AN UPDATE ON THE LAW
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
ATTY LINDA L. MALENAB-HORNILLA
Undersecretary, Department of Justice
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
• Private lands may be brought under the
operation of the Torrens System Land
Registration thru: (1) ordinary or voluntary
land registration proceedings under Act No.
496 and Sections 14 to 33 of P. D. No. 1529,
and under Section 48(b) of C.A. No. 141, as
amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, (2) compulsory proceedings under Act
No. 2259, otherwise known as the Cadastral Act
of 1913, and (3) Sections 35 to 38 of P. D. No.
1529. (cadastral)
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
• Public lands granted by way of homestead,
sales or free patent under the Public Land Act
are likewise brought under the Torrens System
upon registration of the patent and issuance of
the corresponding certificate of title by the
Register of Deeds. Registration of such lands
under the Torrens System is automatic and
compulsory. The same could be said of an
emancipation patent issued by the Department
of Agrarian Reform when such patent covers an
unregistered private agricultural land devoted to
rice and corn, by virtue of P. D. No. 266.
Who applies?
• In an ordinary land registration proceedings
under Act 496 and Sections 14-33, P. D. No.
1529, only those who claim to own the land
in fee simple may apply, i.e., those who
acquired ownership of the land by titulo real
(royal grant), titulo de composicion con el estado
(adjustment title), titulo de concession especial
(special grant), titulo de compra (title by
purchase during the Spanish Colonial Period, or
thru the different forms of accession under the
Civil Code and special laws, like accretion,
avulsion, abandonment of river bed, formation of
lands in non navigable rivers and reclamation.
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
• the use of Spanish titles as evidence in
land registration proceedings is proscribed
by P. D. No. 892 as February 16, 1976
• Spanish titles are now hard to find and if
there is any it would probably be of doubtful
genuineness or validity.
ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF LAND
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM
• Most, if not all, ordinary applications for land registration
is based on possession and occupation, tax declaration
and tax realty receipts, and nothing more. Tax
declaration and realty tax receipts are not evidence of a
grant of land from the State.
• The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that they are
not conclusive evidence of ownership. Nevertheless the
Supreme Court has also consistently held that they are
good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner.
[Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos, 470 SCRA 533 (January 23,
2006)]
IMPERFECT/INCOMPLETE
TITLE
• The title to the land is imperfect or incomplete,
invoke Section 48(b) of C. A. no. 141, as
amended, otherwise known as the Public Land
Act, which provides:
• citizens of the Philippines, occupying the lands
of the public domain or claiming to own such
lands or an interest therein, but whose title have
not been perfected or completed, may apply to
the Court of First Instance of the province where
the land is located for confirmation of their
claims and the issuance of a certificate of title
under the Land Registration Act
Judicial confirmation or legalization
of imperfect or incomplete title
• This is referred to as judicial confirmation
• or legalization of imperfect or incomplete
title to public agricultural lands under
Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act.
• it requires the concurrence of the following
elements, to wit;
Judicial confirmation or legalization of
imperfect or incomplete title
• The applicant must be a Filipino citizen. This is in
keeping with the provision of Section 2, Article XII
of the 1987 Constitution which limits the
acquisition and enjoyment of our natural
resources to Filipino citizens. However, in
Director of Lands vs. Lapena, the Supreme Court
held that there is nothing to prevent a foreign
national from applying for judicial confirmation of
the imperfect title to a tract of land that he
purchased while he was still a Filipino from one
who had been in possession and occupation of
the land for the period and to the manner
prescribed by Section 48(b) of the Public Land
Act, for then the land has ceased to be public
land.
Judicial confirmation or legalization
of imperfect or incomplete title
• a private corporation may file an
application for judicial confirmation of
imperfect title under Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Act for the reason that
alienable and disposable public land held
by a possessor, personally or through his
predecessor-in-interest, openly
continuously and exclusively for the
prescribed statutory period is converted to
private property by mere lapse or
completion of said period, ipso jure.
Judicial confirmation or legalization
of imperfect or incomplete title
• The proceedings would not originally convert
the land from public to private land but only
confirm such a conversion already affected
by operation of law from the moment the
required period of possession became
complete. [Director of Lands vs. Acme
Plywood and Veneer Corp. & IAC, 146
SCRA 509.
Judicial confirmation or legalization
of imperfect or incomplete title
• PERIOD AND CHARACTER OF
POSSESSION AND OCCUPATION –
The applicant has been in open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession under
a bona fide claim of acquisition of
ownership since June 12, 1945.
Judicial confirmation or legalization
of imperfect or incomplete title
• The area applied for shall not exceed 144
hectares.
• The land has been classified as alienable
and disposable.
• The application must be filed not later than
December 31, 2020. [See also Republic vs.
Estonilo, 476 SCRA 265 (November 25,
2005); Republic vs. Enciso, 474 SCRA 700
(November 11, 2005); Carlos vs. Republic,
468 SCRA 709, (August 31, 2005)]
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
• THE TITLE OF OWNERSHIP ON THE LAND IS
VESTED UPON THE OWNER UPON EXPIRATION OF
THE PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OR
ADJUDICATION BY THE CADASTRAL COURT
• “The land had become a registered property which could
not be acquired by adverse possession and, therefore,
beyond the jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau,
to subject it to a free patent. The free patent issued by
the DENR and the certificate of the title issued by the
Register of Deeds are null and void.” [Calimpong vs.
Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441 (March 31,
2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5 SCRA 240]
CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS
• The President of the Philippines or his alter ego,
the Director of Lands, has no authority to grant a
free patent for land that has ceased to be a
public land and has passed to private
ownership; and a title so issued is null and void.
The nullity arises not from the fraud or deceit,
but from the fact that the land is not under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands.” [Calimpong
vs. Heirs of Filomena Gumela, 468 SCRA 441
(March 31, 2006), citing De la Merced vs. CA, 5
SCRA 240]
REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
1. PETITION TO REVIEW OR REOPEN A
DECREE OF REGISTRATION
•
Section 38 of Act 496 recognizes the
right of a person deprived of land to
institute an action to reopen or revise the
decree of registration obtained by actual
fraud.”
REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
Fraud is two kinds: actual or constructive.
• Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an
intentional deception practiced by means of the
misrepresentation or concealment of a material
fact.
• Constructive fraud is construed as a fraud
because of its detrimental effect on public
interests and public or private confidence, even
though the act is not done with an actual design
to commit positive fraud or injury upon other
persons
REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
• Prescription does not run against the State
and the latter may still bring an action, even
after the lapse of one year, for the reversion
of the land to the public domain, of land
which have been fraudulently granted to
private individuals.” [Republic vs. Guerrero,
485 SCRA 424 (March 28, 2006)]
REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
2. ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE - In action for
reconveyance, a decree of registration is
respected as incontrovertible. What is sought
instead is the transfer of the property or its title
which has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another person's name, to its
rightful or legal owner, or to one who has a
better right. [Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102
(February 22, 2006)]
REMEDIES OF AGGRIEVED PARTIES IN
LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS
• An action for reconveyance does not prescribed
when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to
be reconveyed.” [Naval vs. CA, 483 SCRA 102
(February 22, 2006); see also Cuizon vs.
Remoto, 472 SCRA 274 (October 11, 2005)]
• The fraudulent registration of a parcel holds the
person in whose name the land is registered as
a mere trustee of an implied trust for the benefit
of the person from whom the property comes.
Registration alone without good faith is not
sufficient. Good faith must concur with
registration for such prior right to be enforceable.
[Portes, Sr. vs. Arcala, 468 SCRA 343 9august
30, 2005)]
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
• “T.C.T. No. M-19968 and T.C.T. No. 19973, being
genuine and valid, on their face, are
incontrovertible, indefeasible and conclusive
against the petitioners and the whole world.
Thus, the unregistered deed of sale and the
subdivision contract upon which petitioners rely,
cannot prevail over the certificate of title in the
name of Cruz. To hold otherwise is to defeat the
primary object of the Torrens System which is to
make the Torrens title indefeasible and valid
against the whole world.” [Santos vs. Cruz, 484
SCRA 66 (March 3, 2006)]
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF
INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE
• A title emanating from a free patent which
was secured through fraud and
misrepresentation does not become
indefeasible, precisely because the patent
from whence the title sprung is itself void
and of no effect whatsoever. [Heirs of
Carlos Alcaraz vs. Republic 464 SCRA
280 (July 28, 2005)]
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
• If a property covered by a Torrens title is
involved, the presumptive conclusiveness of
such title should be given due weight, and in the
absence of strong compelling evidence to the
contrary, the holder thereof should be
considered the owner of the property in
controversy until his title is nullified or modified in
an appropriate ordinary action.” [Pacioles, Jr.
vs. Chuatoco-Ching, 466 SCRA 90 (August 9,
2005)]
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY OF TORRENS
TITLE
• It is not disputed that at the core of this
controversy is a parcel of land registered under
the Torrens system. In a long line of cases, we
have consistently ruled that lands covered by a
title cannot be acquired by prescription or by
adverse possession. So it is that in Natalia
Realty Corp. vs. Vallez, et al., we held that a
claim of acquisitive prescription is baseless
when the land involved is a registered land
because of Article 1126 of the Civil Code and
Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529. [Ragudo vs.
Fabella Estate tenants Association, Inc., 466
SCRA 136(August 9, 2005)]
PRESUMPTIVE INDEFEASIBILITY,
CONCLUSIVENESS AND INCONTOVERTIBILITY
OF A TORRENS TITLE
• But a party's alleged possession of a
transfer certificate of title and actual
possession of subject land, although
strong proof of ownership, are not
necessarily conclusive where the assertion
of the proprietary rights is founded on a
dubious claim of ownership.” [Estate of
Salvador Serra vs. Heirs of Primitivo
Hernaez, 466 SRCA 120 (August 9, 2005);
see also Bejoc vs. Cabreros, 464 SCRA 78
(July 22, 2005)]
A VOID TITLE MAYBE THE SOURCE OF A VALID
TITLE IN THE HANDS OF AN INNOCENT
PURCHASER FOR VALUE
• If the evidence show that the free patent and
O.C.T. issued to petitioners' predecessors-ininterest is valid and/or Lot No. 89 is not inside
T.C.T. No. 257152, then judgment should be
rendered in favor of petitioners; and whether the
latter acted in good faith or bad faith, will no
longer be a decisive issue in the case. On the
other hand, if the title of petitioners'
predecessors-in -interest is declared void, the
defense of good faith may still be available to
petitioners' who claim to be purchasers in good
faith and for value.” [Tan vs. Dela Vega, 484
SCRA 538 (March 10, 2006)]
A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO
COLLATERAL ATTACK
• It is well settled that the Torrens title cannot be
collaterally attacked; the issue on the validity of
title, i.e., whether or not it was fraudulently issued
can only be raised in an action expressly
instituted for the purpose. It has been invariably
stated that the real purpose of the Torrens
System is to quiet title to land to stop forever any
question as to its legality. Once a title is
registered, the owner may rest secure, without
the necessity of waiting in the portals of the
court, or sitting in the “mirador a su casa” to
avoid the possibility of losing his hand.”
A TORRENS TITLE IS NOT SUBJECT
TO COLLATERAL ATTACK
• “Respondents’ application for registration of a parcel of
land already covered by a Torrens title is actually a
collateral attack against petitioners’ title, not permitted
under the principle of indefeasibility of a Torrens title.”
• “A decree of registration that has become final shall be
deemed conclusive not only on the questions actually
contested and determined, but also upon matters that
might be litigated or decided in the land registration
proceedings. Thus, it is too late for the respondents to
question petitioners’ titles considering that the certificates
of title issued to the latter have become incontrovertible
after the lapse of one (1) year from the date of
registration.” [Fil-estate Management, Inc. Supra]
POSSESSION OF TITLED PROPERTY ADVERSE
TO REGISTERD OWNER IS NECESSARILY
TAINTED WITH BAD FAITH
• Good faith consists in the belief of the builder
that the land he is building on is his and his
ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. In the
instant case, when the verification survey report
came to the petitioners’ knowledge, their good
faith ceased. The survey report is a profession of
encroachment of respondents’ titled property. It
is doctrinal in land registration law that
possession of titled property adverse to the
registered owner is necessarily tainted with bad
faith [Cajayon vs. Batuyong, 482 SCRA 461
(February 16, 2006)]
CONTINUING, SPECIAL AND LIMITED JURISDICTION OF
THE LAND REGISTRATION COURT OVER
PETITIONS FILED AFTER ORIGINAL
REGISTRATION OF TITLE
• The Regional Trial Court has the authority to act,
not only on the application for original registration
of title to land, but also on all petitions filed after
original registration of title. The Court of Appeals,
therefore, erred on ruling that the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 255, Las Pinas City, has no
jurisdiction over LRC Case No. M-228 on the
ground that the land subject to respondents’
application for registration was already registered
in the Registry of Deeds of Las Pinas City.” [FilEstate Management, Inc. vs. Trono, 482 SCRA
578(February 17, 2006)]
REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND
NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE
LANDS; HOMESTEAD
• Under the Regalian Doctrine, all lands of
the public domain belong to State, and
those lands not appearing to be clearly
within private ownership are presumed to
belong to the state. Lands of the public
domain are classified into agricultural,
forest or timber, mineral lands and national
parks. Alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain shall be limited to
agricultural lands.”
REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND
NON-REGISTRABLE AS PRIVATE LANDS;
HOMESTEAD
• C. A. No. 141 (1936) or the Public Land
Act, as amended by P.D. 1073 (1977),
remains to be the general law governing
the classification and disposition of
alienable lands of the public domain It
enumerates the different modes of
acquisition of these lands and prescribes
the terms and conditions to enable private
persons to perfect their title to them.
HOMESTEAD
• A homestead patent is one of the modes to acquire title
to public lands suitable for agricultural purposes. Under
the Public Land Act, a homestead patent is one issued
to any citizen of this country, 18 years of age or head of
family, and who is not the owner of more than 24
hectares of land in the country. To be qualified, the
applicant must show that he has resided continuously
for at least one (1) year in the municipality where the
land is situated and must have cultivated at least onefifth of the land applied for.” [Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos,
479 SCRA 533 (January 23, 2006)]
• A homestead patent once registered under the Land
Registration Act becomes as indefeasible as a Torrens
title. [Portes Sr. vs. Arcala, Supra]
FOREST LAND
• Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless
declassified and released by positive act of the
Government so that they may form part of the
disposable lands of the public domain, are not
capable of private appropriation. The rules on
confirmation of imperfect title do not apply.”
Forests, in the context of both the Public Land
Act and the Constitution classifying lands of the
public domain into “agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands and national parks”, do not
necessarily refer to a large tract of wooded land
or an expense covered by dense growth of trees
or underbrush.” (Republic vs. Naguiat, 479
SCRA 585 (January 24, 2006)
FORESHORE LAND
• Foreshore land has been defined as that which lies
between the high and low watermarks, and that is
alternately wet and dry according to the flow of the
tide. In other words, it is that strip of land between
high and low water, the land left dry by the flux and
re-flux of the tide. In the present case, although
corners 3 and 4 of lot 2833 have been shown to
adjoin the sea, they have not been proven to be
covered by water during high tide. Hence, the
property cannot be considered foreshore land.
[Republic vs. Lensico, 466 SCRA 361 (August 9,
2005)]
PROBATIVE VALUE OF A TAX
DECLARATION
• Time and again, we have held that
although tax declarations or realty tax
payments are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, nevertheless, they are good
indicia of possession in the context of an
owner, for no one is in his right mind would
be paying taxes for a property that is not in
his actual or at least constructive
possession. (Ramos-Balallo vs. Ramos,
479 SCRA 533 (Jan. 23, 2006)
Quieting of Title
• The settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is
imprescriptible, as in the instant case, where the person
seeking relief is in the possession of the disputed
property. A person in actual possession of a piece of
land under claim of ownership may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking any step to vindicate his right, and that the
undisturbed possession gives him the continuing right to
seek the aid of the Court of Equity to ascertain and
determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party
and its effect on his title.”
Payment of taxes
• Only a positive and categorical assertion of their
supposed rights against petitioners would rule out the
application of laches. It means taking the initiative by
instituting means to wrest possession. Respondent’s
payment of taxes alone, without possession, could
hardly be considered as an exercise of ownership. What
stands out is their overwhelming passivity by allowing
petitioners to exercise acts of ownership and to enjoy the
fruits of the litigated lot for 32 years without any
interference.” (Rumarate vs. Hernandez, 487 SCRA 317
[April 18, 2006])
Effective Possession
• The statement of an immediate neighbor
of a disputed property as to who he
observed was in effective possession of
the same commands great weight and
respect.” (Buduhan vs. Pakurao, 483
SCRA 116 (Feb. 22, 2006)]
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF LOST
OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE
•
Jurisprudence dictates that the
jurisdictional requirements must be
complied with before the court can act on
the petition and grant the reconstitution
of title prayed for.”
•
The petitioner to prove compliance with
the following requirements:
NOTICE OF PETITION
• Publication
• The notice of petition be published at the
expense of the petitioner twice in
successive issues in the Official Gazette,
and posted in the main entrance of the
provincial building and the municipal
building of the municipality or city in which
the land is located at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of hearing
Jurisdictional Requirements
•
The notice must state the number of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name
of the registered owner, the name of the
occupants and persons in possession of the
property, the owner of adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area,
and boundaries of the property ad the date on
which all persons having any interest therein
must appear and file their claim or objection to
the petition.
Jurisdictional Requirements
•
The notice must state the number of the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, if known, the name
of the registered owner, the name of the
occupants and persons in possession of the
property, the owner of adjoining properties and
all other interested parties, the location, area,
and boundaries of the property ad the date on
which all persons having any interest therein
must appear and file their claim or objection to
the petition.
Jurisdictional Requirements
• A copy of the notice must also be sent, by
registered mail or otherwise, at the
expense of the petitioner, to every person
named (i.e. the occupants or persons in
possession of the property, the owner of
adjoining properties and al other interested
parties whose address is known, at least
30 days prior to the date of the hearing;
Jurisdictional Requirements
• At the hearing, the petitioner must submit
proof of publication, posting and service of
notice as directed by the court.
• The non-observance of the requirement
invalidates the reconstitution
proceedings in the trial court.
Jurisdictional Requirements
•
The purposes of the stringent and mandatory
character of the legal requirements of
publication, posting and mailing are to
safeguard against spurious and unfounded
land ownership claim, to apprise all interested
parties of the existence of such action and give
them enough time to intervene in the
proceeding. Substantial compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements is not enough.”
[Gov’t of the Phil. Vs. Aballe, 435 SCRA 308
(Mar 24, 2006)]
Judicial Reconstitution
• In case the reconstitution is to be made
exclusively from source enumerated in Section 2
(f), (any other doc) the petition shall be
accompanied by a plan and technical description
of the property duly approved by the General
Land Registration Office, or with a certified copy
of the description taken from the prior certificate
of title covering the same property.” [Cabello vs.
Republic, 467 SCRA 330 (Aug. 18, 2005)]
PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF REPLACEMENT OF A LOST
OWNER’S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE AND
RECONSTITUTION OF LOST ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE ON FILE WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
• The applicable law in applying for a replacement
of and owner’s duplicate certificate of title is P.D.
1529 (Section 109); R.A. No. 26 applies only in
cases of reconstitution of lost original certificate
on file with the Register of Deeds.”
• “When the reconstituted certificate is void, the
court that rendered the decision has no
jurisdiction.
• “No valid transfer certificate of title can issue
from a void T.C.T., unless an innocent purchaser
for value had intervened.
JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION
• “As a rule, the annotation of an affidavit of loss
on a reconstituted certificate might be defective
and inferior to an already existing certificate of
title.”
• “The remedy to nullify an order granting
reconstitution is a petition for annulment under
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.” [Eastworld Motor
Industries Corp. vs. Skunac Corp., 478 SCRA
420 (Dec. 16, 2005)]
the only issues to be resolved In a petition for issuance
of a second owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of
title in replacement of a lost one
•
•
Whether o not the original owner’s
duplicate copy of the certificate of title
had indeed been lost.
Whether the petitioner seeking the
issuance of a new owner’s duplicate title
is the registered owner or another
person-in-interest.
UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM, REGISTRATION IS
THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT AFFECTS AND CONVEYS
THE LAND INSOFAR AS THIRD PERSONS ARE
CONCERNED
• “Respondents contention that the
unregistered buyer’s rights over the
property is superior to that of the judgment
obligor has not basis. The fact that the
contracts to buy and sell are unregistered
and the properties in question are still in
the name of the respondent underline the
fact that the sales are not absolute. [DSM
Construction and Development Corp. vs.
CA, 478 SCRA 618 (Dec. 19, 2005)]
IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM
COLLATERAL ATTACK
•
An action is deemed as an attack on a title
when the object of the action or proceeding is to
nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment
pursuant to which the title is decreed.” A third
party complaint is in the nature of an original
complaint. The third party complaint for the
cancellation of transfer certificate of title, being in
the nature of an original complaint for
cancellation of transfer certificate of title, it
therefore constitutes a direct attack of such
TCT.” [Sarmiento vs. CA, 479 SCRA 99, (Sept.
16, 2005)]
IMMUNITY OF A TORRENS TITLE FROM
COLLATERAL ATTACK
• An action is deemed as an attack on a title when
the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify
the title, and thus challenge the judgment
pursuant to which the title is decreed.”
•
“A third party complaint is in the nature of an
original complaint. The third party complaint for
the cancellation of transfer certificate of title,
being in the nature of an original complaint for
cancellation of transfer certificate of title, it
therefore constitutes a direct attack of such
TCT.” [Sarmiento vs. CA, 479 SCRA 99, (Sept.
16, 2005)]
MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE
TORRENS SYSTEM
• When dealing with land that is registered and
titled, buyers are not required by law to inquire
further than what the Torrens certificate indicates
on its face.
•
The presence of anything that excites or
arouses suspicion should then prompt the buyer
to look beyond the vendor’s certificate and
investigate the title appearing on the face of that
certificate. [Domingo vs. Reed, 477 SCRA 227,
(Dec. 9, 2005); Planters Development Bank vs.
Garcia, 477 SCRA 185 (Dec. 9, 2005)]
MIRROR PRINCIPLE OF THE
TORRENS SYSTEM
• However, this rule does not apply
to banks. Banks are required to
exercise more care and prudence
than private individuals in dealing
even with registered properties
for their business is affected with
public interest. (Keppel Bank
Philippines, Inc. vs. Adao, 473 SCRA 372
(Oct. 19, 2005)]
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• The LRA properly ruled that the
reconstitution officer should have confined
himself to the owner's duplicate certificate
of title prior to the reconstitution. Section 3
of Republic Act No. 26 clearly provides:
Section 3: Transfer certificates of titles
shall be reconstituted from such of the
sources hereunder enumerated as may be
available in the following order (a) the
owner's duplicate of the certificate of title."
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• Since respondents' source of reconstitution is
the owner's duplicate certificate of title, there is
no need for the reconstituting officer to require
the submission of the plan, much less deny the
petition on the ground that the submitted plan
appears to be spurious. By enumerating the
hierarchy of sources to be used for the
reconstitution, it is the intent of the law to give
more weight and preference to the owner's
duplicate certificate of title over the other
enumerated sources."
ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSTITUTION OF
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
• "The factual finding of the LRA that respondents' title is
authentic, genuine, valid, and existing, while petitioners'
title is sham and spurious, as affirmed by the two
divisions of the Court of Appeals, is conclusive before
this Court."
•
"In reconstitution proceedings, the LRA is bound to
determine from the evidence submitted which between
or among the titles is genuine and existing to enable it to
decide whether to deny or approved the petition. Without
such authority, the LRA would be a mere robotic agency
clothed only with mechanical powers." [Manotok IV vs.
Heirs of Homer Barque, 477 SCRA 339 (December 12,
2005)]
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED BY
JUSTICE CARPIO
• The majority opinion patently violates Section 48
of P.D. No. 1529 which expressly states that a
Torrens title cannot be canceled except in a
direct proceeding in accordance with law. Only
the proper trial court in an action directly
attacking the validity of a Torrens title can cancel
a Torrens title after trial on the merits.
• The reconstitution of a certificate of title is far
from being a ministerial act.
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED
BY JUSTICE CARPIO
• In accordance with paragraph 8 of LRA Circular No. 13,
the reconstituting officer or the register of deeds shall
issue an order of reconstitution only after appropriate
verification which means that he must be convinced that
the certificate of title is genuine and not spurious. Thus,
the reconstituting officer must go beyond the owner’s coowner's duplicate certificate of title to determine whether
the title is genuine. The process of verification allows the
reconstituting officer to counter check with other
government agencies to determine the validity of the title
to be reconstituted.
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED
BY JUSTICE CARPIO
• The LRA has jurisdiction to review on appeal
decisions on petitions for reconstitution.
However, it is not within its powers and functions
to declare a title void. The LRA, in its 24 June
1998 Resolution, recognized that only the
Regional Trial Court could declare a title
fraudulently reconstituted. Clearly, LRA's
jurisdiction to act on petitions for administrative
reconstitution does not include the power to
declare a title sham so spurious or to order the
cancellation of a certificate title.
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED
BY JUSTICE CARPIO
• The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it
declared that Manotok, et. al's title is sham
and spurious. The LRA itself
acknowledged that only the RTC could
declare a title fraudulently reconstituted.
By ruling on the validity of Manotok et al's
title, the LRA assumed the function of the
RTC. The LRA also preempted whatever
decision the RTC may render on the
matter.
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED
BY JUSTICE CARPIO
• Respondent relies solely on its reconstituted title
which, by itself, does not determine or resolve
the ownership of land covered by the lost or
destroyed title. The reconstitution of a title is
simply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate
certificate of title in its original form and
condition. It does not determine or resolve the
ownership of land covered by the lost or
destroyed title. A reconstituted title, like the
original certificate of title, by itself does not vest
ownership of the land or estate covered thereby.
DISSENTING OPINION REGISTERED
BY JUSTICE CARPIO
• The determination of the authenticity of documents and
veracity of the claims of both parties requires a trial on
the merits. The LRA exceeded its jurisdiction when it
made a conclusive finding on the validity of the titles of
the parties. Such function falls under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the RTC under Section 19 of BP.
Blg. 129. The Court of Appeals should not have resolved
the factual issues by adopting as its own the LRA's
finding. The Court accords respect, if not finality, to
factual findings of an administrative body. However, this
rule does not apply when the administrative body has no
jurisdiction to make a conclusive factual finding
particularly when the findings might conflict with findings
of the tribunal or agency which has jurisdiction on the
matter. [Monotok IV vs. Heirs of Homer Barque, Supra]
ADVERSE CLAIMS
• The general rule is that a person dealing with
registered land is not required to go behind the
register to determine the condition of the
property. However, such person is charged with
notice of the burden on the property which is
noted on the face of the register or certificate of
title. A person who deals with registered land is
bound by the liens and encumbrances including
adverse claim annotated therein. [Navotas
Industrial Corp. vs. Cruz, 469 SCRA 530
(September 12, 2005)]
• THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
• HAVE A GOOD DAY