AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

AN OVERVIEW OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

1. Importance of the Subject

a. Man - Land Ratio
b. Land as a finite resource

II. GOVERNINING LAWS

1. PD 1529 otherwise known as "The Property Registration

Decree".Approved June 11, 1978 codified and incorporated the following
lawsrelated ti property registration:a. Act 496, The Land Registration Actb.
Commonwealth Act 141, The Public Land Actc. Act 2259, The Cadastral
Actd. Act 3344, System of Registration for Unregistered Landse. Act No.
1508, as amended, The Chattel Mortgage Lawf. Republic Act No.
26, REconstitution of Original Certificates of Titleg. PD 27, Emancipation
Patents, Land Reform Law

2. .The Civil Code Provision (Articles 708 - 711)

Title IX
a. Art. 708. The Registry Property has for its object the inscription
or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and
other rights over immovable property.

b. Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over

immovableproperty, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in
the Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons.

c. Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public

for those who have a known interest in ascertaining the
status of theimmovables or real rights annotated or inscribed
therein.

d. Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription

or a n n o t a t i o n ,   a s   w e l l   a s   t h e   f o r m ,   e f f e c t s ,   a n d   c a n c e
l l a t i o n   o f   inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping the
books in the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said
books, the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land
Registration Act, and other special laws shall govern.

THE TORRENS SYSTEM

1.)  The Legal Basis and Nature(Sec 2, PD 1529)
Nature  of  registration  proceedings;  jurisdiction  of  cou
rts- 
 J u d i c i a l proceedings for the registration of lands throughout the
Philippines shall b e   i n   r e m a n d   s h a l l   b e   b a s e d   o n   t h e
generally accepted principles underlying the Torrens
system.

2.) Purpose and meaning of the Torrens System of Registration.

a.) The real purpose of the system is to quiet title of land;
to put a stopforever to any question of the legality of the title,
except claims which werenoted at the time of necessityof
waiting in the portals of the courts, or sitting in the "mirador de
su casa",to avoid the possibility of losing his land. (Legarda vs.
Saleeby 31 Phl 590).

b.) The main purpose of the Torrens System is to avoid possible

conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions
relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the
face of the Torrens Certificate Title and to dispense with
the need of inquiring further, except when the party
concerned has actual knowledge of the facts and circumstances
that should impel a reasonably cautious man to
make such further inquiry. (Traders Royal Bank vs CA 315
SCRA 190).

3. Jurisdiction

a.) Regional Trial Court.

Courts of First Instance (RTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over all applications for original registration of title to lands,
including improvements and interest 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. (Sec 2, PD 1529)

b. Pursuant to Sec 34 of Batas Pambansa 129, the Supreme

Court issued Administrative Order No 64-93 dated April 21,
1993, authorizing METC's, MTCC's and MTC's to hear and
decide, Cadastral or
LandRegistrationc a s e s   c o v e r i n g   L o t s   w h e r e   t h e r e   i s  
n o   c o n t r o v e r s y   o r   o p p o s i t i o n ,   o r   contested lots, the
value of which does not exceed P100,000.00 for MTC'sand
P200,000.00 for METC's.

IV. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1.Original Registration under Sec 14, Pd 1529

Who may apply:

A.) 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 abona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945, or
earlier.

In Republic vs CA and Corazon Naguit GR No 144057, January 17,2005,

the Supreme Court held that:"Sec 14(1) of PD 1529 merely requires the
property sought to be registered as already alienable and disposable at
the time of application for registration of title is filed."

"If the State, at the time the application is made, has not yet deemed
itp r o p e r   t o   r e l e a s e   t h e   p r o p e r t y   f o r   a l i e n a t i o n   o r   d i s p o s i t i
o n ,   t h e presumption is that the government is still reserving the right to
utilize the property, hence, the  need to preserve its ownership
is the Stateir respective of the length of adverse possession even if in
good faith."

"However, if the property has already been classified as alienable and

disposable, then there is already an intention on the part of the State to
abdicate its exclusive prerogative over the property."

"There are no material differences between Sec 14 (1) of the Property

Registration Decree and Sec 48 (b) of the Public Land Act. True, the
Public Land Act does refer to "agricultural land of the public domain,
"while the Property Registration Decree uses the term "Alianable and
Disposable lands of public domain." It must be noted though that the
Constitution declares that "alienable lands of public domain shall be
limited to agricultural lands. Clearly, the subject lands under S e c 4 8 ( b )
of the Public Land Act and Sec 14(1) of the Property
Registration Decree are of the same type."

B.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands by prescription

under the provisions of existing laws."Prescription is one of the
modes of acquiring ownership under the Civil Code. There is a
consistent jurisprudential rule that
propertiesc l a s s i f i e d   a s   a l i e n a b l e   p u b l i c   l a n d   m a y   b e   c o n v e
r t e d   i n t o   p r i v a t e property by reason of open, continuous
and exclusive possession of at least 30 years. With such conversion,
such property may now fall within the contemplation of "Private
Lands" under Section 14(2), and thus susceptible to registration by those
who have acquired ownership through prescription. Thus, even if
possession of the alienable public land commenced
o n   a   d a t e   l a t e r   t h a n   J u n e   1 2 , 1 9 4 5 ,   a n d s u c h possession
being open, continuous and exclusive, then the possessor may have the
right to register the land by virtue of Section 14(2) of the Property
Registration Decree" (Republic vs CA and Naguit).

C.) Those who have acquired ownership of private lands or

abandoned river beds by right of accession or accretion under the
existing laws.

Accretion is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil deposits

that the law grants to the riparian owner. (Binalay vs Manolo, 195
SCRA374).
 D.) Those who have acquired ownership of land in any other
manner provided by law.

2. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect or Incomplete Title under Sec 48 (b)of

CA 141.
Those who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest
haveb e e n   i n   o p e n ,   c o n t i n u o u s ,   e x c l u s i v e ,   a n d   n o t o r i o u s   p o s s e s
s i o n   a n d occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain under a
bonafidec l a i m   o f   a c q u i s i t i o n   o f   o w n e r s h i p ,   f o r   a t   l e a s t   3 0   y e a r s  
i m m e d i a t e l y preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title,
except when prevented by war or force majeure. Those shall be conclusively
presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a government grant
and shall be entitled to a certificate of title under the provision of this chapter. The
period to avail of this provision has been extended to Dec 31, 2020pursuant to
RA 9176 , approved Nov 13, 2002 with the limitation that thearea applied for
should not exceed 12 hectares.

3 .   C a d a s t r a l   A c t ,   A c   2 2 5 9
( I n v o l u n t a r y   P r o c e e d i n g s ) Compulsory proceedings are premised
on the presumption under the Regalian Doctrine. That all Lands of whatever
classifications belong to the public domain. Once instituted in court, all private
claims to land are opento question and it is to the public interest that such
private claims be settled and adjudicated.

4. Administrative Method

Free Patent, Homestead and Sale Provisions

A.) Whenever lands of the public domain are disposed of by the

DENR through free patent, homestead and sales, they shall be brought
under the operation of the Torrens System.

Thus Sec 103 of PD 1529, states:

"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 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."

B.) Emancipation Patent or Certificates of Land Ownership 
A w a r d s (CLOA)

Whenever a tenant or farm worker is issued a patent, the same shall also
be transmitted to the Register of Deeds for registration under Sec 104and
 105 of PD 1529 and the issuance of the corresponding Certificate of Title,
this bringing the land under the operation of the Torrens System.

C.) Indefeasilibility of a title obtained through the administrative method. A n

original certificate of title issued on the basis of a patent
partakes of the nature of a certificate of title issued in a judicial
proceeding and becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year
from the date of promulgation of the order of the Director of Lands
for the issuance of patent. (Heirs of Gregorio Tingco vs Heirs of
Jose Alinaias, 168 SCRA198)

V. STEPS IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE

1.Survey - In Director of Lands vs. Reyes, et al, 68 SCRA 177 -182. The SC
ruled:
"The applicant is not relieved from submitting in evidence the original plan
approved by the Director of Lands as required by law. 
O n e   o f   t h e distinguishing marks of the Torrens System is the absolute
certainty of the identity of a registered land. Consequently, the primary purpose
of the said requirements is to fix the exact or definite identity of the land as
shown in the plan and technical description."

2.Application- Discussed earlier as to where to file.

3.Setting the Date of Initial Hearing

Not earlier than 45 days nor more than 90 days from the date of the order (Sec
23, PD 1529)

4.Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA

5.Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial Hearing

6.Publication, registered mail and posting (Sec 3, Pd 1529)

" Sec 23 states that publication in the Official Gazette shall be sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon the Court. However, in Director of Lands vs. CA(276 SCRA 276-
287) the SC ruled that the publication in a newspaper of general circulation is
equally a mandatory jurisdictional requirement. "The elementary norms of due
process require that before the claimed property is taken from the concerned
parties and registered in the name of
thea p p l i c a n t .   T h e   s a i d   p a r t i e s   m u s t   b e   g i v e n   n o t i c e   a n d   o p p o r t
u n i t y   t o oppose.

7.Opposition. Shall be filed by any person who claims the land or any interest
therein.

8.Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence

A. General Default
B. Default Order is entered
C. All applicants must overcome the presumption that the land sought to be
registered form part of the public domain.
(Republic vs CA and Naguit  Supra)
  D. Tax declarations when coupled with proof of actual possession are
strong evidence of ownership (Gonzaga vs CA SCRA 327)

 E. A foreign national may apply for registration of title over a parcel of land
which he acquired by purchase while still a citizen of the Philippines
(Republic vs CA and Lapiña, 235 SCRA 567)

 F. A private corporation may apply for judicial confirmation of title to public
agricultural land because if a price of land of the public domain has
been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession under
a bonafide claim of ownership for a period prescribed by law, the land
after the lapse of said period Ipso Jure ceases to form part of the public
domain and becomes private property, thus removing it from the ambit of
the constitutional prohibition (Republic vs CA 155 SCRA 344)

G. Spanish Titles - PD 892, effective Feb 16, 1976, invalidated all Spanish

titles and declared that they can no longer be used as evidence
of landownership. They shall then be treated as unregistered lands.

H. Judgment - Shall become final after 15 days from notice, there can be no
execution of judgment pending appeal in land registration proceedings.

9. Decree of Registration for the Land to be issued by the Administrator,

LRA

 10. Original Certificate of Title

The land Registration Authority has devised a form where the decree and
the original certificate of title are embodied in the same document.

VI. CHARACTERISTICS OF A TORRENS CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

Rules, principles, doctrines, and maxims of the Torrens system which were
culled from landmark decisions of the highest court on actual cases as
arranged by Prof. Gregorio Bilog in his book, "Land Title and Deeds",
2005 Ed.

A. Best Evidence of Ownership- A Torrens Certificate of Title is the best

evidence of ownership of the land described therein.
(See Vilanueva vs CA, 198 SCRA 482 Ching vs CA, 181 SCRA 9,Heirs of
George Bofill vs CA, 237 SCRA 451,Halili vs National Labor Relations
Commissions, 257 SCRA 174,Lee Tek Sheng vs CA, 292 SCRA 544)

B. Notice to the Whole World- A torrens title gives notice to the whole world; or
a Torrens title bind the whole world.
(See Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,National Grains Authority vs IAC,
157 SCRA 380,Ching vs Malaya, 153 SCRA 412,People vs Reyes, 175 SCRA
597)

The issuance of certificate of title is a constructive notice thereof to all

persons.
(Serna vs CA, 308 SCRA 527, 529)
 Registration of a deed sale in the Registry of Deeds constitutes constructive
notice thereof to the whole world.
(See Calalang vs ROD of Quezon City, 208 SCRA 215,People vs Pacificador,
354 SCRA 310)

No one can plead ignorance of the registration.

(Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484,Jacob vs CA, 244 SCRA 189)

C. Unregistered Claims - A Torrens title bars all prior claims not registered on

the title. (See PD 1529 , Sec 44; Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647)

All claims and liens of whatever character existing against the land prior to
the issuance of certificate of title are barred, if not noted on said certificate.
The registered owner of a Torrens Certificate of Title and the subsequent
purchaser for value and in good faith of registered land shall hold
the certificate free from all liens and encumbrances, except those noted in
said certificate and those specified by law.
(See PD 1529 Sec 44 and 46, Republic vs Umali 171 SCRA 647, Felix Gochan
and Sons Realty Corp vs Cañada, 165 SCRA 207; Ferre-Lopez vs
CA 150 SCRA 393;Cureg vs IAC, 177 SCRA 313, Aldecoa and Co vs Warner
Barns & Co, 30 Phil 209;Snyder vs Fiscal of Cebu and Avila. 42 Phil 766)

D. Indefeasible - A Torrens certificate of title services as evidence

of an indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person whose
names appear therein.
( See Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160, Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358, Tirado
vsSevilla, 188 SCRA 321, Ortegas vs Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 6356, Jacob vs
CA, 266 SCRA189)

Title to the property covered by a Torrens certificate becomes

incontrovertible or indefeasible after one year from the entry of the decree
if registration.

**SeePD 1529, Sec 32 Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 208
SCRA 215
 Reyes and Nadres vs Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil 791
Jacob vs Court of Appeals, 224 SCRA 189
Trinidad vs IAC, 204 SCRA 524
Tirado vs Sevilla, 188 SCRA 321Cagayan de Oro City Landless Residents
Association, Inc, vs CA, 254 SCRA 220
 Republic vs CA, 204 SCRA 160 
Muyco vs CA, 204 SCRA 358 
Ortegas vs. Hidalgo, 198 SCRA 635 
Republic vs De Guzman, 326 SCRA 267
 Heirs of Simplicio Santiago vs Heirs of Mariano E. Santiago, 404 SCRA 193

 E.A Torrens Title is Imprescriptible

(See PD 1529, Sec 47; Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12)

No title to registered land in derogation of the title of the unregistered

owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

See:
PD 1529, Sec 17 
Viacrucis vs CA, 44 SCRA 176 
J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146 
 Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 
umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 
Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 
Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133
Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 
Rivera vs. CA, 244 SCRA 218 

The owner of the land registered under the Torrens System cannot lose it
by prescription.

See:
Bishop vs CA, 208 SCRA 636 
Ruvera vs CA, 244 SCRA 218 
J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. vs CA, 93 SCRA 146
 Egao vs CA, 174 SCRA 484 
Alarcon vs Bidin, 120 SCRA 390 
Umbay vs Alecha, 135 SCRA 427 
Cimafranca vs IAC, 147 SCRA 611
Gallardo vs. IAC, 155 SCRA 248 
Claudel vs. CA, 199 SCRA 133
Jacob vs. CA, 224 SCRA 198 
Caiña vs. CA, 239 SCRA 252 
Vda. de Villanueva vs CA, 351 SCRA 12 

F.Integrity of Titles -The integrity of the Torrens System must be

protected. Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on
the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law will
in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. Stead differently, an innocent purchaser for
value, relying on a Torrens title issued, is protected.

G.Not Subject to Collateral Attack - A certificate of title shall not be

subject to collateral attack. It cannot be altered, modified or
cancelled, except in a direct proceeding in accordance with law.

See. PD. 1529. Sec. 48; See also National Grains Authority vs IAC, 157
SCRA380;T a n   v s .   P h i l i p p i n e s   B a n k i n g   C o r p . ,   3 5 5   S C R A   2 9 2 ;   W i
n d o w s   a n d   O r p h a n s  Association, Inc. vs CA, 201 SCRA 165; Toyota Motor
Phils. Corp vs CA, 216 SCRA236)

H. Fraudulent Registration-
T h e   p e r s o n   i n   w h o s e   n a m e   t h e   l a n d   i s fraudulently
registered holds it as a mere trustee, with the legal obligation to reconvey
the property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner.
(Pajarillovs IAC, 176 SCRA 340)

A Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud or for

enriching aperson at the expense of another .
(Vda. De Recinto vs Inciong, 77 SCRA 196;Legarda and Prieto vs Saleeby,
31 Phil 590)
The Torrens system was not designed to shield and protect one who had
committed fraud or misrepresentation and thus holds title in
bad faith. (Walstrom vs. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA 431)

The Torrens system only protects a title holder in good faith, and
cannotb e   u s e d   a s   s h i e l d   f o r   f r a u d   a n d   c h i c a n e r y .  
Deceit is not to be countenanced; duplicity is not
to be rewarded.
(Philippine Commercial &Industrial Bank vs Villalva, 48 SCRA 31)
The Torrens title cannot cover up frauds.
(Adille vs. CA, 157 SCRA 672)

 I.Forgery-   A n y registration procured by the
p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   a   f o r g e d duplicate certificate of title, or a forged
deed or other instrument shall be null and void (PD 1529 Sec 23)

A forged instrument may become the "root of a valid title".

(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)

A fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid
title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the
name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name
indicated by the forger.

(See Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489; De la Cruz vs Fabie, 35 Phil 14; Roman
Catholic Bishop vs Philippine Railway, 49 Phil. 546)

The doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a valid title
cannot be applied where the owner still holds a valid and existing
certificate of title covering the same interest in a realty.
(Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)

J. Loss -As between two innocent persons, the one who made it possible
for the wrong to be done should be the one to bear the resulting loss.

(See: Legardavs CA, 280 SCRA 642; Cabuhat vs CA, 366 SCRA 176; Tomas vs.
Tomas, 98 SCRA280; Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, 315 SCRA 190)

As between two persons, both of them whom are in good faith

and both innocent of any negligence, the law must protect
and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the
t r a n s f e r o f   a   v e n d o r b e r e f t   o f   a n y transmissible rights.
(Baltazar vs. CA, 168 SCRA 354; Torres vs CA, 186 SCRA 672)

K.Priority of Rights - "Prior tempore potior jure" -He who is first

in time is preferred in right. The act of registration in the Registry of
Deeds shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as
third persons are concerned.

L. Double Titles- Where two certificates of title include the same

land, the certificate that is earlier in date prevails. (Garcia vs CA, 95
SCRA 380)
M.Presumptions: Regular and Valid - Torrens title presumed to have
been issued regularly and legally.
(Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65, Ching vs. Malaya, 153SCRA 412; Ofrecio
vs.  Lising, 159  SCRA 366, Republic vs.  Umali,  171 SCRA
647;People vs. Reyes, 175 SCRA 597, Bishop vs. CA, 208 SCRA 636)
A strong presumption exists that a Torrens title is regularly issued and
that it is valid. (Salao vs Salao, 70 SCRA 65)

A Torrens title is presumed to have been issued regularly

and legally,u n l e s s   c o n t r a d i c t e d   a n d   o v e r c o m e   b y   c l e a r ,   c o n
- v i n c i n g ,   s t r o n g   a n d irrefutable proof. More
than merely preponderant evidence is required.
(Ramos vs. CA, 112 SCRA 542)

Good Faith - The presumption is that the transferee of registered land is

not aware of any defect in the title of the property he purchased.
(Tajonera vs CA,103 SCRA 467)

N. Reliance on the Title -Every person dealing with

registered landmays a f e l y   r e l y   o n   t h e   c o r r e c t n e s s   o f   t h e  
certificate of title issued therefore.
(See Halili vs Court of Industrial Relations, 257 SCRa 174; Kho vs CA, 214 SCRA
329;Legarda vs CA, 208 SCRA 642; Ibarra vs. Ibarra, Sr, 156 SCRa 616)

One who deals with properly registered under the Torrens System need
not go beyond the same, but only has to rely on the title. He is charge
with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on
the title. (Domingo vs. Roces, 401 SCRA 197)
 
Exception:
This principle does not apply when the party has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the
purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of
sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into
the status of the title of the property in litigation. One who falls within
the exception can neither be dominated an innocent purchaser for value
nor a purchaser in good faith. (Domingo vs.Roces, 401 SCRA 197)

An innocent purchaser for value has every right to rely on the

correctness of the title.
(A.D. Guerrero vs. Juntilla, 173 SCRA 572; Gevero vs IAC, 189 SCRA201)

 He is not required to explore further than what the Torrens title on its
face indicates, in quest for any hidden
d e f e c t   o r   i n c h o a t e   r i g h t   t h a t   m a y subsequently defeat his right
thereto.
(National Grains Authority vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 380; Duran vs. IAC 138
SCRA 489)
Where the title is in the name of the vendor when the land is
sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears on
the title. Where innocent third persons relying on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued, acquired rights over the property, the court
cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of the
certificate for that would impair public confidence in the
certificate of title, otherwise everyone dealing with property
registered under the Torrens System would have to inquire in every
instance as to whether the title had been regularly or  irregularly
issued by the court.

A mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of

title and in the absence of anything to excite
s u s p i c i o n ,   h e   i s u n d e r n o obligation to lock beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on
the face of said certificate. A person dealing with registered land
has a right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title without the need
of inquiring further, except when he
hasa c t u a l   k n o w l e d g e   o f   f a c t s   a n d   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   t h a t  
w o u l d   i m p e l   a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or
when he has knowledge of a defect of the lack of title of the other party or
of sufficient to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into
the status of the title of the property in litigation.

See Sandoval vs CA, 260, SCRA 283State Investment House, Inc. vs CA, 254
SCRA 368 Tiburcio vs PHHC, L-13479, October 31, 1959Capitol Subd., Inc.
vs Province of Negros Occidental, 7 SCRa 60 Luz vs Manipon, 381 SCRA 788 

Where the Torrens title is in the name of the vendor, the vendee has the
right to rely on what appears on the title; and, in the absence of anything
to arouse suspicion, the vendee has no obligation to look beyond the
title.
(See: Pino vs CA, 198 SCRA 434Centeno vs CA, 139 SCRA 545 Chit, Sr.
vs Benelda Estate Dev Corp, 353 SCRA 424Republic vs CA, 306 SCRA 81

O.Titles Derived from a Void Title are Also Void

 If a certificate of title is void, all subsequent certificates of title derived
therefrom are also void because of the truism that the "spring cannot rise
higher than its source."

SeeDe Santos vs IAC, 157 SCRA 295 Calalang vs Register od Deeds of Quezon

city, 231 SCRA 88 Mathay vs CA, 295 SCRA 556
 
This truism is in accord with the Latin maxim, "Nemo potest pius juris
adallum transferre quam ipse habet," "No one can transfer a greater
right to another than he himself has."

VII. REMEDIES OF PERSONS AGGRRIEVED IN A LAND

REGISTRATIONPROCEEDINGS
1. New Trial - Rule 37, Rules of Court
2. Relief from Judgment - Sec 2, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court
3. Appeal - Sec 33 PD 1529 provides that judgment or orders of the court
inl a n d   r e g i s t r a t i o n   c a s e s   a r e   a p p e a l l a b l e   t o   t h e   C o u r t   o f   A
p p e a l s   a n d   t h e Supreme Court in the same manner as in ordinary
actions.
4. Petition of Review - Sec 32 of PD 1529
A. Petition may be filed within one year from the entry of such decree
of registration. 
B. On the ground of Actual or Extrinsic Fraud.

Extrinsic Fraud -refers to any fraudulent act of the successful pray in

litigation which is committed outside the trial of a case
against thed e f e a t e d   p a r t y   w h e r e b y   s a i d   d e f e a t e d   p a r t y   i s   p
r e v e n t e d   f r o m presenting fully and fairly his side of the case.

Intrinsic Fraud -refers to acts of a party in a litigation during trial which

did not affect the presentation of the case, but did not prevent a fair
and just determination of the case.
(Sterling Investment Corp vs Ruiz, 30SCRA 318)

C. The title has not passed to the hands of an innocent

purchaser for value.

5. Action of Reconveyance Sec 96 of PD 1529 states: "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 (of land or of any estate or interest therein) without joining
the National Treasurer as party-defendant."

A. Grounds:
1. Fraud
2. Implied or Constructive Trust
3. Void Contract

B. When to Avail
1. On the ground of fraud - 4 yrs from discovery
2. Implied Constructive Trust presribes in 10 years

C. The period is to be reckoned from the date of issuance of the

original certificate of title.

D. If the party is in actual possession of the property, the action does

not prescribe.

6. Action for Damages. If the property has been passed
t o   a n   i n n o c e n t purchaser for value, the aggrieved party
may bring an ordinary action for damages against the applicant.
(Sec 32, PD 1529)

7. Action for Compensation from Assurance Fund. Any person who

sustains loss or damage, or is deprived of land or any estate or interest
by reason of the operation of the Torrens System may file an action for
compensation against the Assurance Fund. (Sec 93 and 93 of PD1529)

VIII. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS

1. The act of registration is the operative act to convey or
affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.2. Entry
along produces the effect of registration whether the transaction
isv o l u n t a r y   o r   i n v o l u n t a r y   a s   l o n g   a s   r e g i s t r a n t   c o
m p l i e s   w i t h   a l l   t h e requirements.
(DBP vs RD of Nueva Ecija, 162 SCRa 450)

2. The production of the owner's duplicate whenever any voluntary

instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive
authority from the 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.
(Sec 53 PD 1529)4. The "Mirror Principle" A purchaser is not
required to explore beyond what the record in the registry indicates
on its face, in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right which
may subsequently defeat his title thereto. (Chu Sr vs Benelda
Estate Dev. Corp,353 SCRA 424)

5. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally req
u i r e d   a n d   t h e execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to
delivery.(Power and Ind.Corp. vs CA, 274 SCRA 59)

6. Even if only part of the property has been sold or alienated

within the prohibited period of 5 years such alienation is sufficient
cause for the reversion of the whole estate to the state (Republic vs CA
281, SCRA 639)

IX. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS1. ADVERSE CLAIM

Even after the lapse of thirty days as provided under Sec. 70 of PD 1529,
an adverse claim may be cancelled only upon order of the court.
(Sajonasvs CA, 258 SCRA 79)

2. LIS PENDENS
A notice of lis pendends is not confined only to cases involving the title to
or possession of real property, but applies to suits brought to establish
an equitable estate, interest, or  right, in specific real property
or to enforceany lien, charge or encumbrance against it.
(View master  vs  Maulit,  GR  136283, Feb 29, 2000)

"A notation of lis pendends neither affects the merits of a case nor

createsa right or a lien."

3. Surrender of Owner's Duplicate Certificate

of Title in Involuntary Dealings.

Sec. 107 of PD 1529 provides:

"Where it is necessary to issue a new certificate of title pursuant to any
involuntary instrument which divest 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."
Likewise, Sec. 80 of PD 1529 states:

"Every court rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff affecting

registered land shall, upon petition of said plaintiff, order the 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 cancelled or to have memorandum annotated upon it.

"In the case of (Toledo-Bañaga vs CA, 302 SCRA 331) The Supreme Court
held:
"Petitioners otgher contention that the execution of the final and
executory decision - which is to issue title in the name of private
respondent - cannot be compelled by mandamus because of the formality
that the registered owner first surrenders her duplicate Certificate of Title
for cancellation per Sec. 80 of PD 1529 cited by the Register of Deeds,
bears no merit. In effect, they argue that the winning party must wait
execution until the losing party has complied with the formality
of surrender of the duplicate title. Such preposterous contention borders
on the absurd and has no place in our legal system."

4. Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage

RA 8791, otherwise known as "The General Banking Law,
approved on May 23, 2000 modified the right of the morgagor to redeem
the property in an extrajudicial foreclosure under the following
conditions:

A. The mortgagor is a juridical entity

B. The property has been mortgaged in favor of a bank, quasi-bankor
trust entity.
C. The forclosure is done extra-judicially. If the forgoing conditions are
present, the period of redemption will now be as follows: “The mortgagor
shall have the right to redeem the property until but not after, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale, with the applicable
Register of Deeds which is no case shall be more than three months after
foreclosure, whichever is earlier."Stated otherwise, the maximum period
of redemption under this new law is three months, and no longer 1 year
as provided under RA 3135. Thus, considering that the period of
redemption is reckoned after the date of the forclosure or until the
registration of the certificate of sale "Whichever is earlier", this period
may be shorter than 3 months as when the buyer, for instance, may
cause the registration of the certificate of sale immediately after the
forclosure sale.
X. RECONSTITUTION OF LOST OR DESTROYED ORIGINAL
Sec. 110 of PD 1529, abrograted the procedure relative to
administrativereconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates provided
under RA 26/ However,RA 6732 approved on June 8, 1989 allowed once
again the administrativereconstitution of original copies of certificates of
title, but only when it is lost or destroyed due to fire, flood, and other
force majeure. Provided further that thenumber of lost or damaged
certificates should at least be 100% and thenumber of certificates of
titles lost or damaged be less than 500.00