholly agricultural. In essence, the report of the commission showed that the land of private respondent consists of a mountainous area with an average 28 degree slope containing 66.5 hectares; a level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares of which 5 to 6 hectares are planted to palay; and a residential area of 8 hectares.[v][17] The finding that 66.5 hectares of the 112.0577 hectares of land of private respondent have an average slope of 28 degrees provides another cogent reason to exempt these portions of the properties from the CARL. Section 10 of the CARL is clear on this point when it provides that “all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act”.
Petitioner DAR and the OSG contest the finding of the Court of Appeals that the subject parcels of land have a mountainous slope on the ground that this conclusion was allegedly arrived at in a manner not in accord with established surveying procedures.[v][18] They also bewail the consideration given by the Court of Appeals to the “slope” issue since this matter was allegedly never raised before the DAR and the Court of Appeals.[v][19] Petitioner DAR and the OSG thus claim that laches had already set in.[v][20]
As pointed out earlier, the crux of the controversy is whether the subject parcels of land in issue are exempt from the coverage of the CARL. The determination of the classification and physical condition of the lands is therefore material in the disposition of this case, for which purpose the Court of Appeals constituted the commission to inspect and survey said properties. Petitioner DAR did not object to the creation of a team of commissioners[v][21] when it very well knew that the survey and ocular inspection would eventually involve the determination of the slope of the subject parcels of land. It is the protestation of petitioner that comes at a belated hour. The team of commissioners appointed by respondent court was composed persons who were mutually acceptable to the parties.[v][22] Thus, in the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and credit and we find no reversible error in the reliance by the appellate court upon said report.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139592. October 5, 2000]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GREEN CITY ESTATE & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the Decision[1][1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 9, 1998 that reversed the Order of petitioner, the Department of Agrarian Reform (petitioner DAR), by exempting the parcels of land of private respondent Green City Estate and Development Corporation (private respondent) from agrarian reform. Also assailed in this instant petition is the Resolution dated May 11, 1998 issued by the same court that denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner DAR.
The five parcels of land in issue has a combined area of approximately 112.0577 hectares situated at Barangay Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. M-45856, M-45857, M-45858, M-45859 and M-45860 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. Private respondent acquired the land by purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marcela Borja vda. De Torres. The tax declarations classified the properties as agricultural.
On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Land Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
On July 21, 1994, private respondent filed with the DAR Regional Office an application for exemption of the land from agrarian reform, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994[1][2] and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990. Administrative Order No. 6 provides the guidelines for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage while DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, authorizes the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA 6651 to non-agricultural uses effective June 15 1988.
In support of its application for exemption, private respondent submitted the following documents:
1. Certified photocopies of the titles and tax declarations.
2. Vicinity and location plans.
3. Certification of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of the Office of the Mayor of Jala-Jala.
4. Resolution No. R-36, series of 1981 of the HLURB.
5. Certification from the National Irrigation Administration.
On October 12, 1994, the DAR Regional Director recommended a denial of the said petition, on the ground that private respondent “failed to substantiate their (sic) allegation that the properties are indeed in the municipality’s residential and forest conservation zone and that portions of the properties are not irrigated nor irrigable”.
On February 15, 1995, private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP coverage. This time, private respondent alleged that the property should be exempted since it is within the residential and forest conservation zones of the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala. The amended petition for exemption showed that a portion of about 15 hectares of the land is irrigated riceland which private respondent offered to sell to the farmer beneficiaries or to the DAR. In support of its amended petition, private respondent submitted the following additional documents:
1. Certification letter from the HLURB that the specific properties are within the residential and forest conservation zone.
2. Certification from the HLURB that the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala was approved on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Commission.
3. Undertaking that the landowner is ready and willing to pay disturbance compensation to the tenants for such amount as may be agreed upon or directed by the DAR.
4. Vicinity plan.
5. Amended survey plan which indicates the irrigated riceland that is now excluded from the application.
6. Certification of the Jala-Jala Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator to the effect that the properties covered are within the residential and forest conservation areas pursuant to the zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala.
On October 19, 1995, the DAR Secretary issued an Order denying the application for exemption of private respondent, on the grounds that the land use plan of Jala-Jala, which differs from its land use map, intends to develop 73% of Barangay Punta into an agricultural zone; that the certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) is not definite and specific; and that the certification issued by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) that the area is not irrigated nor programmed for irrigation, is not conclusive on the DAR, since big areas in the municipality are recipients of JICA-funded Integrated Jala-Jala Rural Development Projects. The motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent was likewise denied by the DAR Secretary.
Private respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the course of the appeal, said court created a commission composed of three (3) members tasked to conduct an ocular inspection and survey of the subject parcels of land and to submit a report on the result of such inspection and survey. To verify the report of the commission, the DAR constituted its own team to inspect and report on the property in question. The verification report of the DAR, duly filed with the Court of Appeals, objected to the report of the commission mainly due to the lack of specific boundaries delineating the surveyed areas.
On December 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision that reversed the assailed DAR orders, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Orders of the respondent Secretary dated October 19, 1995 and November 15, 1995 are hereby REVERSED, and judgement is hereby rendered declaring those portions of the land of the petitioner which are mountainous and residential, as found by the Courts (sic) commissioners, to be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, subject to their delineation. The records of this case are hereby ordered remanded to the respondent Secretary for further proceedings in the determination of the boundaries of the said areas.”[1][3]
Hence this petition for review wherein petitioner DAR seeks the reversal of the foregoing decision on the ground that the honorable Court of Appeals erred:
1. WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFINITE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED WHEN, PER THE CORRESPONDING TAX DECLARATIONS, THEY ARE GENERALLY CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL.
2. WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAND AS OF 1980 OR BEFORE AS APPEARING IN TABLE 3-3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS THE PRESENT CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDHOLDINGS INVOLVED; and
3. WHEN IT MADE A RULING ON HOW SUBJECT LANDHOLDING BE CLASSIFIED (WHETHER COVERED BY AGRARIAN REFORM FOR BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT) AND DISPOSED OF SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE LAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED ON THEIR LEGAL CLASSIFICATION, A FUNCTION THAT IS VESTED IN CONGRESS.[1][4]
The petition has no merit.
Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1998 covers all public and private agricultural lands. The same law defines agricultural as “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land”.[1][5]
Private respondent sought exemption from the coverage of CARL on the ground that its five parcels of land are not wholly agricultural. The land use map of the municipality, certified by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) of Jala-Jala and the report of the commission constituted by the Court of Appeals established that the properties lie mostly within the residential and forest conservation zone.
Petitioner DAR maintains that the subject properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declarations.[1][6] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and petitioner DAR are one in contending that the classification of lands once determined by law may not be varied or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial inspection.[1][7]
We are unable to sustain petitioner’s contention. There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP.[1][8] In Halili vs. Court of Appeals[1][9], we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent than that of the tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and the community thereat.[1][10]
In this case, the Court of Appeals was constrained to resort to an ocular inspection of said properties through the commission it created considering that the opinion of petitioner DAR conflicted with the land use map submitted in evidence by private respondent. Respondent court also noted that even from the beginning the properties of private respondent had no definite delineation and classification.[1][11] Hence, the survey of the properties through the court appointed commissioners was the judicious and equitable solution to finally resolve the issue of land classification and delineation.
The OSG stresses that to be exempt from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, the land must have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. [1][12] Based on this premise, the OSG points out that no such classification was presented except the municipality’s alleged land use map in 1980 showing that subject parcels of land fall within the municipality’s forest conservation zone.[1][13] The OSG further argues that assuming that a change in the use of the subject properties in 1980 may justify their exemption from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, such land use of 1980 was, nevertheless, repealed/amended when the HLURB approved the municipality’s Comprehensive Development Plan for Barangay Punta for the years 1980 to 2000 in its Resolution No. 33, series of 1981.[1][14] The plan for Barangay Punta, where the parcels of land in issue are located, allegedly envision the development of the barangay into a progressive agricultural community with the limited allocation of only 51 hectares for residential use and none for commercial and forest conservation zone use.[1][15]
The foregoing arguments are untenable. We are in full agreement with respondent Court when it rationalized that the land use map is the more appropriate document to consider, thus:
“The petitioner (herein private respondent) presented a development plan of the Municipality of Jala-Jala, which was approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on December 2, 1981. It also presented certifications from the HLURB and the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Jala-Jala that the subject properties fall within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones of the municipality. Extant on the record is a color-coded land use map of Jala-Jala, showing that the petitioner’s land falls mostly within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones. This notwithstanding, the respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform denied the petitioner’s application on the ground that the town plan of the municipality, particularly Table 4-4 thereof, shows that Barangay Punta is intended to remain and to become a progressive agricultural community in view of the abundance of fertile agricultural areas in the barangay, and that there is a discrepancy between the land use map which identifies a huge forest conservation zone and the land use plan which has no area classified as forest conservation.
However, a closer look at the development plan for the municipality of Jala-Jala shows that Table 4-4 does not represent the present classification of land in that municipality, but the proposed land use to be achieved. The existing land use as of 1980 is shown by Table 3-3, wherein Barangay Punta is shown to have a forest area of 35 hectares and open grassland (which was formerly forested area) of 56 hectares. The land use map is consistent with this.”[1][16]
Moreover, the commissioner’s report on the actual condition of the properties confirms the fact that the properties are not wholly agricultural. In essence, the report of the commission showed that the land of private respondent consists of a mountainous area with an average 28 degree slope containing 66.5 hectares; a level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares of which 5 to 6 hectares are planted to palay; and a residential area of 8 hectares.[1][17] The finding that 66.5 hectares of the 112.0577 hectares of land of private respondent have an average slope of 28 degrees provides another cogent reason to exempt these portions of the properties from the CARL. Section 10 of the CARL is clear on this point when it provides that “all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act”.
Petitioner DAR and the OSG contest the finding of the Court of Appeals that the subject parcels of land have a mountainous slope on the ground that this conclusion was allegedly arrived at in a manner not in accord with established surveying procedures.[1][18] They also bewail the consideration given by the Court of Appeals to the “slope” issue since this matter was allegedly never raised before the DAR and the Court of Appeals.[1][19] Petitioner DAR and the OSG thus claim that laches had already set in.[1][20]
As pointed out earlier, the crux of the controversy is whether the subject parcels of land in issue are exempt from the coverage of the CARL. The determination of the classification and physical condition of the lands is therefore material in the disposition of this case, for which purpose the Court of Appeals constituted the commission to inspect and survey said properties. Petitioner DAR did not object to the creation of a team of commissioners[1][21] when it very well knew that the survey and ocular inspection would eventually involve the determination of the slope of the subject parcels of land. It is the protestation of petitioner that comes at a belated hour. The team of commissioners appointed by respondent court was composed persons who were mutually acceptable to the parties.[1][22] Thus, in the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and credit and we find no reversible error in the reliance by the appellate court upon said report.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 139592. October 5, 2000]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and GREEN CITY ESTATE & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the Decision[1][1] of the Court of Appeals dated December 9, 1998 that reversed the Order of petitioner, the Department of Agrarian Reform (petitioner DAR), by exempting the parcels of land of private respondent Green City Estate and Development Corporation (private respondent) from agrarian reform. Also assailed in this instant petition is the Resolution dated May 11, 1998 issued by the same court that denied the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner DAR.
The five parcels of land in issue has a combined area of approximately 112.0577 hectares situated at Barangay Punta, Municipality of Jala-Jala, Province of Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. M-45856, M-45857, M-45858, M-45859 and M-45860 of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. Private respondent acquired the land by purchase on May 26, 1994 from Marcela Borja vda. De Torres. The tax declarations classified the properties as agricultural.
On June 16, 1994, petitioner DAR issued a Notice of Coverage of the subject parcels of land under compulsory acquisition pursuant to Section 7, Chapter II of R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Land Reform Law of 1998 (CARL).
On July 21, 1994, private respondent filed with the DAR Regional Office an application for exemption of the land from agrarian reform, pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994[1][2] and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990. Administrative Order No. 6 provides the guidelines for exemption from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage while DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, authorizes the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA 6651 to non-agricultural uses effective June 15 1988.
In support of its application for exemption, private respondent submitted the following documents:
1. Certified photocopies of the titles and tax declarations.
2. Vicinity and location plans.
3. Certification of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of the Office of the Mayor of Jala-Jala.
4. Resolution No. R-36, series of 1981 of the HLURB.
5. Certification from the National Irrigation Administration.
On October 12, 1994, the DAR Regional Director recommended a denial of the said petition, on the ground that private respondent “failed to substantiate their (sic) allegation that the properties are indeed in the municipality’s residential and forest conservation zone and that portions of the properties are not irrigated nor irrigable”.
On February 15, 1995, private respondent filed an Amended Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP coverage. This time, private respondent alleged that the property should be exempted since it is within the residential and forest conservation zones of the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala. The amended petition for exemption showed that a portion of about 15 hectares of the land is irrigated riceland which private respondent offered to sell to the farmer beneficiaries or to the DAR. In support of its amended petition, private respondent submitted the following additional documents:
1. Certification letter from the HLURB that the specific properties are within the residential and forest conservation zone.
2. Certification from the HLURB that the town plan/zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala was approved on December 2, 1981 by the Human Settlements Commission.
3. Undertaking that the landowner is ready and willing to pay disturbance compensation to the tenants for such amount as may be agreed upon or directed by the DAR.
4. Vicinity plan.
5. Amended survey plan which indicates the irrigated riceland that is now excluded from the application.
6. Certification of the Jala-Jala Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator to the effect that the properties covered are within the residential and forest conservation areas pursuant to the zoning ordinance of Jala-Jala.
On October 19, 1995, the DAR Secretary issued an Order denying the application for exemption of private respondent, on the grounds that the land use plan of Jala-Jala, which differs from its land use map, intends to develop 73% of Barangay Punta into an agricultural zone; that the certification issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) is not definite and specific; and that the certification issued by the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) that the area is not irrigated nor programmed for irrigation, is not conclusive on the DAR, since big areas in the municipality are recipients of JICA-funded Integrated Jala-Jala Rural Development Projects. The motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent was likewise denied by the DAR Secretary.
Private respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the course of the appeal, said court created a commission composed of three (3) members tasked to conduct an ocular inspection and survey of the subject parcels of land and to submit a report on the result of such inspection and survey. To verify the report of the commission, the DAR constituted its own team to inspect and report on the property in question. The verification report of the DAR, duly filed with the Court of Appeals, objected to the report of the commission mainly due to the lack of specific boundaries delineating the surveyed areas.
On December 9, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision that reversed the assailed DAR orders, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Orders of the respondent Secretary dated October 19, 1995 and November 15, 1995 are hereby REVERSED, and judgement is hereby rendered declaring those portions of the land of the petitioner which are mountainous and residential, as found by the Courts (sic) commissioners, to be exempt from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, subject to their delineation. The records of this case are hereby ordered remanded to the respondent Secretary for further proceedings in the determination of the boundaries of the said areas.”[1][3]
Hence this petition for review wherein petitioner DAR seeks the reversal of the foregoing decision on the ground that the honorable Court of Appeals erred:
1. WHEN IT RULED THAT THERE WAS NO DEFINITE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED WHEN, PER THE CORRESPONDING TAX DECLARATIONS, THEY ARE GENERALLY CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL.
2. WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PHYSICAL FEATURES OF THE LAND AS OF 1980 OR BEFORE AS APPEARING IN TABLE 3-3 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS THE PRESENT CLASSIFICATION OF THE LANDHOLDINGS INVOLVED; and
3. WHEN IT MADE A RULING ON HOW SUBJECT LANDHOLDING BE CLASSIFIED (WHETHER COVERED BY AGRARIAN REFORM FOR BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT) AND DISPOSED OF SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE LAND IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED ON THEIR LEGAL CLASSIFICATION, A FUNCTION THAT IS VESTED IN CONGRESS.[1][4]
The petition has no merit.
Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1998 covers all public and private agricultural lands. The same law defines agricultural as “land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land”.[1][5]
Private respondent sought exemption from the coverage of CARL on the ground that its five parcels of land are not wholly agricultural. The land use map of the municipality, certified by the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) of Jala-Jala and the report of the commission constituted by the Court of Appeals established that the properties lie mostly within the residential and forest conservation zone.
Petitioner DAR maintains that the subject properties have already been classified as agricultural based on the tax declarations.[1][6] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and petitioner DAR are one in contending that the classification of lands once determined by law may not be varied or altered by the results of a mere ocular or aerial inspection.[1][7]
We are unable to sustain petitioner’s contention. There is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any further inquiry. Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6 lists other documents, aside from tax declarations, that must be submitted when applying for exemption from CARP.[1][8] In Halili vs. Court of Appeals[1][9], we sustained the trial court when it ruled that the classification made by the Land Regulatory Board of the land in question outweighed the classification stated in the tax declaration. The classification of the Board in said case was more recent than that of the tax declaration and was based on the present condition of the property and the community thereat.[1][10]
In this case, the Court of Appeals was constrained to resort to an ocular inspection of said properties through the commission it created considering that the opinion of petitioner DAR conflicted with the land use map submitted in evidence by private respondent. Respondent court also noted that even from the beginning the properties of private respondent had no definite delineation and classification.[1][11] Hence, the survey of the properties through the court appointed commissioners was the judicious and equitable solution to finally resolve the issue of land classification and delineation.
The OSG stresses that to be exempt from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, the land must have been classified as industrial/residential before June 15, 1988. [1][12] Based on this premise, the OSG points out that no such classification was presented except the municipality’s alleged land use map in 1980 showing that subject parcels of land fall within the municipality’s forest conservation zone.[1][13] The OSG further argues that assuming that a change in the use of the subject properties in 1980 may justify their exemption from CARP under DOJ Opinion No. 44, such land use of 1980 was, nevertheless, repealed/amended when the HLURB approved the municipality’s Comprehensive Development Plan for Barangay Punta for the years 1980 to 2000 in its Resolution No. 33, series of 1981.[1][14] The plan for Barangay Punta, where the parcels of land in issue are located, allegedly envision the development of the barangay into a progressive agricultural community with the limited allocation of only 51 hectares for residential use and none for commercial and forest conservation zone use.[1][15]
The foregoing arguments are untenable. We are in full agreement with respondent Court when it rationalized that the land use map is the more appropriate document to consider, thus:
“The petitioner (herein private respondent) presented a development plan of the Municipality of Jala-Jala, which was approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) on December 2, 1981. It also presented certifications from the HLURB and the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator of Jala-Jala that the subject properties fall within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones of the municipality. Extant on the record is a color-coded land use map of Jala-Jala, showing that the petitioner’s land falls mostly within the Residential and Forest Conservation zones. This notwithstanding, the respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform denied the petitioner’s application on the ground that the town plan of the municipality, particularly Table 4-4 thereof, shows that Barangay Punta is intended to remain and to become a progressive agricultural community in view of the abundance of fertile agricultural areas in the barangay, and that there is a discrepancy between the land use map which identifies a huge forest conservation zone and the land use plan which has no area classified as forest conservation.
However, a closer look at the development plan for the municipality of Jala-Jala shows that Table 4-4 does not represent the present classification of land in that municipality, but the proposed land use to be achieved. The existing land use as of 1980 is shown by Table 3-3, wherein Barangay Punta is shown to have a forest area of 35 hectares and open grassland (which was formerly forested area) of 56 hectares. The land use map is consistent with this.”[1][16]
Moreover, the commissioner’s report on the actual condition of the properties confirms the fact that the properties are not wholly agricultural. In essence, the report of the commission showed that the land of private respondent consists of a mountainous area with an average 28 degree slope containing 66.5 hectares; a level, unirrigated area of 34 hectares of which 5 to 6 hectares are planted to palay; and a residential area of 8 hectares.[1][17] The finding that 66.5 hectares of the 112.0577 hectares of land of private respondent have an average slope of 28 degrees provides another cogent reason to exempt these portions of the properties from the CARL. Section 10 of the CARL is clear on this point when it provides that “all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act”.
Petitioner DAR and the OSG contest the finding of the Court of Appeals that the subject parcels of land have a mountainous slope on the ground that this conclusion was allegedly arrived at in a manner not in accord with established surveying procedures.[1][18] They also bewail the consideration given by the Court of Appeals to the “slope” issue since this matter was allegedly never raised before the DAR and the Court of Appeals.[1][19] Petitioner DAR and the OSG thus claim that laches had already set in.[1][20]
As pointed out earlier, the crux of the controversy is whether the subject parcels of land in issue are exempt from the coverage of the CARL. The determination of the classification and physical condition of the lands is therefore material in the disposition of this case, for which purpose the Court of Appeals constituted the commission to inspect and survey said properties. Petitioner DAR did not object to the creation of a team of commissioners[1][21] when it very well knew that the survey and ocular inspection would eventually involve the determination of the slope of the subject parcels of land. It is the protestation of petitioner that comes at a belated hour. The team of commissioners appointed by respondent court was composed persons who were mutually acceptable to the parties.[1][22] Thus, in the absence of any irregularity in the survey and inspection of the subject properties, and none is alleged, the report of the commissioners deserves full faith and credit and we find no reversible error in the reliance by the appellate court upon said report.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The challenged Decision is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Foreigners Owning Filipino Land
Only Filipino citizens and corporations and associations at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipinos may acquire private lands.
Foreigners are allowed to purchase a condominium unit, provided that total foreign ownership of the condominium corporation does not exceed 40%. They may also inherit real property from their deceased Filipino spouses or parents.
Children born to a Filipino parent, whether legitimate or illegitimate, may inherit the property o the Filipino parent, even if the child is not a Filipino citizen.
Filipinos who lost their Filipino citizenship will remain the owners of any property they have acquired before changing nationalities. On the other hand, a natural-born Filipino citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private land, subject to the following limitations and conditions:
Land Ownership by Former Filipinos in the Philippines
Natural-born Filipinos who have acquired foreign citizenship are entitled to own or acquire lands in the Philippines.
Article XII, Section 8, of the Philippine Constitution provides that a natural born citizens of the Philippines who has lost his or her Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law.
Section 7 of the same Article entitles former Filipinos to own and acquire lands through hereditary succession, i.e. by virtue of inheritance.
Governing Laws on Land Ownership by Former Filipinos
The laws on land ownership by natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship are governed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 (BP 185), which was enacted in March 1982, and Republic Act 8179 (RA 8179), which amended the Foreign Investment Act of 1991.
BP 185 stipulates the guidelines on land ownership by former Filipinos for purposes of establishment of residence while RA 8179 (Section 10) specifies entitlements and conditions for land acquisition for investment purposes. The acquisition or transfer of private lands refers to either voluntary or involuntary sale, devise or donation. Involuntary sales include sales on tax delinquency, foreclosures, and execution of judgment.
The following are the provisions of BP 185 and RA 7042, as amended by RA 8179, pertinent to land ownership by former Filipinos: http://www.philippine-embassy.org.sg/useful-information/land-ownership/
Requirements for Land Registration or Original Certificate of Title (Judicial Titling)
The application for land registration should be filed in triplicate with the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court of the province/city where the property is located. The following documents should be attached to the application:
Original plan on tracing cloth duly approved by the Director of Lands or Regional Land Director, or in lieu thereof, a true copy of the same on a tracing cloth properly attested and certified by said Office or official authorized to make such certification, together with two (2) print copies thereof;
Technical description, three (3) copies Surveyor’s certificate, three (3) copies Certificate of the assessed value of the property issued by the provincial treasurer, in quadruplicate.
Requirements for Land Transfer or Transfer Certificate of Title
The following documents are required for the filing of land transfer:
REQUIREMENTS
Through Deed of Sale
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Deed of Sale duly registered with Register of Deeds (ROD)
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
Through Deed of Donation
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Deed of Donation duly registered with Register of Deeds (ROD)
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
Through Deed of Exchange
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Deed of Exchange duly registered with Register of Deeds (ROD)
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
Through Extrajudicial Settlement
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement duly registered with Register of Deeds (ROD)
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
Through Court Order
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Court Decision/Order duly registered with Register of Deeds (ROD)
Finality of Judgment/Writ of Execution duly registered in the Register of Deeds (ROD)
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
Through Bank Foreclosure
Tax clearance and/or current tax receipts
Deed of Foreclosure/Consolidation of Ownership duly registered to Register of Deeds (ROD)
Final Deed of Sale if any;
Request of property owner/his/her representative duly endorsed by the Municipal Assessor
GUIDELINES ON EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATES
(source: landtitles,2009;lra consulta, chanrobles, philippineregistry)
WHAT IS AN ESTATE?
•An Estate is comprised of the real and personal properties of a decedent.
EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT.
• “Extrajudicial” means “outside of court.”. The heirs do not have to go to court to partition the properties left by the decedent.
COMMON REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT
TO BE VALID:
WHO MAY EXECUTE AN EXTRAJUDICIAL SETTLEMENT?
The steps to follow are:
a. Prepare a “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Adjudication of Estate” to be signed by all of the heirs, which must contain the following information:
- That the decedent left no will;
- That the decedent left no debt;
- Each heir’s relationship to the decedent (e.g. spouse, son, daughter, father, mother etc.);
- That they are the decedent’s only surviving heirs;
- An enumeration and a brief description of the decedent‘s properties, both real and personal, which the heirs are now dividing among themselves
b. Have the “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Adjudication of Estate” notarized before a Notary Public after all the heirs have signed it.
c. Publish the “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Adjudication of Estate” in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks.
d. . Secure a bond from a reputable bonding company acceptable to the Register of Deeds. The amount of the bond is equivalent to the value of the personal property included in the extrajudicial settlement.
d. Register the notarized “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Adjudication of Estate” with the Register of Deeds. The bond is simultaneously filed with the “Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Adjudication of Estate” together with all other supporting documents.
Amending an affidavit
Affidavits must not be amended once they have been sworn or affirmed. If an affidavit needs to be corrected, either a second affidavit clarifying the matter in question to the first affidavit must be made, or the first affidavit must be re-sworn.
= http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/consular-operations-handbook/part5.html
And the rule that in case of double registration the owner of the earlier certificate is the owner of the land applies to the successive vendees of the owners of such certificates. “The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate” (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra, pages 597-9).
It is settled that is this jurisdiction the maxim prior est in tempore, potior est in jure (he who is first in time is preferred in right) is followed in land registration matters (La Urbana vs. Bernardo, 62 Phil. 790, 806).
============
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. Nos. L-48971 & 49011 January 22, 1980
PACIFICO GARCIA, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
BENJAMIN M. GOZON, TECLA GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO FELIX, PAULINO D. BUENAVENTURA, RAYMUNDO DIONISIO, VIRGILIO AUSTRIA and MARCEON VICENCIO, respondents-appellees;
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division), CAROLINA LAPUZ- GOZON, assisted by her husband BENJAMIN M. GOZON, TECLA GUTIERREZ, ROSARIO FELIX, PAULINO D. BUENAVENTURA, RAYMUNDO DIONISIO, VIRGILIO AUSTRIA and MARCEON VICENCIO, respondents-appellees.
Agapito Mendoza & Antonio G. Ibarra for appellant Pacifico Garcia
Laurel Law Office and Flores Ocampo, Dizon & Domingo for private appellees.
AQUINO, J.:
This case is about the issuance of two or more transfer certificates of title to different persons for the same lots, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that the original title was allegedly not cancelled when the first transfer certificates of title were issued to replace the original title. The factual background is as follows:
1. On August 9, 1918, a deed of sale for two parcels of land, E and G (with a total area of more than seven hectares) of the Hacienda Maysilo, located in Malabon, Rizal and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 983, was executed in favor of Ismael Lapus a bona fide occupant thereof. The deed was executed pursuant to an order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. 391, Negao vs. Vidal, a partition proceeding involving the said hacienda (See Bustamante vs. Tuason, 47 Phil. 433, 434).
2. The deed of sale was presented for registration at two-twenty five in the afternoon of January 15, 1920 and was recorded as Primary Entry No. 7710. That deed of sale itself contains the following entries showing that it was annotated on the back of OCT NO. 983:
Presentado en este Registro a las 2:25 de la tarde del dia de hoy segun el Asiento No. 7710 de tomo 10 del Libro Diario, Pasig, Rizal, Enero 15, 1920.
Register of Deeds (Exh. B-12)
Inscrito el documento que precede al dorso del certificado de Titulo Original No. 983 del Tomo A-9, de inscritor en las paginas 113 y 114 ambos del libro T-25 de registro como certificados de titulo Nos. 4910 y 4911, archivado en el legajo T-#4910. Pasig, Rizal, Enero 15, 1920.:
Register of Deeds (Exh. B-1).
However, it seemed that, contrary to the foregoing entry and the official routine or standard operating procedure, the deed of sale was not annotated on OCT No. 983 and that, consequently, that title was apparently not cancelled. Why that annotation did not appear in OCT No. 983 and why there was no notation of the cancellation of that title, as it appeared in 1962, is a mystifying circumstance in this case.
3. As a result of the registration of that deed of sale, Transfer Certificate of ‘Title No. 4910 was issued to Lapus for the two parcels of land, E and G, and I Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4911 was issued for the remaining five lots covered by OCT No. 983 (which embrace an area of more than two hundred fifty-eight hectares registered in the names of more than twenty-six-co-owners). TCT Nos. 4910 and 4911 contain the following entries: “Transfer from No. 983. Originally registered on the 29th day of January, in the year 1917 in Book No. A-9, page 215, of the said Province of Rizal, pursuant to a decree entered in Case No. 3850.”
4. Lapus on different occasions mortgaged the two parcels of land to secure his obligations to the Philippine National Bank, the Government and the Philippine Trust Company. He died in 1951. The two parcels of land were inherited by his daughter, Carolina Lapuz-Gozon. She became the registered owner of the two lots. She subdivided them into fifty-five lots. She sold some of the subdivision lots to her co-respondents-appellees herein. Lapus and his successors-in-interest have been in possession of the two parcels even before 1910 or for more than seventy years.
5. Meanwhile, in 1962, certain. alleged heirs (collectively known as the Riveras) of the late Maria de la Concepcion Vidal filed a motion in Land Registration Cases Nos. 4429 and 4496 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, alleging that they were deprived of their participation in the Hacienda Maysilo covered by OCT No. 983 and for other titles and that, since only OCT No. 983 was supposedly unencumbered, all the land covered by that title should be adjudicated to them. The court granted the motion. It should be stressed that OCT No. 983 appears to have remained uncancelled notwithstanding the sale to Lapus of two parcels covered by it and the fact that it had been replaced by TCT Nos. 4910 and 4911.
6. On June 7, 1963, OCT No. 983 was definitely cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 112236 was issued to the Riveras. Later, Lots 5 and 7 of the said title (corresponding to parcels E and G which were sold to Ismael Lapus in 1918 as stated earlier) were assigned by Bartolome Rivera to Sergio Cruz and Pacifico Garcia and TCT Nos. 112743 and 112742 were issued to Cruz and Garcia, respectively. Thus, two sets of transfer certificates of title for Lots E and G or 5 and 7, originally covered by OCT No. 983, were issued, one to the heir of Ismael Lapus and another set to the successors-in-interest of the Riveras.
7. On October 22, 1964, Garcia subdivided Lot 7 (G) into Lots A and B. Garcia retained Lot A and obtained TCT No. 134958 for it. He assigned Lot B to Antonio Muñoz on November 5, 1964. As a consequence of the assignment, TCT No. 112742 was cancelled and TCT No. 134957 was issued to Muñoz. In 1965, he mortgaged Lot B to the Associated Banking Corporation to secure a loan of P200,000.
8. On the other hand, on July 17, 1964 Cruz sold to Santiago Go Lot 5 (E) covered by TCT No. 112743. TCT No. 131329 was issued to Go on August 25,1964. On December 23, 1964, Go mortgaged Lot 6 to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a loan of P50,000 which was later increased to P60,000.
9. Muñoz and Go did not pay their mortgage debts. The two banks foreclosed the mortgages. The PNB bought the mortgaged lot at the auction sale held on May 4. 1967. The sheriff issued to it a certificate of sale dated May 19, 1967 but at that time there was already a notice of lis pendens annotated on the title of the mortgaged lot. TCT Nos. 212163 and 236881 for the mortgaged lots were issued to the Associated Banking Corporation and the Philippine National Bank, respectively.
10. The Riveras and their successors-in-interest have never set foot on the disputed lots.
11. Mrs. Gozon later learned that the Riveras and their successors-in-interest had acquired the land (more than two hundred fifty-eight hectares) covered by OCT No. 983. Her lawyer and a surveyor informed her that parcels E and G, which she inherited from her father, were identical to Lots 5 and 7 which were conveyed to Cruz and Garcia. She registered adverse claims on the titles covering Lots 5 and 7. On December 27, 1965 she and the persons to whom she had transferred portions of parcels E and G filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Caloocan City against the Riveras, Cruz, Muñoz, Garcia, Associated Banking Corporation, PNB and others an action to quiet title and for damages.
12. A notice of lis pendens was annotated on January 25, 1966 on the titles of Garcia, Muñoz and Go. The notice of lis pendens was annotated on the title of the PNB when the sale in its favor was registered on December 13, 1969.
13. The trial court in its decision of July 30, 1975 declared valid TCT Nos. 141802 to 141855 and 143512 issued to Mrs. Gozon and her co-plaintiffs. It voided TCT No. 112235 issued to the Riveras and all titles and transactions emanating therefrom insofar as those titles covered the lots embraced in plaintiffs’ titles. The Riveras were ordered to pay the plaintiffs twenty thousand pesos as attorney’s fees.
14. The trial court also ordered Muñoz to pay the Associated Banking Corporation, in the event that the bank would be evicted from the lot covered by TCT No. 212153, two hundred sixty-five thousand seventy-two pesos and fifteen centavos with twelve percent interest per annum from the date of the eviction plus ten thousand pesos as attorney’s fees.
15. Santiago Go was ordered to pay the PNB, should it be evicted from the lot covered by TCT No. 236881, the sum of sixty thousand pesos plus nine percent interest per annum from the date of the eviction and six thousand pesos as attorney’s fees.
16. That judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its decision of May 25, 1978. Garcia and the PNB appealed from that decision. The Associated Banking Corporation, now the Associated Citizens Bank, tried to appeal but it was not able to file its petition for review (L-49010).
Garcia contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that his title is valid and that the titles of Ismael Lapus and his successors-in-interest lost their right to the disputed lots due to their negligence or inaction.
The issue is whether the 1920 title issued to Lapus and the titles derived therefrom should prevail over the 1963 title issued to the Riveras and the subsequent titles derived from it. Should Lapus’ title prevail even if it was not annotated by the register of deeds on the anterior or parent title which was not cancelled before 1963? It was that noncancellation which led to the issuance of the duplicative title to the Riveras and eventually to the execution of the controversial mortgages and foreclosure sales to the two banks.
We hold that the two appeals have no merit. The title of Lapus and the titles derived therefrom should be given effect. The title of the Riveras and the titles springing from it are void.
There can be no doubt that Lapus was an innocent purchaser for value. He validly transmitted to his successors-in-interest his indefeasible title or ownership over the disputed lots or parcels of land. That title could not be nullified or defeated by the issuance forty-three Years later to other persons of another title over the same lots due to the failure of the register of deeds to cancel the title preceding the title issued to Lapuz. This must be so considering that Lapus and his interest remained in possession of the disputed successors in lots and the rival claimants never possessed the same.
“The general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevail, whether the land comprised in the latter certificate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate” (Hogg, Australian Torrens System 823, citing cases and cited in Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 595).
“Where two certificates (of title) purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. … In successive registrations, where more than once certificate is issued in respect of a party estate or interest in land, the Person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof ” (Niblack, Analysis of the Torrens System page 237, cited in Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra, pages 595-6).
And the rule that in case of double registration the owner of the earlier certificate is the owner of the land applies to the successive vendees of the owners of such certificates. “The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the later certificate” (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra, pages 597-9).
It is settled that is this jurisdiction the maxim prior est in tempore, potior est in jure (he who is first in time is preferred in right) is followed in land registration matters (La Urbana vs. Bernardo, 62 Phil. 790, 806).
Appellant Garcia invokes the ruling that the mere entry of a document in the day or entry book without noting it on the certificate of title is not a sufficient registration (Bass vs. De la Rama, 73 Phil. 682, 685).
That ruling was superseded by the holding in the later six cases of Levin vs. Bass, 91 Phil. 420, where a distinction was made between voluntary and involuntary registration, such as the registration of an attachment, levy upon execution, notice of his pendens, and the like. In cases of involuntary registration, an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all persons even if the owner’s duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the register of deeds.
On the other hand, according to the said cases of Levin vs. Bass, in case of voluntary registration of documents an innocent purchaser for value of registered land becomes the registered owner, and, in contemplation of law the holder of a certificate of title, the moment he presents and files a duly notarized and valid deed of sale and the same is entered in the day book and at the same time he surrenders or presents the owner’s duplicate certificate of title covering the land sold and pays the registration fees, because what remains to be done lies not within his power to perform. The register of deeds is duty bound to perform it. (See Potenciano vs. Dineros, 97 Phil. 196.)
The instant case is not Identical to the Bass cases. Here the deed of sale in favor of Lapus, which was judicially authorized, was entered in the entry book and a new title was issued to him. As already stated, and this point should be underscored, the deed of sale in favor of Lapus contains the notation that it was annotated on the back of OCT No. 983 (presumably, the original and owner’s duplicate thereof).
But why in 1962 it appeared that no such annotation was found on the back of OCT No. 983, contrary to what was stated in the 1918 deed of sale, is a mystery that the trill court and the plaintiffs failed to unravel during the trial. Moreover, the title issued to Lapus contains the usual notation that it was a transfer from a previous title which in this case was OCT No. 983.
It should be further observed that the deed of sale in favor of Lapus and the titles issued to him and his successors interest together with his mortgage in 1929 of the disputed lots to the PNB itself, are all a matter of public record in the registry of deeds.
As stressed in Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 600, “the record is notice to all the world. All persons are charged with the knowledge of what it contains. All persons dealing with the land so recorded, or any portion of it, must be charged with notice of whatever it contains. The purchaser is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which the record discloses.
“When a conveyance has been properly recorded, such record is constructive notice of its contents and all interests, legal and equitable, included therein.” “Under the rule of notice, it is presumed that the purchaser has examined every instrument of record affecting the title. Such presumption is irrefutable. He is charged with notice of every fact shown by the record and is presumed to know every fact which an examination of the record would have disclosed” (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra, page 600).
As Justice Johnson says, “this presumption cannot be overcome by proof of innocence or good faith. Otherwise, the very purpose and object of the law requiring a record would be destroyed. Such presumption cannot be defeated by proof of want of knowledge of what the record contains any more than one may be permitted to show that he was ignorant of the provisions of the law. The rule that all persons must take notice of the facts which the public record contains is a rule of law. The rule must be absolute. Any variation would lead to endless confusion and useless litigation” (Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby, supra, pp. 600-601).
As to the PNB’s claim that it was a mortgagee and purchaser in good faith and for value, the Appellate Court held that the bank should have made an on-the-spot investigation of the lot mortgaged by Go to ascertain whether he was in possession of it or it was claimed by other persons. Its failure to do so precludes the bank from being considered as a mortgagee in good faith and for value (Gatioan vs. Gaffud, L-21953, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 706).
On the other hand, the trial court held that the PNB was not a buyer in good faith when it bought Go’s lot at the auction sale because there was already a notice of his pendens annotated on his title.
In the Gatioan case, it appears that in 1935 Rufina Permison secured a Torrens title for a parcel of land on the basis of a free patent. The land was sold to Encarnacion Gatioan and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1212 was issued to her. She mortgaged the land three times to the PNB
In 1956, the spouses Sixto Gaffud and Villamora Logan were able to secure a Torrens title for the same lot also on the basis of a free patent. They mortgaged the land also to the PNB. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, on discovering that two Torrens titles were issued for the same land, recommended the cancellation of the later title issued to the Gaffud spouses. As the PNB refused to cancel the mortgaged executed by Gatioan, in spite of the fact that she had made full payment of the mortgage debt, she filed against the Gaffud spouses and the PNB an action to quiet title.
It was held that Gatioan’s title should prevail over that of the Gaffud spouses and that the mortgage executed by them in favor of the PNB was void. The Gaffud spouse were ordered to pay damages to Gatioan.
Since the applicable rule in the instant case is that the earlier certificate of title should be recognized as superior and controlling there is no justification for relying on the doctrine laid down by Justice Holmes in Eliason vs. Wilborn 281 U.S. 457, that “as between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequence of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss.”
There was no breach of trust in this case. What is note. worthy in this case is that after it was recited in the registered deed of sale that sale was annotated at the back of the title covering the lots sold, it turned out that the title did not contain such an annotation and that the title was not cancelled. For that anomaly, the purchaser, Ismael Lapus, the how” of the earlier title, was not culpable or blameworthy.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the trial court, should stand. Costs against the appellants.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., took no part.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
Republic Act No. 8424: Tax Code (The Tax Reform Act of 1997)
Levy shall be affected by writing upon said certificate a description of the property upon which levy is made. At the same time, written notice of the levy shall be mailed to or served upon the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the property is located and upon the delinquent taxpayer, or if he be absent from the Philippines, to his agent or the manager of the business in respect to which the liability arose, or if there be none, to the occupant of the property in question.
Note:
Republic Act 7160: Local Government Code (Prov, City, Municipality)
SEC. 258. Levy on Real Property. - After the expiration of the time required to pay the basic real property tax or any other tax levied under this Title, real property subject to such tax may be levied upon through the issuance of a warrant on or before, or simultaneously with, the institution of the civil action for the collection of the delinquent tax. The provincial or city treasurer, or a treasurer of a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area, as the case may be, when issuing a warrant of levy shall prepare a duly authenticated certificate showing the name of the delinquent owner of the property or person having legal interest therein, the description of the property, the amount of the tax due and the interest thereon. The warrant shall operate with the force of a legal execution throughout the province, city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area. The warrant shall be mailed to or served upon the delinquent owner of the real property or person having legal interest therein, or in case he is out of the country or cannot be located, to the administrator or occupant of the property. At the same time, written notice of the levy with the attached warrant shall be mailed to or served upon the assessor and the Registrar of Deeds of the province, city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area where the property is located, who shall annotate the levy on the tax declaration and certificate of title of the property, respectively. The levying officer shall submit a report on the levy to the sanggunian concerned within ten (10) days after receipt of the warrant by the owner of the property or person having legal interest therein.
Note:
